Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

Could this be the Tiltrotor/VSTOL plane they've been talking about? http://charly015.blogspot.com/2018/09/capturas-del-video-del-drone-fregat-de.html

hoom wrote:Could this be the Tiltrotor/VSTOL plane they've been talking about?

This looks like UAV Fregat to me. Yup there is a version for deck aviation but for reconnaissance/SAR . If you mean the onefor VDV is is very unlikely it is for them.


http://bastion-karpenko.ru/fregat-bla/

Yes its the Fregat.
Point is its a not exactly small VSTOL tiltrotor being depicted used on a LHD type ship.

hoom wrote:Yes its the Fregat.
Point is its a not exactly small VSTOL tiltrotor being depicted used on a LHD type ship.

What you see on pictures is a proof of concept UAV. Kronhstad wants to build deck version (8tons weight class) by 2025 -if Navy is interested. Perhaps it was artist impression about deck version. Perhaps payload was not large 2tons but range 3000km and ceilint 8000m is nob bad for many functions od deck aviation (SAR, ASW, AWACS)

Tsavo Lion wrote:

..the future Russian aircraft carrier of 70000+ tons with Su-57 continues going forward.

Only in ur dreams!

In the public statements of the Russian Navy.

A prospective aircraft carrier of the Navy will receive a displacement of not less than 70 thousand tons

The Navy considers it inexpedient to build lightweight aircraft carriers, the deputy head of the Russian Navy for armament, Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk

ST.PETERSBURG, April 25. / TASS /. A prospective aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy will have a displacement of at least 70 thousand tons, its technical project is not yet ready. Vice-Admiral Viktor Bursuk told journalists about this from the deputy naval commander of the Russian Navy on armament.
"The fleet believes that lightweight aircraft carriers should not be built for the Russian Federation from the point of view of the economic" price-quality ratio. "It is preferable to build aircraft carriers with a displacement of about 70 thousand tons, which allow carrying more aircraft on board," he said.

Bursuk added that "the technical specifications and the design of [such a ship] have not yet been developed, during the creation of the technical design it will be determined what is needed," but "it is already clear that its displacement will be about 70 thousand tons."

Before the Russian Navy stated that the Russian fleet expected to receive a promising aircraft carrier with an atomic power plant by the end of 2030. Earlier, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov reported that the contract for the construction of an aircraft carrier could be signed by the end of 2025. The Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation Denis Manturov informed that the sketch design of the aircraft carrying ship has already been created and submitted to the Ministry of Defense of Russia.

At the same time, the Krylov State Research Center, part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, developed a new project for a new aircraft carrier, which was also offered for the Russian fleet. Project 23000 was named "Storm". The sketch assumes that the ship will have a displacement of 80-90 thousand tons, it will be equipped with a combined power plant (both an atomic reactor and a gas turbine engine), the air group of the ship must number up to 60 units.

Подробнее на ТАСС:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5157561

eehnie wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:

..the future Russian aircraft carrier of 70000+ tons with Su-57 continues going forward.

Only in ur dreams!

In the public statements of the Russian Navy.

A prospective aircraft carrier of the Navy will receive a displacement of not less than 70 thousand tons

The Navy considers it inexpedient to build lightweight aircraft carriers, the deputy head of the Russian Navy for armament, Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk

ST.PETERSBURG, April 25. / TASS /. A prospective aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy will have a displacement of at least 70 thousand tons, its technical project is not yet ready. Vice-Admiral Viktor Bursuk told journalists about this from the deputy naval commander of the Russian Navy on armament.
"The fleet believes that lightweight aircraft carriers should not be built for the Russian Federation from the point of view of the economic" price-quality ratio. "It is preferable to build aircraft carriers with a displacement of about 70 thousand tons, which allow carrying more aircraft on board," he said.

Bursuk added that "the technical specifications and the design of [such a ship] have not yet been developed, during the creation of the technical design it will be determined what is needed," but "it is already clear that its displacement will be about 70 thousand tons."

Before the Russian Navy stated that the Russian fleet expected to receive a promising aircraft carrier with an atomic power plant by the end of 2030. Earlier, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov reported that the contract for the construction of an aircraft carrier could be signed by the end of 2025. The Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation Denis Manturov informed that the sketch design of the aircraft carrying ship has already been created and submitted to the Ministry of Defense of Russia.

At the same time, the Krylov State Research Center, part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, developed a new project for a new aircraft carrier, which was also offered for the Russian fleet. Project 23000 was named "Storm". The sketch assumes that the ship will have a displacement of 80-90 thousand tons, it will be equipped with a combined power plant (both an atomic reactor and a gas turbine engine), the air group of the ship must number up to 60 units.

Подробнее на ТАСС:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5157561

unless a contract signed nothing of all these can be regarded reliable sources. Just look at the MiG-29/35 thread. From 2012 till "Russian Air Force will recieve MiG-35 next year"

George1 wrote:
unless a contract signed nothing of all these can be regarded reliable sources. Just look at the MiG-29/35 thread. From 2012 till "Russian Air Force will recieve MiG-35 next year"

Technically if no year is mentioned the date logically statement is all the time true Me thinks MiG-35 is good fighter but there's no need to invest init now since new gen fighters will be much better in every respect and money is wiser to spend there.

The other question is what do they plan as CV role... Kuz till 2040s and rest? Shall we know before retirement? Would be bed news if non-modified LHD Priboy (24ktons) unless it iwll be lik e Juan Carlos I LHD. This one looks like can do the job with 30ktons.

Guys, pl. check spellings before posting.

In the public statements of the Russian Navy.
Earlier, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov reported that the contract for the construction of an aircraft carrier could be signed by the end of 2025[!].

U can't put "could be" in the bank! They just print what they want to have, & the naval Su-57 isn't there at all! Pl. wake me up on January 1st, 2026!

This was statement by depury of MoD and now deputy PM for MiC? Perhaps because they were not updated for years and their service life will also be abut to end?

Please... stop bullshitting... the MiG-29KRs are practically new aircraft that were made not long ago and the purpose for sending the Kuznetsov to Syria was to test the new upgrades on both types... Su-33 and MiG-29KR.

The point is I dotn think thy will. Technically can shoot any obsolete fighter but this would mean IIIWWW.

And that is the point... when Russian carrier aircraft are shooting at F-35s then carrier aircraft will not be significant on either side.

cheers cheers cheers finally you agreed with me cheers cheers cheers presence here is a key , for the reat you got Boreys/Avangards/Poseidons and Tu-160/Tu22M

The problem is that US carriers are for invasions and sabre rattling, Russian carriers are to defend Russian surface vessels outside of Russian land based aircraft range... which means they will more likely be used regularly in the air intercept and CAP role... for which naval Su-57s are vastly more useful than some dinky little short range slow Yak-41 development.

Russian ships will have plenty of short range close in point defence weapons so there is no need for a short range point defence aircraft...

Then 1 Kuz is mostly not deloyed ...2 still 0,5 "forward deployment"

If the Soviets had matched the USN in carriers then all of those vessels would be not deployed and the cost would have bankrupted the Russians even more.

The fact is that the only value of the Kuz is experience, and will be for the next 10-15 years.

In 10-15 years however, Russian foreign trade relations will have expanded to the point where she will find naval access to the world is financially necessary for them to grow... most trade moves by sea, so being able to control the sea, or at least allow your trade to move by sea anywhere you want it to is critical.

BTW how do you know they were not referring to laser guided bombs? There were comments in this regard, sadly don't have the source at hand.

My understanding of the talk of laser "weapons" on fighters regards an increase in power of DIRCMS so that instead of just dazzling an IR or EO sensor, that instead it actually damages the light sensitive elements and destroys the seekers... which would also have a rather negative effect on a pilot if directed at his visor too of course...

Then I am happy we agree VSOL programme is on , su57 is not

Su-57 is definitely on... the question is if they will make a naval version or not.

Yes its the Fregat.
Point is its a not exactly small VSTOL tiltrotor being depicted used on a LHD type ship.

Clearly subsonic...

Me thinks MiG-35 is good fighter but there's no need to invest init now since new gen fighters will be much better in every respect and money is wiser to spend there.

Using that logic they will never put a new plane into service... because by the time it is ready then new technology means a brand new design that has not been designed yet could be much better so scrap it too...

The MiG-35 will be affordable enough to get into service in decent numbers, so it makes sense to make them as a useful base fighter, and then decide if new stealth aircraft could be made that are actually stealthy or if new radar designs render them expensive wastes of time so better shaped aircraft can be used instead.

In 10-15 years however, Russian foreign trade relations will have expanded to the point where she will find naval access to the world is financially necessary for them to grow... most trade moves by sea, so being able to control the sea, or at least allow your trade to move by sea anywhere you want it to is critical.

The RF economy may never grow large enough to justify & afford 2-3 CBGs; China will replace the US as the next SLOCs policeman & the Russian seaborne trade (a fraction of China's) outside of the NSR will be secure under her protection.

GarryB wrote:Please... stop bullshitting... the MiG-29KRs are practically new aircraft that were made not long ago and the purpose for sending the Kuznetsov to Syria was to test the new upgrades on both types... Su-33 and MiG-29KR.

MiG-29K (Indian) was produced since 2005, Russian form 2012 but deign / avionics is older. The last refit of Su-33 is from 2010. in 10 years they will have almost 20 years without any update. BTW did you have any Syrian upgrade info? I have never heard about it.

The point is I dotn think thy will. Technically can shoot any obsolete fighter but this would mean IIIWWW.

And that is the point... when Russian carrier aircraft are shooting at F-35s then carrier aircraft will not be significant on either side.

great we agreed

cheers  cheers  cheers  finally you agreed with me  cheers  cheers  cheers presence here is a key , for the reat you got Boreys/Avangards/Poseidons and Tu-160/Tu22M

The problem is that US carriers are for invasions and sabre rattling, Russian carriers are to defend Russian surface vessels outside of  Russian land based aircraft range... which means they will more likely be used regularly in the air intercept and CAP role... for which naval Su-57s are vastly more useful than some dinky little short range slow Yak-41 development.
[/quote]

OK now back to earth. Navalized Su-57 surely would be a potent machine. Huuge CVNs would be more potent. But now money talks. First ther ewas about Shtorm 100k tones, then Navy cannot imagine that CVN could be less then 70k. Now Krylov (the only one who placed Su-57k in plaseic ;-) presented 44k model of carrier. That's why it is better to have small cheaper 20-30 fighters CV then none.

Yak-141 concept 30 years old , not sure why you want to build old design? 30 years ago there were no avangards or poseidons. The new fighter will use definitely new tech/solutions. Same with performance.

Russian ships will have plenty of short range close in point defense weapons so there is no need for a short range point defence aircraft...

Pantsir has 800-900km radius?! if not then fighters will be much better.

Then 1 Kuz is mostly not deloyed ...2 still 0,5 "forward deployment"

If the Soviets had matched the USN in carriers then all of those vessels would be not deployed and the cost would have bankrupted the Russians even more.
The fact is that the only value of the Kuz is experience, and will be for the next 10-15 years.
[/quote]

good we agree

In 10-15 years however, Russian foreign trade relations will have expanded to the point where she will find naval access to the world is financially necessary for them to grow... most trade moves by sea, so being able to control the sea, or at least allow your trade to move by sea anywhere you want it to is critical.

Russia will never control seas. You dont invest billions in fleet to trade with Cabo Verde. EU, China/India/Iran +SE Asia/large art of Africa can all be reached without or with minimal usage of high seas. And this market is more than enough to develop economy. If Russian military presence with small CV wont help then 1 very expensive carrier will make no difference either. I bet there will be in 20-30 years weapons of global reach available.

BTW how do you know they were not referring to laser guided bombs? There were comments in this regard, sadly don't have the source at hand.

My understanding of the talk of laser "weapons" on fighters regards an increase in power of DIRCMS so that instead of just dazzling an IR or EO sensor, that instead it actually damages the light sensitive elements and destroys the seekers... which would also have a rather negative effect on a pilot if directed at his visor too of course...

In US there are plns to use 50-100kW laser which is able to destroy AAD missile. So far I have read that Russians are focusing about burning all sensors/electronics. Using either lasers or microwaves.

Then I am happy we agree VSOL programme is on , su57 is not

Su-57 is definitely on... the question is if they will make a naval version or not.

My bad I meant 57k.

Yes its the Fregat.
Point is its a not exactly small VSTOL tiltrotor being depicted used on a LHD type ship.

Clearly subsonic...

wait, did you see any tiltrotor or chopper supersonic?

Me thinks MiG-35 is good fighter but there's no need to invest init now since new gen fighters will be much better in every respect and money is wiser to spend there.

Using that logic they will never put a new plane into service... because by the time it is ready then new technology means a brand new design that has not been designed yet could be much better so scrap it too...

The MiG-35 will be affordable enough to get into service in decent numbers, so it makes sense to make them as a useful base fighter, and then decide if new stealth aircraft could be made that are actually stealthy or if new radar designs render them expensive wastes of time so better shaped aircraft can be used instead.
[/quote]

Then what is the reason Russia stopped procuring of MiG-35 and started developing new VSTOL fighter instead?

Using your logic USA should stick to F-5. Iran is still using ti with new avionics. They need to replace many fighters thet are goring ot be obsolete/by end of lifecycle in couple of years. They need not only new replacement but affordable.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

In 10-15 years however, Russian foreign trade relations will have expanded to the point where she will find naval access to the world is financially necessary for them to grow... most trade moves by sea, so being able to control the sea, or at least allow your trade to move by sea anywhere you want it to is critical.

The RF economy may never grow large enough to justify & afford 2-3 CBGs; China will replace the US as the next SLOCs policeman & the Russian seaborne trade (a fraction of China's) outside of the NSR will be secure under her protection.

looks like probable option. Russia can develop rich economy but limiting factor will always be demography. Even with huge immigration policy unlikely till 2050 wont be moremthan 180 mlns.

The RF economy may never grow large enough to justify & afford 2-3 CBGs;

Not having a blue water navy is what will stop the RFs economy from growing... if the British or the French can afford two carriers then why not Russia?

China will replace the US as the next SLOCs policeman & the Russian seaborne trade (a fraction of China's) outside of the NSR will be secure under her protection.

China shows no interest in being the worlds policeman any more than Russia does... China will secure its own SLOCs but I doubt the will cross oceans to assist a Russian ship in trouble... and why would they?

Currently Russias sea borne trade is negligible, but why do you think that wont change?

Should Russia just accept it is a land locked country and only trade with its neighbours?

Half of which are part of NATO?

There is a whole world of countries out there that doesn't want to screw Russia and doesn't want to keep Russia as a poor resource asset... what the west calls the third world want to develop but have not been given any real opportunities by cooperation with the west because the west does not want them to develop and become strong and independent just like they don't want China or Russia to do the same.

The reality is that there are a lot of countries that just want fair trade and up until recently they really only get that from China... Russia can offer cooperation too, and it does not need to be Russia or China... much of the world needs help... and I don't mean charity, I mean trade that benefits both sides and does not limit or make morality or political or cultural demands on the poor country like the west does.

MiG-29K (Indian) was produced since 2005, Russian form 2012 but deign / avionics is older.

Hahahahaha... yeah, right... and the Su-30MKI is all Russian avionics and systems... India never has French or Israeli avionics in their planes... it is all Russia stuff.

The tooling to make MiG-29KRs was set up for producing aircraft for India, but do you think that means they just made some extra Indian aircraft for Russia, or just dumped some old avionics from land based MiG-29s into the plane?

Don't you wonder why they had MiG-35s in mockup form shown in India yet they are still not producing them?

Is that possibly because India and Russia are two different customers and the setups of the two aircraft are not the same for each customer?

At least you are not suggesting the MiG-29K from the 1980s is different to what we are talking about...

The last refit of Su-33 is from 2010. in 10 years they will have almost 20 years without any update. BTW did you have any Syrian upgrade info? I have never heard about it.

They were testing the Gefest & T system added to the Su-33 amongst other new features that they didn't really elaborate on publicly AFAIK.

great we agreed

You don't build CVNs for WWIII, just like you don't make Armata tanks or Su-57s for WWIII... you make SLBMs, long range cruise missiles, and ICBMs for WWIII and various doomsday weapons like Poseiden.

OK now back to earth. Navalized Su-57 surely would be a potent machine. Huuge CVNs would be more potent. But now money talks. First ther ewas about Shtorm 100k tones, then Navy cannot imagine that CVN could be less then 70k. Now Krylov (the only one who placed Su-57k in plaseic ;-) presented 44k model of carrier. That's why it is better to have small cheaper 20-30 fighters CV then none.

Revealing designs means nothing... they are after sales... to whomever... if China said they wanted 5 Storm class carriers... that is what it is all about.

You don't actually think the Russian Navy decides what it wants by looking at press releases from companies that make models do you?

They will decide what they want based on their experience... and so far that suggests that the Kuz is slightly too small.

They are funding EMALS, they are funding NPPs for very large ships, they have funded the upgrade of the Zvezda shipyard in the far east that can make up to 350K ton ships, and they are also funding STOVL aircraft.

I very much doubt they will bank on those STOVL aircraft being good enough on their own so they can go super cheap and make a 40K ton ship to carry them... if they really wanted cheap then a modified gas carrier ship would be a fraction of the cost and be half carrier and half arsenal ship.

They have already realised that bigger ships are better protected and more independent.... they can't afford to have an enormous fleet with huge numbers of all sorts of types of ships, so the carriers they do have will be it... so they might as well be as good as they can make them.

Yak-141 concept 30 years old , not sure why you want to build old design? 30 years ago there were no avangards or poseidons. The new fighter will use definitely new tech/solutions. Same with performance.

To be supersonic, it needs a 20 ton plus engine... no big deal... the R79 of the Yak-41 was developed to 22 tons thrust anyway, so that is not the issue... an evolved upgraded NK-32 could have 30 tons thrust... the point is that during a vertical landing... the only point to a STOVL aircraft... you need special heat resistant decking... that means it can only land on carriers or specially equipped ships... stretches of motor way, or half a runway(damaged), or a clearing in a field are not options for this aircraft.... that engine will destroy the ground underneath it and blow dirt and rubbish into the air to directly damage the engine.

So if it can't land vertically except on a carrier then why not use cable arrested aircraft... any technology you put into a STOVL aircraft to make it better than other aircraft could be put into a conventional aircraft cheaper and easier... conventional aircraft don't need high pressure air blowers in the nose, the wingtips, and the tail for hovering flight... all that extra weight can be eliminated in a STOBAR aircraft.

Pantsir has 800-900km radius?! affraid affraid affraid if not then fighters will be much better.

Obviously an expert you... perhaps you need to pay attention to what "Point Defence" means... which point defence fighter has an 800km radius... and WTF use is a point defence fighter that is 800km away from the ships they are supposed to be defending?

I bet there will be in 20-30 years weapons of global reach available.

That is the point... if you lose this bet who gives a fuck... the Russian Navy are conservative and are interested in becoming an important part of Russian economic and military growth in the future...

In US there are plns to use 50-100kW laser which is able to destroy AAD missile.

Makes sense... their missiles suck.

wait, did you see any tiltrotor or chopper supersonic?

Drop them from orbit and they would probably get quite fast before they burned up....

Then what is the reason Russia stopped procuring of MiG-35 and started developing new VSTOL fighter instead?

What makes you think they wont be buying MiG-35s?

Using your logic USA should stick to F-5. Iran is still using ti with new avionics. They need to replace many fighters thet are goring ot be obsolete/by end of lifecycle in couple of years. They need not only new replacement but affordable.

My logic is fine, you are the one that is suggesting that a MiG-35 with near 5th gen level avionics and systems is going to be much more expensive than a stealthy VSTOL fighter they haven't even designed yet...

Go your way and even if the damn thing is breathtakingly brilliant, it will be another 10 years of old MiG-29s before the new plane even gets into service.

Russia can develop rich economy but limiting factor will always be demography. Even with huge immigration policy unlikely till 2050 wont be moremthan 180 mlns.

Of course having half the landmass of the planet is not enough... more people is obviously their main concern... as populations increase, resources are going to increase in demand... a batch of faulty condoms can increase population if you need it but getting more land is not so easy...

I read from an anti-russian news source that most of the shareholders of the Zvezda shipyard are South Korean and they wont allow the Russians to build any military ships there. Is this true.

PTURBG wrote:I read from an anti-russian news source that most of the shareholders of the Zvezda shipyard are South Korean and they wont allow the Russians to build any military ships there. Is this true.

DAT Zvezda? there were 20% of now bankrupt Daewo. Since 2018 yes they bought tech fo rbuilding tankers/LNG tankers form Samusng. And are building 350 ktons dock...but Western and Ukrpisant "anal-systs" anre focusing only on first part
http://www.fes-zvezda.ru/news/

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4_%C2%AB%D0%97%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B0%C2%BB
after Russian wiki:
SSC "Star"

The new shipyard was incorporated in 2009 as a joint venture of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (80% of the shipyard) and Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (20%) and was named "DSME Star" [3] . The new shipyard was intended for construction of a large-capacity tanker fleet for Russian oil and gas companies. However, in 2012 Daewoo leaves the enterprise and the shipyard passes to Rosneft and Gazprombank [4] . In 2015, the company receives the name of the shipbuilding complex "Zvezda" .

In 2016, the first stage of the new production was launched, designed to build large-capacity vessels and other types of marine equipment for the implementation of hydrocarbon production projects on the continental shelf. There will be the largest dry dock in Russia and full cycle production workshops [5] .

In 2018, work began on the construction of the second stage of the shipyard [6] . It is expected to complete the construction in 2024 .

It is expected that vessels with a displacement of 250,000 tons, up to 350 meters in length and 60 meters in width, will descend from the super-shipyards. Up to 10 thousand specialists can work at the shipyards. [7]

The main client of the shipyard was Rosneft, which concluded an agreement on the placement of all orders for the design and construction of new marine equipment and vessels at the shipyard's facilities. As of mid-2018, the shipyard's portfolio of orders totaled 118 vessels, including Rosneft's orders for 26 vessels, while 4 ships are under construction. [8] [9] In September 2018, the first Aframax tanker was laid . [10] Also in September, an agreement was reached with Samsung Heavy Industries on the transfer of competences in the construction of tankers. [eleven]

George1 wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:

..the future Russian aircraft carrier of 70000+ tons with Su-57 continues going forward.

Only in ur dreams!

In the public statements of the Russian Navy.

A prospective aircraft carrier of the Navy will receive a displacement of not less than 70 thousand tons

The Navy considers it inexpedient to build lightweight aircraft carriers, the deputy head of the Russian Navy for armament, Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk

ST.PETERSBURG, April 25. / TASS /. A prospective aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy will have a displacement of at least 70 thousand tons, its technical project is not yet ready. Vice-Admiral Viktor Bursuk told journalists about this from the deputy naval commander of the Russian Navy on armament.
"The fleet believes that lightweight aircraft carriers should not be built for the Russian Federation from the point of view of the economic" price-quality ratio. "It is preferable to build aircraft carriers with a displacement of about 70 thousand tons, which allow carrying more aircraft on board," he said.

Bursuk added that "the technical specifications and the design of [such a ship] have not yet been developed, during the creation of the technical design it will be determined what is needed," but "it is already clear that its displacement will be about 70 thousand tons."

Before the Russian Navy stated that the Russian fleet expected to receive a promising aircraft carrier with an atomic power plant by the end of 2030. Earlier, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov reported that the contract for the construction of an aircraft carrier could be signed by the end of 2025. The Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation Denis Manturov informed that the sketch design of the aircraft carrying ship has already been created and submitted to the Ministry of Defense of Russia.

At the same time, the Krylov State Research Center, part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, developed a new project for a new aircraft carrier, which was also offered for the Russian fleet. Project 23000 was named "Storm". The sketch assumes that the ship will have a displacement of 80-90 thousand tons, it will be equipped with a combined power plant (both an atomic reactor and a gas turbine engine), the air group of the ship must number up to 60 units.

Подробнее на ТАСС:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5157561

unless a contract signed nothing of all these can be regarded reliable sources. Just look at the MiG-29/35 thread. From 2012 till "Russian Air Force will recieve MiG-35 next year"

You can consider unreliable the public statements of the Russian Navy. It is your mistake.

And it affects to the quality of the forum, specially to the quality of the section about the Russian Navy, in which is placed this topic.

Critical thinking in fact improves the quality of this forum, but parroting with long quotes/posts of statements again & again decreases it! Go back to school!

GarryB wrote:

The RF economy may never grow large enough to justify & afford 2-3 CBGs;

Not having a blue water navy is what will stop the RFs economy from growing... if the British or the French can afford two carriers then why not Russia?

A) trade
Russia is not Nauru, Fiji or UK. Blue water navy is not condition to develop trade. Norther route of far east doesn't require this. Same sailing down Chinese coast. Eurasia is
45+10 =55  mln 2 with 4,5 billions + Europe with 650 (+100 Russians) ~ 5,250

Thus Russia without blue water navy has access to 3/4 of worlds population. The main problem there is to have competitive goods and enough population. First can be fairly easy done, the second one is the real problem here. Not high seas navy to me.

B) CVs
France cannot afford 2. Has one: 42kts displacement, 30 fighters + 800 Marines



UK: has built 2.  with  36 +14 helos VSTOL fighters, AWACS  Sea King based and no catobar , with ability to support  amphibious operations (marines onboard)        Kuz size (65ktons). Nowhere near US Ford/Nimitz.  



In such case I can agree, makes sense      

I doubt the will cross oceans to assist a Russian ship in trouble... and why would they?

the fun here is that they need nto to sail all over the world. they will b everywhere, you can just call nearest CSG        

The reality is that there are a lot of countries that just want fair trade and up until recently they really only get that from China... Russia can offer cooperation too, and it does not need to be Russia or China... much of the world needs help... and I don't mean charity, I mean trade that benefits both sides and does not limit or make morality or political or cultural demands on the poor country like the west does.

I agree with above but moral values and west is an oxymoron      

MiG-29K (Indian) was produced since 2005, Russian form 2012 but deign / avionics is older.

Hahahahaha... yeah, right... and the Su-30MKI is all Russian avionics and systems... India never has French or Israeli avionics in their planes... it is all Russia stuff.
+
At least you are not suggesting the MiG-29K from the 1980s is different to what we are talking about...

No, not the same. But avionics and element base was from 2000s.  And we talk about status in 2030s.

The last refit of Su-33 is from 2010. in 10 years they will have almost 20 years without any update. BTW did you have any Syrian upgrade info? I have never heard about it.

They were testing the Gefest & T system added to the Su-33 amongst other new features that they didn't really elaborate on publicly AFAIK.

They might add gefests I wont be arguing. But radars and avionics still are form early 2000s. In 2030s will be mildly speaking behind competitors.

They will decide what they want based on their experience... and so far that suggests that the Kuz is slightly too small.

They wanted bagruzin and liders which wont happen at all (bagruzin) or much much later (lider) . They dotn have money. SO either they buy what they can or remain with nothing.

They have already realised that bigger ships are better protected and more independent.... they can't afford to have an enormous fleet with huge numbers of all sorts of types of ships, so the carriers they do have will be it... so they might as well be as good as they can make them.

     like 42kts de Gaulle?

Yak-141 concept 30 years old , not sure why you want to build old design? 30 years ago there were no avangards or poseidons. The new fighter will use definitely new tech/solutions. Same with performance.

To be supersonic, it needs a 20 ton plus engine... no big deal... the R79 of the Yak-41 was developed to 22 tons thrust anyway, so that is not the issue... an evolved upgraded NK-32 could have 30 tons thrust... the point is that during a vertical landing... the only point to a STOVL aircraft... you need special heat resistant decking... that means it can only land on carriers or specially equipped ships... stretches of motor way, or half a runway(damaged), or a clearing in a field are not options for this aircraft.... that engine will destroy the ground underneath it and blow dirt and rubbish into the air to directly damage the engine.

and?

So if it can't land vertically except on a carrier then why not use cable arrested aircraft... any technology you put into a STOVL aircraft to make it better than other aircraft could be put into a conventional aircraft cheaper and easier... conventional aircraft don't need high pressure air blowers in the nose, the wingtips, and the tail for hovering flight... all that extra weight can be eliminated in a STOBAR aircraft.

They considered your option for sure it turned out VSTOL is much better and cost efficient option      

Pantsir has 800-900km radius?! affraid affraid affraid if not then fighters will be much better.

Obviously an expert you... perhaps you need to pay attention to what "Point Defence" means... which point defence fighter has an 800km radius... and WTF use is a point defence fighter that is 800km away from the ships they are supposed to be defending?

If you have Moscow point defense you need 300km radius at least. But ok call it group area defense. What doestn change meaning.

I bet there will be in 20-30 years weapons of global reach available.

That is the point... if you lose this bet who gives a fuck... the Russian Navy are conservative and are interested in becoming an important part of Russian economic and military growth in the future...

After you overspend and remaining without money and ships with pillaged economy who gives a fuck? Avangard is not of global reach and doesnet exist
according ot you?  Anchar is not a new project?      

Then what is the reason Russia stopped procuring of MiG-35 and started developing new VSTOL fighter instead?

What makes you think they wont be buying MiG-35s?

After 5 years "almost ready to buy" they bought 6 pieces and kicked off a project to build new fighter. Meh accidental  coincidence      

Using your logic USA should stick to F-5. Iran is still using ti with new avionics. They need to replace many fighters thet are goring ot be obsolete/by end of lifecycle in couple of years. They need not only new replacement but affordable.

My logic is fine, you are the one that is suggesting that a MiG-35 with near 5th gen level avionics and systems is going to be much more expensive than a stealthy VSTOL fighter they haven't even designed yet...

No MiG-35 wont be cheaper but less effective and obsolete. Basically new design will take into account drone mode unlike 50 years old MiG-35 frame design.

Go your way and even if the damn thing is breathtakingly brilliant, it will be another 10 years of old MiG-29s before the new plane even gets into service.

Precisely! 10 years MiG-29k still will be  in service. At least on Kuz.

Russia can develop rich economy but limiting factor will always be demography. Even with huge immigration policy unlikely till 2050 wont be more than 180 mlns.

Of course having half the landmass of the planet is not enough... more people is obviously their main concern... as populations increase, resources are going to increase in demand... a batch of faulty condoms can increase population if you need it but getting more land is not so easy...

Then why Greenland is not richer than Switzerland ? Or Canada then Japan? Why China is next superpower not  Canada?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Blue water navy is not condition to develop trade.

Blue water navy is the only way to project military power to protect overseas economic interests. The only continent with significant GDP growth forecasted for 21st century is Africa. Russia not having a blue water navy will enable US to use Arabic spring scenarios to overthrow Russian allies and try to weaken Russia.

Military also makes way for economy. In the times when Kirovs visited Russian naval base in Vietnam, Russians also sold there plenty of Kilo submarines. Trade with Algeria also originates in military links in post colonial era.

Stability and safety is foremost need of every country and if Russia can guarranty it, partnerships can be born.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Critical thinking in fact improves the quality of this forum, but parroting with long quotes/posts of statements again & again decreases it! Go back to school!

Just to remember your ..... dressed now of "critical thinking"

eehnie wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:

eehnie wrote:..the future Russian aircraft carrier of 70000+ tons with Su-57 continues going forward.

Only in ur dreams!

In the public statements of the Russian Navy.

A prospective aircraft carrier of the Navy will receive a displacement of not less than 70 thousand tons

The Navy considers it inexpedient to build lightweight aircraft carriers, the deputy head of the Russian Navy for armament, Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk

Подробнее на ТАСС:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5157561

This is why you hate the real news from the Russian Navy.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Blue water navy is not condition to develop trade.

Blue water navy is the only way to project military power to protect overseas economic interests. The only continent with significant GDP growth forecasted for 21st century is Africa. Russia not having a blue water navy will enable US to use Arabic spring scenarios to overthrow Russian allies and try to weaken Russia.
+++
Stability and safety is foremost need of every country and if Russia can guarranty it, partnerships can be born.

A) Blue waters navy.
Well I cannot agree with that. Yes blue waters helps  but has not  first of all you need to be able to afford such fleet.  Thus unlikely next 15-20 years Russia will build one.
Second number of ships and size of CVNs wont ever match US fleet.  That's why my bet is on small universal CVNs.  IT si better to have 2-3 small than 0 big.


I cannot see Arabic spring relation with blue water navy. BTW Russian security company employees are working already in Central African Republic,. Egypt, Algeria, Tanzania or Angola are buying Russian military equipment, SA is part of  BRICS.  Libya is waiting for help.


B) Africa vs Asia -economy/population

Africa is cool continent to visit an dfor the future but economical realities look now quite different.

Google says: World population 2018 7,7 billions of people.  

Asia:.......4,545,133,094..........59.5 % of world population
Africa:.....1,287,920,518..........16.9 %


PPP GDP Asia (actually only China/India/Japan/South Korea/Taiwan=  23+9+ 5,5+2+1.1) trillions $ =..........=40.6.trillions $
Africa (Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, South Africa,Morocco, Sudan, Angola,Algeria )
till 67 place in World list. Richest countries in Africa. Rest is >100billions$.......................................................=.4,6.trillions $


Numbers say: Asia will still be most important worlds' market in next at least 30-50 years, especially for energy and food. Perhaps Africa will grow faster but has almost 4 times less people and by order of magnitude smaller GDP.    Most of Asian countries can be reached by  land, Caspian Sea or along Chinese waters. IMHO demographic factor impacting economical growth si more important than sea routes.

Thus Russia without blue water navy has access to 3/4 of worlds population. The main problem there is to have competitive goods and enough population. First can be fairly easy done, the second one is the real problem here. Not high seas navy to me.

Exactly. Russia doesn't need to use the Suez, Panama & future Nicaraguan canals with Malacca/Indonesian/Gibraltar straits for most of her current & future seaborne trade; to patrol those remote areas, a few subs &/surface ships + MPA/UAVs will be enough, no need for large blue water navy. The Chinese blue water navy already or by then guarding the "Maritime Silk Road" SLOCs will help,  while the VMF/VKS will guard the Bering Strait, N. Sea & Transpolar Routes.

eehnie wrote:..the future Russian aircraft carrier of 70000+ tons with Su-57 continues going forward.
Only in ur dreams!
This is why you hate the real news from the Russian Navy.

Statements of intent/expectation r not real news; I don't hate them, just being objective, unlike ur excellency! So stop the character assassinations- I don't waste my time speculating on what u may hate & why. Since u like tables & projections of status of the RF surface navy, here r some for a reality check:
http://www.arms-expo.ru/articles/124/100572/

With such shortages, a CVN will need to be escorted by dozens of small boats & FFGs in place of 4 DDGs &/ CGs + a few more tankers to refuel them. That's why a CVN isn't a priority before enough long range ships r built.
Not a word about a naval Su-57 member of the family:
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-08-27/su-57-and-mig-35-land-russian-orders-during-army-2018#

China will replace the US as the next SLOCs policeman & the Russian seaborne trade (a fraction of China's) outside of the NSR will be secure under her protection.

The US has never been Russias or the Soviet Unions SLOCs policeman... and China wont be either.

Thus Russia without blue water navy has access to 3/4 of worlds population. The main problem there is to have competitive goods and enough population. First can be fairly easy done, the second one is the real problem here. Not high seas navy to me.

No they don't.

You can pretty much ignore Europe except for cheap gas sales, politically they will likely block cheap goods from Russia just because it suits them to keep Russia isolated and of course to protect domestic production of the same goods.

That means 1.5 billion Chinese... but they also generally have locally made alternatives that will also be cheaper.

Soon 1.4 billion Indians, but Russia will be competing with the west here and you still can't send goods via rail or aircraft to India efficiently... most major international trade is by sea.

So africa and central and south america are potential growth areas of trade for Russia... for which a blue water Navy would be useful to support...

France cannot afford 2. Has one: 42kts displacement, 30 fighters + 800 Marines

France has "territories" around the world that act as unsinkable carriers.. as does the UK.

Russia really does not have allies or slaves to take advantage of... which is a good thing in my opinion.

UK: has built 2. with 36 +14 helos VSTOL fighters, AWACS Sea King based and no catobar , with ability to support amphibious operations (marines onboard) lol1 lol1 lol1 Kuz size (65ktons). Nowhere near US Ford/Nimitz.

Are you retarded?

Why do you keep bringing up fucking stupid American white elephants... this is nothing to do with them.

In such case I can agree, makes sense

As global powers France and the UK are diminishing every year, yet they still bother with aircraft carriers... but you claim they are not necessary...

the fun here is that they need nto to sail all over the world. they will b everywhere, you can just call nearest CSG

Are you suggesting dialing local chinese carrier... fried rice and wontons?

What sort of thing are you thinking... Russian cargo ship being threatened by ships from Uraguay, and so it calls a nearby Chinese ship to help... really?

China is International Rescue?

Send Thunderbird one as fast as you can...

I agree with above but moral values and west is an oxymoron

Exactly... you can't just hope they will do the right thing... they will do what suits their big companies... which means stopping Chinese and Russian investment... recently May said UK investment in Africa is a positive thing that will help both countries, but Chinese investment in Africa will lead to an unnecessary debt spiral that will destroy the country and just enrich China...

And that is the secret... by all means listen to western leaders, but reverse it, and you will hear the truth... try it... look at Trumps speech about Iran at the UN recently but replace the word Iran with the word US and he is telling the full truth and being completely honest...

The west accuses everyone else of doing what they are doing or what they intend to do.

No, not the same. But avionics and element base was from 2000s. And we talk about status in 2030s.

No it isn't... MiG have been developing new avionics all the time... the AESA they put in their MiG-35s will not be from 2000s... the DAS is not from the 2000s, the engines are the most recent models, the avionics are their most recent models... and in 2030 they will likely have had 3-4 upgrade cycles since then too... F-18 avionics are not from the 1970s either.

They might add gefests I wont be arguing. But radars and avionics still are form early 2000s. In 2030s will be mildly speaking behind competitors.

Of course... there is a rule that what they fit them with now is what they must be fitted with in 15 years time... in fact I believe it is a law.

Right now they have Su-33s and MiG-29KRs... by 2030 they will likely have put photonic radars and the latest in IIR sensors and other systems in their existing aircraft as upgrades.

They wanted bagruzin and liders which wont happen at all (bagruzin) or much much later (lider) . They dotn have money. SO either they buy what they can or remain with nothing.

Of course they have money, they just don't have unlimited money.

You don't save money by buying a smaller rifle and not putting as many bullets in each magazine...

They don't need to spend 20 billion and have two new CVNs in 2030... they already have one carrier so one CVN over the next 15 years and another 8-10 years after that means they wont have three carriers (CV + CVNx2) till the mid 2030s at the earliest.

I would say the squadrons of stealthy STOVL 5th gen fighters (doubled so there are spare aircraft on the ground practising) are going to cost more than the carriers they are operating from.

and?

So it is a naval only carrier only aircraft of very limited use.

It might be worth it if it could do things other planes can't do... but an Su-57 can take off from a 300m strip of motorway at max weight... a VSTOL can destroy a 300m strip of runway and crash...

They considered your option for sure it turned out VSTOL is much better and cost efficient option

No. Actually the opposite. They said the Yak-38 could replace the Su-25 and it was tested in Afghanistan and was total shit in the CAS role... what were the US Marines intending to use the AV-8 for? Ohh... that is right... CAS.

To be fair, the AV-8 is a much better aircraft in every way to the Yak-38, but it is still crap as CAS.

If you have Moscow point defense you need 300km radius at least. But ok call it group area defense. What doestn change meaning.

S-400 has a 300km radius with AWACS support...

After 5 years "almost ready to buy" they bought 6 pieces and kicked off a project to build new fighter. Meh accidental coincidence

The MiG-35 has nothing to do with this new STOVL fighter... this new design wont even be test flying prototypes for 10 years, and you think it is a MiG-35 replacement?

I would suspect this new STOVL will be a joint project between Yak and MiG... Yak will be useful for the VL aspect, but they know nothing about designing and making a 5th gen light fighter...

No MiG-35 wont be cheaper but less effective and obsolete. Basically new design will take into account drone mode unlike 50 years old MiG-35 frame design.

Look at what you are saying... (note: drone mode is secret code for easy to shoot down).

The F-35 and Rafale and F-18 were never designed with drones in mind so there wont be any up to date designs in 2030... they can all be obsolete together...

BTW took this quote from article above posted about orders:

Also speaking at the briefing, United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) president Yuri Slyusar said that judging by their price-performance ratios, the Su-57 and MiG-35 represent the best solution in their classes...

Yeah.... already obsolete you say...

Precisely! 10 years MiG-29k still will be in service. At least on Kuz.

The F-18 and F-35 and Rafale will also still be in service... so why are your panties in such a bunch... when they modify the Su-57 into a carrier based model it will rule supreme... because everything else will be obsolete... and not only that it will be able to operate from any new CVNs Russia might make, but also from the Kuz because it is smaller but more powerful than the Su-33 already able to operate from it.

Then why Greenland is not richer than Switzerland ? Or Canada then Japan? Why China is next superpower not Canada?

Because the west wanted cheap labour and invested in production in China... they did the same thing in a lot of countries... including Japan and Malaysia and the Phillipines and South Korea... some of those countries became successful, and others did not.

If population is so damn important why isn't India an economic or military power house?

Or how about Indonesia?

Stability and safety is foremost need of every country and if Russia can guarranty it, partnerships can be born.

Russia needs to be able to show it has muscle, so that it is seen as a real alternative to the west... this does not mean recklessly bombing countries and overthrowing regimes left right and centre to suit your agenda like the US and colonial europe does... it is about respect for international law and the soverignty of the countries you are dealing with.

Thus unlikely next 15-20 years Russia will build one.
Second number of ships and size of CVNs wont ever match US fleet.

Why the fuck do you keep bringing this up?

Who gives a flying fuck about the US fleet... the Russian navy can easily match the US fleet... it is called Zircon and Kinzhal... and in a few years time an IRBM design if fired from a land based platform would have a 2,000km range, but because it is air launched and has a scramjet sustainer engine can reach targets 6,000km away at mach 12... and is perfectly legal under the INF treaty because it will be air launched...

That's why my bet is on small universal CVNs. IT si better to have 2-3 small than 0 big.

The cost of 3 small carriers will exceed the cost of 2 big ones when you include the cost of the escorts and port support requirements... and you also have to allow the fact that smaller carriers will be less well defended and not able to operate away from Russian waters as long as a larger vessel could.

We agree these carries are not for Russian waters... what you are saying is that buying three small round town cars will be cheaper than buying a campervan... but I really don't think even that is true because the on road costs of 3 cars compared with a campervan... but more importantly having to take two cars for camping because one wont be good enough... really?

I cannot see Arabic spring relation with blue water navy. BTW Russian security company employees are working already in Central African Republic,. Egypt, Algeria, Tanzania or Angola are buying Russian military equipment, SA is part of BRICS. Libya is waiting for help.

If Russia gets contracts and good business relationships with a small African country then the CIA might decide to create unrest and overthrow the government like they have in lots and lots of countries... including the Ukraine...

A Syria like support intervention from Russia is not too hard, but one in Africa or central or south america where the west could simply get in the queue for the Suez canal and then abandon the ship to block it for a month would stop Russian support options...

Africa is cool continent to visit an dfor the future but economical realities look now quite different.

Google says: World population 2018 7,7 billions of people.

Asia:.......4,545,133,094..........59.5 % of world population
Africa:.....1,287,920,518..........16.9 %

Population numbers alone mean nothing... the US market for small arms is much bigger than the Chinese market for small arms for Kalashnikov Concern... using the numbers the way you are using them suggests Russia would be better off trying to sell to China, but common sense suggests America is a much bigger and potentially more profitable market... if it wasn't so anti trade and anti Russian.

Africa has vastly more growth potential than Asia has, and central and south America also offers opportunities... Russia is in no position to ignore any of these opportunities... but most of the Asian and all of the African and central and south american trade will be via the sea.

Numbers say: Asia will still be most important worlds' market in next at least 30-50 years, especially for energy and food. Perhaps Africa will grow faster but has almost 4 times less people and by order of magnitude smaller GDP. Most of Asian countries can be reached by land, Caspian Sea or along Chinese waters. IMHO demographic factor impacting economical growth si more important than sea routes.

Asia is already growing without trade with Russia... Africa and central and south america need trade to grow... and Russia can grow with them.

Exactly. Russia doesn't need to use the Suez, Panama & future Nicaraguan canals with Malacca/Indonesian/Gibraltar straits for most of her current & future seaborne trade;

THAT IS THE POINT... their current trade is stunted and hemmed in, which hurts their trade potential and limits their future trade growth... their land neighbours are assholes... look at them... Finland... wants to join NATO, the Baltic states are in NATO and hate Russia, the Ukraine... hates Russia and wants to cut off all trade, Belarus wants to be friendly with the EU but knows it does not meet their high standards (ie does not hate Russia enough)... Georgia... do I need to go on?

The only friendly borders are former Soviet States that are in the same shit cart Russia is geographically and China... and the term friendly can only be loosely applied to some.

To make money and grow Russia needs to trade... not reproduce and become a bananastan.

It is not an accident that aging populations is a symptom of education and healthcare advancement...

The Chinese blue water navy already or by then guarding the "Maritime Silk Road" SLOCs will help, while the VMF/VKS will guard the Bering Strait, N. Sea & Transpolar Routes.

That is important, but Russias future is more than just being the footpath between China and Europe.

Not a word about a naval Su-57 member of the family

The Su-57 is not cheap, but any made for the next 10 years wont be carrier aircraft.

When they have laid down the carrier they will navalise some Su-57s and test them on the Kuznetsov and land based carrier simulators and then probably decide whether to bother making navalised Su-57s or just use navalised MiG-35s, or whatever comes of the light 5th gen fighter... VL or not.

I read from an anti-russian news source that most of the shareholders of the Zvezda shipyard are South Korean and they wont allow the Russians to build any military ships there. Is this true.

I did see a recent comment I think on Balancer suggesting the cranes & other shipbuilding gear is supplied with a non-military clause.
Still, pumping out large gas carriers & oil/gas rigs etc should help build experience with large/rapid ship building.

hoom wrote:

I read from an anti-russian news source that most of the shareholders of the Zvezda shipyard are South Korean and they wont allow the Russians to build any military ships there. Is this true.

I did see a recent comment I think on Balancer suggesting the cranes & other shipbuilding gear is supplied with a non-military clause.
Still, pumping out large gas carriers & oil/gas rigs etc should help build experience with large/rapid ship building.

Concerning other countries Cvs, i must remind that new RN Cvs still sail without aircraft, and it is unknown when the F-35, when come aboard, will become fully operational. French CDG is very interesting, but she is a kind of "unlucky ship". Every now and then something brokes down aboard.