+25

Tsavo Lion

LMFS

Isos

The-thing-next-door

kvs

flamming_python

Mindstorm

higurashihougi

mutantsushi

kumbor

SeigSoloyvov

Nibiru

Gibraltar

PapaDragon

eehnie

d_taddei2

hoom

GunshipDemocracy

AlfaT8

Ives

Hole

verkhoturye51

PTURBG

George1

Admin

29 posters

Go to page :

1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 19 ... 26

Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

hoom

hoom: Posts : 2353
Points : 2341
Join date : 2016-05-06

Post n°301

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

hoom Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:19 pm

Al of which have tiny range.

One squadron of fighter jets would rip this single unprotected bathtub to pieces. Why do you thing carriers have escorts (which will be firing on bathtub along with airplanes so double problem)

For defense against a missile swarm the ranges that matter are radio horizon & that the missile goes boom at a distance from the hull where shock/fragments do little/no damage.

How many missiles is a squadron of fighters & maybe a few Harpoons? Suspect

As I said K on its own is far from unprotected, its almost certainly the most protected ship on the planet vs a saturation missile attack & as far as I know K has never gone on a mission without PtG which has similar point defenses + a full Burke load worth of long range SAMs.

A Burke can terminal guide 6 engagements simultaneously by my understanding and thats split between 2 aft directors & 1 forward.

AlfaT8

AlfaT8: Posts : 2438
Points : 2431
Join date : 2013-02-02

Post n°302

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

AlfaT8 Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:27 pm

I see this dance keeps going round and round as usual.

I have been looking for a way to avoid carriers, but not much comes to mind.
The only way i see is to develop missile cruiser fleet along with VTOL AEW drones.

Well more like a fleet centered around the missile cruisers instead of a Carriers.

By my estimates, this Cruiser should have about double the fire-power of the Super-Gorshkov and have the Long ranged radar capabilities of the Lider.

So, still a very significant investment.

Honestly, i still think having your own air-support is much more beneficial.
Keeping the enemy fighter occupied instead of focused on your fleet, will help minimize the amount of fire-power your opponent can bring to bear.

Nevertheless the Cruiser strategy is still feasible, so long as the situational awareness of the fleet is equal if not better than the opposing force.
Yet, i still remain of the opinion that this awareness issue cannot be resolved without a Carrier.

GunshipDemocracy

GunshipDemocracy: Posts : 5907
Points : 5929
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

Post n°303

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

GunshipDemocracy Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:45 pm

GarryB wrote:
The carrier design shown is for export so of course it is a conventionally powered ship, but the domestic model will definitely be a nuke...

an who is going to buy such CV ? China and India are building their own, other contenders? Belorussia?

GB wrote:

US fighters/ships are going to use long range stealth CMs most likely in saturation attack, for valuable target.

And the best thing to stop such a long range CM attack is of course surface ships... So why does Russia use MiG-31s for that particular job?

MiG-31 over ocean? or as deck fighter on Krylov super carrier?

GunshipDemocracy

GunshipDemocracy: Posts : 5907
Points : 5929
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

Post n°304

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

GunshipDemocracy Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:59 pm

AlfaT8 wrote:I see this dance keeps going round and round as usual.

I have been looking for a way to avoid carriers, but not much comes to mind.
The only way i see is to develop missile cruiser fleet along with VTOL AEW drones.

+++
Well more like a fleet centered around the missile cruisers instead of a Carriers.
+++
Nevertheless the Cruiser strategy is still feasible, so long as the situational awareness of the fleet is equal if not better than the opposing force.
Yet, i still remain of the opinion that this awareness issue cannot be resolved without a Carrier.

1) indeed this is not about how large should be CVN or not, but model of navy. With many financial and timing constrains. IMHO more missile based attack capabilities is cheaper then large CV airwings.

2) Why awareness cannot be resolved without carrier? AEW&C planes ar eold and still used concept good for richest countries. China and USA. China is catchingup, but USA is already thinking about next gen AWACS. What is can see it is unlikely thet the nearest one ( 2030s) will be unmanned, but likely getting data via links form far away drones and fighters.

AWACS aircraft can be used in attacking far and away. To have awareness or you fleet you need something in the air,not necessarily far. Technically anything going high can bring you info even airship.

Gibraltar

Gibraltar: Posts : 39
Points : 41
Join date : 2018-09-22

Post n°305

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Gibraltar Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:56 am

LMFS wrote:Interesting analysis of the Shtorm-KM, from August this year (innovative hull design unknown then I think)

http://lefauteuildecolbert.blogspot.com/2018/08/vmf-porte-aeronefs-leger-stobar.html

@Gibraltar: I would go for nuclear propulsion too, but with the Shtorm-KM hull layout (do not agree less displacement = less internal space, specifically due to the new hull design it is actually the opposite in this case) only maybe little bigger for bigger air wing than 2 sqd. (though if Su-57Ks were the fighters on board, even the 4 sqd. fighter air wing of a US CVN would probably struggle, considering their currently deployed fighters)

Even when hull is not the most expensive cost driver, a layout that allows to save significant displacement for the same dimensions should be taken. Do not have a way of knowing for sure but the power reduction is also VERY significant for essentially same max speed, so I find it possible that we have also an improved hydrodynamic efficiency: K has 45% more displacement but uses 85% more power. Will be keeping an eye on this because is massive as far as I can see. My explanation is that the two rear keels allow for broader hull but with somehow reduced draft and above all reduced cross sectional area compared to single hull.

Have seen contradictory info on whether it has catapults or not, but the model does not have to show any. They should be present I think at the end of the angled deck, while the bow should keep the springboard because from what I have seen modern fighters do not need catapults even at full load.

I'm an engineer, not to show anything because I graduated in civil buildings, steel and concrete, I know only basic formulas of floating things, I said it for philosophy, and yes, keep it simple is the best way, that's a factor because I love ski-jump deck. Catapults are only a fuel affair with modern aircraft engines. With catapults the same aircraft with same payload would save a lot of fuel to take off allowing to increase operational fly time.

BTW I think a nuclear full size carrier, simple single keel, even if more expensive poses many less problems for actual russian industrial military conmplex and would be quicker to build. Seems a paradox but actually they are struggling with gas turbines when they masters nuclear propulsion, they lack catapults but are the best in missile attack and defence systems. They need only a little bit bigger, nuclear, updated, uav supporting, Kuznetsov. They could even simply revive Kuznetsov's blueprints for hull adding 30m in lenght. A carrier-cruiser without bizarre solutions. Trying to get at the same time full bottle and drunk wife will not give them any good. They need courage to spend for a full standard carrier without conpromises. Power projection don:t comes cheap.

Last edited by Gibraltar on Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:03 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : correction)

eehnie

eehnie: Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13

Post n°306

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

eehnie Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:10 am

The debate between big or small aircraft carriers has been solved in Russia. The Russian Navy decided in favor of big aircraft carriers over 70000 tons (not of 70000 tons), and decided against small aircraft carriers and against helicopter carriers.

Those that have been defending the option of small aircraft carriers and of helicopter carriers lost the debate.

Now, we are here:

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5204525

16 мая, 10:26

Source: USC at the end of the year will present the modified versions of the new aircraft carrier to the Ministry of Defense

If one of the options is approved, work on the ship may begin in 2019

Valery Matytsin / TACC

MOSCOW, May 16. / Tass /. By the end of 2018, the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) will submit to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation several final avanprojects of a new domestic aircraft carrier. In case of a positive decision on one of the options, development work on the ship can begin in 2019, a source in the military-industrial complex told TASS.

“USC was instructed to submit its finalized proposals (for aircraft carrier — TASS approx.) For consideration to the RF Ministry of Defense. One of the options, in particular, involves the construction of an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 75 thousand tons,” said the agency interlocutor.

The source explained that, in case of a positive decision on one of the projects, "the technical design of the ship, the preparation of design documentation can begin from 2019, the aircraft carrier can be laid in 2021-2022, its construction, according to preliminary estimates, will last about 10 years old". The interlocutor added that the state program of armaments for 2018–2027 provides for “seed funding” under the program of the new aircraft carrier.

The USC did not comment on the TASS information provided by the source.

At present, the only non-nuclear medium aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov (according to the national classification is a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser) is in service of the Russian Navy. As stated earlier in the Navy, the Russian fleet expects to receive a promising aircraft carrier with a nuclear power plant by the end of 2030, the displacement of the new aircraft carrier should be at least 70 thousand tons.

The Krylov State Research Center had previously developed and presented to the general public an advance design of an aircraft carrier for foreign customers, which was also offered for the domestic fleet. Project 23000 was named Storm. The sketch assumes that the ship will have a displacement of 80-90 thousand tons, it will be equipped with a combined power plant (and a nuclear reactor, and a gas turbine engine), the ship’s air group should consist of up to 60 aircraft.

kumbor

kumbor: Posts : 312
Points : 304
Join date : 2017-06-09

Post n°307

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

kumbor Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:39 pm

Gibraltar wrote:

LMFS wrote:Interesting analysis of the Shtorm-KM, from August this year (innovative hull design unknown then I think)

http://lefauteuildecolbert.blogspot.com/2018/08/vmf-porte-aeronefs-leger-stobar.html

@Gibraltar: I would go for nuclear propulsion too, but with the Shtorm-KM hull layout (do not agree less displacement = less internal space, specifically due to the new hull design it is actually the opposite in this case) only maybe little bigger for bigger air wing than 2 sqd. (though if Su-57Ks were the fighters on board, even the 4 sqd. fighter air wing of a US CVN would probably struggle, considering their currently deployed fighters)

Even when hull is not the most expensive cost driver, a layout that allows to save significant displacement for the same dimensions should be taken. Do not have a way of knowing for sure but the power reduction is also VERY significant for essentially same max speed, so I find it possible that we have also an improved hydrodynamic efficiency: K has 45% more displacement but uses 85% more power. Will be keeping an eye on this because is massive as far as I can see. My explanation is that the two rear keels allow for broader hull but with somehow reduced draft and above all reduced cross sectional area compared to single hull.

Have seen contradictory info on whether it has catapults or not, but the model does not have to show any. They should be present I think at the end of the angled deck, while the bow should keep the springboard because from what I have seen modern fighters do not need catapults even at full load.

I'm an engineer, not to show anything because I graduated in civil buildings, steel and concrete, I know only basic formulas of floating things, I said it for philosophy, and yes, keep it simple is the best way, that's a factor because I love ski-jump deck. Catapults are only a fuel affair with modern aircraft engines. With catapults the same aircraft with same payload would save a lot of fuel to take off allowing to increase operational fly time.

BTW I think a nuclear full size carrier, simple single keel, even if more expensive poses many less problems for actual russian industrial military conmplex and would be quicker to build. Seems a paradox but actually they are struggling with gas turbines when they masters nuclear propulsion, they lack catapults but are the best in missile attack and defence systems. They need only a little bit bigger, nuclear, updated, uav supporting, Kuznetsov. They could even simply revive Kuznetsov's blueprints for hull adding 30m in lenght. A carrier-cruiser without bizarre solutions. Trying to get at the same time full bottle and drunk wife will not give them any good. They need courage to spend for a full standard carrier without conpromises. Power projection don:t comes cheap.

"simple revive Kuznetsov`s blueprints for hull adding 30m in length"

Only total ignorant in shipbuilding and naval matter can propose such an idiocy. Ships are neither projected nor built in such a way.

Nibiru

Nibiru: Posts : 200
Points : 202
Join date : 2018-05-22

Post n°308

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Nibiru Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:54 pm

Talk of building Aircraft carriers for the Russian navy is all exciting and nice but I doubt these ships will be built in 20 or 30 years from now, Gorskhov continues to suffer from setbacks despite decades of development, if Russia is having trouble fielding ships in 5,000 tons, what more ships over 70,000. If Russia eventually improves its shipbuilding capacity, it will probably happen in 20-30 years time, and that is a pretty far away time in the future.

GunshipDemocracy

GunshipDemocracy: Posts : 5907
Points : 5929
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

Post n°309

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

GunshipDemocracy Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:11 pm

kumbor wrote:Only total ignorant in shipbuilding and naval matter can propose such an idiocy. Ships are neither projected nor built in such a way.

Why do you assume thet he meant this literally? and not modification on basis of Kuz project?

"innovative Shtorm"

Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 13 23000-image5-840x420

Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 13 23000-image5-840x420

obsolete Ulynaovsk

Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 13 Maxresdefault

GunshipDemocracy

GunshipDemocracy: Posts : 5907
Points : 5929
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

Post n°310

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

GunshipDemocracy Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:22 pm

Nibiru wrote:Talk of building Aircraft carriers for the Russian navy is all exciting and nice but I doubt these ships will be built in 20 or 30 years from now, Gorskhov continues to suffer from setbacks despite decades of development, if Russia is having trouble fielding ships in 5,000 tons, what more ships over 70,000. If Russia eventually improves its shipbuilding capacity, it will probably happen in 20-30 years time, and that is a pretty far away time in the future.

Well pretty pessimistic view IMHO. I'd rather see it this way: Russia has problems because 25 years of non-investment + destruction of links with krine( where Soviet industry was built in may specialties) took ist toll. But things are remade from like 5-6 years. In 3-5 all should be up and running again.

Will it be possible to start building carrier in 2025? most probably yes. shipyards will have capable docks, MiC will be on previous good level.
Will they start? unlikely and not because of funding. Simply there wont not enough escort ships to form CSG without taking ships form other assignments.
+ no new VSTOL fighters yet while other are not built anymore.

First things first they must rebuilt core of navy with new frigates/corvettes. My favorite approach in this situation is known lol1

But I am happy to tell you again :

aircraft carrying cruiser with moderate airwing but heavily armed + 22160 ocean going corvettes in armed version (6000 nm range!!! good buoyancy ) . This can be most cost effective composition of CSG.

GunshipDemocracy

GunshipDemocracy: Posts : 5907
Points : 5929
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

Post n°311

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

GunshipDemocracy Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:31 pm

eehnie wrote:The debate between big or small aircraft carriers has been solved in Russia. The Russian Navy decided in favor of big aircraft carriers over 70000 tons (not of 70000 tons)decided against small aircraft carriers and against helicopter carriers.

please read carefully text you have quoted (form 6 months ago BTW). I just cur interesting bits below. I dont see which one of of many options was chosen and what military are going to eventually finance. Nothing official and since then silence. BTW only Manturov in early September ASAIR said no pure helo carriers only with combined functions.

If one of the options is approved, work on the ship may begin in 2019
+++
USC will submit to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation several final avanprojects
+++
In case of a positive decision on one of the options, development work on the ship can begin in 2019
+++
in case of a positive decision on one of the project
+++
The USC did not comment on

Gibraltar

Gibraltar: Posts : 39
Points : 41
Join date : 2018-09-22

Post n°312

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Gibraltar Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:16 pm

kumbor wrote:

"simple revive Kuznetsov`s blueprints for hull adding 30m in length"

Only total ignorant in shipbuilding and naval matter can propose such an idiocy. Ships are neither projected nor built in such a way.

Obviously I was'nt meaning just a cut and weld job, but these kind of worrks are very common in submarine building, just think about recent designs, borei/borei A, Victor I/I/II, Akula I/II, Oscar I/II and the last one they're completing in a modified project, Delta I/II/III/IV, etc. In surface ship this kind of jobs is made mostly on oil and cointainer carriers. Of course it needs some design verification but it's not as dispending as drawing from white papers.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 37785
Points : 38293
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°313

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

GarryB Sat Nov 10, 2018 4:29 pm

Cruisers, destroyers, upgraded Kirovs.... are you serious?

And where would these cruisers and destroyers come from?

Frigate construction has hit the wall, building a single corvette takes a decade and even missiles ship production is ending due to lack of engines.

There wont be an issue with new Destroyers or cruisers because they will have NPPs they don't have issues with, so production times should be pretty normal.

Kirov upgrade has been delayed from 2018 to 2022 and counting.

Still will be back in service a decade before any CVN could hit the water for fitting out... they really have not decided what sort of upgrade they want to spend money on...

Only thing they can build is Offshore Patrol Vessel and they even stopped ordering those for some reason (probably no engines same as every other one). Not that they could be used to escort carrier anyway...

Shit, for all we know they might decide that the future of the Russian navy is cargo ships loaded with UKSK launch bins and Redut launchers for thousands of missiles... have ten of them operating around the carrier which has all the sensors to detect targets and threats and operates at sea with 6 huge cargo ships operating around them like a meat shield with high automation and a skeleton crew and lots of ready to fire missiles replacing expensive and complicated Destroyers and cruisers... one cargo arsenal ship could launch 1,000 Zircons and still have 1,000 S-400 missiles to defend itself with... another cargo vessel might have anti sub missiles including a vertical launch Paket anti torpedo ballistic missile, plus a few hundred new 4,000km range Iskander variants for attacking enemy carriers...

192 naval Tor missiles with 4 PESA engagement radars each able to guide 8 missiles to attack 4 simultaneous targets up to Mach2 in 60deg arc, missile launches every 3s.

The current model can fit twice the number of missiles in the same space and range extended by about 30%...

One squadron of fighter jets would rip this single unprotected bathtub to pieces. Why do you thing carriers have escorts (which will be firing on bathtub along with airplanes so double problem)

With what?

Harpoon? Even if each aircraft in your attacking squadron could carry and fire 10 Harpoons each, a squadron of four aircraft carrying 40 Harpoons would have little chance of penetrating the defences of the Kuznetsov in its current form let alone any upgrade... the TOR system alone could engage 16 missiles at 12km range and in the time it would take the Harpoons would take to cover 12 kms it could probably deal with at least 64 attacking missiles.... Kashtan would also take them out fairly easily... both systems are design specifically for intercepting cruise missile type weapons...

an who is going to buy such CV ? China and India are building their own, other contenders? Belorussia?

Nobody obviously... they are just blowing smoke up your ass...

MiG-31 over ocean? or as deck fighter on Krylov super carrier?

For cruise missile attack threats the Aerospace defence forces of Russia use a combination of surface located SAM sites near target areas, and airborne interceptors in the form of the MiG-31... now why do they think airborne interceptors are necessary when they have so many powerful ground based SAMs... why even bother with airborne radar when their ground based radar are enormous and so capable?

Talk of building Aircraft carriers for the Russian navy is all exciting and nice but I doubt these ships will be built in 20 or 30 years from now, Gorskhov continues to suffer from setbacks despite decades of development, if Russia is having trouble fielding ships in 5,000 tons, what more ships over 70,000. If Russia eventually improves its shipbuilding capacity, it will probably happen in 20-30 years time, and that is a pretty far away time in the future.

We keep hearing of the terrible state the Russian ship building industry is in, yet the Mistral portions they had to build were built on time and to spec... obviously they didn't have to fit them with engines... but big ships use nuclear propulsion which the Russians can build already...

More importantly how many western corvettes have 2,500km range land attack cruise missile launchers that can also currently launch supersonic anti ship missiles like Onyx?

People complaining they have no support vessels... as mentioned even if they lay down the keel in 2022 it wont be 2032 before the thing hits the water... which is plenty of time to build 20 Frigates and 10 Destroyers once the engine problems are solved... the Frigates will need conventional engines but the Destroyers can use nukes...

SeigSoloyvov

SeigSoloyvov: Posts : 3598
Points : 3578
Join date : 2016-04-08

Post n°314

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

SeigSoloyvov Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:21 pm

The Mistral portions where built on decent pace because the french vastly helped.

Also Engines aren't Russias only problem with producing ships, this is wellllll documented.

Keep carrying on with that myth.

GunshipDemocracy

GunshipDemocracy: Posts : 5907
Points : 5929
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

Post n°315

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

GunshipDemocracy Sun Nov 11, 2018 6:13 am

GarryB wrote:an who is going to buy such CV ? China and India are building their own, other contenders? Belorussia?

Nobody obviously... they are just blowing smoke up your ass...[/quote]
\
it's so gay that you like my sweet ass but getting back to question: who might want Russian EMALs? I dont see anybody.

GB wrote:

MiG-31 over ocean? or as deck fighter on Krylov super carrier?

For cruise missile attack threats the Aerospace defence forces of Russia use a combination of surface located SAM sites near target areas, and airborne interceptors in the form of the MiG-31... now why do they think airborne interceptors are necessary when they have so many powerful ground based SAMs... why even bother with airborne radar when their ground based radar are enormous and so capable?

All truth but werent we talking about deck fighters?

GB wrote: People complaining they have no support vessels... as mentioned even if they lay down the keel in 2022 it wont be 2032 before the thing hits the water... which is plenty of time to build 20 Frigates and 10 Destroyers once the engine problems are solved... the Frigates will need conventional engines but the Destroyers can use nukes...

so 2032 is 15 years from tody. 2-3 years for state friels and removing defects and we got 18 years. And you argue that in 20-30 years wont be any CVN? Then we can say CVN will be operational be in 18-19 not 20. Now is better?

Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

Tsavo Lion

Tsavo Lion: Posts : 5798
Points : 5760
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA

Post n°316

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Tsavo Lion Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:55 am

..simple revive Kuznetsov`s blueprints for hull adding 30m in length..

China added just 10.5m + few other changes to her Type 001A CV now on trials: Length: 315 m https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_001A_aircraft_carrier

Length: 304.5 m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Liaoning

But their next CVN will be bigger.

kumbor

kumbor: Posts : 312
Points : 304
Join date : 2017-06-09

Post n°317

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

kumbor Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:05 am

Tsavo Lion wrote:

..simple revive Kuznetsov`s blueprints for hull adding 30m in length..

China added just 10.5m + few other changes to her Type 001A CV now on trials: Length: 315 m https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_001A_aircraft_carrier

Length: 304.5 m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Liaoning

But their next CVN will be bigger.

Type 001A is not Liaoning, but newly built carrier. I don`t trust wiki so much, but it is possible she is a bit longer. Kuz & Varyag have cramped hangar, and added length could help optimising aircraft storage, together with extra space got with 12 Granit launchers not fitted.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 37785
Points : 38293
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°318

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

GarryB Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:26 am

The Mistral portions where built on decent pace because the french vastly helped.

Aww come on... they can make Kilos but not Helicopter barges?

They can build Icebreakers but not Frigates?

It is pretty obvious who is delusional here...

it's so gay that you like my sweet ass but getting back to question: who might want Russian EMALs? I dont see anybody.

Don't get excited, I mentioned your ass but did not mention the word sweet at any stage.

Regarding what sort of technologies might be created... that is fantastic coming from you who wants to waste even more money on the dead end fixed wing jet fighter STOVL in case it might come up with something useful...

All truth but werent we talking about deck fighters?

The PVO has the choice of ground based missiles and air launched missiles and blow me down but I think they choose to spend money on both approaches... but you claim some UAV with a datalink can replace all AWACS platforms and ship based missiles can do the rest...

so 2032 is 15 years from tody. 2-3 years for state friels and removing defects and we got 18 years. And you argue that in 20-30 years wont be any CVN? Then we can say CVN will be operational be in 18-19 not 20. Now is better?

Pierced steel planking... PSP on the top deck of a cargo ship and they could have a CVN build in 3 years tops... would that be better?

China added just 10.5m + few other changes to her Type 001A CV now on trials: Length: 315 m https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_001A_aircraft_carrier

Length: 304.5 m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_Liaoning

But their next CVN will be bigger.

Yeah, cause Russian designers are fucking idiots... why not just buy a WWII British carrier and copy that instead?

Hell... there are a few on the bottom of the sea... why not float one up and take it to a Russian port and wash it down...

If they are really lucky their might be some advanced fighters still on board like the Fairy Swordfish or something.

Type 001A is not Liaoning, but newly built carrier. I don`t trust wiki so much, but it is possible she is a bit longer. Kuz & Varyag have cramped hangar, and added length could help optimising aircraft storage, together with extra space got with 12 Granit launchers not fitted.

You can't just pop the 12 Granits out and just extend the internal hangar and suddenly fit a dozen more planes... the walls around the Granit are structural firewalls that you can't just pop out to extend the Hangar...

It would take an enormous redesign of the Kuznetsov to remove those granits and do anything useful with the freed up space... in fact most likely the extra space would probably be used to store extra aircraft fuel and extra aircraft ordinance... because it is in the wrong place and not really very useful for anything else.... and more importantly the Russians want to have heavy missiles on their carrier... their new CVNs will also have UKSK launchers too.

Tsavo Lion

Tsavo Lion: Posts : 5798
Points : 5760
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA

Post n°319

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Tsavo Lion Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:26 am

why not just buy a WWII British carrier and copy that instead?

China had newer RAN Melbourne complete with steam catapult, arresting equipment and mirror landing system, studied it but didn't "exactly copy" anything:
The ship was not scrapped immediately; instead she was studied by Chinese naval architects and engineers as part of the nation's top-secret carrier development program. ..
The PLAN subsequently arranged for the ship's flight deck and all the equipment associated with flying operations to be removed so that they could be studied in depth. Reports have circulated that either a replica of the flight deck, or the deck itself, was used for clandestine training of People's Liberation Army Navy pilots in carrier flight operations. It has also been claimed that the Royal Australian Navy received and "politely rejected" a request from the PLAN for blueprints of the ship's steam catapult. The carrier was not dismantled for many years; according to some rumours she was not completely broken up until 2002. A 2012 article in Jane's Navy International stated that the large quantity of equipment recovered from Melbourne "undoubtedly helped" Admiral Liu Huaqing secure the Chinese Government's support for his proposal to initiate a program to develop aircraft carriers for the Navy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne_(R21)#Decommissioning_and_fate

Had they obtained the blueprints, perhaps a larger & improved version could be attempted; if China didn't bother to reactivate it, the USSR had no reason to as well.

GunshipDemocracy

GunshipDemocracy: Posts : 5907
Points : 5929
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

Post n°320

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

GunshipDemocracy Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:30 am

GarryB wrote:

it's so gay that you like my sweet ass but getting back to question: who might want Russian EMALs? I dont see anybody.

Regarding what sort of technologies might be created... that is fantastic coming from you who wants to waste even more money on the dead end fixed wing jet fighter STOVL in case it might come up with something useful...

reality de Nile again? Russians have already chosen VSTOL because this is future of tech. EMALS has no economy of scale and there are no potential customers even.

All truth but werent we talking about deck fighters?

GB wrote:

so 2032 is 15 years from tody. 2-3 years for state friels and removing defects and we got 18 years. And you argue that in 20-30 years wont be any CVN? Then we can say CVN will be operational be in 18-19 not 20. Now is better?

Pierced steel planking... PSP on the top deck of a cargo ship and they could have a CVN build in 3 years tops... would that be better?

what planking ? WTF are you talking about. Please reread what I've written first. No Russia wond have another CV in service unless then 20 years or so. You know again better Russian reality than Borisov?

“We are planning to lay the aircraft-carrying cruiser at the end of the state armaments program 2018-2025.
I think that then there is a need to develop a new deck aircraft, possibly a vertical take-off,”
Borisov told reporters.

РИА Новости https://ria.ru/arms/20170718/1498712452.html

if keel laying is 2023-2025 then before 2030 (US needed 8 years to build Ford CVN) + state trials.

[quote="GB" It would take an enormous redesign of the Kuznetsov to remove those granits and do anything useful with the freed up space... in fact most likely the extra space would probably be used to store extra aircraft fuel and extra aircraft ordinance... because it is in the wrong place and not really very useful for anything else.... and more importantly the Russians want to have heavy missiles on their carrier... their new CVNs will also have UKSK launchers too.

[/quote]

no way this would mean = TAKR not CVN, can you make up you mind?

eehnie

eehnie: Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13

Post n°321

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

eehnie Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:08 pm

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:The debate between big or small aircraft carriers has been solved in Russia. The Russian Navy decided in favor of big aircraft carriers over 70000 tons (not of 70000 tons)decided against small aircraft carriers and against helicopter carriers.

please read carefully text you have quoted (form 6 months ago BTW). I just cur interesting bits below. I dont see which one of of many options was chosen and what military are going to eventually finance. Nothing official and since then silence. BTW only Manturov in early September ASAIR said no pure helo carriers only with combined functions.

If one of the options is approved, work on the ship may begin in 2019
+++
USC will submit to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation several final avanprojects
+++
In case of a positive decision on one of the options, development work on the ship can begin in 2019
+++
in case of a positive decision on one of the project
+++
The USC did not comment on

Please read carefully my comment. They ruled out aircraft carriers under 70000 tons and they ruled out helicopter carriers.

Only the options of aircraft carrier over 70000 tons remain under consideration.

And the alone publicly known project is the Project 23000 (in its export variant).

SeigSoloyvov

SeigSoloyvov: Posts : 3598
Points : 3578
Join date : 2016-04-08

Post n°322

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

SeigSoloyvov Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:49 pm

They ruled out helio carriers lol, No russia still wants those the fact you said that makes the rest of your comment rubbish and not worth replying to.

Russia has YET to decide what kind of carrier they want and that's fact and do not quote that outdated plan you love to quote, because that thing is no longer applicable.

eehnie

eehnie: Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13

Post n°323

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

eehnie Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:14 pm

SeigSoloyvov wrote:They ruled out helio carriers lol, No russia still wants those the fact you said that makes the rest of your comment rubbish and not worth replying to.

Russia has YET to decide what kind of carrier they want and that's fact and do not quote that outdated plan you love to quote, because that thing is no longer applicable.

It is fair to think that the real news get lost many times between lots of especulation.

Are you asking for a repost of the new?

Tsavo Lion

Tsavo Lion: Posts : 5798
Points : 5760
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA

Post n°324

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Tsavo Lion Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:44 pm

The "real news" is not what u think!

Only the options of aircraft carrier over 70000 tons remain under consideration.

To me, if true, it means that they just narrowed down their options.
When those plans materialize in a 3 dimensional life size functional CVN, that will constitute the real news.

SeigSoloyvov

SeigSoloyvov: Posts : 3598
Points : 3578
Join date : 2016-04-08

Post n°325

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

SeigSoloyvov Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:40 pm

eehnie wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:They ruled out helio carriers lol, No russia still wants those the fact you said that makes the rest of your comment rubbish and not worth replying to.

Russia has YET to decide what kind of carrier they want and that's fact and do not quote that outdated plan you love to quote, because that thing is no longer applicable.

It is fair to think that the real news get lost many times between lots of especulation.

Are you asking for a repost of the new?

there is no news buddy just design firms pushing their design out there with the words "under development" and you think that is news.

It's not, it's not news Until they officially decide what they want which they haven' done yet and start building it.

Russia Defence Forum

Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Similar topics

Similar topics