Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

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.

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

Any truth to this, fellas?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

What do you think?

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...

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.



Now I'm curious as to your opinion?

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.



Now I'm curious as to your opinion?

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

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?