Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

LMFS wrote:
Ok then, they even landed a Hercules on a carrier once as a mere stunt without any practical utility. Regarding the F-15N structure, the weight increase was around 3000 lbs so I guess it was seriously reworked / reinforced.

In any case my point is about the inherent aptness for carrier operations rather than disputing the wildcard argument "everything is possible if you really want", which is easy to defend but has little significance to me. Some planes have a good inherent compatibility with carrier operations (aero for low minimum speed, long, strong landing gear struts, double nose wheel, good low speed controllability etc.) and others have more serious issues. And therefore some planes are modified for navy operations and others are not. It is not the same using a thicker, stronger landing strut than having to change the landing gear layout, to give an example. From the attributes that can be perceived in plain sight, Su-57 has them all to be easily modified for carrier operations as far as I can see and (personally) I find it important that UAC confirmed there is no hard technical road block in the way of a naval Su-57. Others may have never had a doubt about it, don't know.

LMFS wrote:@Gunship: when I propose Su-57K you question its feasibility. When I prove it is feasible, you say this feasibility is obvious for any plane and that selection of STOVL indicates it was deemed not effective, which is a groundless speculation and falsely implies STOVL excludes Su-57K..

Militarov wrote:
Weight increase was contributed mostly by reinforced arresting gear, landing gear and most importantly folding mechanism for the wings is heavy as Hell even tho wings were shortened. Structure itself was not modified in any significant way, F-15A is tougher bort than F-18 any day.

PapaDragon wrote:
So anyone care to tell us which ships will be escorting this super duper awesome carrier that is about to be built any second now?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
So anyone care to tell us which ships will be escorting this super duper awesome carrier that is about to be built any second now?

like escorts are needed

PapaDragon wrote:They said same about Kuznetzov, how long do you think that tub would last in combat?

I doubt some CIWS or basic torpedo will save even a good carrier from getting blown out of the water by off-the-shelf aircraft or submarine. Goes triple for Russian one.

PapaDragon wrote:
So anyone care to tell us which ships will be escorting this super duper awesome carrier that is about to be built any second now?

GarryB wrote:It would take less time to get cruisers into service than to get a CVN operational... even just the fitting out period for a carrier is 3 years or so... so there would be plenty of time.

An upgrade Kirov could be used to start off with but 4-6 Destroyers could be escorts.....

PapaDragon wrote:

GarryB wrote:It would take less time to get cruisers into service than to get a CVN operational... even just the fitting out period for a carrier is 3 years or so... so there would be plenty of time.

An upgrade Kirov could be used to start off with but 4-6 Destroyers could be escorts.....

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

And where would these cruisers and destroyers come from?

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

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

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

They said same about Kuznetzov, how long do you think that tub would last in combat?

I doubt some CIWS or basic torpedo will save even a good carrier from getting blown out of the water by off-the-shelf aircraft or submarine. Goes triple for Russian one.

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

Isos wrote:
That's for the better. They will be obliged to do their own products. Once they achieve that they will be 100% dependent only on russian stuff.

Smart thing would be to let enough room in their ships for new and bigger engines if needed so they can always upgrade them with new ones and use first batch of what they design at the beggining so tgey can use the ships. Better engines can be added after.

hoom wrote:.............
192 naval Tor missiles with 4 PESA engagement radars each able to guide 8 missiles to attack 4 simultaneous targets up to Mach2 in 60deg arc, missile launches every 3s.
256 Tunguska missiles (64 ready) on 8 Kashtans (1 or 2 simultaneous targets each) against targets up to Mach 1.8, launches every 1-2 secs.
22 30mm gatlings 2 on each Kashtan + 6 AK630.......

hoom wrote:.............So assuming it all still works ..........

Al of which have tiny range.

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

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

GB wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 мая, 10:26

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

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

  Valery Matytsin / TACC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gibraltar wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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