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


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2453
    Points : 2462
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:21 am

    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 !!!  Rolling Eyes

    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 Razz Razz Razz  


    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"    Razz  Razz  Razz  Razz  

    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.

    Lack of mathematical skills is very habitual between Western "strategists" and "economic experts". We can see also it here in the forum. How many of the local pro-US and pro-Israel commenters trying to teach strategy to the rest would fail to do the calculus of the lenght of an arc + conversion Km<->usnm...

    I have not been reading the document, but really I do not expect too much.

    Most of the people doing things like this have very low mathematical skills and 0 dimmenssional taste.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 959
    Points : 1013
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:20 pm

    This is not the LHD thread.

    And LHDs are only usefull for landing troops and transporting helicopters, unless Russia decides it wants to waste more naval budget and buy some f35s for these LHDs.

    Simply put an LHD fulfils none of the primary requirements of a carrier or destroyer anti ship missiles? no, long range air deffence? no, land attack missiles? ofcourse not its a damded LHD with overpirced aircraft docked on it meaning that it can't even go near the shore lest one get a single bullet hole, in other words its completely fucking useless!

    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.

    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.

    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 siply 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.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4961
    Points : 4985
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:03 pm

    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.

    I was talking  about original project of Kuz . This explains deck/hangars' tight size. .I agree with you. I  dont think Kuz will carry  
    AShMs anymore.



    LMFS wrote:
    me wrote:
    Similarly to concept cars. Production versions never look that good neither have so hot girls inside  lol1  lol1  lol1  
    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.

    like 100kt Shtorm with conventional pp ski-jump no cat and 24 fighters  lol1  lol1  lol1



    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

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Image?id=867672989263&t=20&plc=WEB&tkn=*mVfOy4CMoKQlOSyA2tS91BbU7MM




    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.

    if you're right then it is said that people form scientific institute really search "savings " in such ridiculous things.





    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.

    me too, but looking on people like Gurkahn  I have impression th at boys will be boys  lol1  lol1  lol1  CVNs role definitely has changed  amid  hypersonic long range missiles/ Poseidon drones.

    Im not afraid that  Shtorm will not work, I think this would  be more like buying 40tons, $200k  freighter to carry couple potato boxes...






    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

    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:
    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.
    [/quote]


    interesting view, definitely a logical one. Let's wait till competition will be finalized perhaps we'll learn something to argue about lol1 lol1 lol1

    BTW one thing is for sure, there will be carriers. Or more exact:  aircraft carrying ships.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4961
    Points : 4985
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:21 pm

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

    you got to ask GB he is admin and the main "polluter" of this thread cheers cheers cheers


    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.

    the rpoblem is such ship is not really needed by RN. Besides there is not gonna be any "existing fighters" when any aircraft carrying ship enters service. There will be either Su-57 r new VSTOL.



    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.

    USN admirals with their doctrine disagree with you


    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.

    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?



    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28587
    Points : 29117
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:28 pm

    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?

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

    This boxer has already agreed not to win the fight... he can choose to win, but he will end up dead if he does because you don't cross those people and live.

    Russia has nothing at all to gain by turning sour grapes from the USN at no longer being omnipotent, into a shooting war because no one can win that.

    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.

    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...

    Actually I am starting to think an airship is a better choice anyway.

    This is not the LHD thread.

    Good point... will tidy up this thread hopefully tomorrow...
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 959
    Points : 1013
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:05 pm

    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?



    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?


    Yea I guess we will also be seeing a multi purpose toilet/ICBM or nuclear bowling balls.

    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?
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3291
    Points : 3293
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:47 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:like 100kt Shtorm with conventional pp ski-jump no cat and 24 fighters  lol1  lol1  lol1
    But with an Olympic swimming pool and a full-sized mall inside for the crew, of course!

    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

    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.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4961
    Points : 4985
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:12 am

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:like 100kt Shtorm with conventional pp ski-jump no cat and 24 fighters  lol1  lol1  lol1
    But with an Olympic swimming pool and a full-sized mall inside for the crew, of course!

    with hot hostesses for visitors too?   lol1  lol1  lol1




    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

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




    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.

    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?


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:22 am; edited 1 time in total
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4961
    Points : 4985
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:21 am

    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?

    so what is your navy or air force rank? BTW did you had  chance to check reasons behind Soviet TAKR?



    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?
    [/quote]
    Looks like you know more about naval doctrine, technology or navy needs more they Russian MoD. Wow . Kudos!

    Brainless people you say?

    For example colonel-general Yuri Borisov, phd in electronics,  the man behind Avangard,  proponent of VSTOL. He seems to be  brainless to  you definition. Perhaps you can help here?
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4961
    Points : 4985
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:38 am

    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?

    no, what Im suggesting is to look at displacement and armament not class. Did you see destroyer with 20kt and 100+ ASh missiles?

    Gorskhov-M is what 8ktons? In Russian press there re speculations that  is gonna  have 32-48 UKSKM. If true then this is close close to Burke, with ASh  perhaps even better then Ticonderoga.






    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.

    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.




    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...

    Actually I am starting to think an airship is a better choice anyway.[/quote]

    ok so you know (only you) and nobody else does? let me remind skeptical  about that.  

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

    Posts : 3291
    Points : 3293
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:39 am

    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?  What a Face  What a Face  What a Face
    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 Laughing

    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?
    They have several other transport and amphibious ships of various displacements, Ropuchas, Ivan Grens and now apparently expect LHDs. I would lie if I say I have the slightest clue about how these different ressources, capabilities and prospective vessels should be tailored the in the future to match expected Russian needs, so I better leave it there and learn a bit before I say something specially stupid Razz
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28587
    Points : 29117
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:03 am

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

    All flight prep and loading of ordinance goes on on deck... ordinance has its own storage areas and its own lifts and are not armed till they are mounted on the wing of an aircraft.... not during storms because flights are cancelled for storms naturally.

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

    It all depends on their launcher options... if it has a separate launcher then it is not so flexible and useful.

    If they have unified SAMs and cruise missiles in the UKSK-M launcher, they they can load what they want and need.

    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...

    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.... give it a funky flying wing type shape, make it big enough to carry enormous AESA antenna of different frequency ranges for different stealthy and non stealthy threats... a fuel cell system to cycle between water and hydrogen... modern fire resistent but light weight and strong materials... for now they could make it diesel powered... it could refuel from support ships operating below it... in fact one of the trickiest problems for MPA aircraft is communicating with submarines... they need a super long cable that needs to hang vertically... they could drop a 3km long cable for communications very very easily for ULF comms with submerged subs.  The Tu-142 has problems using that because to use it it has to fly at very low speed... close to stall speed.

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

    What are the chance of FOD damage material getting sucked in the top of the wing of the MiG?

    The Sukhoi uses a metal grid to keep the intake clear during take off...
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4961
    Points : 4985
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:17 pm

    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 Laughing


    in such case if you need second fighter from fourth row... angry angry angry


    talking bout deck maintenance...






    [quote"LMFS"]
    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?
    They have several other transport and amphibious ships of various displacements, Ropuchas, Ivan Grens and now apparently expect LHDs. I would lie if I say I have the slightest clue about how these different resources, capabilities and prospective vessels should be tailored the in the future to match expected Russian needs, so I better leave it there and learn a bit before I say something specially stupid Razz [/quote]

    True but I dotn think LHD is gonna replace BDK like Gren. Rather compliment her.  AFAIR in January Rakhmnov was talking about 2 projects of  "beefed up" Grens for "expeditionary ship groupings". Version I to 8kt && Version II 14kt
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4961
    Points : 4985
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:35 pm

    Off Topic Im sorry to her about NZ terror attack, mindless crime. RIP to victims No No No Off Topic



    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...

    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.





    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....

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

    What are the chance of FOD damage material getting sucked in the top of the wing of the MiG?

    The Sukhoi uses a metal grid to keep the intake clear during take off...[/quote]

    IMHO he meant that tools get lost rumbling over the deck
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28587
    Points : 29117
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:07 am

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

    White supremacist dick head murders people randomly because he is impotent and all sorts of other weak reasons.

    Solution will be much tighter gun control, because if there is one thing that stops Aussie censored  from hating people and committing hate crimes is tougher gun laws...

    Back on topic:

    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...

    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.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5562
    Points : 5556
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:09 am

    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.
    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!
    ..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.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4961
    Points : 4985
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:55 am

    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!


    shhhhhh eehnie sees things other dont...



    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.

    1) No CV will pass via Bosporus . Besides there is no need for CV in Black Sea

    2) Why would you assume Kuz is gonna break? You might not be up to date - Kuz is in refurbishing to extend life for 20 years. Power plant && gears inclusive
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4961
    Points : 4985
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:15 am

    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...

    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




    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.
    [/quote]

    in 25 years? why not. X-15 didnt actually start hypersonic aircraft era.
    Technology is not yet there. Only first units are being built for further research
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28587
    Points : 29117
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Mar 17, 2019 6:19 am

    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!

    Perhaps you need to take more time to understand what you read... they said they were going to make 12 new ships and that those 12 new ships were going to start entering service from 2023-2025 onwards... it might take 50 years to make 12, which means they will start 2023-2025 and finish 50 years later...

    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!

    WTF are you talking about? Why take it the long way?

    I can imagine US AEGIS class destroyers continuing to run into cargo ships would lead to rather more amusement?

    Using the NSR risks damaging it & other escorts.

    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?

    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.

    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.

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

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

    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.

    The ships and the groups they operate with will need to be based somewhere... do you suggest running the gauntlet of the Baltic for every mission there and back, or perhaps Lake Black sea might be a useful place to trap them in case of heightened tensions?
    Expeditionary forces go places and from Russian ports the best places would be down into the pacific, which allows access to asia, the pacific and the entire west coast of north central and south america, as well as a rather long trip to the east coast of africa. From Murmansk you can go over the top and down into the atlantic past europe and the med and north america to central and south americas east coast and africas west coast... where else is there to go except the med which can be accessed via Murmansk.

    You need some big ships and some substantial ports to base these big ships and their crews... the far east and the far north suggest expansions in both places would be useful considering recent directions of investment and expansion of the Russian military to the arctic and the far east too.

    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

    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.

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

    And were used...

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

    For Tsavo a tug with a group of ships is evidence of problems... you see western ships don't even carry lifeboats or life jackets... the titanic lost so many people because most of the life boats were just painted on the side... unsinkable ships don't need them you see... a few tug boats following her would have just been really annoying and an embarrassment...

    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...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5562
    Points : 5556
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:24 am

    ..those 12 new ships were going to start entering service from 2023-2025 onwards...
    My bad, I missed "the fine print"!
    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?
    The RFN uses it sometimes, esp. subs to transfer between the fleets.
    It would be neat if Adm K uses it but IMO they won't send it to Pac. Fleet, so to me it's a moot point. A new NP TAKR/CVN will be a lot more worth having there, in the largest Ocean & next to the US 7th fleet, than that old refitted crate.
    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.
    I don't expect those trans-Atlantic cruises- cheaper to send N/AF planes to land bases there & large surface ships & subs, as before. The Adm. K can come out of the Med. Sea & rendezvous with escorts near Gibraltar, if need be.
    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...
    Th Americans landed men on the Moon 13 times but lost 2 Space Shuttles with their entire crews, 1 on take off & 1 on landing- does it mean they r idiots in everything they do? Their new Zumwalt ship got broken down in Panama, SSN hit a seamount off Australia, & 2 DDGs collided with freighters- but they still have the #1 navy on the planet.
    The VMF had its share of accidents & I won't blame them if they r extra careful. But others will make fun of it.
    For Tsavo a tug with a group of ships is evidence of problems...
    potential problems, & given the past history, highly probable at that.
    Well they all say it will lose its Granits, because Granits are no longer in production...
    And gain Onix & Kalibre CMs.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4961
    Points : 4985
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:00 am

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

    ok in such sense agreed


    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.

    please read again my words. If northern CSG will be created then its main task will be protection of Russian SSBNs bastions not chasing US ones.

    Remaining 1-2 wil be roaming somewhere for dick waving/colonial wars and not countering if USN too.




    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...

    Kuz can loose Granits and keep launch containers if this will be cheaper. She can also have 3 Kalibrs installed in one Granit launcher like Anteys had.

    To be sure tho, we need to wait.


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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 8f894ddaba218594c7f62729275d6fac


    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 2170
    Points : 2160
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  hoom Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:12 am

    and here specially for you lol1 lol1 lol1 real project of severny in 80s
    I actually really like that concept angel
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7350
    Points : 7336
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:24 am

    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.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4961
    Points : 4985
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:28 pm

    hoom wrote:
    and here specially for you lol1 lol1 lol1 real project of severny in 80s
    I actually really like that concept angel

    5000tons CV? Suspect Suspect Suspect   well indeed unusual.  AFAIK it was ot be pretty fast beast. Name was  Dolphin.


    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
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7350
    Points : 7336
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:26 pm

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

    It also must be cheap as fuck. It's empty, weapons are basic. It reminds me the heli carrier/landing ship of phillipines that is somewhere near 50 million a piece but very usefull.

    But this one has everything to counter subs. They should build two or three for tge pacific and north.

    And if new vtol is build just use them on the ship.

    Sponsored content

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:30 pm