Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Mindstorm wrote:

flamming_python wrote:Uh

I really don't think this is supposed to be a realistic analysis or a battle plan against Russia over the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka.

It's just an example that was used in a concept sketch of prospective US Naval capabilities so to speak.

flamming the picture with Kuril Islands and Kamchatka and the scenario on it conceived can surely generate some laughters ,but i was not refering mostly to it; i am much more concerned by the fact that those supposed professional analysts are very likely uncapable to even only merely compute the circumference of a circle with a 1200 nm radius (probably to reach what they think is the effective engagement range of "Кинжал") so to realize how totally absurd can appear to any reader that the DCA task for that 2040 version of the "outher battle" doctrine ,which would supposedly allow CVBGs to retain in the future any relevance against an advanced opponent, would be entrusted to 3 subsonic UCAV.....three UCAV !!!....at 1200/1500 nm from the carrier formation that should cover an arc of at least 2327 km for the 60 degrees, therefore an arc to cover for each of those UCAV of over 775 km !!!  

A single subsonic UCAV, in the opinion of those demented, should be tasked to repel an attack ,coming in its 775 km arc of coverage (today not in 2040) by part of several high-supersonic МиГ-31К with theirs entire OCA coverage of high supersonic МиГ-31БМ armed with Р-37М and on this basis should be assured the relevance of CVBG in the 2040 tome window.

This one is only an example among the several dozen of comical idiocies composing this piece: from combat radius computed as half of ferry range, totally inconsistence of disposable fuel mass for refueling task at different range, to the notion that modern air defenses systems are static targets (probably theirs mindset have been frozen in middle of '60 years or by wars against enemies equiped with specimens of that era) to be attacked by long range subsonic cruise missiles -that instead them themselves admit to be ineffcient against mobile or quickly relocatable units as ground vehicles  


As said those kind of falsely professional works are truly and terribly dangerous because within few months and in the nexts years those 128 pages will become a reference work for others similarly phantasious analysis works and this literature reach fatally the critic mass necessary to influence the formulation of western -US particularly - military doctrine and concepts of operation amaong Admirals and Generals.

Short time ago Adm. Richardson, a very big name in the US Naval Doctrine and its Force composition planning and the same guy that had said that aircraft-carriers thanks to new Surface Ship Torpedo Defense (SSTD) would have become immeasurably more survivable against submarine attacks (for the chronicle this system, terribly badly conceived and lacking the technological basis to be realized has been discontinued and the carriers on it mounted reported at theirs basis configuration  http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/           pag 163-164) get the face to declare that today aircraft carriers are more survivable than anytime from theirs first employment !!!! Just in the years of introduction of "Циркон" Кинжал"  "Авангард" and "Посейдон"            

Those lunatic with bad cases of cognitive dissonance, but that very often and unfortunately hold also great responsibility posistions, that happily circulate in western military institutions and structures parroting and mixing entropically, like midless zombies, coded words/concepts by now totally disconnected from physical reality such as "joint", "superiority/dominance", "situational awareness", "active/agility thinking" "low observable" etc.... represent a true danger for the global security.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:True. Simply because Kuz was designed to be  missile cruiser with air wing not CV.  From the other hand neither  Shtorm nor "pocket" CV crries  12 Granit. Or if Orlan exchange ratio is kept - > 48 Zircons

No obvious need for this, they will have Lider and other very powerfully armed ships in the escort.

LMFS wrote:

me wrote:
Similarly to concept cars. Production versions never look that good neither have so hot girls inside        

Pretty much! But the idea is that the end model takes in consideration a whole range of issues that the concept had not reviewed in depth. That is why I think a serial version would probably incorporate elements of both extreme proposals.

LMFS wrote:

A) Krylov "pocket CV"  as was presented, with all its advantages  has some serious  disadvantages:
1) too small space in hangars  to station  aviation on deck (Arctic...)

We were not shown the hangars. I remind you the multihull solution allows a substantially wider hull

LMFS wrote:

3) conventional PowerPoint- as  you h ad mentioned that already .  This concept was for export (where? only India could it be) for Russia NPP is the only realistic option. Vide  Liders

I don't think that was primarily for export. The Krylov guy was pretty enthusiastic about the possibilities that the reduced drag brought to such a "light" vessel in terms of air wing and economy of operation. I think he has a point, even when I would prefer a NPP due to many strategic constraints Russia has to consider for their blue water navy.

LMFS wrote:

B) Shtorm
1) probably most desired toy by military but here is where finance minster comes into picture. Too expensive to build/ maintain  in 2-3 pieces with little real advantage  against smaller CVN.
{}

I really hope the guys deciding at MoD are not 8-year school boys just wanting to brag about their new toy. They will invest lots of political capital in that decision, they are not going to like it if they demand such a monster and then it does not work for Russia as thought.

LMFS wrote:

2) you need  also  add costs of LHD s to expeditionary ship grouping too...

Yeah well, if there is a carrier protecting the group, then the LHD can be a simple, big fat ship with lots of space inside and not much more. If there is no carrier, then the LHD needs to be a Death Star vessel much bigger, much better armed and equipped and therefore much more expensive. As a project, it would be more risky too. And not so many could be constructed. There we go to your last point

LMFS wrote:

C) Universal "expeditionary ship" 4in 1
I{}
* aircraft carrier
*LHD
*helo carrier 4th?

Maybe RuN makes a distinction between assault ship with and without well deck?
I can read into this a family of ships like the LHAs in America class, some of them more specialised as aircraft carriers and some more as assault ships. It is of course intelligent to build them all with the same hull and consider different internal layouts in order to save costs. But I agree it is confusing not knowing if these come besides or instead of the carriers.

The-thing-next-door wrote:This is not the LHD thread.

The Shtorm can luach aircraft that actually exist and can actually carry ordinance instead of more engines for VTOL aswell as airborne radars giving it the ability to spot and engage enemies from a stand of distance.

TND wrote:An LHD is supposed to carry tanks, infantry and helicopters to the shore for an amphibious landing while a carrier is supposed to carry reconissance and strike aircraft while staying as far away from the shoreline as possible, the roles simply cannot be combined it is like fitting a flamethrower to a heavy sniper rifle.

TND wrote:The only reason LHDs are used as the worst form of aircraft carrier ever concieved and most likely the least efficient use of a warship ever is simply to justify the sales of the f35. 1 single Shtorm is far more powerful than 10 LHDs so go away and whine about the lack of bayonet lugs on Russian artillery or lack of toilets on ICBMs for a change.

100% greed with only little rewording: instead of 12-18 destroyers 6 battle cruisers

so you say a boxer on rng doing only dodging without punching has more chances to win? Let me disagree with this.

Her first weapon is CM long or loooong range. S-500 even with 600km range is only a self defense. in 12 ktons Lider there were foreseen 56 S-500 +64 CM cells , why not 96 S-500 +100+ for CMs?

no emls is even announced not to mention financing. NPP is serious redesign,to fit NPP during rebuilding in 4 years? i dont see it .

This is not the LHD thread.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
USN admirals with their doctrine disagree with you

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
All opinions are welcome here as this is forum about. LHD  is not to justify F-35 s ales. F-35B  appeared because of need to have light carrier capability.

First of all Shtorm has very poor price/effectiveness ratio so I dont see it coming. Its very expensive   and frankly not really relevant to Russian naval doctrine. Russia is unlikely to perform  any large landing operations either.

Nope, Russia needs no 10 LHD nor  large CVNs. The question is will there be a mix of functions in one universal  ship? or a relatively compct  2 kinds of them?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:like 100kt Shtorm with conventional pp ski-jump no cat and 24 fighters      

Kuz inside. Kuz has 46ktons standerd 59kt full displacement

I'd look t problem for different perspective:  Why would one need on same time CVN && LHD or ASW carrier? The ide is in modular ships to me. Say mission defined profile. Why far north you need LHD? Why off disaster torn far-away  country you need 3 squadrons of Vgen fighters instead of  to large hospital and couple  hundreds of  marines to ensure help get to those in need?

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:like 100kt Shtorm with conventional pp ski-jump no cat and 24 fighters      

But with an Olympic swimming pool and a full-sized mall inside for the crew, of course!

LMFS wrote:

Kuz inside. Kuz has 46ktons standerd 59kt full displacement

Nice picture! Impressive how they cram those Sukhois in so little space... It needs to be very time and labour consuming to arrange all that properly

LMFS wrote:

I'd look t problem for different perspective:  Why would one need on same time CVN && LHD or ASW carrier? The ide is in modular ships to me. Say mission defined profile. Why far north you need LHD? Why off disaster torn far-away  country you need 3 squadrons of Vgen fighters instead of  to large hospital and couple  hundreds of  marines to ensure help get to those in need?

My first "far fetched concept" based on multihull design was exactly that. But realistically talking a ship cannot make it all. After Krylov's concept I for the first time see the remote possibility to make a hull that could fit a carrier with a LHD for instance (combination of streamlined design and high internal space), but for instance a LHD is normally way smaller than a carrier, so it is not that clear to me that you can completely unify them.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
USN admirals with their doctrine disagree with you

And since when have any of them have a single working neuron in thier fecal chamber?

Thingy wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
All opinions are welcome here as this is forum about. LHD  is not to justify F-35 s ales. F-35B  appeared because of need to have light carrier capability.

Or maybe the Russians will decide to copy americas most notable achivement and develop brainless people.

I guess this "universal ship" whould also have faster than light travel, subterainian capabilities and ofcourse super heavy armor to protect the overpirced under performing VTOL airwing it carries?

GarryB wrote:

100% greed with only little rewording: instead of 12-18 destroyers 6 battle cruisers

So you are suggesting they will use these cruisers as destroyers?

Corvettes as frigates and frigates as destroyers?

GB wrote:

Her first weapon is CM long or loooong range. S-500 even with 600km range is only a self defense. in 12 ktons Lider there were foreseen 56 S-500 +64 CM cells , why not 96 S-500 +100+ for CMs?

In combat with the US its primary mission would be to get near the ballistic paths of US ICBM and SLBM warheads on the way to Russia... any US carrier groups steaming to Russian airspace can be attacked, but that is really the problem of land based Kinzhal carrying platforms and coastal batteries and air defence systems.

GB wrote:

no emls is even announced not to mention financing. NPP is serious redesign,to fit NPP during rebuilding in 4 years? i dont see it .

So they are not advertising they are working on EMALS... like they didn't advertise they were working on a lot of things until they were ready...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

LMFS wrote:Nice picture! Impressive how they cram those Sukhois in so little space... It needs to be very time and labour consuming to arrange all that properly

dunno, but how do flight preparation/maintenance works is  also interesting? my guess is on deck. BTW  and during storm?      

me thinks that unification means compromise. You cannot have optimal parameters for  every metric. BTW LHDs can reach 40-50ktons. Like Kuz. Or more then Krylov's  "pocket" CV...We also dont know if Russian LHDs will have well deck or this will be part of "incensed" BDK based on Gren?

dunno, but how do flight preparation/maintenance works is  also interesting? my guess is on deck. BTW  and during storm?

OK then you agree then increasing S-500 makes no sense

well then you cannot have any expeditionary groups off coast of Africa, Asia or South America. So no, it is not true. You are talking
about North Fleet eventually Pacific one. Not the whole navy.

As for an airship - me too but this, if happens, it's gonna be is rather longer future.

The guys in charge of FOD would love searching the whole deck for your tools and plane parts too

LMFS wrote:
Man, I guess they take the planes not in need of maintenance to the deck and make some room in the hangar as needed for working on the ones that need to be checked and repaired, at least when parts need to be disassembled the deck is not the place to go... with the ship rocking, wind blowing and waves wiping you and the guts of the planes! The guys in charge of FOD would love searching the whole deck for your tools and plane parts too

me thinks that unification means compromise. You cannot have optimal parameters for  every metric. BTW LHDs can reach 40-50ktons. Like Kuz. Or more then Krylov's  "pocket" CV...We also dont know if Russian LHDs will have well deck or this will be part of "incensed" BDK based on Gren?

GB wrote:

well then you cannot have any expeditionary groups off coast of Africa, Asia or South America. So no, it is not true. You are talking about North Fleet eventually Pacific one. Not the whole navy.

If they make 6 of these ships then one in the Pacific and one in the Northern Fleet and two with each of the two CVNs, so if a CVN is off the coast of Africa there is still one of these ships near each of the two main fleets...

GB wrote:

As for an airship - me too but this, if happens, it's gonna be is rather longer future.

They could actually build one right now....

The guys in charge of FOD would love searching the whole deck for your tools and plane parts too

Im sorry to her about NZ terror attack, mindless crime. RIP to victims

I think that one CSG anyway will be in Arctic. Thus y bet is on 3 (max 4). 1 North 2 roaming. of them Unless they believe so much in MiG-41 capacity.

not really, they need AWACS/AEW pretty much in 10 not in 25 years. All 18km + airships are very early proofs of concept. Not to mention building/testing avionics to them.

But yes such "permanent" AEW" is very promising option.

Twelve ships of the 10,000t "Leader class" are planned to enter service from 2023-25, ..
He refused to say when the destroyer may be laid.

..the Kuznetsov probably based in the Pacific fleet.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
It's still too early for the April Fool's joke! Get real: even if China could build 12 big ships in 2 years (which is doubtful), Russia doesn't have the capacity/ability to do so!

TL wrote:

GB wrote:..the Kuznetsov probably based in the Pacific fleet.

Can u imagine it transiting the Suez, Indian Ocean, the Malakka Strait & the China Seas escorted by a tug, just in case? All coastal states, not to mention NATO & PRC, will laugh at them! Using the NSR risks damaging it & other escorts.
But more important, it will be more useful in the Black Sea as a training & occasional deployment to Med. Sea, or forward deployed to Latakia.

GarryB wrote:

I think that one CSG anyway will be in Arctic. Thus y bet is on 3 (max 4). 1 North 2 roaming. of them Unless they believe so much in MiG-41 capacity.

They are opening up the northern route so I suspect two CVNs... one in the Pacific fleet and one in the northern fleet and the Kuznetsov probably based in the Pacific fleet.

CSGs would be no value against US bombers and WWIII, the MiG-41 would be more useful for a range of uses... including taking out US satellites at first warning of a strike...

GB wrote:

not really, they need AWACS/AEW pretty much in 10 not in 25 years. All 18km + airships are very early proofs of concept. Not to mention building/testing avionics to them.

But yes such "permanent" AEW" is very promising option.

The technology is all there already and with a few developments could be transformational... a 1MW nuclear battery for a laser on a truck... 10 of them on an airship, or heavier bigger more powerful ones would be very useful and interesting in conjunction with electric motors and of course hydrogen fuel cells to create water ballast or hydrogen lifting gas as needed.

It's still too early for the April Fool's joke! Get real: even if China could build 12 big ships in 2 years (which is doubtful), Russia doesn't have the capacity/ability to do so!

Can u imagine it transiting the Suez, Indian Ocean, the Malakka Strait & the China Seas escorted by a tug, just in case? All coastal states, not to mention NATO & PRC, will laugh at them!

Using the NSR risks damaging it & other escorts.

But more important, it will be more useful in the Black Sea as a training & occasional deployment to Med. Sea, or forward deployed to Latakia.

Better be safe than sorry. Russians r known to do sloppy work/maintenance more often than not.

not sure if we are talking about the same. Russia might need one CVN in Arctic but in Kamchatka ? Russian top brass was calling CSGs "expeditionary" groupings. You dotn really expect expeditions to Sakhalin or Wrangell Island, do you? Thus I'd ssume first 2 Liders are to be core for new groupings. This would imply 2 CVNs or later 3 including Kuz.

In my opinion they will roam, eventually Kuz will stay closer - North. Not to intercept B-21 this is MiG-41 task but to protect SSBNs from US ships/aviation/subs

A lot of civilian tugs were rented in the Trident Juncture 2018 drills, too.

ok so like daily routine for Ford/Zumwalt /QE2?

Not 1 source says that it will lose its CM

..those 12 new ships were going to start entering service from 2023-2025 onwards...

So who is going to risk using the north sea route if the Russian navy wont use it and would rather go the long way around the Suez canal?

Keeping it in the Northern fleet means it can go to central and south america, venzuela and cuba as well as the atlantic side of africa and the med... and it will be located with major capital ships that are easier to base in the Northern or Pacific fleets than in the black sea.

Of course, those fricken idiots can't get anything right ...but their tiltrotors can fly in any weather conditions and land on the edge of cliffs surrounded by peat bogs...

For Tsavo a tug with a group of ships is evidence of problems...

Well they all say it will lose its Granits, because Granits are no longer in production...

GarryB wrote:The ships and the groups they operate with will need to be based somewhere...

GB wrote:Again, you seem to be assuming the primary role of the K and CVN will be countering US SSBNs or carrier groups, when in fact it will be missions political and economic... only the northern and pacific fleet bases could be used to base such ships and their support ships and crews... they could be sent to other places to operate for long periods but their home bases are obvious.

GB wrote:

Not 1 source says that it will lose its CM

Well they all say it will lose its Granits, because Granits are no longer in production...

and here specially for you lol1 lol1 lol1 real project of severny in 80s

hoom wrote:

and here specially for you lol1 lol1 lol1 real project of severny in 80s

I actually really like that concept

Isos wrote:This ship have a very good design for hunting submarines.

Torpedos won't sink it with 1 shot. It carries enough ka-27 to make a big hunting zone. It only need some UKSK and redut.

Most likely this was its task - ASW and "point defense" against ASW helos / planes