Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+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
    LMFS


    Posts : 5088
    Points : 5084
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Russian aircraft carriers

    Post  LMFS Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:36 pm

    @eehnie:

    of course Krylov can design ships since they have all the competencies, but their role and best use for Russian MoD as central place for development of naval science and shipbuilding technology is rather to oversee the development of other design bureaus, much like an independent consultant of the customer. This helps spreading know how and keeping the contractor honest to guarantee that MoD gets what they need. They stated the carriers would be designed by Nevskoye, don't remember now if they said who would design Lider.

    As you seem to have researched, did you see if any of the recent military vessels was designed by Krylov? I only see icebreakers.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11233
    Points : 11203
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Russian aircraft carriers

    Post  Isos Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:12 pm

    LMFS wrote:@eehnie:

    of course Krylov can design ships since they have all the competencies, but their role and best use for Russian MoD as central place for development of naval science and shipbuilding technology is rather to oversee the development of other design bureaus, much like an independent consultant of the customer. This helps spreading know how and keeping the contractor honest to guarantee that MoD gets what they need. They stated the carriers would be designed by Nevskoye, don't remember now if they said who would design Lider.

    As you seem to have researched, did you see if any of the recent military vessels was designed by Krylov? I only see icebreakers.

    Light Shtorm carrier.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5088
    Points : 5084
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:34 pm

    Isos wrote:Light Shtorm carrier.
    That is a concept to stir debate, not an actual design of a ship.
    eehnie
    eehnie


    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2428
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:15 am

    LMFS wrote:@eehnie:

    of course Krylov can design ships since they have all the competencies, but their role and best use for Russian MoD as central place for development of naval science and shipbuilding technology is rather to oversee the development of other design bureaus, much like an independent consultant of the customer. This helps spreading know how and keeping the contractor honest to guarantee that MoD gets what they need. They stated the carriers would be designed by Nevskoye, don't remember now if they said who would design Lider.

    As you seem to have researched, did you see if any of the recent military vessels was designed by Krylov? I only see icebreakers.

    Krylov center recently presented to the Ministry of Defense two proposals in the form of Preliminary Designs:

    1.- Shtorm
    2.- Light Shtorm

    In my last comment of the previous page I posted for you about the activities of the Krylov Center explained by themselves. Again for you their activities in the refered to design, exposed by themselves:

    http://krylov-centre.ru/en/activities/design/our-opportunities/

    Our capabilities
    Production of ship designs for Russian and foreign shipbuilders in accordance with the rules of various classification societies;
    Design of inland vessels, sea-going ships and marine structures, issue of design documentation with different levels of complexity and detail:

    preliminary design;
    engineering design;
    classification design;
    construction documentation;
    workshop design documentation;
    acceptance documentation;
    operating documentation;
    refit & upgrade designs for ships of various types and missions;
    expert design appraisals of inland vessels, sea-going ships and marine structures;
    contract supervision and follow-up support;
    preparing technical specification for model tests, support during tests, calculations based on test results;
    design and generation of 3D-models using CAD/CAE systems:

    And this is totally different of what you said supposedly after reading it.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5891
    Points : 5911
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:52 am

    LMFS wrote:
    Isos wrote:Light Shtorm carrier.
    That is a concept to stir debate, not an actual design of a ship.

    Isnt Shtorm also just a concept too? It is good if MoD makes up their minds finally. We have march already and MoD sill didnt announce competition winner.

    Damn, I wish I could see GB's expression when MoD opts for samll carrier lol1 lol1 lol1
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5891
    Points : 5911
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:00 am

    Mindstorm wrote:  therefore an arc to cover for each of those UCAV of over 775 km !!!  Rolling Eyes

    whaaaa? this is only 1 hour of flight for a subsonic drone  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil

    Mindstorm wrote: by part of several high-supersonic МиГ-31К with theirs entire OCA coverage of high supersonic МиГ-31БМ armed with Р-37М and on this basis should be assured the relevance of CVBG in the 2040 tome window.

    you're wrong Sir, in 2040s there will be no more MiG-31s ,  there will be MiG-41. Unlikely Kinzhals too. Rather something toosed from 40,000 meters ceiling and traveling 12-14Ma (like GZUR II).



    MS wrote:As said those kind of falsely professional works are truly and terribly dangerous because within few months and in the nexts years those 128 pages will become a reference work for others similarly phantasious analysis works and this literature reach fatally the critic mass necessary to influence the formulation of western -US particularly - military doctrine and concepts of operation amaong Admirals and Generals.

    very true and very scary same time





    MS wrote: words/concepts by now totally disconnected from physical reality such as "joint", "superiority/dominance", .

    Looks like US  generals love to be dominated. Sooo gay, kinky bastards  lol1  lol1  lol1
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5088
    Points : 5084
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:43 am

    eehnie wrote:
    Krylov center recently presented to the Ministry of Defense two proposals in the form of Preliminary Designs:

    1.- Shtorm
    2.- Light Shtorm
    Though they said this was simply to show different possibilities and create a discussion, and that the design bureau would probably be Nevskoye, the ones that have the most experience in this regard and that have made previous carrier designs. So my point stands.

    In my last comment of the previous page I posted for you about the activities of the Krylov Center explained by themselves. Again for you their activities in the refered to design, exposed by themselves:
    ...
    And this is totally different of what you said supposedly after reading it.
    I have agreed they can design ships. Also have asked how many actual military vessels they have designed as of late, since I know no one. They have stated explicitly that the design bureau that takes care of the carriers for instance is not going to do everything as they say but they most probably should heed their advice regarding main lines and innovative solutions, it would be absurd to entrust fundamental research to Krylov and then have a bureau doing the actual, detailed design ignoring it in full, USC is also a state company after all. For instance the multihull design can potentially get a carrier with smaller displacement, bigger deck / internal volume and way smaller propulsion needs. This is a massive advantage and if they don't use it I would be surprised. It does not mean Shtorm or its light version will be implemented as they are, they are "food for thought" to conduct the decision making process.

    Gunship wrote:Isnt Shtorm also just a concept too? It is good if MoD makes up their minds finally. We have march already and MoD sill didnt announce competition winner.

    Damn, I wish I could see GB's expression when MoD opts for samll carrier lol1 lol1 lol1
    Yes, Shtorm is also just a concept!! And the deck of the "small" carrier was bigger than that of the Kuznetsov BTW...

    They have clearly opted for presenting two extreme options: one which represents the full-blown CVN as in USN, but with a Russian accent (i.e. springboard). Then the smallest carrier possible, with conventional propulsion but still reasonable air wing capabilities. Logic would indicate that a mixture of both concepts would be taken, in order to optimize the design: IMHO following the lines of the light carrier for cost and efficiency but with a NPP and capability for more aircraft and maybe even EMALS or provisions for them. Not sure how the LHD thing has been handled, was Krylov too who made the proposals or was this handled by other bureaus?

    You people seem to be ignoring a simple point: Krylov is a State Research Institute, so to say a competence center for all the shipbuilding industry. It is best for them to stay away of the responsibility for design and building of vessels itself, in order to stay a neutral and authoritative voice to assess other companies' work.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38473
    Points : 38973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:48 am

    Can you imagine how many wars they will start when they can mostly send unmanned war machines into battle?

    On the positive side the robots their enemies develop to counter those robots could be fedexed to the US and sent to capital hill directly so people who never fought in a war for the US and whose children are excused from such things can taste real war experiences... get some battle bots and hook them up to a nearby LAN... perhaps in a nearby university and get local students to operate the bots in a new very realistic game where the graphics are so awesome they almost could think it was real... how get those congressmen and women... yeha...

    Looks like US  generals love to be dominated. Sooo gay, kinky bastards

    No different to UK politicians... or hardline anti gay pro christian bible bashers
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38473
    Points : 38973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:06 am

    Besides youd leve rmmnet on level of 12k ship while increasing discernment by 50%? why would you do that?

    No surprise really... the penny has dropped and they now realise they wont have a 1,000 ship fleet to play with so instead of having 18 cruisers they will probably have 4-6 of them, so they want to fit as many weapons onto them as they can?


    not enough Kalibrs or Onyxes? Well my understanding it that this ship is to be lead of "expeditionary ship grouping" . Where CMs re min striking force. Then 100+ UKSK-M definitely make sense.

    Yeah, unless they are planning to take on a NATO country or the US of A it would make more sense to have less CMs and more SAMs... and this thing wont even be in the water till well after 2028, so you can say Zircons instead of Onyxes really.

    Another reason to need more SAMs too BTW.


    Please, dont mix RN with USN. Lider is not supposed to fight enemy fighters , Lider is to kill their carriers. For land operations dont send tens of F-18 you send 50-100 CMs instead. Of course fighters to cove your fleet but not as main strike force.

    You are the one with the problem... Lider is not supposed to fight enemy fighters, it is to launch CM at enemy forces... land and sea, but if it is US Carriers that is the problem then it is more likely Yasen class SSGNs will be sinking those with a mix of Zircon and torpedoes.
    Russian carriers wont have strike aircraft, they will be fighters to keep a look out for enemy threats to the Russian ships.

    what about:
    100+ UKSKs per Lider
    32-48 UKSKs for Gorshkov-M (2-3 per grouping?)
    + 2-3 Yasens/ Huskies

    Huskies can get 200-300km ahead of Lider since S-500 anyway will cover form P3. Then use Zircons with 1000km+ range.

    If they are doing what you are saying they are doing WTF is the point... the Boreis will be doing the important work and then it will be all over.

    On the contrary. In Russia CVN is to escort arsenal ship (like: Lider) + couple of Gorshkov-M . + some Yasens/Huskies.

    The CVN would have the command centre and would control the surface group... the ship group commander would be on the carrier, but in a sense you are right that the purpose of the CVN is to protect the ships and subs it operates with.

    This is what me thinks too. I hope however that Kuz will be back earlier.

    I would still like to see a later refit of the Kuz where at least the boilers are replaced with NPP and a test EMALs is put on board...

    My bad I saw 2020 instead of 2020s.

    Can I ask if you now have 2020s vision?  Embarassed   Razz 

    Okay my bad, its napkin drawing and a oversized rubber duck.

    List of wishes is sadly not a design. Setting overlay dimensions, imaginary powerplant and do dozen of tests in a pool with a toy is so far from anything called design. I rather prefer to not expect much and get suprised rather than what we normally get around here. Alot of hype and cold showers.

    It is not supposed to hit the water before 2030 so what are you expecting... full detailed blueprints and an almanac recording its first 5 years of service life?

    One thing is to do multiple works at same time, and other thing is to fail priorizing works and to get distracted until to fail achieving the goals.

    Well considering their situation they really can't just do one thing at a time or they would never get all the problems fixed.

    They can delay issues by upgrading some older vessels or just continuing to use some older vessels, but at the end of the day most things need to be replaced or produced in larger numbers...

    Management has never been an exact science... the delay for Husky can be reduced with a big order of Ladas, but also introducing on the Ladas some of the mature technologies they might have for the Husky design. Also it means Husky technology can be further improved and more properly tested so it is not a total joke like the LCS or Zumwalt or Ford for that matter.
    eehnie
    eehnie


    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2428
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:13 am

    LMFS wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Krylov center recently presented to the Ministry of Defense two proposals in the form of Preliminary Designs:

    1.- Shtorm
    2.- Light Shtorm
    Though they said this was simply to show different possibilities and create a discussion, and that the design bureau would probably be Nevskoye, the ones that have the most experience in this regard and that have made previous carrier designs. So my point stands.

    In my last comment of the previous page I posted for you about the activities of the Krylov Center explained by themselves. Again for you their activities in the refered to design, exposed by themselves:
    ...
    And this is totally different of what you said supposedly after reading it.
    I have agreed they can design ships. Also have asked how many actual military vessels they have designed as of late, since I know no one. They have stated explicitly that the design bureau that takes care of the carriers for instance is not going to do everything as they say but they most probably should heed their advice regarding main lines and innovative solutions, it would be absurd to entrust fundamental research to Krylov and then have a bureau doing the actual, detailed design ignoring it in full, USC is also a state company after all. For instance the multihull design can potentially get a carrier with smaller displacement, bigger deck / internal volume and way smaller propulsion needs. This is a massive advantage and if they don't use it I would be surprised. It does not mean Shtorm or its light version will be implemented as they are, they are "food for thought" to conduct the decision making process.

    Gunship wrote:Isnt Shtorm also just a concept too? It is good if MoD makes up their minds finally. We have march already and MoD sill didnt announce competition winner.

    Damn, I wish I could see GB's expression when MoD opts for samll carrier lol1 lol1 lol1
    Yes, Shtorm is also just a concept!! And the deck of the "small" carrier was bigger than that of the Kuznetsov BTW...

    They have clearly opted for presenting two extreme options: one which represents the full-blown CVN as in USN, but with a Russian accent (i.e. springboard). Then the smallest carrier possible, with conventional propulsion but still reasonable air wing capabilities. Logic would indicate that a mixture of both concepts would be taken, in order to optimize the design: IMHO following the lines of the light carrier for cost and efficiency but with a NPP and capability for more aircraft and maybe even EMALS or provisions for them. Not sure how the LHD thing has been handled, was Krylov too who made the proposals or was this handled by other bureaus?

    You people seem to be ignoring a simple point: Krylov is a State Research Institute, so to say a competence center for all the shipbuilding industry. It is best for them to stay away of the responsibility for design and building of vessels itself, in order to stay a neutral and authoritative voice to assess other companies' work.

    You are saying you know not about the military projects developped by the Krylov center. Well the Sthorms are two examples. They co-developped also the Project 23560, the subject of this topic.

    It is evident you are deliberately trying to degrade the level of the projects presented by the Krylov center to simple ideas. Preliminary Design is the format in which the projects are presented to the Ministry of Defense to decide about them.


    Last edited by eehnie on Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
    eehnie
    eehnie


    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2428
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 am

    GarryB wrote:
    eehnie wrote: One thing is to do multiple works at same time, and other thing is to fail priorizing works and to get distracted until to fail achieving the goals.

    For Russia, to restore the hability and capability of producing modern armament of every type of combat and auxiliary material for military purposes is key.  At this point all the key ongoing projects are converging to a timeline before the end of 2025 for the first unit (including prototypes) delivered to the Russian Armed Forces.

    The list of projects that can break this situation is short:

    some (number not defined still) projects of auxiliary aircraft.
    Project 23000 (likely)
    Project 23560

    The problem is that the projects which timeline gets delayed after the rest, are the projects that can fall to the next generation, creating a hole in the current new generation of Russian armament and auxiliary material. Russia will not be waiting to them (and less half a decade) in order to launch the works on the next generation of armament and auxiliary material.

    In the cases it happens, the cause of the delay will be strongly analyzed, including the work on redundant projects, and it will be consequences for sure.

    Better for the United Shipbuilding Corporation to avoid more delay in these projects. The United Shipbuilding corporation can not take the timeline of these two projects and move them to their convenience. The margin for it is wasted.

    Well considering their situation they really can't just do one thing at a time or they would never get all the problems fixed.

    They can delay issues by upgrading some older vessels or just continuing to use some older vessels, but at the end of the day most things need to be replaced or produced in larger numbers...

    Management has never been an exact science... the delay for Husky can be reduced with a big order of Ladas, but also introducing on the Ladas some of the mature technologies they might have for the Husky design. Also it means Husky technology can be further improved and more properly tested so it is not a total joke like the LCS or Zumwalt or Ford for that matter.

    Upgrade of older ships in mid-life is part of the cycle of every ship. This is not something that allows to create a hole in the development of the current new generation of armament and auxiliary material.

    The Husky project of nuclear submarine is by definition a project of the next generation that must come after 2025, because, for the current generation there is a design of SSBN done, the Project 955 (Borey, not Lada). To accelerate the development of the Husky project to this generation only would make the Project 955 redundant, something that is not in the interest of Russia with other pending projects. The same about Large Amphibious Ships and many other cathegories.

    The case of the Project 23560 and the Project 23000 is fairly different. The precedents of both projects are designs from the time of the Soviet Union (Project 1144/Project 1164, and Project 1143 family), of which only the Project 1144 was produced in territory of Russia, and it makes the delay specially grave and dangerous in the military strategy of Russia.

    This is why we see the pro-US and pro-Israel commenters going against them.

    And at same time this is why a delay on both projects will have consequences for sure.

    Today, between all the sea based projects ongoing, only 5 cases can create a hole in the current new generation of Russian armament and heavy auxiliary material:

    1st unit Project 23000
    1st unit Project 23560
    1st unit Project 09851 status Laid Down 2014
    1st unit Project 12300 status Laid Down 2001
    1st unit Project 15310 auxiliary ship status Laid Down 2015

    At this point, only the two first generate doubts about their timeline, and still the United Shipbuilding Corporation seems obstructionist about achieving the goal of regaining the hability of producing ships of two categories as important as aircraft carriers and warships over 10000 tons.

    In adition to this, between all the redundant projects completed under the current new generation of armament and heavy auxiliary material (since 2001), the list of redundant projects completed by the United Shipbuilding Corporation is long enough to worry about if they really know exactly and care about which are the military priorities of Russia:

    https://www.russiadefence.net/t7032p50-sap-2018-2027-arms-procurement#212515

    eehnie wrote:GENERATION OF ARMAMENT AND MATERIAL OF THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE XXI CENTURY: REDUNDANT PROJECTS COMPLETED UNTIL NOW

    ...

    1.- Heavy Armament:

    Project 11660/11661 (redundant with the Project 20380/20385/20386)

    Project 21630/21631 (redundant with the Project 22800)

    SS-C-6 (redundant with the SS-C-5/10)

    Typhoon-U 4x4 (redundant with the BTR K-16 Bumerang)
    Typhoon-K/L 4x4 (=)
    Typhoon-U 6x6 (=)
    Typhoon-K 6x6 (=)

    2.- Heavy Auxiliary Mobile Equipment:

    Project 04690 (redundant with the Project 23120)
    Project 16609 (=)
    Project 90600 (=)
    Project 705B (=)
    Project 02790 (=)

    Project 02980 (redundant with the Project 20180/20181/20183)
    Project 22030 (=)

    Project 23370 (redundant with the Project 22870)
    Project 23040 (=)
    Project 21300 (=)

    Project 14157 (redundant with the Project 11980)

    Project 19920 (redundant with the Project 19910)

    Project 12150 (redundant with the Project 22160)

    Project 02510/02511 (redundant with the Project 03160)
    Project A-149-1 (=)
    Type IC16MII (=)

    Kamaz 6520 (redundant with the Ural 6370)

    GAZ 233 Tigr (redundant with the UAZ 3163 Patriot)
    Kamaz 4350 (=)
    Iveco LMV (=)

    3.- Man-Portable Armament:

    RPG-30 (redundant with the RPG-28)
    ...

    And this without count the Projects ongoing that would create more redundancies.

    https://www.russiadefence.net/t7032p50-sap-2018-2027-arms-procurement#213501

    This is what you can expect from the Russian Ministry of Defense if the timeline of the production of the first unit of the Project 23560 and the Project 23000 is not in agreement with the timeline for the current new generation of armament and heavy auxiliary material, creating one or two holes in the generation just in the top of the sea based armament:

    1.- After the approval of the Preliminary Design of new aircraft carrier (likely Project 23000), no-one Preliminary Project more of combat or auxiliary ship will be approved until 2026. The projects affected would be the Projects of ships of the second link, not listed here.

    2.- The funding for the development of these future projects of the second link will fall to 0 until 2026.

    3.- After the order of the first unit of the new aircraft carrier (likely Project 23000) it will not be new orders of new ships of the current projects in production until 2026.

    4.- The funding for the ships under construction today will be more strongly adapted to the real priorities of the Russian Ministry of Defense.

    And from the Russian Gouvernment you can expect also consequences for the leadership of the United Shipbuilding Corporation.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5891
    Points : 5911
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:40 am

    LMFS wrote:
    Gunship wrote:Isnt Shtorm also just a concept too? It is good if MoD makes up their minds finally. We have march already and MoD sill didnt announce competition winner.

    Yes, Shtorm is also just a concept!! And the deck of the "small" carrier was bigger than that of the Kuznetsov BTW...

    True. Simply because Kuz was designed to be missile cruiser with air wing not CV. From the other hand neither Shtorm nor "pocket" CV crries 12 Granit. Or if Orlan exchange ratio is kept - > 48 Zircons]



    LMFS wrote:
    They have clearly opted for presenting two extreme options: one which represents the full-blown CVN as in USN, but with a Russian accent (i.e. springboard). Then the smallest carrier possible, with conventional propulsion but still reasonable air wing capabilities. Logic would indicate that a mixture of both concepts would be taken, in order to optimize the design: IMHO following the lines of the light carrier for cost and efficiency but with a NPP and capability for more aircraft and maybe even EMALS or provisions for them. Not sure how the LHD thing has been handled, was Krylov too who made the proposals or was this handled by other bureaus?

    heh, with current state of news it is impossible to say anything for sure. " In my IMHO" none of concepts really fit for real service. Similarly to concept cars. Production versions never look that good neither have so hot girls inside lol1 lol1 lol1 My opinions bout 3 so far options form press below


    A) Krylov "pocket CV" as was presented, with all its advantages has some serious disadvantages:
    1) too small space in hangars to station aviation on deck (Arctic...)

    2) Arctic operation capabilities (high gravity center, large deck vs. relatively small hull vs. arctic storm? )

    3) conventional PowerPoint- as you h ad mentioned that already . This concept was for export (where? only India could it be) for Russia NPP is the only realistic option. Vide Liders



    B) Shtorm
    1) probably most desired toy by military but here is where finance minster comes into picture. Too expensive to build/ maintain in 2-3 pieces with little real advantage against smaller CVN.

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 G1474898645472960276

    Military wanted 2300 Armatas, so far 150 ordered? 7%?

    2) you need also add costs of LHD s to expeditionary ship grouping too...


    C) Universal "expeditionary ship" 4in 1
    It would be interesting to learn something more then such proposal was developed. lol1 lol1 lol1
    Especially that fairly contradict requirements were tried to aligned, comparing to traditional approach. Im intrigued by 4th function. 3 wer ementioned

    * aircraft carrier
    *LHD
    *helo carrier

    4th?


    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5891
    Points : 5911
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:57 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Besides youd leve rmmnet on level of 12k ship while increasing discernment by 50%? why would you do that?

    No surprise really... the penny has dropped and they now realise they wont have a 1,000 ship fleet to play with so instead of having 18 cruisers they will probably have 4-6 of them, so they want to fit as many weapons onto them as they can?

    100% greed with only little rewording: instead of 12-18 destroyers 6 battle cruisers


    GB wrote:

    not enough Kalibrs or Onyxes? Well my understanding it that this ship is to be lead of "expeditionary ship grouping" . Where CMs re min striking force. Then 100+ UKSK-M definitely make sense.

    Yeah, unless they are planning to take on a NATO country or the US of A it would make more sense to have less CMs and more SAMs... and this thing wont even be in the water till well after 2028, so you can say Zircons instead of Onyxes really.

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

    Her first weapon is CM long or loooong range. S-500 even with 600km range is only a self defense. in 12 ktons Lider there were foreseen 56 S-500 +64 CM cells , why not 96 S-500 +100+ for CMs?

    Onyxes? hmm Not necessarily for colonial conflicts. Then classic (= cheap) Kalibr with 2,600km range is not bad at all . BTW 2,600km is like Caracas, Vzl -> Tampa Fl.




    GB wrote:
    On the contrary. In Russia CVN is to escort arsenal ship (like: Lider) + couple of Gorshkov-M . + some Yasens/Huskies.

    The CVN would have the command centre and would control the surface group... the ship group commander would be on the carrier, but in a sense you are right that the purpose of the CVN is to protect the ships and subs it operates with.

    thank you for agreeing with me,Sir.
    BTW this might be 4th function of "universal expeditionary ship"



    GB wrote:
    This is what me thinks too. I hope however that Kuz will be back earlier.

    I would still like to see a later refit of the Kuz where at least the boilers are replaced with NPP and a test EMALs is put on board...

    no emls is even announced not to mention financing. NPP is serious redesign,to fit NPP during rebuilding in 4 years? i dont see it .

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5088
    Points : 5084
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:06 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:True. Simply because Kuz was designed to be  missile cruiser with air wing not CV.  From the other hand neither  Shtorm nor "pocket" CV crries  12 Granit. Or if Orlan exchange ratio is kept - > 48 Zircons
    No obvious need for this, they will have Lider and other very powerfully armed ships in the escort.

    Similarly to concept cars. Production versions never look that good neither have so hot girls inside  lol1  lol1  lol1  
    Pretty much! But the idea is that the end model takes in consideration a whole range of issues that the concept had not reviewed in depth. That is why I think a serial version would probably incorporate elements of both extreme proposals.

    A) Krylov "pocket CV"  as was presented, with all its advantages  has some serious  disadvantages:
    1) too small space in hangars  to station  aviation on deck (Arctic...)
    We were not shown the hangars. I remind you the multihull solution allows a substantially wider hull

    2) Arctic  operation capabilities  (high gravity center, large deck vs. relatively small hull vs. arctic storm? )
    Again, two keels due to the new layout bring hull stability to a completely new level. It is not true that the light Shtorm was relatively high, look again at it, especially stern view.

    3) conventional PowerPoint- as  you h ad mentioned that already .  This concept was for export (where? only India could it be) for Russia NPP is the only realistic option. Vide  Liders
    I don't think that was primarily for export. The Krylov guy was pretty enthusiastic about the possibilities that the reduced drag brought to such a "light" vessel in terms of air wing and economy of operation. I think he has a point, even when I would prefer a NPP due to many strategic constraints Russia has to consider for their blue water navy.

    B) Shtorm
    1) probably most desired toy by military but here is where finance minster comes into picture. Too expensive to build/ maintain  in 2-3 pieces with little real advantage  against smaller CVN.

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 G1474898645472960276
    lol1  lol1
    I really hope the guys deciding at MoD are not 8-year school boys just wanting to brag about their new toy. They will invest lots of political capital in that decision, they are not going to like it if they demand such a monster and then it does not work for Russia as thought.

    2) you need  also  add costs of LHD s to expeditionary ship grouping too...
    Yeah well, if there is a carrier protecting the group, then the LHD can be a simple, big fat ship with lots of space inside and not much more. If there is no carrier, then the LHD needs to be a Death Star vessel much bigger, much better armed and equipped and therefore much more expensive. As a project, it would be more risky too. And not so many could be constructed. There we go to your last point

    C) Universal "expeditionary ship" 4in 1
    It would be interesting to learn something more then such proposal was developed.  lol1  lol1  lol1
    Especially that fairly contradict requirements were tried to aligned, comparing to traditional approach. Im intrigued by 4th function. 3 wer ementioned

    * aircraft carrier
    *LHD
    *helo carrier

    4th?
    Maybe RuN makes a distinction between assault ship with and without well deck?
    I can read into this a family of ships like the LHAs in America class, some of them more specialised as aircraft carriers and some more as assault ships. It is of course intelligent to build them all with the same hull and consider different internal layouts in order to save costs. But I agree it is confusing not knowing if these come besides or instead of the carriers.
    eehnie
    eehnie


    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2428
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:21 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:Uh

    I really don't think this is supposed to be a realistic analysis or a battle plan against Russia over the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka.

    It's just an example that was used in a concept sketch of prospective US Naval capabilities so to speak.


    flamming the picture with Kuril Islands and Kamchatka and the scenario on it conceived can surely generate some laughters ,but i was not refering mostly to it; i am much more concerned by the fact that those supposed professional analysts are very likely uncapable to even only merely compute the circumference of a circle with a 1200 nm radius (probably to reach what they think is the effective engagement range of "Кинжал") so to realize how totally absurd can appear to any reader that the DCA task for that 2040 version of the "outher battle" doctrine ,which would supposedly allow CVBGs to retain in the future any relevance against an advanced opponent, would be entrusted to 3 subsonic UCAV.....three UCAV !!!....at 1200/1500 nm from the carrier formation that should cover an arc of at least 2327 km for the 60 degrees, therefore an arc to cover for each of those UCAV of over 775 km !!!  Rolling Eyes

    A single subsonic UCAV, in the opinion of those demented, should be tasked to repel an attack ,coming in its 775 km arc of coverage (today not in 2040) by part of several high-supersonic МиГ-31К with theirs entire OCA coverage of high supersonic МиГ-31БМ armed with Р-37М and on this basis should be assured the relevance of CVBG in the 2040 tome window.

    This one is only an example among the several dozen of comical idiocies composing this piece: from combat radius computed as half of ferry range, totally inconsistence of disposable fuel mass for refueling task at different range, to the notion that modern air defenses systems are static targets (probably theirs mindset have been frozen in middle of '60 years or by wars against enemies equiped with specimens of that era) to be attacked by long range subsonic cruise missiles -that instead them themselves admit to be ineffcient against mobile or quickly relocatable units as ground vehicles Razz Razz Razz  


    As said those kind of falsely professional works are truly and terribly dangerous because within few months and in the nexts years those 128 pages will become a reference work for others similarly phantasious analysis works and this literature reach fatally the critic mass necessary to influence the formulation of western -US particularly - military doctrine and concepts of operation amaong Admirals and Generals.

    Short time ago Adm. Richardson, a very big name in the US Naval Doctrine and its Force composition planning and the same guy that had said that aircraft-carriers thanks to new Surface Ship Torpedo Defense (SSTD) would have become immeasurably more survivable against submarine attacks (for the chronicle this system, terribly badly conceived and lacking the technological basis to be realized has been discontinued and the carriers on it mounted reported at theirs basis configuration  http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/           pag 163-164) get the face to declare that today aircraft carriers are more survivable than anytime from theirs first employment !!!! Just in the years of introduction of "Циркон" Кинжал"  "Авангард" and "Посейдон"    Razz  Razz  Razz  Razz  

    Those lunatic with bad cases of cognitive dissonance, but that very often and unfortunately hold also great responsibility posistions, that happily circulate in western military institutions and structures parroting and mixing entropically, like midless zombies, coded words/concepts by now totally disconnected from physical reality such as "joint", "superiority/dominance", "situational awareness", "active/agility thinking" "low observable" etc.... represent a true danger for the global security.

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

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

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


    Posts : 1250
    Points : 1306
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  The-thing-next-door Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:20 pm

    This is not the LHD thread.

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

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

    The Shtorm can luach aircraft that actually exist and can actually carry ordinance instead of more engines for VTOL aswell as airborne radars giving it the ability to spot and engage enemies from a stand of distance.

    An LHD is supposed to carry tanks, infantry and helicopters to the shore for an amphibious landing while a carrier is supposed to carry reconissance and strike aircraft while staying as far away from the shoreline as possible, the roles simply cannot be combined it is like fitting a flamethrower to a heavy sniper rifle.

    The only reason LHDs are used as the worst form of aircraft carrier ever concieved and most likely the least efficient use of a warship ever is siply to justify the sales of the f35. 1 single Shtorm is far more powerful than 10 LHDs so go away and whine about the lack of bayonet lugs on Russian artillery or lack of toilets on ICBMs for a change.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5891
    Points : 5911
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:03 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:True. Simply because Kuz was designed to be  missile cruiser with air wing not CV.  From the other hand neither  Shtorm nor "pocket" CV crries  12 Granit. Or if Orlan exchange ratio is kept - > 48 Zircons
    No obvious need for this, they will have Lider and other very powerfully armed ships in the escort.

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



    LMFS wrote:
    me wrote:
    Similarly to concept cars. Production versions never look that good neither have so hot girls inside  lol1  lol1  lol1  
    Pretty much! But the idea is that the end model takes in consideration a whole range of issues that the concept had not reviewed in depth. That is why I think a serial version would probably incorporate elements of both extreme proposals.

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



    LMFS wrote:
    A) Krylov "pocket CV"  as was presented, with all its advantages  has some serious  disadvantages:
    1) too small space in hangars  to station  aviation on deck (Arctic...)
    We were not shown the hangars. I remind you the multihull solution allows a substantially wider hull

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Image?id=867672989263&t=20&plc=WEB&tkn=*mVfOy4CMoKQlOSyA2tS91BbU7MM




    LMFS wrote:
    3) conventional PowerPoint- as  you h ad mentioned that already .  This concept was for export (where? only India could it be) for Russia NPP is the only realistic option. Vide  Liders
    I don't think that was primarily for export. The Krylov guy was pretty enthusiastic about the possibilities that the reduced drag brought to such a "light" vessel in terms of air wing and economy of operation. I think he has a point, even when I would prefer a NPP due to many strategic constraints Russia has to consider for their blue water navy.

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





    LMFS wrote:
    B) Shtorm
    1) probably most desired toy by military but here is where finance minster comes into picture. Too expensive to build/ maintain  in 2-3 pieces with little real advantage  against smaller CVN.
    {}
    I really hope the guys deciding at MoD are not 8-year school boys just wanting to brag about their new toy. They will invest lots of political capital in that decision, they are not going to like it if they demand such a monster and then it does not work for Russia as thought.

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

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






    LMFS wrote:

    2) you need  also  add costs of LHD s to expeditionary ship grouping too...
    Yeah well, if there is a carrier protecting the group, then the LHD can be a simple, big fat ship with lots of space inside and not much more. If there is no carrier, then the LHD needs to be a Death Star vessel much bigger, much better armed and equipped and therefore much more expensive. As a project, it would be more risky too. And not so many could be constructed. There we go to your last point

    I'd look t problem for different perspective:  Why would one need on same time CVN && LHD or ASW carrier? The ide is in modular ships to me. Say mission defined profile. Why far north you need LHD? Why off disaster torn far-away  country you need 3 squadrons of Vgen fighters instead of  to large hospital and couple  hundreds of  marines to ensure help get to those in need?



    LMFS wrote:
    C) Universal "expeditionary ship" 4in 1
    I{}
    * aircraft carrier
    *LHD
    *helo carrier 4th?

    Maybe RuN makes a distinction between assault ship with and without well deck?
    I can read into this a family of ships like the LHAs in America class, some of them more specialised as aircraft carriers and some more as assault ships. It is of course intelligent to build them all with the same hull and consider different internal layouts in order to save costs. But I agree it is confusing not knowing if these come besides or instead of the carriers.
    [/quote]


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

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


    Posts : 5891
    Points : 5911
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:21 pm

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

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


    The Shtorm can luach aircraft that actually exist and can actually carry ordinance instead of more engines for VTOL aswell as airborne radars giving it the ability to spot and engage enemies from a stand of distance.

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



    TND wrote:An LHD is supposed to carry tanks, infantry and helicopters to the shore for an amphibious landing while a carrier is supposed to carry reconissance and strike aircraft while staying as far away from the shoreline as possible, the roles simply cannot be combined it is like fitting a flamethrower to a heavy sniper rifle.

    USN admirals with their doctrine disagree with you


    TND wrote:The only reason LHDs are used as the worst form of aircraft carrier ever concieved and most likely the least efficient use of a warship ever is simply to justify the sales of the f35. 1 single Shtorm is far more powerful than 10 LHDs so go away and whine about the lack of bayonet lugs on Russian artillery or lack of toilets on ICBMs for a change.

    All opinions are welcome here as this is forum about. LHD is not to justify F-35 s ales. F-35B appeared because of need to have light carrier capability.

    First of all Shtorm has very poor price/effectiveness ratio so I dont see it coming. Its very expensive and frankly not really relevant to Russian naval doctrine. Russia is unlikely to perform any large landing operations either.

    Nope, Russia needs no 10 LHD nor large CVNs. The question is will there be a mix of functions in one universal ship? or a relatively compct 2 kinds of them?



    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38473
    Points : 38973
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:28 pm

    100% greed with only little rewording: instead of 12-18 destroyers 6 battle cruisers

    So you are suggesting they will use these cruisers as destroyers?

    Corvettes as frigates and frigates as destroyers?

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

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

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

    Her first weapon is CM long or loooong range. S-500 even with 600km range is only a self defense. in 12 ktons Lider there were foreseen 56 S-500 +64 CM cells , why not 96 S-500 +100+ for CMs?

    In combat with the US its primary mission would be to get near the ballistic paths of US ICBM and SLBM warheads on the way to Russia... any US carrier groups steaming to Russian airspace can be attacked, but that is really the problem of land based Kinzhal carrying platforms and coastal batteries and air defence systems.

    no emls is even announced not to mention financing. NPP is serious redesign,to fit NPP during rebuilding in 4 years? i dont see it .

    So they are not advertising they are working on EMALS... like they didn't advertise they were working on a lot of things until they were ready...

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

    This is not the LHD thread.

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


    Posts : 1250
    Points : 1306
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  The-thing-next-door Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:05 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    USN admirals with their doctrine disagree with you

    And since when have any of them have a single working neuron in thier fecal chamber?



    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    All opinions are welcome here as this is forum about. LHD  is not to justify F-35 s ales. F-35B  appeared because of need to have light carrier capability.

    First of all Shtorm has very poor price/effectiveness ratio so I dont see it coming. Its very expensive   and frankly not really relevant to Russian naval doctrine. Russia is unlikely to perform  any large landing operations either.

    Nope, Russia needs no 10 LHD nor  large CVNs. The question is will there be a mix of functions in one universal  ship? or a relatively compct  2 kinds of them?


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

    Or maybe the Russians will decide to copy americas most notable achivement and develop brainless people.

    I guess this "universal ship" whould also have faster than light travel, subterainian capabilities and ofcourse super heavy armor to protect the overpirced under performing VTOL airwing it carries?
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5088
    Points : 5084
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:47 pm

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

    Kuz inside. Kuz has 46ktons standerd 59kt full displacement
    Nice picture! Impressive how they cram those Sukhois in so little space... It needs to be very time and labour consuming to arrange all that properly

    I'd look t problem for different perspective:  Why would one need on same time CVN && LHD or ASW carrier? The ide is in modular ships to me. Say mission defined profile. Why far north you need LHD? Why off disaster torn far-away  country you need 3 squadrons of Vgen fighters instead of  to large hospital and couple  hundreds of  marines to ensure help get to those in need?
    My first "far fetched concept" based on multihull design was exactly that. But realistically talking a ship cannot make it all. After Krylov's concept I for the first time see the remote possibility to make a hull that could fit a carrier with a LHD for instance (combination of streamlined design and high internal space), but for instance a LHD is normally way smaller than a carrier, so it is not that clear to me that you can completely unify them.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5891
    Points : 5911
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:12 am

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

    with hot hostesses for visitors too?   lol1  lol1  lol1




    LMFS wrote:

    Kuz inside. Kuz has 46ktons standerd 59kt full displacement
    Nice picture! Impressive how they cram those Sukhois in so little space... It needs to be very time and labour consuming to arrange all that properly

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




    LMFS wrote:
    I'd look t problem for different perspective:  Why would one need on same time CVN && LHD or ASW carrier? The ide is in modular ships to me. Say mission defined profile. Why far north you need LHD? Why off disaster torn far-away  country you need 3 squadrons of Vgen fighters instead of  to large hospital and couple  hundreds of  marines to ensure help get to those in need?
    My first "far fetched concept" based on multihull design was exactly that. But realistically talking a ship cannot make it all. After Krylov's concept I for the first time see the remote possibility to make a hull that could fit a carrier with a LHD for instance (combination of streamlined design and high internal space), but for instance a LHD is normally way smaller than a carrier, so it is not that clear to me that you can completely unify them.

    me thinks that unification means compromise. You cannot have optimal parameters for  every metric. BTW LHDs can reach 40-50ktons. Like Kuz. Or more then Krylov's  "pocket" CV...We also dont know if Russian LHDs will have well deck or this will be part of "incensed" BDK based on Gren?


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:22 am; edited 1 time in total
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5891
    Points : 5911
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:21 am

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    USN admirals with their doctrine disagree with you

    And since when have any of them have a single working neuron in thier fecal chamber?

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



    Thingy wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    All opinions are welcome here as this is forum about. LHD  is not to justify F-35 s ales. F-35B  appeared because of need to have light carrier capability.

    Or maybe the Russians will decide to copy americas most notable achivement and develop brainless people.

    I guess this "universal ship" whould also have faster than light travel, subterainian capabilities and ofcourse super heavy armor to protect the overpirced under performing VTOL airwing it carries?
    [/quote]
    Looks like you know more about naval doctrine, technology or navy needs more they Russian MoD. Wow . Kudos!

    Brainless people you say?

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


    Posts : 5891
    Points : 5911
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:38 am

    GarryB wrote:
    100% greed with only little rewording: instead of 12-18 destroyers 6 battle cruisers

    So you are suggesting they will use these cruisers as destroyers?

    Corvettes as frigates and frigates as destroyers?

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

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






    GB wrote:
    Her first weapon is CM long or loooong range. S-500 even with 600km range is only a self defense. in 12 ktons Lider there were foreseen 56 S-500 +64 CM cells , why not 96 S-500 +100+ for CMs?

    In combat with the US its primary mission would be to get near the ballistic paths of US ICBM and SLBM warheads on the way to Russia... any US carrier groups steaming to Russian airspace can be attacked, but that is really the problem of land based Kinzhal carrying platforms and coastal batteries and air defence systems.

    well then you cannot have any expeditionary groups off coast of Africa,  Asia or South  America.  So no, it is not true. You  are talking
    about North Fleet eventually Pacific one.  Not the whole navy.




    GB wrote:
    no emls is even announced not to mention financing. NPP is serious redesign,to fit NPP during rebuilding in 4 years? i dont see it .

    So they are not advertising they are working on EMALS... like they didn't advertise they were working on a lot of things until they were ready...

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

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

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


    Posts : 5088
    Points : 5084
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:39 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    LMFS wrote:Nice picture! Impressive how they cram those Sukhois in so little space... It needs to be very time and labour consuming to arrange all that properly
    dunno, but how do flight preparation/maintenance works is  also interesting? my guess is on deck. BTW  and during storm?  What a Face  What a Face  What a Face
    Man, I guess they take the planes not in need of maintenance to the deck and make some room in the hangar as needed for working on the ones that need to be checked and repaired, at least when parts need to be disassembled the deck is not the place to go... with the ship rocking, wind blowing and waves wiping you and the guts of the planes! The guys in charge of FOD would love searching the whole deck for your tools and plane parts too Laughing

    me thinks that unification means compromise. You cannot have optimal parameters for  every metric. BTW LHDs can reach 40-50ktons. Like Kuz. Or more then Krylov's  "pocket" CV...We also dont know if Russian LHDs will have well deck or this will be part of "incensed" BDK based on Gren?
    They have several other transport and amphibious ships of various displacements, Ropuchas, Ivan Grens and now apparently expect LHDs. I would lie if I say I have the slightest clue about how these different ressources, capabilities and prospective vessels should be tailored the in the future to match expected Russian needs, so I better leave it there and learn a bit before I say something specially stupid Razz

    Sponsored content


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 26 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Feb 23, 2024 1:01 am