We will see man, sincerely I am tired of rhetorical discussions.
+26
LMFS
Isos
The-thing-next-door
kvs
flamming_python
Mindstorm
higurashihougi
mutantsushi
SeigSoloyvov
Nibiru
Gibraltar
eehnie
d_taddei2
hoom
GunshipDemocracy
AlfaT8
Ives
Hole
verkhoturye51
PTURBG
George1
Admin
kumbor
RTN
PapaDragon
dino00
30 posters
Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
LMFS- Posts : 5128
Points : 5124
Join date : 2018-03-03
- Post n°376
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
@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.
We will see man, sincerely I am tired of rhetorical discussions.
We will see man, sincerely I am tired of rhetorical discussions.
Guest- Guest
- Post n°377
Re: 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.
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.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6131
Points : 6151
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°378
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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..
First would be good to understand differences and nuances between English words feasibility and feasible.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/feasibility
The state or degree of being easily or conveniently done.
No, Su-57 could not be so easily navalized otherwise why to Invest in VSTOL?
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/feasible
feasible tho has also synonym realizable.
Yes navalization can be done.
You act as you dont understand this p'tite difference.
You dont want to notice facts. There is no decision to navalize Su-57k thus money thrown. In case of VSTOL decision was made and money granted.
Technically achievable is not only Su-57k but also base on the moon. Ask Energia or Khrunichev designers.
Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:41 am; edited 1 time in total
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6131
Points : 6151
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°379
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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.
you know what would be ironic? Su-57 in VSTOL version
PapaDragon- Posts : 13438
Points : 13478
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
- Post n°380
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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- Posts : 6131
Points : 6151
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°381
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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. Awesomeness is not enough?
PapaDragon- Posts : 13438
Points : 13478
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
- Post n°382
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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
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.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6131
Points : 6151
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°383
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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.
You dont need to convince me. I agree that any CV needs escort. Both ASW and AAD. US fighters/ships are going to use long range stealth CMs most likely in saturation attack, for valuable target.
Paradoxically in this situation Soviet concept TAKR seems to make sense A ship which sacrifices airwing size for better all around defensive (and offensive) abilities.
Imagine 18-24 fighters + 6-8 choppers for ASW. But 24-32 UKSK (also for antisub ASROCS), 96-128 redut cells. Displacement similar to Kuz. She could alone support smaller escorts like 22160 in armed version. They in turne can carry own helos ASW + 2x4 kalibr tubes. This could be effective combination. And cheaper then classical.
18 fighters can be short for wars like Syria but 24 is more less size of Russian air wing in Syria.
PapaDragon- Posts : 13438
Points : 13478
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
- Post n°384
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
I know
Instead of standardizing and balancing their fleet they are still obsessed with front-loading it with white elephants while those few ships that they do have are reaching expiration date and useful new ones keep getting delayed
Instead of standardizing and balancing their fleet they are still obsessed with front-loading it with white elephants while those few ships that they do have are reaching expiration date and useful new ones keep getting delayed
Isos- Posts : 11534
Points : 11502
Join date : 2015-11-06
- Post n°385
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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?
The same they used for K, a tugboat of course
GarryB- Posts : 40229
Points : 40729
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°386
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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... especially considering their fire power compared with destroyers of the past.
The new Russian carriers will be nuke powered... there is no question about that... and it is rather likely they will have propulsion pods rather than shafts, so there will be rather more flexibility as to where they put the reactors.
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...
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?
An upgrade Kirov could be used to start off with but 4-6 Destroyers could be escorts... especially considering their fire power compared with destroyers of the past.
The new Russian carriers will be nuke powered... there is no question about that... and it is rather likely they will have propulsion pods rather than shafts, so there will be rather more flexibility as to where they put the reactors.
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...
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?
PapaDragon- Posts : 13438
Points : 13478
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
- Post n°387
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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...
Isos- Posts : 11534
Points : 11502
Join date : 2015-11-06
- Post n°388
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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...
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- Posts : 2352
Points : 2340
Join date : 2016-05-06
- Post n°389
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
Its a bit more than 'some CIWS'...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.
Late Soviet stuff is explicitly designed to defend against saturation supersonic seaskimming missile attacks, K is pretty much the poster child of that.
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
So assuming it all still works & is switched on it can engage at least 12 different targets simultaneously with at least 6 new missiles in the air every 3secs.
And simultaneously do the same on the other side of the ship.
A future CV with new gen gear could have signifcantly better defense vs saturation strikes, though the Krylov concepts have been pretty light on the defenses.
It'd be escorted on any campaign by at least upgraded Nakhimov with similar saturation defense & a couple of Gorshkov/Grigoroviches, presumably Super Gorshkovs & a Yasen.
On the other hand yes there is definitely a need to actually get reasonable paced production of a Frigate &/or DDG happening before there's any point starting to build a new CV.
Restarting a military-industrial complex thats in important parts been largely idle since the '90s &/or outright existed in formerly friendly countries who got taken over by hostile forces is no small thingOnly 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...
PapaDragon- Posts : 13438
Points : 13478
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia
- Post n°390
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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.
They have been obliged to make their own product for 5 years already and they don't have diddly-squat to show for it.
But at least we have new fanart supercarrier model from Krylov so, yay!!!
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.......
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)
hoom wrote:.............So assuming it all still works ..........
Massive assumption.
They assumed arrestor cables worked until Syria.
hoom- Posts : 2352
Points : 2340
Join date : 2016-05-06
- Post n°391
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
For defense against a missile swarm the ranges that matter are radio horizon & that the missile goes boom at a distance from the hull where shock/fragments do little/no damage.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)
How many missiles is a squadron of fighters & maybe a few Harpoons?
As I said K on its own is far from unprotected, its almost certainly the most protected ship on the planet vs a saturation missile attack & as far as I know K has never gone on a mission without PtG which has similar point defenses + a full Burke load worth of long range SAMs.
A Burke can terminal guide 6 engagements simultaneously by my understanding and thats split between 2 aft directors & 1 forward.
AlfaT8- Posts : 2487
Points : 2478
Join date : 2013-02-02
- Post n°392
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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.
By my estimates, this Cruiser should have about double the fire-power of the Super-Gorshkov and have the Long ranged radar capabilities of the Lider.
So, still a very significant investment.
Honestly, i still think having your own air-support is much more beneficial.
Keeping the enemy fighter occupied instead of focused on your fleet, will help minimize the amount of fire-power your opponent can bring to bear.
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.
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.
By my estimates, this Cruiser should have about double the fire-power of the Super-Gorshkov and have the Long ranged radar capabilities of the Lider.
So, still a very significant investment.
Honestly, i still think having your own air-support is much more beneficial.
Keeping the enemy fighter occupied instead of focused on your fleet, will help minimize the amount of fire-power your opponent can bring to bear.
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.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6131
Points : 6151
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°393
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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...
an who is going to buy such CV ? China and India are building their own, other contenders? Belorussia?
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?
MiG-31 over ocean? or as deck fighter on Krylov super carrier?
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6131
Points : 6151
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°394
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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.
1) indeed this is not about how large should be CVN or not, but model of navy. With many financial and timing constrains. IMHO more missile based attack capabilities is cheaper then large CV airwings.
2) Why awareness cannot be resolved without carrier? AEW&C planes ar eold and still used concept good for richest countries. China and USA. China is catchingup, but USA is already thinking about next gen AWACS. What is can see it is unlikely thet the nearest one ( 2030s) will be unmanned, but likely getting data via links form far away drones and fighters.
AWACS aircraft can be used in attacking far and away. To have awareness or you fleet you need something in the air,not necessarily far. Technically anything going high can bring you info even airship.
Gibraltar- Posts : 39
Points : 41
Join date : 2018-09-22
- Post n°395
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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.
Last edited by Gibraltar on Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:03 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : correction)
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
- Post n°396
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
The debate between big or small aircraft carriers has been solved in Russia. The Russian Navy decided in favor of big aircraft carriers over 70000 tons (not of 70000 tons), and decided against small aircraft carriers and against helicopter carriers.
Those that have been defending the option of small aircraft carriers and of helicopter carriers lost the debate.
Now, we are here:
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5204525
Those that have been defending the option of small aircraft carriers and of helicopter carriers lost the debate.
Now, we are here:
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5204525
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.
kumbor- Posts : 313
Points : 305
Join date : 2017-06-09
- Post n°397
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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.
"simple revive Kuznetsov`s blueprints for hull adding 30m in length"
Only total ignorant in shipbuilding and naval matter can propose such an idiocy. Ships are neither projected nor built in such a way.
Nibiru- Posts : 200
Points : 202
Join date : 2018-05-22
- Post n°398
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6131
Points : 6151
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°399
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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.
Why do you assume thet he meant this literally? and not modification on basis of Kuz project?
"innovative Shtorm"
obsolete Ulynaovsk
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6131
Points : 6151
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°400
Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3
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.
Well pretty pessimistic view IMHO. I'd rather see it this way: Russia has problems because 25 years of non-investment + destruction of links with krine( where Soviet industry was built in may specialties) took ist toll. But things are remade from like 5-6 years. In 3-5 all should be up and running again.
Will it be possible to start building carrier in 2025? most probably yes. shipyards will have capable docks, MiC will be on previous good level.
Will they start? unlikely and not because of funding. Simply there wont not enough escort ships to form CSG without taking ships form other assignments.
+ no new VSTOL fighters yet while other are not built anymore.
First things first they must rebuilt core of navy with new frigates/corvettes. My favorite approach in this situation is known
But I am happy to tell you again :
aircraft carrying cruiser with moderate airwing but heavily armed + 22160 ocean going corvettes in armed version (6000 nm range!!! good buoyancy ) . This can be most cost effective composition of CSG.
|
|