Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

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.

Isos wrote:Light Shtorm carrier.

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.

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:

LMFS wrote:

Isos wrote:Light Shtorm carrier.

That is a concept to stir debate, not an actual design of a ship.

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

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.

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.

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

eehnie wrote:
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:
...
And this is totally different of what you said supposedly after reading it.

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

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.

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.

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)

...

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...

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?

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?

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.

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.

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...

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

Similarly to concept cars. Production versions never look that good neither have so hot girls inside        

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.

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.      
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?

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 !!!  

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  


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"            

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.

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.

LMFS wrote:

me wrote:
Similarly to concept cars. Production versions never look that good neither have so hot girls inside        

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
USN admirals with their doctrine disagree with you

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?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:like 100kt Shtorm with conventional pp ski-jump no cat and 24 fighters      

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

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:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:like 100kt Shtorm with conventional pp ski-jump no cat and 24 fighters      

But with an Olympic swimming pool and a full-sized mall inside for the crew, of course!

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

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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...

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?      

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?