Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

So the guy who stated work would start on a new STOL/V, did he actually specify a fighter?
I think he didn't actually specify a fighter, just everyone assumed he meant that.
Could it have been reference to a medium size STOL plane like the newer suggestion of working on a tilt-rotor?

As has been discussed its a medium size plane thats needed for a decent AEW etc.

I thought that you as my intellectual sparring partner to refine concept      

Appreciate it, we share the profit 50-50 then

How could they use their prowess in aerospace industry? By developing the shipborne Su-57. With its extreme capability gap to rest of potential naval fighters in the world it could more than compensate for less vessels of smaller size than US CSGs. Put two squadrons of them in a light carrier and arm them with Kinzhals... and watch the seas empty almost 2000 km around you

Kizhal too heavy indeed  but why not shipborne Zircons?  1000km range.  Way beyond reach of any fighter ot their AShM. Either you add 2x8 UKSK-M or use Husky below or Gorskhov next to you. .

Well, we now Kinzhal can be carried by a heavy fighter, but we know nothing about Zircon, only that it will probably be compatible with UKSK launchers, that means 8-10 meters long missile....
You want it air-launched to increase its range with the range of the plane. How long until US decides they need something similar? Then you need longer ranged planes and even tankers to keep enemy away

yup you're right AIM-152 was cancelled I ' ve missed that      
it was to have almost 2x Phoenix range

Weapons bays in F-35 are very limited in size, so it needs to be seen what kind of LRAAM they can develop which is compatible with them.

    Why you think that covered with  smaller fighters they would be harassed?  BTW were there ever more then 8 fighters same time?
S-400 - That's why you need Something like 2 Gorskhovs with Redut  group.

or xtra (my speculation) use own 2xUKSK-M with wit 64 Redut AAD (S-350)

It depends on the theater conditions, but I meant air superiority fighters. If you manage to make them small ok, but normally they are the heavy ones.

and what if they send simple drones with AMRAAM?
1) option one - you dont shoot them they kill you. Result: you're dead
2) You shoot them all. But spent all rockets. Then fighters are coming.  Result: you're dead

If that threat turns to materialize, there will be parallel development of smaller, simpler missiles like the CUDA concept of which you can carry not 8 but maybe 16 or 24. Since the simple drones are not going to be super fast or manoeuvrable you don't need high-performance missiles to shoot them down. In fact the CUDA does not even carry a warhead. You can also have UCAVs as "magazine extender" for your fighters, I doubt Russia is not taking a look at this (Okhotnik B?)

3) alternative 2 : even after fighters you survived (not all though). Do you have time to land -reload- return? is for how many cycles can you perform? Result: you're dead

Its simply a game of numbers not thrones.  Unlike Danerys you cannot count on magic and dragons

Ok, if you are so massively outnumbered that you are not shooting down planes but swarms of them and still they keep coming then you are screwed. A Flanker can carry 10-12 missiles. For the Su-57 we have seen the double pylon externally plus internal carriage. If you get a exchange rate of 4:1 (very well within possible in the scenario I described) you would practically need two CVNs to defeat a single K-sized carrier. That is very robust IMO.
BTW, with STOVL dragons there would be no chance, with STOBAR ones maybe...  

It is about creating safety conditions for you fleet to operate in, that is the reason for CVs. See above one proposal to ensure deterrence without needing to outspend USN.

Extra cover?  of course         but why  smaller fighters  cannot perform this task?!

See above, you need positive exchange rates because your numbers are smaller. So you need better planes and missiles than the enemy (payload, range, speed, altitude, avionics etc), and you need top notch airspace surveillance too.

[quote="LMFS"]

I thought that you as my intellectual sparring partner to refine concept      

Appreciate it, we share the profit 50-50 then
[quote]

I wouldn't go THAT far

Well, we now Kinzhal can be carried by a heavy fighter, but we know nothing about Zircon, only that it will probably be compatible with UKSK launchers, that means 8-10 meters long missile....

not probably but this is a requirement, unlikly would be carried by any other fighter then MiG-31 though. Vide: why Indian Su-30s carry only "mini Brahmos"?



[quote]You want it air-launched to increase its range with the range of the plane. How long until US decides they need something similar? Then you need longer ranged planes and even tankers to keep enemy away

The point is , you dont need it airborne. You use ship based version only.

Weapons bays in F-35 are very limited in size, so it needs to be seen what kind of LRAAM they can develop which is compatible with them.

in every way you can assume they have it

It depends on the theater conditions, but I meant air superiority fighters. If you manage to make them small ok, but normally they are the heavy ones.

you dont go thusands km inlands, you have point defense. That's the Idea to me.

and what if they send simple drones with AMRAAM?
1) option one - you dont shoot them they kill you. Result: you're dead
2) You shoot them all. But spent all rockets. Then fighters are coming.  Result: you're dead

If that threat turns to materialize, there will be parallel development of smaller, simpler missiles like the CUDA concept of which you can carry not 8 but maybe 16 or 24. Since the simple drones are not going to be super fast or manoeuvrable you don't need high-performance missiles to shoot them down. In fact the CUDA does not even carry a warhead. You can also have UCAVs as "magazine extender" for your fighters, I doubt Russia is not taking a look at this (Okhotnik B?)

true but again they can use longer range missiles then oryet another mix of tech and tactics. None the less result remains the same you are dead just in a different fashion.


[quote]

3) alternative 2 : even after fighters you survived (not all though). Do you have time to land -reload- return? is for how many cycles can you perform? Result: you're dead

Ok, if you are so massively outnumbered that you are not shooting down planes but swarms of them and still they keep coming then you are screwed. A Flanker can carry 10-12 missiles. For the Su-57 we have seen the double pylon externally plus internal carriage. If you get a exchange rate of 4:1 (very well within possible in the scenario I described) you would practically need two CVNs to defeat a single K-sized carrier. That is very robust IMO.

Apart form vision starting wth full load and little fuel (ot the other way around) and gaining heights, range and maneuverability. Can you imagine that they have also FA-18 Growlers (or something like that) ,drones, same range missiles, perhaps their fighters are a bit less maneuverable but still capable .

Of course I am talking about very postive scenrion for you. When you get CV? 2030s? it is abut time drne tech will be much better, perhaps lasers to shoot missiles too. And F-X just about horizon.

1 Ford - 75 fighters
1 Kuz -24 Su's

OK so you have 2 CVNs they 16. Result: you are dead.

BTW, with STOVL dragons there would be no chance, with STOBAR ones maybe...  

As long as you dont have Daenerys personally on your side regardless if you have stol or stobar. Result: you're dead.

[
See above, you need positive exchange rates because your numbers are smaller. So you need better planes and missiles than the enemy (payload, range, speed, altitude, avionics etc), and you need top notch airspace surveillance too.

So why do you think US doennt have fighters /missiles/EW ? like time sands still there? with 10x bigger military spending?

hoom wrote:So the guy who stated work would start on a new STOL/V, did he actually specify a fighter?
I think he didn't actually specify a fighter, just everyone assumed he meant that.
Could it have been reference to a medium size STOL plane like the newer suggestion of working on a tilt-rotor?

As has been discussed its a medium size plane thats needed for a decent AEW etc.

and how tiltrotor could replace MiG-29K/Su-33 on CV? to be VSTOL based on experiences Yak 141 but a new construction?

hoom wrote:So the guy who stated work would start on a new STOL/V, did he actually specify a fighter?
I think he didn't actually specify a fighter, just everyone assumed he meant that.
Could it have been reference to a medium size STOL plane like the newer suggestion of working on a tilt-rotor?

As has been discussed its a medium size plane thats needed for a decent AEW etc.

Smart observator.

November 2017, Yuri Borisov:

"Certainly, - said Borisov, answering the question, does the work on the aircraft vertical takeoff to an aircraft carrier. - It is logical to assume that during this time those models, I mean the MiG-29 and su-33 are morally outdated and in ten years would require the creation of new aircraft. There are such plans," - said Borisov.

If he is meaning tiltrotors after mentioning MiG-29 and Su-33 he should win the prize for the trolling of the century...

BTW a tiltrotor like V-22 Osprey is not a STOVL but rather a V/STOL

I wouldn't go THAT far      

Ok 49-51, don't want to steal protagonism hahaha

not probably but this is a requirement, unlikly would be carried by any other fighter then MiG-31 though. Vide: why Indian Su-30s carry only "mini  Brahmos"?

Hey I don't know why exactly Su-30s cannot carry the full 3 ton Brahmos and use a 2.5 ton version instead. Payload of MiG-31 is like 5 tons, so Su-57 should not have a problem regarding MTOW but only possibly to get the suspension points strong enough for it (don't know the weight but IIRC the estimated weight was below 4 ton, being 3.8 ton the weight of the Iskander which is ground launched) Weapon bays of Su-57 should allow to carry above 3 tons ordnance (4 x Kh-59MK2 estimated 3,080 kg) so the structure may be be strong enough. You are not supposed to make hectic manoeuvres with a Kinzhal in the belly or to land on a carrier with it! And besides both the plane and the missile are completely new, there is time to develop compatibility between them, this is a potential game changer that US would need decades to emulate.

Diagram by paralay:

The point is , you dont need it airborne. You use ship based version only.

Planes are massively more flexible and bigger ranged than a disposable booster. A Su-57 with 3500 km range could fly 1000 km, dash and launch the missile (giving it an enormous increase in range) and return to the carrier. With IFR you could even extend that. It is not nice having to operate under that threat even staying at 2000 km distance!

Weapons bays in F-35 are very limited in size, so it needs to be seen what kind of LRAAM they can develop which is compatible with them.

in every way you can assume they have it

No you can't, do you suggest they have it but it is completely secret or what??

you dont go thusands km inlands, you have point defense. That's the Idea to me.

Air superiority means taking the fight to your enemy's court, not hiding behind your defences and pray for them to hold the attack of an overwhelming amount of forces (much less in a vessel potentially far from home). Adopting that last strategy is not setting yourself for big success IMHO. NATO loves that situation as much as they dislike an enemy that actually fights back and ruins the PR / prestige returns of the operation.

true but again they can use longer range missiles then oryet another mix of tech and tactics.  None the less result remains the same you are dead just in a different fashion.

Not even suggesting defeating US military far from Russia is a cake walk man. Just saying you can play deterrence effectively with the right tools. But you need to be credible for that and actually capable of damaging the aggressor seriously.

Apart form vision starting wth full load and little fuel (ot the other way around) and gaining heights, range and maneuverability. Can you imagine that they have also FA-18 Growlers (or something like that) ,drones,  same range missiles, perhaps their fighters are a bit less maneuverable but still capable .  

Of course I am talking about very postive scenrion for you.  When you get CV? 2030s? it is abut time drne tech will be much better, perhaps lasers to shoot missiles too. And F-X just about horizon.

1 Ford - 75 fighters
1 Kuz -24 Su's

OK so you have 2 CVNs they 16. Result: you are dead.

Ok we are dead in any case then. What is your proposal? To go to a geopolitically disputed region and displace US influence just because you are so nice? Play the nuclear bluff outside existential threat for the RF, do you really think this is not going to be called out? Either you have the teeth needed for the fight in conventional war or you are a victim more, they are always on demand by NATO so your LHD, air wing and sailors will be welcome...

LMFS wrote:

I wouldn't go THAT far      

Ok 49-51, don't want to steal protagonism hahaha

not probably but this is a requirement, unlikly would be carried by any other fighter then MiG-31 though. Vide: why Indian Su-30s carry only "mini  Brahmos"?

Hey I don't know why exactly Su-30s cannot carry the full 3 ton Brahmos and use a 2.5 ton version instead. Payload of MiG-31 is like 5 tons, so Su-57 should not have a problem regarding MTOW but only possibly to get the suspension points strong enough for it (don't know the weight but IIRC the estimated weight was below 4 ton, being 3.8 ton the weight of the Iskander which is ground launched) Weapon bays of Su-57 should allow to carry above 3 tons ordnance (4 x Kh-59MK2 estimated 3,080 kg) so the structure may be be strong enough. You are not supposed to make hectic manoeuvres with a Kinzhal in the belly or to land on a carrier with it! And besides both the plane and the missile are completely new, there is time to develop compatibility between them, this is a potential game changer that US would need decades to emulate.

Diagram by paralay:

The point is , you dont need it airborne. You use ship based version only.

Planes are massively more flexible and bigger ranged than a disposable booster. A Su-57 with 3500 km range could fly 1000 km, dash and launch the missile (giving it an enormous increase in range) and return to the carrier. With IFR you could even extend that. It is not nice having to operate under that threat even staying at 2000 km distance!

Weapons bays in F-35 are very limited in size, so it needs to be seen what kind of LRAAM they can develop which is compatible with them.

in every way you can assume they have it

No you can't, do you suggest they have it but it is completely secret or what??

you dont go thusands km inlands, you have point defense. That's the Idea to me.

Air superiority means taking the fight to your enemy's court, not hiding behind your defences and pray for them to hold the attack of an overwhelming amount of forces (much less in a vessel potentially far from home). Adopting that last strategy is not setting yourself for big success IMHO. NATO loves that situation as much as they dislike an enemy that actually fights back and ruins the PR / prestige returns of the operation.

true but again they can use longer range missiles then oryet another mix of tech and tactics.  None the less result remains the same you are dead just in a different fashion.

Not even suggesting defeating US military far from Russia is a cake walk man. Just saying you can play deterrence effectively with the right tools. But you need to be credible for that and actually capable of damaging the aggressor seriously.

Apart form vision starting wth full load and little fuel (ot the other way around) and gaining heights, range and maneuverability. Can you imagine that they have also FA-18 Growlers (or something like that) ,drones,  same range missiles, perhaps their fighters are a bit less maneuverable but still capable .  

Of course I am talking about very postive scenrion for you.  When you get CV? 2030s? it is abut time drne tech will be much better, perhaps lasers to shoot missiles too. And F-X just about horizon.

1 Ford - 75 fighters
1 Kuz -24 Su's

OK so you have 2 CVNs they 16. Result: you are dead.

Ok we are dead in any case then. What is your proposal? To go to a geopolitically disputed region and displace US influence just because you are so nice? Play the nuclear bluff outside existential threat for the RF, do you really think this is not going to be called out? Either you have the teeth needed for the fight in conventional war or you are a victim more, they are always on demand by NATO so your LHD, air wing and sailors will be welcome...

USN hasn`t 16 carriers for 50 years already. Now there are only 10 active CVNs, with Trump`s intention to have 11 again. It is still the ultimate naval power, but the gap will be narrowing with chinese carrier building programme. Russian carrier programme will stay in defensive role, if any will be built!

Aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy: for and against

A universal "floating airfield" should not be a dependent ship surrounded by "seven nannies"

Alexei Leonkov, military expert of the magazine "Arsenal of the Fatherland"

https://zvezdaweekly.ru/news/t/2018971129-w9XWi.html

Offer one of these things to VMF and they would thinks it's the mother of all Christmases:



Stick with what you need, not what you would like to brag about

PapaDragon wrote:
Offer one of these things to VMF and they would thinks it's the mother of all Christmases:



Stick with what you need, not what you would like to brag about

Connect another part that consists of a runway that has the length of the ship and a skijump 20m width at the right like catamaran.

Between them add some UKSK.

Take off all the facilities for landing plateforms and make accomodation for mig-29k and naval 5th gen fighters.

And you have a nice carrier with easily 30 modern jets onboard + easily 100 UKSK for punch.

A runway of 250m with skijump could allow the use of yak-44M as awacs.

LMFS wrote:

I wouldn't go THAT far      

Ok 49-51, don't want to steal protagonism hahaha

99-01      

the suspension points strong enough for it (don't know the weight but IIRC the estimated weight was below 4 ton, being 3.8 ton the weight of the Iskander which is ground launched) Weapon bays of Su-57 should allow to carry above [] so the structure may be be strong enough. You are not supposed to make hectic manoeuvres with a Kinzhal in the belly or to land on a carrier with it! And besides both the plane and the missile are completely new, there is time to develop compatibility between them, this is a potential game changer that US would need decades to emulate.

well perhaps you can do this technically. Why not? My question would be what why? you already have Zircon securing ~ 1000km radius around your fleet without need for development of  costly, redundant, risky

IMHO Kinzhal is a stopgap before new missiles/or better hypersonic weapons pop up.  GZUR Phase II (is to be ~14Ma)

The point is , you dont need it airborne. You use ship based version only.

Planes are massively more flexible and bigger ranged than a disposable booster. A Su-57 with 3500 km range could fly 1000 km, dash and launch the missile (giving it an enormous increase in range) and return to the carrier. With IFR you could even extend that. It is not nice having to operate under that threat even staying at 2000 km distance!

Occam's razor: you can solve problem in many ways the question to me is which one is best in terms invested resources vs. return. Before you develop Su 57, Kinzhal +integrate with new aircraft carriers => 10-15 years. Kinzhal might be not first choice because of technology.  Zircon is now  (OK in 2 years).
To me they always plan a marathon not sprint.

Weapons bays in F-35 are very limited in size, so it needs to be seen what kind of LRAAM they can develop which is compatible with them.

in every way you can assume they have it

No you can't, do you suggest they have it but it is completely secret or what??

do you suggest Su-57 is on new shiny Russian  CVNs are happily navigating around the world now ?   I thought we were talking about 2030s.

you dont go thusands km inlands, you have point defense. That's the Idea to me.

Air superiority means taking the fight to your enemy's court, not hiding behind your defences and pray for them to hold the attack of an overwhelming amount of forces (much less in a vessel potentially far from home). Adopting that last strategy is not setting yourself for big success IMHO. NATO loves that situation as much as they dislike an enemy that actually fights back and ruins the PR / prestige returns of the operation.

Actions against US fleet in conditions of numerical air-superiority was already tried in Japan. They called it Kamikaze. Fighters in such numbers will be treated as extra cover not and major force. Me thinks you mix US approach to the Russian one.

Not even suggesting defeating US military far from Russia is a cake walk man. Just saying you can play deterrence effectively with the right tools. But you need to be credible for that and actually capable of damaging the aggressor seriously.

Agreed that's why idea of small aircraft carriers fits good here.

Ok we are dead in any case then.

precisely this is what I am talking about - in conventional war you cannot win with larger opponent, with better demographics and economy. III Reich  had not  attacked USSR they had good chances to   win. Enough to conquer UK and US couldnt  come close t europe without large losses. Landing would be virtually impossible.   here so easily. How they move fleet here close to German shores?

But that's why UK/US was so lenient with Hitler developments and crediting his development in 30. Hitler was bred to bone with anti Russian hate to remove 2 economical competitors with one stone. Germans and USSR.

What is your proposal? To go to a geopolitically disputed region and displace US influence just because you are so nice? Play the nuclear bluff outside existential threat for the RF, do you really think this is not going to be called out? Either you have the teeth needed for the fight in conventional war or you are a victim more,.

The situation in Syria wouldn't be different if you had 40 Russian fighters there too. They'd ask 2 more CVNs and what?
Russia doesn't play sea control strategy but sea denial. Both are working second one is much much cost effective.  

BTW NATO?  doves of piss to me

kumbor wrote:
USN hasn`t 16 carriers for 50 years already. Now there are only 10 active CVNs, with Trump`s intention to have 11 again. It is still the ultimate naval power, but the gap will be narrowing with chinese carrier building programme. Russian carrier programme will stay in defensive role, if any will be built!

Agreed . Why Russia should to this on that level? Russia has neither economy nor population to support sea control strategy ,sea denial works just if besides carriers you have start ready nukes

dino00 wrote:Aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy: for and against

A universal "floating airfield" should not be a dependent ship surrounded by "seven nannies"

Alexei Leonkov, military expert of the magazine "Arsenal of the Fatherland"

https://zvezdaweekly.ru/news/t/2018971129-w9XWi.html

@dino Obrigadinho I love experts to confirm my reasoning

@LMFS -thsi is a must read for you

Isos wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Offer one of these things to VMF and they would thinks it's the mother of all Christmases:



Stick with what you need, not what you would like to brag about

Connect another part that consists of a runway that has the length of the ship and a skijump 20m width at the right like catamaran.

Between them add some UKSK.

Take off all the facilities for landing plateforms and make accomodation for mig-29k and naval 5th gen fighters.

And you have a nice carrier with easily 30 modern jets onboard + easily 100 UKSK for punch.

A runway of 250m with skijump could allow the use of yak-44M as awacs.

@Papadragon & Isos, You think it is so simple to add skyjump, side runway and put some UKSK to the hull of assault heli-carrier so as to get fully capable "light" aircraft carrier. I think you simply don`t know what you are talking about! Projecting and building successful aircraft carrier has nothing to do with childish ideas, Jane`s yearbooks and plastic scale models as the main source of information. It is not what major warship are all about and how they are built!

kumbor wrote:
@Papadragon & Isos, You think it is so simple to add skyjump, side runway and put some UKSK to the hull of assault heli-carrier so as to get fully capable "light" aircraft carrier. I think you simply don`t know what you are talking about! Projecting and building successful aircraft carrier has nothing to do with childish ideas, Jane`s yearbooks and plastic scale models as the main source of information. It is not what major warship are all about and how they are built!

during Soviet Union this "childish" approach was called TAKRs and build like 10 units. With no ski-jump tho.
Regardless of history please share your ideas I am always interested in learning something new

@Papadragon & Isos, You think it is so simple to add skyjump, side runway and put some UKSK to the hull of assault heli-carrier so as to get fully capable "light" aircraft carrier. I think you simply don`t know what you are talking about! Projecting and building successful aircraft carrier has nothing to do with childish ideas, Jane`s yearbooks and plastic scale models as the main source of information. It is not what major warship are all about and how they are built!

It is easy if you design the ship from the begining with those ideas.

They also added a ski jump to a kiev class which is more like america class than like a true carrier with success. So it's not that much childish. Your reaction is however.

Isos wrote:

@Papadragon & Isos, You think it is so simple to add skyjump, side runway and put some UKSK to the hull of assault heli-carrier so as to get fully capable "light" aircraft carrier. I think you simply don`t know what you are talking about! Projecting and building successful aircraft carrier has nothing to do with childish ideas, Jane`s yearbooks and plastic scale models as the main source of information. It is not what major warship are all about and how they are built!

It is easy if you design the ship from the begining with those ideas.

They also added a ski jump to a kiev class which is more like america class than like a true carrier with success. So it's not that much childish. Your reaction is however.

If you're going to have UKSK mounted into the hull it's going to limit how many aircraft a ship can have, It's a trade off really, one I think isn't worth it very much for an assault carrier. Because at that point you taking away from its primary goal which is transporting troops to make room for all these systems.

So yeah strapping UKSK and all that stuff on a ship like that isn't a good idea.

They wouldn't have enough missiles to make a difference really, the problem here is you have people who think something is a good idea but that good idea may not work so well in reality, I'd also like to remind all of you guys with more experience building actual ships and spent their entire lives doing it has said things like this don't work.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

kumbor wrote:
@Papadragon & Isos, You think it is so simple to add skyjump, side runway and put some UKSK to the hull of assault heli-carrier so as to get fully capable "light" aircraft carrier. I think you simply don`t know what you are talking about! Projecting and building successful aircraft carrier has nothing to do with childish ideas, Jane`s yearbooks and plastic scale models as the main source of information. It is not what major warship are all about and how they are built!

during Soviet Union this "childish" approach was called TAKRs and build like 10 units. With no ski-jump tho.
Regardless of history please share your ideas I am always interested in learning something new

only six TAKR's where ever made.

The four Kiev's and the two Kuz's unless you wanna go all the way back to WW2.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
If you're going to have UKSK mounted into the hull it's going to limit how many aircraft a ship can have, It's a trade off really, one I think isn't worth it very much for an assault carrier. Because at that point you taking away from its primary goal which is transporting troops to make room for all these systems.

So yeah strapping UKSK and all that stuff on a ship like that isn't a good idea.

They wouldn't have enough missiles to make a difference really, the problem here is you have people who think something is a good idea but that good idea may not work so well in reality, I'd also like to remind all of you guys with more experience building actual ships and spent their entire lives doing it has said things like this don't work.

I was thinking into making it a small carrier without landing capabilities. A second part would not be stuck to it but connected with a space of some meters between the two. I mean two different parts connected and where there would be only a small "road" between the two to allow the aircraft to go on the second smaller part for taking off.

So beteween them you can put some uksk. If you achieve to have more than 6 uksk with 48 missiles total, it is enough for protection or attacking enemy airfields to destroy for exemple the runways so that enemy fighters can't take off.

With two modernized oscar with 72 cruise missiles each and two yassen with 32 each and some gorshkov and a lider or a modern kirov, you have enough to destroy any small/medium country.

That's exactly US diplomacy. Bring cruise missile and destroy enemy air force with it.

Most countries have not more than 10 big airbases that concentrate a big part of their airforce planes. Destroy their runways with 200 cruise missiles and send the migs from the carriers (imagine two carrier with 28 mig each=56) bomb the planes before the runways are repaired, 4-5 jets per aibase. And you win.

It won't work against a big country but it could be very good for smaller countries that have issues with other smaller countries. Pakistan against india, algeria vs maroco, south american countries could be interesed.

Bigger bombs, not CMs r needed to crater runways. The US & UK didn't do it with their CMs, but imposed no-fly zones instead.

It's also worth noting that how the disposal of Enterprise shakes out could have an impact on how the U.S. government views the costs associated with nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and could impact the growing debate about whether it makes sense to invest in smaller, conventionally-powered types. Since taxpayers will be responsible for the bill, a more accurate estimated life cycle cost of a nuclear supercarrier should include this $1 billion or more to dispose of it at the end of the day. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22607/the-navy-could-need-more-than-15-years-and-over-1-5b-to-scrap-uss-enterprise

1 more argument against even a 70K T CVN, even though labor & other costs in Russia r going to be lower.

The NS Lenin is a museum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_(1957_icebreaker)#Retirement
NS Arktika was withdrawn from service in 2008.. Rather than be scrapped, there are calls for her to be converted to a museum ship, like her predecessor Lenin.
NS Sibir ("Siberia") ceased operation in 1992 and is awaiting scrapping. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker#Arktika_class

But to scrap CVNs will be a lot more costly.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

They wouldn't have enough missiles to make a difference really, the problem here is you have people who think something is a good idea but that good idea may not work so well in reality, I'd also like to remind all of you guys with more experience building actual ships and spent their entire lives doing it has said things like this don't work.

There are people building precisely what? US aircraft carriers? I am sure you can find many people with experience in shipyard industry   I'd prefer to focus on what this ship is designed for. If your doctrine foresees sea control and you have deep pocket why not. Mind that Pentagon budget is ~10 Russian one. Can you really copy their approach?

This is the game you loose in every possible scenario.  


As or ship universality, I am for it especially that cost/ability to perform LHD/small AC ship is great. The question to add extra weapons or not depends on doctrine. You want less task group ships you add more UKSKs .  As you said this is always a compromise. And not such ship should not be sea control but sea denial to me.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

only six TAKR's where ever made.

The four Kiev's and the two Kuz's unless you wanna go all the way back to WW2.

my bad sorry I thought 4 1143.5 were planned

Tsavo Lion wrote:
But to scrap CVNs will be a lot more costly.

generally bigger ship bigger costs. IMHO Russia would do wrong choosing symmetrical approach towards CV development.

Isos wrote:
So beteween them you can put some uksk. If you achieve to have more than 6 uksk with 48 missiles total, it is enough for protection or attacking enemy airfields to destroy for exemple the runways so that enemy fighters can't take off.

on Kuz you have 12  VLS under deck

I was thinking into making it a small carrier without landing capabilities.

and what would you secure your landing capabilities? and if you build bigger AC you carry more fighters but pay much more. The question would be for what pirpose should Russian CVN be destined for?

It won't work against a big country but it could be very good for smaller countries that have issues with other smaller countries. Pakistan against india, algeria vs maroco, south american countries could be interesed.

arent we talking about Russian CVNs?!

Isos wrote:

@Papadragon & Isos, You think it is so simple to add skyjump, side runway and put some UKSK to the hull of assault heli-carrier so as to get fully capable "light" aircraft carrier. I think you simply don`t know what you are talking about! Projecting and building successful aircraft carrier has nothing to do with childish ideas, Jane`s yearbooks and plastic scale models as the main source of information. It is not what major warship are all about and how they are built!

It is easy if you design the ship from the begining with those ideas.

They also added a ski jump to a kiev class which is more like america class than like a true carrier with success. So it's not that much childish. Your reaction is however.

Kiev class TAKR with ski jump? What are you talking about? Bow section of pr.1143 TAKR -Kiev, Minsk & Novorossiysk was occupied with SUW-N1 ASW missile launcher, SA-N-3 ZRK, 8 P-500 Basalt (SS-N-12) and AK-726 76mm guns. If you mean of pr.11434 -Baku/Gorshkov, she is now totally rebuilt as a true carrier and serves in Indian navy as Vikramaditya. Only this one vessel has a ski jump.

That's the 1 Ex-TAKR he is talking about! The Adm. K. is also officially TAKR, follow on & based on the Kiev class.