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

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38474
    Points : 38974
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:03 am

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

    All flight prep and loading of ordinance goes on on deck... ordinance has its own storage areas and its own lifts and are not armed till they are mounted on the wing of an aircraft.... not during storms because flights are cancelled for storms naturally.

    OK then you agree then increasing S-500 makes no sense

    It all depends on their launcher options... if it has a separate launcher then it is not so flexible and useful.

    If they have unified SAMs and cruise missiles in the UKSK-M launcher, they they can load what they want and need.

    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.

    If they make 6 of these ships then one in the Pacific and one in the Northern Fleet and two with each of the two CVNs, so if a CVN is off the coast of Africa there is still one of these ships near each of the two main fleets...

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

    They could actually build one right now.... give it a funky flying wing type shape, make it big enough to carry enormous AESA antenna of different frequency ranges for different stealthy and non stealthy threats... a fuel cell system to cycle between water and hydrogen... modern fire resistent but light weight and strong materials... for now they could make it diesel powered... it could refuel from support ships operating below it... in fact one of the trickiest problems for MPA aircraft is communicating with submarines... they need a super long cable that needs to hang vertically... they could drop a 3km long cable for communications very very easily for ULF comms with submerged subs.  The Tu-142 has problems using that because to use it it has to fly at very low speed... close to stall speed.

    The guys in charge of FOD would love searching the whole deck for your tools and plane parts too

    What are the chance of FOD damage material getting sucked in the top of the wing of the MiG?

    The Sukhoi uses a metal grid to keep the intake clear during take off...
    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 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:17 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    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


    in such case if you need second fighter from fourth row... angry angry angry


    talking bout deck maintenance...






    [quote"LMFS"]
    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 resources, 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 [/quote]

    True but I dotn think LHD is gonna replace BDK like Gren. Rather compliment her.  AFAIR in January Rakhmnov was talking about 2 projects of  "beefed up" Grens for "expeditionary ship groupings". Version I to 8kt && Version II 14kt
    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 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:35 pm

    Off Topic Im sorry to her about NZ terror attack, mindless crime. RIP to victims No No No Off Topic



    GB wrote:
    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.

    If they make 6 of these ships then one in the Pacific and one in the Northern Fleet and two with each of the two CVNs, so if a CVN is off the coast of Africa there is still one of these ships near each of the two main fleets...

    I think that one CSG anyway will be in Arctic. Thus y bet is on 3 (max 4). 1 North 2 roaming. of them Unless they believe so much in MiG-41 capacity.





    GB wrote:
    As for an airship - me too but this, if happens, it's gonna be is rather longer future.
    They could actually build one right now....

    not really, they need AWACS/AEW pretty much in 10 not in 25 years. All 18km + airships are very early proofs of concept. Not to mention building/testing avionics to them.

    But yes such "permanent" AEW" is very promising option.




    The guys in charge of FOD would love searching the whole deck for your tools and plane parts too

    What are the chance of FOD damage material getting sucked in the top of the wing of the MiG?

    The Sukhoi uses a metal grid to keep the intake clear during take off...[/quote]

    IMHO he meant that tools get lost rumbling over the deck
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38474
    Points : 38974
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:07 am

    Im sorry to her about NZ terror attack, mindless crime. RIP to victims

    White supremacist dick head murders people randomly because he is impotent and all sorts of other weak reasons.

    Solution will be much tighter gun control, because if there is one thing that stops Aussie censored  from hating people and committing hate crimes is tougher gun laws...

    Back on topic:

    I think that one CSG anyway will be in Arctic. Thus y bet is on 3 (max 4). 1 North 2 roaming. of them Unless they believe so much in MiG-41 capacity.

    They are opening up the northern route so I suspect two CVNs... one in the Pacific fleet and one in the northern fleet and the Kuznetsov probably based in the Pacific fleet.

    CSGs would be no value against US bombers and WWIII, the MiG-41 would be more useful for a range of uses... including taking out US satellites at first warning of a strike...

    not really, they need AWACS/AEW pretty much in 10 not in 25 years. All 18km + airships are very early proofs of concept. Not to mention building/testing avionics to them.

    But yes such "permanent" AEW" is very promising option.

    The technology is all there already and with a few developments could be transformational... a 1MW nuclear battery for a laser on a truck... 10 of them on an airship, or heavier bigger more powerful ones would be very useful and interesting in conjunction with electric motors and of course hydrogen fuel cells to create water ballast or hydrogen lifting gas as needed.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5824
    Points : 5780
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:09 am

    Twelve ships of the 10,000t "Leader class" are planned to enter service from 2023-25, ..
    He refused to say when the destroyer may be laid.
    It's still too early for the April Fool's joke! Get real: even if China could build 12 big ships in 2 years (which is doubtful), Russia doesn't have the capacity/ability to do so!
    ..the Kuznetsov probably based in the Pacific fleet.
    Can u imagine it transiting the Suez, Indian Ocean, the Malakka Strait & the China Seas escorted by a tug, just in case? All coastal states, not to mention NATO & PRC, will laugh at them! Using the NSR risks damaging it & other escorts.
    But more important, it will be more useful in the Black Sea as a training & occasional deployment to Med. Sea, or forward deployed to Latakia.
    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 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:55 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    It's still too early for the April Fool's joke! Get real: even if China could build 12 big ships in 2 years (which is doubtful), Russia doesn't have the capacity/ability to do so!


    shhhhhh eehnie sees things other dont...



    TL wrote:
    GB wrote:..the Kuznetsov probably based in the Pacific fleet.
    Can u imagine it transiting the Suez, Indian Ocean, the Malakka Strait & the China Seas escorted by a tug, just in case? All coastal states, not to mention NATO & PRC, will laugh at them! Using the NSR risks damaging it & other escorts.
    But more important, it will be more useful in the Black Sea as a training & occasional deployment to Med. Sea, or forward deployed to Latakia.

    1) No CV will pass via Bosporus . Besides there is no need for CV in Black Sea

    2) Why would you assume Kuz is gonna break? You might not be up to date - Kuz is in refurbishing to extend life for 20 years. Power plant && gears inclusive
    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 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:15 am

    GarryB wrote:
    I think that one CSG anyway will be in Arctic. Thus y bet is on 3 (max 4). 1 North 2 roaming. of them Unless they believe so much in MiG-41 capacity.

    They are opening up the northern route so I suspect two CVNs... one in the Pacific fleet and one in the northern fleet and the Kuznetsov probably based in the Pacific fleet.

    CSGs would be no value against US bombers and WWIII, the MiG-41 would be more useful for a range of uses... including taking out US satellites at first warning of a strike...

    not sure if we are talking about the same. Russia might need one CVN in Arctic but in Kamchatka ? Russian top brass was calling CSGs "expeditionary" groupings. You dotn really expect expeditions to Sakhalin or Wrangell Island, do you? Thus I'd ssume first 2 Liders are to be core for new groupings. This would imply 2 CVNs or later 3 including Kuz.


    In my opinion they will roam, eventually Kuz will stay closer - North. Not to intercept B-21 this is MiG-41 task but to protect SSBNs from US ships/aviation/subs




    GB wrote:
    not really, they need AWACS/AEW pretty much in 10 not in 25 years. All 18km + airships are very early proofs of concept. Not to mention building/testing avionics to them.

    But yes such "permanent" AEW" is very promising option.

    The technology is all there already and with a few developments could be transformational... a 1MW nuclear battery for a laser on a truck... 10 of them on an airship, or heavier bigger more powerful ones would be very useful and interesting in conjunction with electric motors and of course hydrogen fuel cells to create water ballast or hydrogen lifting gas as needed.
    [/quote]

    in 25 years? why not. X-15 didnt actually start hypersonic aircraft era.
    Technology is not yet there. Only first units are being built for further research
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38474
    Points : 38974
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:19 am

    It's still too early for the April Fool's joke! Get real: even if China could build 12 big ships in 2 years (which is doubtful), Russia doesn't have the capacity/ability to do so!

    Perhaps you need to take more time to understand what you read... they said they were going to make 12 new ships and that those 12 new ships were going to start entering service from 2023-2025 onwards... it might take 50 years to make 12, which means they will start 2023-2025 and finish 50 years later...

    Can u imagine it transiting the Suez, Indian Ocean, the Malakka Strait & the China Seas escorted by a tug, just in case? All coastal states, not to mention NATO & PRC, will laugh at them!

    WTF are you talking about? Why take it the long way?

    I can imagine US AEGIS class destroyers continuing to run into cargo ships would lead to rather more amusement?

    Using the NSR risks damaging it & other escorts.

    So who is going to risk using the north sea route if the Russian navy wont use it and would rather go the long way around the Suez canal?

    But more important, it will be more useful in the Black Sea as a training & occasional deployment to Med. Sea, or forward deployed to Latakia.

    Keeping it in the Northern fleet means it can go to central and south america, venzuela and cuba as well as the atlantic side of africa and the med... and it will be located with major capital ships that are easier to base in the Northern or Pacific fleets than in the black sea.

    Better be safe than sorry. Russians r known to do sloppy work/maintenance more often than not.

    Of course, those fricken idiots can't get anything right Rolling Eyes ... but their tiltrotors can fly in any weather conditions and land on the edge of cliffs surrounded by peat bogs...

    not sure if we are talking about the same. Russia might need one CVN in Arctic but in Kamchatka ? Russian top brass was calling CSGs "expeditionary" groupings. You dotn really expect expeditions to Sakhalin or Wrangell Island, do you? Thus I'd ssume first 2 Liders are to be core for new groupings. This would imply 2 CVNs or later 3 including Kuz.

    The ships and the groups they operate with will need to be based somewhere... do you suggest running the gauntlet of the Baltic for every mission there and back, or perhaps Lake Black sea might be a useful place to trap them in case of heightened tensions?
    Expeditionary forces go places and from Russian ports the best places would be down into the pacific, which allows access to asia, the pacific and the entire west coast of north central and south america, as well as a rather long trip to the east coast of africa. From Murmansk you can go over the top and down into the atlantic past europe and the med and north america to central and south americas east coast and africas west coast... where else is there to go except the med which can be accessed via Murmansk.

    You need some big ships and some substantial ports to base these big ships and their crews... the far east and the far north suggest expansions in both places would be useful considering recent directions of investment and expansion of the Russian military to the arctic and the far east too.

    In my opinion they will roam, eventually Kuz will stay closer - North. Not to intercept B-21 this is MiG-41 task but to protect SSBNs from US ships/aviation/subs

    Again, you seem to be assuming the primary role of the K and CVN will be countering US SSBNs or carrier groups, when in fact it will be missions political and economic... only the northern and pacific fleet bases could be used to base such ships and their support ships and crews... they could be sent to other places to operate for long periods but their home bases are obvious.

    A lot of civilian tugs were rented in the Trident Juncture 2018 drills, too.

    And were used...

    ok so like daily routine for Ford/Zumwalt /QE2?

    For Tsavo a tug with a group of ships is evidence of problems... you see western ships don't even carry lifeboats or life jackets... the titanic lost so many people because most of the life boats were just painted on the side... unsinkable ships don't need them you see... a few tug boats following her would have just been really annoying and an embarrassment...

    Not 1 source says that it will lose its CM

    Well they all say it will lose its Granits, because Granits are no longer in production...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5824
    Points : 5780
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Mar 17, 2019 6:24 am

    ..those 12 new ships were going to start entering service from 2023-2025 onwards...
    My bad, I missed "the fine print"!
    So who is going to risk using the north sea route if the Russian navy wont use it and would rather go the long way around the Suez canal?
    The RFN uses it sometimes, esp. subs to transfer between the fleets.
    It would be neat if Adm K uses it but IMO they won't send it to Pac. Fleet, so to me it's a moot point. A new NP TAKR/CVN will be a lot more worth having there, in the largest Ocean & next to the US 7th fleet, than that old refitted crate.
    Keeping it in the Northern fleet means it can go to central and south america, venzuela and cuba as well as the atlantic side of africa and the med... and it will be located with major capital ships that are easier to base in the Northern or Pacific fleets than in the black sea.
    I don't expect those trans-Atlantic cruises- cheaper to send N/AF planes to land bases there & large surface ships & subs, as before. The Adm. K can come out of the Med. Sea & rendezvous with escorts near Gibraltar, if need be.
    Of course, those fricken idiots can't get anything right ...but their tiltrotors can fly in any weather conditions and land on the edge of cliffs surrounded by peat bogs...
    Th Americans landed men on the Moon 13 times but lost 2 Space Shuttles with their entire crews, 1 on take off & 1 on landing- does it mean they r idiots in everything they do? Their new Zumwalt ship got broken down in Panama, SSN hit a seamount off Australia, & 2 DDGs collided with freighters- but they still have the #1 navy on the planet.
    The VMF had its share of accidents & I won't blame them if they r extra careful. But others will make fun of it.
    For Tsavo a tug with a group of ships is evidence of problems...
    potential problems, & given the past history, highly probable at that.
    Well they all say it will lose its Granits, because Granits are no longer in production...
    And gain Onix & Kalibre CMs.
    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 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:00 am

    GarryB wrote:The ships and the groups they operate with will need to be based somewhere...

    ok in such sense agreed


    GB wrote:Again, you seem to be assuming the primary role of the K and CVN will be countering US SSBNs or carrier groups, when in fact it will be missions political and economic... only the northern and pacific fleet bases could be used to base such ships and their support ships and crews... they could be sent to other places to operate for long periods but their home bases are obvious.

    please read again my words. If northern CSG will be created then its main task will be protection of Russian SSBNs bastions not chasing US ones.

    Remaining 1-2 wil be roaming somewhere for dick waving/colonial wars and not countering if USN too.




    GB wrote:
    Not 1 source says that it will lose its CM

    Well they all say it will lose its Granits, because Granits are no longer in production...

    Kuz can loose Granits and keep launch containers if this will be cheaper. She can also have 3 Kalibrs installed in one Granit launcher like Anteys had.

    To be sure tho, we need to wait.


    and here specially for you lol1 lol1 lol1 real project of severny in 80s

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 8f894ddaba218594c7f62729275d6fac


    avatar
    hoom


    Posts : 2352
    Points : 2340
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:12 am

    and here specially for you lol1 lol1 lol1 real project of severny in 80s
    I actually really like that concept angel
    Isos
    Isos


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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos Wed Apr 03, 2019 8:24 am

    This ship have a very good design for hunting submarines.

    Torpedos won't sink it with 1 shot. It carries enough ka-27 to make a big hunting zone. It only need some UKSK and redut.
    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 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Apr 03, 2019 12:28 pm

    hoom wrote:
    and here specially for you lol1 lol1 lol1 real project of severny in 80s
    I actually really like that concept angel

    5000tons CV? Suspect Suspect Suspect   well indeed unusual.  AFAIK it was ot be pretty fast beast. Name was  Dolphin.


    Isos wrote:This ship have a very good design for hunting submarines.

    Torpedos won't sink it with 1 shot. It carries enough ka-27 to make a big hunting zone. It only need some UKSK and redut.


    Most likely this was its task - ASW and "point defense" against ASW helos / planes
    Isos
    Isos


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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:26 pm

    Most likely this was its task - ASW and "point defense" against ASW helos / planes

    It also must be cheap as fuck. It's empty, weapons are basic. It reminds me the heli carrier/landing ship of phillipines that is somewhere near 50 million a piece but very usefull.

    But this one has everything to counter subs. They should build two or three for tge pacific and north.

    And if new vtol is build just use them on the ship.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5824
    Points : 5780
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:24 pm

    Imagine This: China Building New Aircraft Carriers for Russia
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/imagine-china-building-new-aircraft-carriers-russia-51922

    IMO, it's possible. To reduce costs, they could lower/increase OBOR transit fees in exchange & barter oil/gas/timber/gold, bypassing US $ & the Ruble.
    They could also reactivate a shipyard on Baikal & build a small training CV there, to be used in summers.
    https://www.advantour.com/russia/listvyanka.htm

    The area is close to Belaya AFB which could host some NAF training squadrons.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belaya_(air_base)
    Isos
    Isos


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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:59 pm

    Carriers are empty tin cans. They are not hard to build if you have the good shipyard. Even indians can make copies of russian one.

    They will never let china build their carrier, it would be a shame and money spent very badly. It's like renting a house instead of buying while you can have the money.

    They are expensive because they are big and they need a small airforce on them. Their use is also expensive.
    LMFS
    LMFS


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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS Fri Apr 12, 2019 12:09 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Imagine This: China Building New Aircraft Carriers for Russia
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/imagine-china-building-new-aircraft-carriers-russia-51922

    IMO, it's possible. To reduce costs, they could lower/increase OBOR transit fees in exchange & barter oil/gas/timber/gold, bypassing US $ & the Ruble.
    They could also reactivate a shipyard on Baikal & build a small training CV there, to be used in summers.
    https://www.advantour.com/russia/listvyanka.htm

    The area is close to Belaya AFB which could host some NAF training squadrons.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belaya_(air_base)
    Never ending peddling of the notion that Russia is broke, has no use for carriers, cannot build anything and should throw themselves out the window, in the hopes that the negativism and loser mentality they instil sinks in and even Russians think they should not allow their government to spend scarce rubles in such lost causes as rebuilding the navy. This proposal with China building the ships can be summed up as "Russia cannot do it so better leave it to others", in the end just one more in an endless list of fake "reasonable and well-intentioned proposals" from the West. Of course they can build them for themselves and that is what they will do, by now is the Chinese using Russian/Soviet tech and not the other way around. Why on Earth should they renounce to building their own carriers and give that money and that competence to other countries? How could Russia fund and organize their shipyards and be sovereign long term, if the carriers are built somewhere else?

    These snakes are loosing faculties if they think they will fool the Russians so easily...

    BTW the article is reheated BS from last year Laughing

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5824
    Points : 5780
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:52 am

    They tried to sell the Storm CVN to India so they could afford 1 for themselves.
    If their yards r busy/not ready & $ can be saved by outsourcing, why not? They could get a 70-80K Ton CV hull a lot sooner & outfit it with their own systems, while refitting old CGNs, DDGs, SSGNs, & building new ships/subs. The PD-14 that sunk was built in Sweden; they can swallow their pride for expediency, if need be.
    Having the Adm. K + 2 new TAKR/CVs will ensure that 1 of them is available for training/deployment most of the time.
    LMFS
    LMFS


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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS Fri Apr 12, 2019 4:16 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:They tried to sell the Storm CVN to India so they could afford 1 for themselves.
    If their yards r busy/not ready & $ can be saved by outsourcing, why not? They could get a 70-80K Ton CV hull a lot sooner & outfit it with their own systems, while refitting old CGNs, DDGs, SSGNs, & building new ships/subs. The PD-14 that sunk was built in Sweden; they can swallow their pride for expediency, if need be.
    Having the Adm. K + 2 new TAKR/CVs will ensure that 1 of them is available for training/deployment most of the time.
    They are in a hurry to rebuild their naval industry, not to get more carriers. That is core of the issue. They need to use the situation to create the political will required to go through all the process of rebuilding the industrial base, not to start cutting corners in the development of a strategic national capability.

    And again, carriers are not commodities that can be sourced everywhere. For the Chinese this would be a one-off project, so they would have no strong motivation to perform 100%. Quality would be difficult to ensure, since MoD would not have the same level of leverage with a foreign company. In the situation where Russia resorts to China due to their lack of industrial base, by the middle of the project with billions invested the Chinese could do what they would like, since the Russians would be hostage incapable of steering the project forward or cancelling it. If the ship was designed by Chinese, it would not be adequate to MoDs needs. If designed by Russia, during the ship construction most of the know-how contained in the design, optimization and system integration would end up being transferred to the Chinese, they are no idiots and are very capable of systematically determining what their gaps are to learn everything possible from the ones in the know.

    If Russia was to integrate the systems in the carrier  as you propose it would mean they have the shipyards needed to handle it. Why would then be cheaper to build the hull in China, having to control the quality of what they do 24/7, than at home where you have the needed, proprietary alloy for the steel, specialists and infrastructure? Besides, if the hull was an innovative design, why would you transfer all the design details to the Chinese?

    The idea would be a big mistake by Russia IMO. And above all, completely unnecessary.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5824
    Points : 5780
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:11 am

    They are in a hurry to rebuild their naval industry, not to get more carriers.
    That could change: they may need more of them sooner, before the industry is up to the task. It would depend on the international situation, economy, treaties, allies, etc.
    Naval aviators must have a seagoing platform to train on, to keep those skills honed, so aircraft & pilots don't crash & die. 1 in the Black Sea can be used all year round, but there must be more than 1 to allow for repairs/refits/deployments.
    The Type 001 isn't that different from the ex-Varyag, now the CV-16, Adm. K sister ship; they could build 1-2 of them or type 001A flattops with catapults. Just a thought!
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38474
    Points : 38974
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:29 am

    I don't expect those trans-Atlantic cruises- cheaper to send N/AF planes to land bases there & large surface ships & subs, as before. The Adm. K can come out of the Med. Sea & rendezvous with escorts near Gibraltar, if need be.

    Why bother sending anything to the med?

    It is a NATO lake.... just like the Black Sea is a Russian lake... no naval grouping Russia could send to the med could ever cope with the amount of aircraft NATO could send against them there... too many bottlenecks and not really much worth visiting anyway... and access via Turkey controlled straights is hardly something to rely upon.

    Their focus for expansion is the far east and the arctic, which suggests expansion of the northern fleet and pacific fleets makes the most sense and would be the ideal places to base carrier groups most of the time.

    The VMF had its share of accidents & I won't blame them if they r extra careful. But others will make fun of it.

    You can call them idiots if they keep doing what they used to do they way they used to do after an accident occurs.

    Idiots are not people who have accidents... idiots are people who do not learn from accidents or mistakes... you know like regime change policies that kill millions and allow your stated enemies to gain real footholds in countries that were formerly indifferent to them...

    potential problems, & given the past history, highly probable at that.

    You are not getting it... if they had problems and then didn't operate with more support vessels in case such problems happened again then I agree... call them idiots.

    I rather suspect after a few collisions of US ships with civilian cargo vessels that the US Navy will take quite a few steps to ensure it stops happening... but why wouldn't they? That is the sensible thing to do isn't it?

    If northern CSG will be created then its main task will be protection of Russian SSBNs bastions not chasing US ones.

    Why?

    Having a CSG to show your enemy where your SSBNs are and all they need to do is direct a couple of SLBMs to shower the area with 10-20 nuke warheads to damage or disable your SSBNs is not a great move really.

    They have SSNs for that.

    Any Russian Surface action group should be looking for any strategic nuclear weapon or weapon platform nearby that it can kill, whether it is a cruise missile or B-2 flying past, or ICBM or SLBM warheads going over head. If it spots an SSBN, then by all means attack but do you really think the US will base any SSBNs in the arctic ocean? Can american SSBNs even launch SLBMs or cruise missiles through icesheets?

    Remaining 1-2 wil be roaming somewhere for dick waving/colonial wars and not countering if USN too.

    If that is what you think they will be doing then you are right... they are an expensive and pointless waste of time and money.

    If, however, the Pacific based carrier surface group travels around the pacific... asia, central and south america, pacific islands and perhaps india on longer voyages, while the Northern fleet group could patrol the northern sea route and go down beside greenland down past dragon country to central and south america... cuba and venezuela and african countries too for visits to promote trade and cooperation, then it would make rather more sense.

    and here specially for you lol1 lol1 lol1 real project of severny in 80s

    I actually really like that concept

    This ship have a very good design for hunting submarines.

    It also must be cheap as fuck. It's empty, weapons are basic. It reminds me the heli carrier/landing ship of phillipines that is somewhere near 50 million a piece but very usefull.

    But this one has everything to counter subs. They should build two or three for tge pacific and north.

    Look again... it is totally empty... the bridge area is hollow and used to store aircraft... there would be no command area. Based on the shape of the front there would be no room for propulsion and an internal hangar, let alone fuel and weapons for the aircraft.

    Great for a Lego design, but pretty useless for a real combat vessel.

    Never ending peddling of the notion that Russia is broke, has no use for carriers, cannot build anything and should throw themselves out the window, in the hopes that the negativism and loser mentality they instil sinks in and even Russians think they should not allow their government to spend scarce rubles in such lost causes as rebuilding the navy.

    Indeed... a pro US anti Russian website suggests something... why would anyone think it could possibly be in Russian interests to listen to those censored .

    This proposal with China building the ships can be summed up as "Russia cannot do it so better leave it to others", in the end just one more in an endless list of fake "reasonable and well-intentioned proposals" from the West.

    To which the first words would be... they have never tried to build a carrier and failed before, and how are they going to get any better at building ships if they give contracts for ship building to foreign countries?

    They tried to sell the Storm CVN to India so they could afford 1 for themselves.

    Listen to what you are saying... a company in Russia that wants to make a carrier offered to sell the design to India so they could also sell the idea to the Russian navy and make two carriers or more.

    That is not the same as Russia wanting India to build a carrier so they could save money and order one at the same time to get their own one built.

    If their yards r busy/not ready & $ can be saved by outsourcing, why not? They could get a 70-80K Ton CV hull a lot sooner & outfit it with their own systems, while refitting old CGNs, DDGs, SSGNs, & building new ships/subs. The PD-14 that sunk was built in Sweden; they can swallow their pride for expediency, if need be.
    Having the Adm. K + 2 new TAKR/CVs will ensure that 1 of them is available for training/deployment most of the time.

    Russia has no practical use for a 70K ton carrier right now, nor in the next 4-5 years... where would they base it? What ships would operate with it? What would they actually do with it?

    There is no hurry for a new carrier... getting the Chinese to build one is just silly talk.

    Why hand over the best carrier design they can manage right now at a time when China is finding its own way in that regard?

    Would be better to finalise a new design with fairly radical design that suits their needs and then ask China if they want a similar design too... the way the french did it with Mistral, except actually delivering payed for ships rather than screwing their customer at the last second on the orders of Washington...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5824
    Points : 5780
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Apr 12, 2019 4:05 pm

    Why bother sending anything to the med?
    It is a NATO lake.... just like the Black Sea is a Russian lake... no naval grouping Russia could send to the med could ever cope with the amount of aircraft NATO could send against them there... and access via Turkey controlled straights is hardly something to rely upon.
    For realistic combat training & to show the flag off the coasts of friends & foes alike. They may also transit it on the way to the Indian Ocean to help the Pac. Fleet there.
    If it spots an SSBN, then by all means attack but do you really think the US will base any SSBNs in the arctic ocean? Can american SSBNs even launch SLBMs or cruise missiles through icesheets?
    Even Russian 1s will try to find a polynya- open water to fire them; the Bulava can allegedly brake trough 2,1 m thick through ice; Breaking through thick Arctic cover is so hard on a vessel that a submarine commander's first task may be to avoid punching through ice altogether. ..Typical submarines can break through about three feet of ice. Vessels that have been specifically strengthened can go through about nine feet.
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a19681544/how-a-submarine-surfaces-through-ice/

    The USN SSBNs r not designed or meant to patrol under the ice. They can go to the ice-free areas in Barentz Sea, but it will complicate NATO ASW ops there & increase the risk of VMF detecting them. Not worth it!

    they have never tried to build a carrier and failed before,..
    They did build Adm. K & 75% of Varyag, besides modifying the ex-Gorshkov for India.
    That is not the same as Russia wanting India to build a carrier so they could save money and order one at the same time to get their own one built.
    They wanted to build it themselves, make profit, & use the $ to build 1 for their own use, just like with Su-30s. The Sevmash is a state enterprise.
    Russia has no practical use for a 70K ton carrier right now, nor in the next 4-5 years... where would they base it? What ships would operate with it? What would they actually do with it?
    It would take a few years to complete if ordered now, by then there'll be more infrastructure & escorts built; in any case, if 1 is in port/yard, it won't need escorts & they can be assigned to the 1 sailing out. It would be used to train & for naval diplomacy. When China finally got the CV-16 operational, the USN admirals were tripping. If the VMF can keep 1 TAKR/CV at sea regularly, Russia will get more respect all over the World. Better than to rely on just Tu-160s to "send a message"!
    LMFS
    LMFS


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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:14 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:That could change: they may need more of them sooner, before the industry is up to the task. It would depend on the international situation, economy, treaties, allies, etc.
    Naval aviators must have a seagoing platform to train on, to keep those skills honed, so aircraft & pilots don't crash & die. 1 in the Black Sea can be used all year round, but there must be more than 1 to allow for repairs/refits/deployments.
    They will need to train on simulator or land based strips in the meantime. And as GarryB said, there is not big need (as in need to deploy to hot areas where high level threats are present) for a carrier if you don't even have an escort group up to the task. You will need a couple Gorshkovs at the least, rather two of them plus a 22350M, as a basic surface group, not to talk about Liders if things get really nasty. To show the flag they can send pretty much what they want, but to combat you need to have your armour complete and without holes.

    The Type 001 isn't that different from the ex-Varyag, now the CV-16, Adm. K sister ship; they could build 1-2 of them or type 001A flattops with catapults. Just a thought!
    I would agree if building carriers was a small thing. It is not for the Chinese either, which need their capability to ramp up their fleet groups really fast now US is rising tensions, and Russia could not buy some "off-the-shelf" carriers from China to operate them for the next 50 years... the time is right for Russia to create the shipbuilding and supply capabilities now the escort groups are closer to be a reality, then carriers will follow when they can deploy a escort group without leaving the Russian coast badly unprotected.

    GarryB wrote:Why bother sending anything to the med?

    It is a NATO lake.... just like the Black Sea is a Russian lake... no naval grouping Russia could send to the med could ever cope with the amount of aircraft NATO could send against them there... too many bottlenecks and not really much worth visiting anyway... and access via Turkey controlled straights is hardly something to rely upon.
    Not that fast, Mediterranean is covered by Russian EW radars and long range missile capabilities. The issue here is not that Russia cannot deploy a force, it is rather they do not have a huge need to deploy highest end CV to operate there. A LHD or surface group without aviation could do. If anyone starts doing silly things they get a express-delivered Kinzhal in response. As Mafia boss Pence would put it, "it is our neighbourhood" Razz

    Their focus for expansion is the far east and the arctic, which suggests expansion of the northern fleet and pacific fleets makes the most sense and would be the ideal places to base carrier groups most of the time.
    Agree here. Indian Ocean and the traditional issues with access to warm waters should be solved long term too, maybe Yemen again? And as said Caribbean is a prime place, considering what CVs are for.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5824
    Points : 5780
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:50 am

    You will need a couple Gorshkovs at the least, rather two of them plus a 22350M, as a basic surface group, not to talk about Liders if things get really nasty.
    A TAKR type CV is well protected w/o the need for 2 FFGs, 1 &/ a CGN which they should have ready by then will do.
    Indian Ocean and the traditional issues with access to warm waters should be solved long term too, maybe Yemen again? And as said Caribbean is a prime place, considering what CVs are for.
    Black Sea is a warm sea; Tartus in the Med. Sea is good location; Yemen is not internally stable & surrounded by enemies; the same applies to Nicaragua, Cuba & Venezuela, + they r too remote. A network of bases/sites is needed there to defend it while it's in port & assist it while it's at sea.
    The USN has a forward deployed CSG in Yokosuka, Japan which is stable & surrounded by other American naval & AF bases in Japan/Okinawa, S. Korea, & Guam.
    LMFS
    LMFS


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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS Sat Apr 13, 2019 3:46 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:A TAKR type CV is well protected w/o the need for 2 FFGs, 1 &/ a CGN which they should have ready by then will do.
    Whatever the level of the defences the carrier has, it needs an escort group and now they dont have up to date units for it. After 2020-21 the Kuznetsov will be operative again (I will for now believe Shoigu on this) and a few modern Gorshkovs will be available so the scope of missions could be progressively increased.

    Black Sea is a warm sea; Tartus in the Med. Sea is good location;
    Interior seas are not the best places to keep carriers since they can be easily blocked in times of need, so Northern and Pacific fleets are the natural places to base them, but the base in Tartus is of course very valuable. Besides, carriers are mostly needed far from Russia, not close to it where both surveillance and "kinetic" means are readily available from the mainland. LHDs are more than enough as a regular presence in the Mediterranean and in Black Sea IMHO.

    Yemen is not internally stable & surrounded by enemies;
    I said in the future, given the right conditions. But USSR had close ties with South Yemen and bases (apparently not big) there if I am not wrong. The geographical location is optimal. There has been talk recently about reactivating them, just an example:

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-to-establish-a-naval-base-in-yemen-implications-for-us-military-involvement-in-syria/5587768

    the same applies to Nicaragua, Cuba & Venezuela, + they r too remote. A network of bases/sites is needed there to defend it while it's in port & assist it while it's at sea.
    The navy is your footprint and defence in those remote areas, that is one of the main things your blue water navy is meant to do. And also navy is your best means to ensure those allies are not violently overrun. It allows you to ensure good intelligence in hot zones, short reaction times and deterrent capacity in the West hemisphere and not only in some countries but in all of it. The Nicaraguan channel is in stand still by now but if reactivated, it would be a key asset to defend for Russia and China.

    The USN has a forward deployed CSG in Yokosuka, Japan which is stable & surrounded by other American naval & AF bases in Japan/Okinawa, S. Korea, & Guam.  
    US has 800 bases around the world, I think we can spare us the comparisons Razz

    Sponsored content


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Feb 23, 2024 1:31 am