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


+18
Gomig-21
LMFS
GarryB
Arrow
lancelot
Swgman_BK
Isos
AMCXXL
Arkanghelsk
TMA1
Hole
Rodion_Romanovic
ALAMO
Tsavo Lion
Begome
Mir
Firebird
The-thing-next-door
22 posters

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 2968
    Points : 2960
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Arrow Tue Dec 12, 2023 11:07 am

    But they won't build the carrier until they have destroyers in service. Otherwise it is just a giant target. wrote:

    With or without destroyers, this is currently a gigantic target. When Russia introduced hypersonic weapons based on Iskander or Tsirkon, even the American aircraft carrier group with destroyers is helpless. They can't capture a Tsirkon, let alone a dozen Tirkons.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39641
    Points : 40137
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB Tue Dec 12, 2023 12:27 pm

    The Russians view aircraft carriers as air defence equipment.... think of it as a PVO CVN.

    It provides air borne eyes (AWACS) and air reach (fighter aircraft).

    It wont necessarily be used to invade countries... the two large helicopter carriers they are currently building will allow them to deploy land forces where needed, but also to assist in humanitarian situations, or to support a friendly country suffering from western abuse (ie like Syria or perhaps Libya if they could have gotten there sooner...).

    They are not going to travel the world sinking enemy ships and stealing resources like oil or gas, but the west has a significant naval presence that could interfere with Russian trade with her customers.

    The west has already seized Iranian ships and gifted the weapons on board to Ukraine... how long before they seize oil tankers and steal the contents for their own purposes.

    You can't stop them with submarines... submarines become a liability during peace time because you can either sink the enemy ships or threaten to sink the enemy ships... not a great range of choices.

    Compare that with having an aircraft carrier nearby and having a flight of 4 Su-33s armed with R-77 and R-37 air to air missiles and perhaps a couple of Kh-31s and Kh-35s just to say move along to those US or UK ships trying to stop your naval commerce.

    And in 10 years time imagine 4 Su-57s with the Kh-31s that are mach 3.5 240km range anti ship missiles supplanted with similarly sized Kh missiles with a rocket scramjet propulsion that fly at perhaps mach 9 and 400km maybe...

    Having an aircraft carrier means much better situational awareness and the ability to fly out and inspect things at 2,500km/h or so when needed...

    Needless to say when the Israelis detected a US spy ship that was monitoring them break their agreements with the US so they pretended they thought it was an Egyptian ship and attacked it multiple times.... it wasn't the deck mounted 50 cal HMG that ended the Israeli attack... it was the call from a nearby US carrier group saying they had heard their distress call and Tomcats were on the way.... all of a sudden the Israelis realised it was a US ship and offered assistance.

    When a US AEGIS class ship shot down an Iranian Airbus if the captain of the AEGIS class ship wasn't acting like a dick he could have called in air support from a nearby carrier, but the captains actions, including chasing Iranian navy boats into Iranian waters led the local carrier commander to call back his aircraft in case the AEGIS captain decided to shoot them down too.

    They are not perfect.

    In the Falklands war the tiny pocket carriers the UK had allowed the mission to be mounted but its lack of decent AWACS meant the carrier was kept back from the islands to protect them from Argentine attack meaning they were able to sink rather more ships than they would have if they had a real aircraft carrier there. The Ark Royal with proper AWACS and Phantoms would have been rather more effective and the losses of UK ships would be minimal or zero.

    Cost cutting to save 50% on the price of a carrier led to the loss of half a dozen ships that cost way more.... not to mention the lack of a decent strike aircraft meant the mission to damage the runways on the islands made by Vulcan bombers could have been performed by deck based Buccaneers.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5111
    Points : 5107
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  LMFS Sun Mar 17, 2024 2:22 pm

    Vice Admiral Pepelyaev: aircraft carriers should be part of the Russian fleet!

    Discussions about the feasibility of building full-fledged aircraft carriers for the Russian Navy have been going on for decades, but an exhaustive answer has not yet been found. In the acute controversy on this topic, new strong arguments have recently emerged — a book with the laconic title "Aircraft Carrier"was published. The military service of its author, the former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Navy, and his scientific work at the Krylov State Research Center allowed him to competently tell not only about the history of the development of the domestic aircraft carrier fleet, but also to reasonably determine the contours of its future. Vice Admiral Vladimir Pepelyaev, the author of the book, spoke in an interview with TASS about the problems associated with the prospects for the construction of a marine aircraft carrier complex, what shape a new generation destroyer can take, as well as possible ways to create a class of unmanned ships.

    - Vladimir Viktorovich, recently there was a presentation of your book "Aircraft Carrier". Your conclusion — should there be aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy?

    — There should be aircraft carriers in the fleet. Our chief academician-shipbuilder A. N. Krylov said: "The fleet is an organic whole, the relative smallness or absence of any type of vessels is not redeemed by the increased development of the number of vessels of another type — an excessive number of them will not prevail over the enemy, but will only lead to a waste of funds."

    If a state claims to be a great maritime power, it must have full-fledged aircraft carrier formations in its fleet. This is confirmed by the place that the aircraft carrier fleet occupies in the history of the combat use of naval forces, and by the events of today.

    However, before building an aircraft carrier fleet, it is necessary to clearly formulate the tasks that it will solve both in peacetime and in wartime, on the basis of which to formulate a clear concept of its development.

    — When will we be able to start implementing the aircraft carrier construction program?

    — In order to answer this question, it is necessary to analyze and add up all the components of the process. First, we need to assess the potential of our industrial potential, primarily our shipbuilding capacity.

    At the same time, we must take into account that until the main and primary task is solved — victory over the "world evil", all the power of our military-industrial complex will be focused on ensuring its solution. In addition, after the victory, a lot of work will have to be done to restore the losses in the ship's composition that we suffered and may still suffer.

    Secondly, to assess the existing scientific and technical groundwork. In the meantime, it is necessary to continue research and design work, including in the field of improving ship weapons, which should be conducted ahead of schedule, so that by the time the aircraft carrier project is approved, the weapons planned for installation on the ship already have the highest degree of technological readiness.

    Aircraft carriers were present in all the shipbuilding programs of our country. Only in 1941 they were temporarily forgotten. But already from the end of 1944, when the enemy was pushed beyond our borders, by order of the People's Commissar of the Navy, Admiral N. G. Kuznetsov, the development of a promising aircraft carrier project began.

    However, with an enviable regularity, aircraft carriers disappeared from all programs. This "tradition" was broken only in the early 1960s, when we started creating the first ship with a group-based aviation-a long-range PLO ship — the anti-submarine cruiser Moskva.

    Third, in order not to repeat the mistakes of the past, it is necessary to soberly assess the possibilities for creating a modern basing system for future aircraft carriers with full logistics and technical support.

    It was the lack of a proper basing system that led to the fact that the aircraft-carrying cruisers of Project 1143 turned out to be ships of the same cycle, having served in the Navy for at least 11 years ("Novorossiysk") under 18 years of age (TAVKR "Kiev"). "Baku" ("Gorshkov"), which served only 7 years and had only one combat service to its credit, was more fortunate than others: our Indian friends "laid eyes" on it. The experience of operating heavy aircraft carriers and anti-submarine cruisers showed that only the factory that built them could provide a full repair of such large and complex ships. Other ship repair enterprises of our country could not cope with this task

    — You worked at the Krylov State Research Center, which, as you know, offered three options for new-generation aircraft carriers. Which of them do you support?

    — Of all the available advance projects to date, the most realistic is the so-called "Storm". On the instructions of the Ministry of Defense in the 2010s, the Krylov Center, together with the Nevsky Design Bureau and Aviation Research Institutes, carried out a full-fledged scientifically based research work, which proposed six options for a promising aircraft carrier, including one with a nuclear power plant (NPS). "Storm", which is shown at naval exhibitions — is the seventh, so-called export version.

    In the future, when creating a promising aircraft carrier, you can take any of the six options as a basis. Taking into account the experience of using aircraft carriers by our "probable opponents" during the time that has passed since the approval of the advance project, the experience of going to the Syrian conflict zone of the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, a special military operation and the latest scientific and technical achievements in the field of naval weapons, the project will need to be finalized. In particular, on the composition of the air wing, in which there should be a place for a radar patrol aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles, on the main power plant, acceleration and braking devices, etc.

    Other proposals of the Krylov Center and Nevsky PKB cannot be considered full-fledged advance projects. These are rather proposals for the technical appearance of a promising aircraft carrier, which will require serious scientific and technical study to bring them to a full-fledged advance project. But this does not mean that it will be impossible to take advantage of the best practices that scientists and designers have made in the course of research.

    — What weapons can the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov receive in the course of modernization?

    — If you believe the open publications, this year the ship should complete repairs and modernization. Most likely, surveillance systems, aviation control systems, self-defense complexes, and the electric power industry will be upgraded.

    Apparently, the strike missile system will not be dismantled in favor of carrier-based aviation. Rather, it is being upgraded. It remains to be hoped that the vicious practice of creating "hybrid aircraft carriers" will be interrupted on a new generation of aircraft carriers. And all the useful volumes of the ship will be used to ensure the basing, life and combat use of the air group.

    The experience of using aircraft carriers in armed conflicts confirmed the statement of apologists for "clean" aircraft carriers that "even not the most successful aircraft are able to solve those tasks that are inaccessible even to sufficiently powerful missile weapons. < ... > An air wing based on a US strike aircraft carrier is capable of delivering more than 1,000 remote targets to targets in one combat mission. km of about 144,000 kg of precision-guided ammunition. To deliver the same mass of ammunition, 30 submarines with 360 Tomahawk cruise missiles will be required

    — Isn't it time to think about replacing the MiG-29 carrier-based fighters? Who can undertake the creation of a promising car?

    — Probably, the Su-33, which was created for use with the "springboard" Kuznetsov ,and the MiG-29 should continue their carrier service. These are good aircraft, the modernization capabilities of which, in my not very professional opinion, have not yet been exhausted. Most likely, during this repair, landing support systems will be finalized, primarily for the MiG-29.

    In the future, the fifth-generation Su-57 (PAK FA) fighter is considered as a carrier-based aircraft, and the deck version of which may appear if there is sustainable funding. For its full-fledged combat use, it will be necessary to install new, more advanced acceleration and braking devices on a promising aircraft carrier.

    On the "Kuznetsov" it will no longer be. This requires a deeper upgrade. And this requires a completely different funding and a different time period. There is no one, no other, no meaning. Most likely, "Kuznetsov" will remain a springboard until the end of service.

    — In connection with the obvious impossibility of using the NITKA complex at the Crimean Saki airfield, is it not planned to resuscitate a similar project in Yeysk?

    — Why can't you use the NITKA complex? And the project in Yeysk, according to my not very verified data, continues to be implemented. I can't say exactly what degree of readiness it is.

    It makes sense to have both complexes. One is in Saki, which, as far as I know, was planned to continue to be used for training deck pilots, the second, in Yeysk, for conducting tests and research. In Saki, a "track" for the catapult and a room for installing the power plant necessary for the operation of the upper stage are reserved and preserved. In case of force majeure, one of them can reserve the other one.

    — At the Krylov Center, you were also engaged in an advance project of a promising destroyer. How do you see it?

    - Such as we showed it earlier at the exhibition. We tried to integrate our destroyer squadron into the global trend. Our overseas opponents excluded the concept of "cruiser" from the classification of ships, bringing the destroyer in terms of displacement and armament to the cruising level. They combined two classes of these ships into one-destroyer, that is, "destroyer".

    Initially, at the beginning of the twentieth century, this name came from the abbreviation of the phrase torpedo boat destroyer — "destroyer (or destroyer) of destroyers". Since initially this class of ships was intended to intercept and destroy enemy destroyers attacking the squadron's attack ships.

    The American destroyer Arleigh Burke, the most massive ship of the new combined class, with a displacement of about 9,600 tons, has 96 universal sub-deck launchers for firing anti-aircraft, anti-submarine and cruise missiles, 2 three-tube torpedo tubes, 1 automatic artillery installation of 127 mm caliber and 2 helicopters. Its main power plant is a gas turbine.

    We also wanted to see our destroyer with UVP and the most modern weapons, which has a modern architecture, high seaworthiness and perfect propulsive qualities (propulsive characteristics-approx. TASS). It was planned to use new materials in the superstructure, which, together with the architecture of the superstructure, were supposed to provide it with low electronic visibility. Our destroyer was to be armed only with systems brought to full operational readiness, while having a large modernization resource.

    As for energy. The Americans long ago, back in the 1970s, abandoned the use of a nuclear power plant on all ships, except for aircraft carriers, where it is necessary for stable maintenance of the course necessary for flight operations, and providing energy for the operation of acceleration and braking systems for deck aviation.

    Electric propulsion on the" American miracle "— the destroyer "Zamvolt" did not show itself from the best side. And in general, Zamvolt itself is rather a demonstration of the industrial power of the United States. And so, as far as I know, they are not going to build a series of such ships any further.

    Nuclear power, of course, provides unlimited autonomy in terms of fuel reserves, but it does not solve the issue of increasing autonomy in terms of food and weapons reserves.

    — Will the new braking vehicles tested by the Dinamika Center for Scientific and Technical Services (TSNTU) at Admiral Kuznetsov be used, or is this already a reserve for the future?

    "Hardly on the Kuznetsov . We have already said that this will require a deeper modernization, which will entail a significant increase in funding and time. Rather, it is a reserve for a promising aircraft carrier.

    — What is the situation with the development of an electromagnetic catapult?

    — This question is for Dynamics. The work is promising. It has its own problems, just like any promising technology. The Americans spent a very long time solving them on the Gerald Ford aircraft carrier. I hope that we will succeed and our promising aircraft carrier will receive the most advanced EMRU (electromagnetic acceleration device). For its operation, you need good energy. In this case, the nuclear power plant is quite appropriate.

    — How many promising aircraft carriers and destroyers do you think the Russian navy needs?

    — Probably at least four aircraft carriers, two in the Pacific Fleet and two in the Northern Fleet. With normal logistics and technical support, this will allow you to maintain an operational voltage coefficient (KOH) of 0.5. Thus, the fleet commander will have at least one combat-ready aircraft carrier at his disposal to solve all tasks, including those that suddenly arise.

    As for the number of ships of other classes, including for ensuring the combat stability of an aircraft carrier — such calculations are made in the relevant departments of the Navy's Main Command based on the proposals of military scientists.

    — How, in your opinion, will the crew-free direction of shipbuilding develop?

    "Actually, you should have turned to face him long before the start of the SVO. There were a lot of good developments. Quadrocopters in our aviation research institutes appeared at least 15 years ago. And on Sakhalin, in a miraculously preserved research institute in the 1990s, back in the 2010s, underwater and surface unmanned vehicles were tested on Lake Tunaicha.

    Using the experience gained during the SVO, I think we will continue to develop all types of drones — air, surface and underwater, which will be armed with surface ships and submarines of our fleet, depending on their combat mission, including aircraft carriers. This will require an in-depth analysis of the CBO lessons and a serious scientific and technical study.

    In addition, systems for combating this new type of weapon should be developed and improved in parallel.

    Based on the experience of current events, our research organizations probably need to reconsider their attitude to the proposals of "concerned citizens". Of course, most of them contain various kinds of anti-scientific ideas. But in all this pile of absurdities, you can probably find something really interesting and promising. If we turn to the history of the" Japanese economic miracle " of 1955-1972, we can recall that the Soviet Union played an important role in it. The Japanese bought up the "wastebaskets" of our research institutes, the magazines "Science and Life", "Technology for Youth" and even children's brochures "Know and be able", drawing new technical ideas from there.

    https://tass.ru/interviews/20104159

    GarryB and Rodion_Romanovic like this post

    Gomig-21
    Gomig-21


    Posts : 740
    Points : 742
    Join date : 2016-07-17

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Gomig-21 Fri Jun 28, 2024 2:50 am

    Any truth to this, fellas?

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 GRFx-L0XkAExdGB?format=jpg&name=small
    Stealthflanker
    Stealthflanker


    Posts : 1459
    Points : 1535
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 36
    Location : Indonesia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Stealthflanker Fri Jun 28, 2024 3:31 am

    That's an old concept which dated back from 2015 or earlier. If Russia really intend on building that carrier we might seen rebuild of Baltic Shipyard or expansion of other shipyard. As well as a proper naval Su-57 prototype being tested at naval aviation base.

    Gomig-21, lancelot and Broski like this post

    Gomig-21
    Gomig-21


    Posts : 740
    Points : 742
    Join date : 2016-07-17

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Gomig-21 Fri Jun 28, 2024 4:30 am

    Ah, that's too bad. It looks like a great idea since it also looks to be an icebreaker for the frozen northern waters of Russia.

    The concept of making a naval version of the Su-57 makes some sense, but should the Checkmate see rapid success in its development as a land-based platform, then it might make better sense to develop that aircraft into a naval platform also, but fuel is always the deal-breaker when it comes to having a carrier-based fighter and we still need to see what kind of internal fuel capacity the Checkmate will have.
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4754
    Points : 4746
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Big_Gazza Fri Jun 28, 2024 6:43 am

    Gomig-21 wrote:Any truth to this, fellas?

    Russia will counteract USN carriers by saturating her near abroad with strike fighters/bombers, surface vessels, and attack subs that are Zircon-capable. She will want to retain and build her carrier fleet capabilities, but they would not be used for fighting the USN given that the application of un-interceptable hypersonic stand-off weapons will achieve more at greatly less risk.

    GarryB, Gomig-21, Hole, Mir and Broski like this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2858
    Points : 2856
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  lancelot Fri Jun 28, 2024 6:50 am

    That aircraft carrier could be built at Zvezda shipyard in the Far East if they wanted to.
    Another possibility would be modifying the facilities at Sevmash to make it possible to build it.

    Russia is also supposed to eventually build a new large facility similar to the Zvezda shipyard in the European part of Russia. There is talk it might be located near Murmansk.

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, Mir and Broski like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 2968
    Points : 2960
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Arrow Fri Jun 28, 2024 7:19 am

    Russia is also supposed to eventually build a new large facility similar to the Zvezda shipyard in the European part of Russia. There is talk it might be located near Murmansk wrote:

    They are building a new shipyard complex near St. Petersburg?
    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2858
    Points : 2856
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  lancelot Fri Jun 28, 2024 7:22 am

    Arrow wrote:They are building a new shipyard complex near St. Petersburg?
    Maybe they could build some blocks. But none of the slipways are large enough for the whole ship.

    There was a plan to build a large dry dock at Kotlin island but that seems to have been canned.

    Having large facilities in the Baltic Sea would be a pain in case of conflict with NATO anyway.

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, zardof, Mir and Broski like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 2968
    Points : 2960
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Arrow Fri Jun 28, 2024 7:33 am

    Having large facilities in the Baltic Sea would be a pain in case of conflict with NATO anyway. LIKEDISLIKE wrote:

    A conflict with NATO is a nuclear war. Wherever such an object is, it will be hit. I didn't hear that construction on Kotlina was suspended?
    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2858
    Points : 2856
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  lancelot Fri Jun 28, 2024 7:41 am

    Arrow wrote:A conflict with NATO is a nuclear war.  Wherever such an object is, it will be hit.  I didn't hear that construction on Kotlina was suspended?
    I am not talking about that. They could just simply close the Danish Straits.
    Then you would have a huge shipyard bottled up.

    GarryB and JohninMK like this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 3497
    Points : 3499
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Mir Fri Jun 28, 2024 9:10 am

    Gomig-21 wrote:Ah, that's too bad.  It looks like a great idea since it also looks to be an icebreaker for the frozen northern waters of Russia.

    The concept of making a naval version of the Su-57 makes some sense, but should the Checkmate see rapid success in its development as a land-based platform, then it might make better sense to develop that aircraft into a naval platform also, but fuel is always the deal-breaker when it comes to having a carrier-based fighter and we still need to see what kind of internal fuel capacity the Checkmate will have.    

    Sukhoi is working on a naval variant of the Su-57 already.

    GarryB, Big_Gazza and Broski like this post

    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 2551
    Points : 2720
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Fri Jun 28, 2024 11:44 am

    I am not sure Russian navy would like a single engine carrier borne fighter.
    A naval Su-57 would be welcome. Most probably it will be ready before the eventual new carrier will be built, but it should be able to operate from Admiral Kuznetov without issues.

    Concerning existing shipyards a new carrier could be built only by Zvezda (but is really busy with civilian orders), possibly Kerch shipyard, but they are already building amphibious ships/ helicopter carriers, and possibly Sevmash (if I am not mistaken they should be able to build a carrier with the size of admiral Kuznetov).
    Baltic shipyard can also build large ships, but it is really busy with nuclear icebreakers and possibly a large carrier is too big for it.

    Personally I hope they will rebuild the black sea shipyard in Nikolaev (In addition to the other two large shipyards there) after all of Novorossia returns home.

    As long as it has a couple of uksk modules (which are much much smaller than the granit launchers) it can be classified as aircraft carrying cruiser and enter /exit the black sea.

    Personally I would like a modern version of the canceled Ulyanovsk carriers, with both a ramp and catapults, which would be carrying Su-57 and carrier borne AWACS and cargo planes/ tankers (i.e. all of them based on either Il-212 design or on the yak-44)

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, zardof, Gomig-21 and Broski like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 2968
    Points : 2960
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Arrow Fri Jun 28, 2024 1:33 pm

    I am not talking about that. They could just simply close the Danish Straits. Then you would have a huge shipyard bottled up. wrote:

    Ok, I thought that the construction of the large shipyard complex near St. Petersburg had already started. If not, they can move the project somewhere further north, with access to the seas in the north.
    Gomig-21
    Gomig-21


    Posts : 740
    Points : 742
    Join date : 2016-07-17

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Gomig-21 Fri Jun 28, 2024 3:04 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Gomig-21 wrote:Any truth to this, fellas?

    Russia will counteract USN carriers by saturating her near abroad with strike fighters/bombers, surface vessels, and attack subs that are Zircon-capable.  She will want to retain and build her carrier fleet capabilities, but they would not be used for fighting the USN given that the application of un-interceptable hypersonic stand-off weapons will achieve more at greatly less risk.

    Honestly, the fact that it said the purpose was to counter the US Navy wasn't really what caught my eye. I was more interested in the notion of a naval version of the Su-57 and that the whole idea also included the MiG-29K and there was no mention of any Su-33s or Flankers in general as well as opening the door to a naval Su-75.

    And that it would give Russia more power-projection, not simply to counter the US Navy. To me, that part really is irrelevant since the chances of a direct conflict between Russia & the US is just way too unrealistic to me. With NATO yes, that possibility is much greater and obviously the US is a big part of NATO, but I always envisioned that conflict to also be somewhat improbable and that it would be mostly land & air-oriented should it happen. But directly with the US in open seas? I think that is something which will be avoided by both parties at any cost until judgement day!

    The technicals are what interest me much more than the political angles despite the latter always being the reason for war. And the fact that it appeared to be an icebreaker also. It had Soviet engineering & ruggedness concepts drawn all over it which made it more of a personal attraction.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39641
    Points : 40137
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB Sat Jun 29, 2024 6:30 am

    I was more interested in the notion of a naval version of the Su-57 and that the whole idea also included the MiG-29K and there was no mention of any Su-33s or Flankers in general as well as opening the door to a naval Su-75.

    When it comes to light and heavy fighters it is even more critical on an aircraft carrier where available space is very limited and you benefit from long range fast fighters that are big enough to burn fuel fast to get to interception point faster than a smaller lighter fighter.

    The MiG-29K might operate just fine within 1,000km radius of the carrier and ships, but an Su-33 can operate in double the circle... but in normal operations it wont.

    It might make special flights 1,500km from the ships and carriers, or if an enemy force is detected you might launch the Su-33s first and have them fly at supersonic speeds to meet the enemy aircraft and munitions fired at 1,000km by using afterburner and altitude, to then fight the enemy and shoot down lots of things and then head home to reload. The MiG-29Ks launched after them wont be flying out in full AB but will climb and probably fly at max dry thrust and meet the enemy aircraft at 800km.

    Subsequent launches of Su-33s has the advantage of 12 weapon pylons but they don't need full fuel for take offs so their extra payload is useful but their extra flight range is not so useful any more.

    This means having more MiG-29Ks on board means more planes in total defends the ship better.

    With regard to the Su-75 having just one engine is not an advantage for carrier ops.

    And that it would give Russia more power-projection, not simply to counter the US Navy.

    The fact that Russia continues to fund the Kuznetsov and its upgrades and also upgrades the Cruisers it has suggests it wants international reach with its navy.

    Its work on its own north sea route means bases in Murmansk and the Pacific give easy access to the Pacific and Atlantic oceans...

    Russian trade is not going through western intermediaries any more so no cut for western shipping and shipping insurance companies, which means a better deal all round.

    But it does mean Russia needs to upgrade its shipyards.

    It is almost certain Sukhoi will adapt the Su-57 to carrier use, but a light carrier based fighter makes good sense, and I don't think a light single engined fighter for carriers makes sense.

    Not that twin engined aircraft never crash of course.

    To me, that part really is irrelevant since the chances of a direct conflict between Russia & the US is just way too unrealistic to me.

    Sadly I don't think a direct conflict between the US and Russia is impossible, but it wont be decided by aircraft carriers or tanks or fighter planes.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5953
    Points : 5907
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Jun 29, 2024 7:35 am

    IMO they may save a lot of money & time by navalizing & operating the modernized multirole Su-34 instead of the Su-57- it has canards, 2 pilots, same/longer range, & can carry more warload. That way an airwing can engage air, sea & ground targets operating 1 type instead of 2-3 types of fighters.
    When not at sea, it can redeploy to land bases & help the VKS Su-34s.
    avatar
    william.boutros


    Posts : 167
    Points : 169
    Join date : 2015-08-13

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  william.boutros Wed Jul 03, 2024 12:10 pm

    Gomig-21 wrote:Any truth to this, fellas?

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 GRFx-L0XkAExdGB?format=jpg&name=small

    What do you think?
    avatar
    pavi


    Posts : 53
    Points : 55
    Join date : 2022-02-25

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  pavi Wed Jul 03, 2024 12:52 pm

    Arrow wrote:

    They are building a new shipyard complex near St. Petersburg?
    Super carriers are not able to pass through Danish straits due the bridge. Finnish made caribbiean cruisers are already met the problem. Icon class heigth is 72m, draugth 9.25m, etc. They have smoke pipes which can be lowered. Free heigth uder the bridge is only 65m and heigth of the Gerald Ford is 76m. Carriers are totally different beasts...

    GarryB likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39641
    Points : 40137
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB Wed Jul 03, 2024 3:00 pm

    IMO they may save a lot of money & time by navalizing & operating the modernized multirole Su-34 instead of the Su-57- it has canards, 2 pilots, same/longer range, & can carry more warload.

    The Su-57 can carry enough warload to be useful and is stealthy... the Russian carriers are going to be for air defence of the ships the carrier operates with so a 5th gen stealth fighter makes rather more sense than a heavy strike aircraft.

    With internal weapons only, the thrust to weight ratio and thrust vectoring engines of the Su-57 should allow it to take off from the ramp without cat assistance, while the Su-34 is vastly heavier and with less engine power. In fact the Su-57 is lighter than the Su-33 the Kuznetsov already operates, and with rather more engine power and even more engine power to come and no external weapons drag it should be able to operate on the Kuznetsov with a few minor upgrades... tail hook, folding wings, a bit of structural reinforcement and it should be good to go.... it is a fully multirole fighter strike aircraft... in fact part of its usefulness will be flying around in stealthy configuration using its radar and optical sensors to find targets and threats and pass that information back to the fleet.

    If desperate they already had the Su-27KUB with a different radar and lighter aircraft...

    That way an airwing can engage air, sea & ground targets operating 1 type instead of 2-3 types of fighters.

    Actually having the Su-33 and MiG-29K is rather more useful than the Su-33 and Su-25 option... where the Su-25 had no armament capacity... it could carry buddy refuelling pod and target towing pods but had no gun and no military capacity... it was for training pilots to land on a carrier at sea.

    The MiG-29K is a fully capable fighter attack aircraft that is fully armed and can be used for landing training too.

    Having Su-33s and MiG-29Ks on board means you can have more aircraft than if they just had Su-33s and it would be the same with the Su-57.

    Su-57s will enable range and top performance, while a light 5th gen fighter or MiG-35/29K would provide numbers aircraft... missiles and sensors in the air.

    What do you think?

    The drawing is not necessarily correct, but they will be building aircraft carriers... they have said as such.

    Right now it would make sense to use Su-57s and MiG-35Ks, but by the time these carriers hit the water they will likely have 5th gen light fighter options... probably a single engined aircraft from Sukhoi, a twin engined aircraft from MiG, and perhaps a VSTOL fighter option from Yakovlev... we don't know... they wont know... you can't know until the options have been tested...

    Rodion_Romanovic and Broski like this post

    Gomig-21
    Gomig-21


    Posts : 740
    Points : 742
    Join date : 2016-07-17

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Gomig-21 Wed Jul 03, 2024 5:33 pm

    william.boutros wrote:What do you think?

    Would love to see it, who wouldn't, right?  Not just the carrier but also curious if there were any plans to build a carrier capable Su-57 (why I posted it in this thread).

    And according to Russian state media and world experts, that specific 90K-ton ice-breaking beastmode would be ideal for the Russian navy & military.

    Expert: Russia Should Build 90,000 Ton Aircraft Carrier Armed with Su-57 Fighters

    It's obviously way too early to even think about the possibility of a naval Su-75 variant, but that would only make sense of course.  Even other possibilities such as the MiG-35K?  Essentially it could just be the current MiG-29K and upgrade it to MiG-35 since it's basically the same platform in the M series which is the MiG-35.  Just build the new Ks with the Zhuk-AE AESA radar and all the other improvement goodies in the 35.  It all makes good sense.

    They need to wrap things up in Ukraine so they can concentrate on all these projects including getting this bad Larry splashed & cruising full speed.

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 BB1p7mWU

    Now I'm curious as to your opinion?

    GarryB, Big_Gazza and Rodion_Romanovic like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39641
    Points : 40137
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB Thu Jul 04, 2024 5:00 am

    First of all the ship weight... 90K tons would be the biggest Russian or Soviet warship ever, but they have made light carriers and medium carriers and they know that all the fuel and weapons and aircraft that needs to be operated from a carrier a bigger ship, while more expensive, is also better.

    If it is too big then it cost a bit more to make than a smaller ship might but it has room for improvements and expansions and extra stuff when needed.

    It means you can operate it with a smaller crew and air group during peace time and in war time you can cover the deck in aircraft.

    Really big aircraft carriers have bigger decks.

    In war time you keep the planes on the deck... the lifts will be used for bringing up ammo for loading on the deck, the hangar is used for repair work or for aircraft you don't intend to use to keep them out of the way.

    Aircraft land on the angled deck and the front allows launches.... everywhere else is intended for aircraft to sit and be fuelled up and armed and moved to launch positions.

    Aircraft carriers are never cheap... even the smallest ones are expensive to operate, but ask the Brits whether they would have been better off with the dinky little 20K ton carriers they had with helicopter based AEW and harrier jump jets, or if the war had happened a decade earlier and they had proper fixed wing carriers with Phantoms and Buccaneers and decent AWACS aircraft... the extra speed and range and longer range air to air missiles would have more than made up for Viffing and other bullshit that never happened.

    A few Skyflash missiles (the Sparrow version the Brits used) and Sidewinders and they would not have had to sit their carriers so far away from the action, which might have led to fewer ships being lost. They saved a few million pounds... well not really... because they had to develop the Sea Harrier and those 20K carriers were not free so they didn't save a whole lot of money for losing half a dozen ships and of course how many sailors, because the bean counters were sure aircraft carriers were obsolete white elephants. They also thought aircraft were obsolete and were going to replace fighters with SAMs to defend the islands of Britain.

    First of all the drawing of the carrier above is just a British carrier with Russian aircraft on it and probably made a bit bigger, so this is western propaganda really... they know that the Russians want a new carrier and its basics... weight, propulsion, likely aircraft etc... it was a bit like in the 1980s when US publications came out talking about the new Soviet weapons at the time... the new T-80 looked like a copy of the M1A1 Abrams and the 2S6M Tunguska looked like a Gepard because of course anything new and amazing from Russia is a copy of some western system.

    By the time any such CVN is ready for service the MiG-35 wont be the aircraft of choice... they would be looking at a new 5th gen light twin engined fighter to operate with the Su-57, which will likely have had a few upgrades from the current aircraft now.

    Carriers for Russia are not about invading countries and bombing the shit out of them... in this case it is an air defence carrier, so it carries aircraft that will first and foremost protect the airspace over the group of ships in the carrier group. The advantage of an aircraft to be able to fly out at supersonic speed to look at a contact 500km away and identify it is incredibly valuable... whether the contact is a ship or an aircraft or a weapon in flight enroute.

    Equally it is one thing to fit long range SAMs to a ship but having a plane that can fly out to three quarters of the distance to the target and find the target even if it is skimming the sea surface and a ship hundreds of kms away can loft a 250km or 400km range missile to then hit that incoming threat accurately and any other missiles that might be travelling with it is invaluable. In 15 years time an S-500 variant missile with a range of 600km might carry a dozen mini missiles... an Su-57 armed with self defence missiles and extra internal fuel might be patrolling 400km away from the ships it is protecting and it detects a wave of Harpoons and Tomahawks coming... it transmits the threat to the ships and one ship launches two S-500s which on its way past communicates with the Su-57 and receives target data for 24 of the incoming threats... the long range flight lofted high up in the air means as they approach the location of the targets each of the two missiles releases 12 mini missiles with their own guidance and communications and they allocate a target each and come diving down at high speed... they wouldn't need their own propulsion because if the targets are very low flying it is not like they can turn around and have another go... this is a one shot slashing attack. The Su-57s might have R-37M missiles of their own with half a dozen mini missiles of their own if the enemy have not launched a great number of weapons. Or maybe an R-37 with a very powerful EMP warhead for enormous drone swarm attacks.

    The point is that the aircraft can act like the recon drones in a land based fight and direct incoming suicide drones to their targets so they don't waste time looking for targets for themselves.

    The Su-57 has a huge future ahead of it.

    (BTW for landing forces they will have the new helicopter carriers they are building which will allow disaster relief with helicopters and trucks and armoured forces as required. They also mentioned a drone carrier version of the design which would be very interesting too.)

    Rodion_Romanovic and Gomig-21 like this post

    avatar
    william.boutros


    Posts : 167
    Points : 169
    Join date : 2015-08-13

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  william.boutros Thu Jul 04, 2024 1:00 pm

    Gomig-21 wrote:
    william.boutros wrote:What do you think?

    Would love to see it, who wouldn't, right?  Not just the carrier but also curious if there were any plans to build a carrier capable Su-57 (why I posted it in this thread).

    And according to Russian state media and world experts, that specific 90K-ton ice-breaking beastmode would be ideal for the Russian navy & military.

    Expert: Russia Should Build 90,000 Ton Aircraft Carrier Armed with Su-57 Fighters

    It's obviously way too early to even think about the possibility of a naval Su-75 variant, but that would only make sense of course.  Even other possibilities such as the MiG-35K?  Essentially it could just be the current MiG-29K and upgrade it to MiG-35 since it's basically the same platform in the M series which is the MiG-35.  Just build the new Ks with the Zhuk-AE AESA radar and all the other improvement goodies in the 35.  It all makes good sense.

    They need to wrap things up in Ukraine so they can concentrate on all these projects including getting this bad Larry splashed & cruising full speed.

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 BB1p7mWU

    Now I'm curious as to your opinion?

    It is highly unlikely given the current priorities and changes in warfare.

    Gomig-21 likes this post

    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 2551
    Points : 2720
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Temp new aircraft carrier thread

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Thu Jul 04, 2024 2:42 pm

    william.boutros wrote:It is highly unlikely given the current priorities and changes in warfare.

    Aircraft carriers, especially with the role of fleet defence, will still be useful.

    They are less useful if used in the way US wants, to support bombing operation and ground attack against an enemy, especially if the adversary is a peer or near peer.

    Most probably there will not be anything before the military operation in Ukraine is finished.
    I doubt even the admiral Kuznetov will be starting operation before that (as it cannot be used for the war in Ukraine and even if it could enter the black sea it would offer no advantages in comparison to an airbase in Crimea).

    Furthermore due to the current situation, it would be only a juicy target even if it would be used for showing the flag in the med or in south/central America.

    After the Ukrainian situation is solved instead, real training of pilots and aircraft operation can start again on admiral Kuznetov.

    Furthermore the black sea shipyard in Nikolaev could be rebuilt.

    Actually, in that case, I would like to see maybe another project there first, before the super carrier, like a third and fourth helicopter carrier being built there instead of in Kerch shipyard (which could instead concentrate on large civilian ships from the drydock, and instead on Corvettes/frigates from the boathouses, as in soviet times).

    That could mean starting building the 3rd helicopter carrier in Nikolaev around 2028, and the new "Ulyanovsk"
    (Which will not be called like that, but just to mean that it should be something like a modern Ulyanovsk concept) sometimes after 2030.
    It would be interesting to see a new aircraft carrier class, maybe they could even call them the Josif Stalin aircraft carrying cruiser class.

    P.S.
    Garry, is it possible to move these posts to the future aircraft carrier thread?

    GarryB likes this post


    Sponsored content


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 3 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jul 22, 2024 9:56 pm