Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

GarryB wrote:

At the moment the kuz can use helicopters, like a 5400 tons frigate .

It can also use 12 highly supersonic 7 ton Granit anti ship missiles which are able to target ground targets now too.

It also carries MiG-29M2 fighter bombers and Su-33 fighter bombers... the latter fitted with Gefest and T targeting systems to allow accurate medium altitude bombing with dumb bomb.

An s-400 naval version can shoot down anti submarine aircraft like the fighters from kuz.

But the radar on the ship that has that S-400 SAM on board has a radar horizon issue that it can't see low flying targets beyond about 40km, and it certainly has no way of determining if that blip 400km away is a civilian airliner or an enemy MPA.

For naval/ shore targets it is as effective as a any frigate in the RUN.

Actually against poorly armed western vessels like the Mistral which only had MANPADS it could easily send an Su-33 to attack with dumb bombs from above MANPADS height and blow the crap out of it with little risk of being shot down.

Kuz can use helicopters for target detection (for granits ,S-400 and aircrafts) like a small frigate .
Due to weight limitations the kuz is not the cheapest options to deliver bombs to ashore/naval target.
Smaller ship with calibr/ony missiles can be more effective ( cheaper ) ,

Kuz can use helicopters for target detection (for granits ,S-400 and aircrafts) like a small frigate .
Due to weight limitations the kuz is not the cheapest options to deliver bombs to ashore/naval target.
Smaller ship with calibr/ony missiles can be more effective ( cheaper ) ,

For finding targets it has a satellite network detecting enemy ships at sea, plus OTH radar and many other platforms feeding information into the network.

As I have been saying the Russian Navy doesn't need a carrier based strike capability... even its corvettes have 3,000km range land attack cruise missiles.

It tested Su-33s and MiG-29K in Syria to see what they can do, but I rather suspect they will find that a strike package of aircraft will never be cheaper than a land attack cruise missile.

The primary role of MiG-29Ks and Su-33s will be combat air patrol to inspect and intercept unknowns and blunt large scale attacks on the Russian Navy ships and subs they support.

In fact they will likely fit the Carriers with S-500 and huge radars which will give their navy a defence against even the Chinese super anti ship ballistic missiles...

GarryB wrote:

Kuz can use helicopters for target detection (for granits ,S-400 and aircrafts) like a small frigate .
Due to weight limitations the kuz is not the cheapest options to deliver bombs to ashore/naval target.
Smaller ship with calibr/ony missiles can be more effective ( cheaper ) ,

For finding targets it has a satellite network detecting enemy ships at sea, plus OTH radar and many other platforms feeding information into the network.

As I have been saying the Russian Navy doesn't need a carrier based strike capability... even its corvettes have 3,000km range land attack cruise missiles.

It tested Su-33s and MiG-29K in Syria to see what they can do, but I rather suspect they will find that a strike package of aircraft will never be cheaper than a land attack cruise missile.

The primary role of MiG-29Ks and Su-33s will be combat air patrol to inspect and intercept unknowns and blunt large scale attacks on the Russian Navy ships and subs they support.

In fact they will likely fit the Carriers with S-500 and huge radars which will give their navy a defence against even the Chinese super anti ship ballistic missiles...

Satellite can not do this kind of job.

It needs hawkeye like aircrafts.

On shore OTH radars and so on works only close to shores : )
The carrier thousands of KM from shore rely on either helicopters ( good up to 5000 m) or fixed wings aircrafts ( good up to 10.5 km).

The kuz has to use kamovs, like a frigate.


The RuN (or CCCP navy) never invested money into carrier launched AWACS airplanes.

They won't be sending any carriers, current & future, out of range of their OHRs/MPA thousands of KMs from shore in the foreseeable future, unless they get in some war/humanitarian missions or show of force/port visits in the Americas, Antarctica, Central/S. Africa, SE Asia or Australia/NZ.; even then strategic bombers & future CGNs/DDGs/LHA types can do that. Excluding subs, their VMF, as in the Soviet period, is a sea denial force (AD2) with some land attack capability. It has no need to patrol that far to protect/watch SSBNs, straits, bases, & SLOCs. Their geography, economy & international situation dictates that. That's why Putin set a goal for it to be only #2. We all know who the #1 is!

Singular_Transform wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Kuz can use helicopters for target detection (for granits ,S-400 and aircrafts) like a small frigate .
Due to weight limitations the kuz is not the cheapest options to deliver bombs to ashore/naval target.
Smaller ship with calibr/ony missiles can be more effective ( cheaper ) ,

For finding targets it has a satellite network detecting enemy ships at sea, plus OTH radar and many other platforms feeding information into the network.

As I have been saying the Russian Navy doesn't need a carrier based strike capability... even its corvettes have 3,000km range land attack cruise missiles.

It tested Su-33s and MiG-29K in Syria to see what they can do, but I rather suspect they will find that a strike package of aircraft will never be cheaper than a land attack cruise missile.

The primary role of MiG-29Ks and Su-33s will be combat air patrol to inspect and intercept unknowns and blunt large scale attacks on the Russian Navy ships and subs they support.

In fact they will likely fit the Carriers with S-500 and huge radars which will give their navy a defence against even the Chinese super anti ship ballistic missiles...

Satellite can not do this kind of job.

It needs hawkeye like aircrafts.

On shore OTH radars and so on works only close to shores : )
The carrier thousands of KM from shore rely on either helicopters ( good up to 5000 m) or fixed wings aircrafts ( good up to 10.5 km).

The kuz has to use kamovs, like a frigate.


The RuN (or CCCP navy) never invested money into carrier launched AWACS airplanes.

Don't think a carrier can operate far from the batllefield. F-18 and f-35 don't have a huge range. And against a country like russia that has modern defences like su30/35 Mig 35 and s400 ... US carrier will have to get really close to lunch all their fighters at once and allow them to be in the air for long time.

If the carrier is 800km from Russia and the fighters have to spend 4/5 of their fuel for the trip they won't be able to reach the targets. If the carrier gets closer he is dead because of the P800 oniks range of 600km and they will be detected for sure by a A50U or A100 which have ranges of 400 km against small fighters and much more against carrier group.

Satellite can not do this kind of job.

Look up the Legenda system of satellites... intended for long range detection and targeting of US carriers... why do you think the new modern sophisticated versions would not be able to do what the system was supposed to do in the 1980s.

Keep in mind it is not intended for whole world coverage 24/7... it was just intended to detect carriers in specific regions that were relevant to the Russian fleet.

It needs hawkeye like aircrafts.

Such an aircraft would be useful but with new radar technology there are other solutions including airship and UAV that could be used.

A small AWACS type would be cheaper than the A-100 and easier to deploy in numbers and indeed to sell to smaller countries like Iran or Syria or China.

On shore OTH radars and so on works only close to shores : )

If they only looked straight they would not be much use as many have ranges of 6,000km, which follows the curve of the planet by bouncing off the various layers of the atmosphere. Otherwise a 6,000km range would be useless because ballistic missiles don't fly that high.

The carrier thousands of KM from shore rely on either helicopters ( good up to 5000 m) or fixed wings aircrafts ( good up to 10.5 km).

Or the modern replacement for Legenda:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legenda_(satellite_system)

The kuz has to use kamovs, like a frigate.

Or it could launch Su-33s which could detect carriers 400km away with its radar and fly 1,000km away from the K to look.

The RuN (or CCCP navy) never invested money into carrier launched AWACS airplanes.

Never... not even a cent:
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1170

Their geography, economy & international situation dictates that. That's why Putin set a goal for it to be only #2. We all know who the #1 is!

They don't need ten supercarriers, but aircraft carriers are useful whether you have a huge fleet active around the world, or a much smaller fleet that does not travel as far.

Very simply the ability to take air power with them makes them more powerful and more difficult to take on effectively.

Don't think a carrier can operate far from the batllefield.

Indeed a navy is for peace time and for small war and global war... during peace time having aircraft able to move with naval forces means much more flexibility and more options and better performance in both attack and defence.

In local wars being able to send a carrier group might not make much difference... in Syria against ISIS having a carrier is irrelevant because air power can be deployed to local airfields where they can operate more easily than from sea based airfields.

A local conflict like Georgia or Kosovo having a viable air power that can be deployed to the area actually strengthens Russias hand considerably, and in a way no other capability can.

With global war things become a little strange because a carrier would help in the attack against an enemy carrier based force, but at the end of the day there is nothing a carrier can do that would change the outcome of such a conflict so its actual value would not be significant.

During peace time and local wars a carrier makes the forces more capable and more efficient and safer, but no invincible.

Indeed a navy is for peace time and for small war and global war... during peace time having aircraft able to move with naval forces means much more flexibility and more options and better performance in both attack and defence.

In local wars being able to send a carrier group might not make much difference... in Syria against ISIS having a carrier is irrelevant because air power can be deployed to local airfields where they can operate more easily than from sea based airfields.

A local conflict like Georgia or Kosovo having a viable air power that can be deployed to the area actually strengthens Russias hand considerably, and in a way no other capability can.

With global war things become a little strange because a carrier would help in the attack against an enemy carrier based force, but at the end of the day there is nothing a carrier can do that would change the outcome of such a conflict so its actual value would not be significant.

During peace time and local wars a carrier makes the forces more capable and more efficient and safer, but no invincible.

Yeah what you call local wars are just bombing against men with Ak-47...

I was just telling him that a carrier is not easy to hide when it a war between two big nations. Once you detect a f-18 you will know the carrier will be at max 1000km from it even less and a A-50U is enough to find it. So if you don't have all the OTH radars or satellite is not the end for you if you have a decent air force and good air defence.

Don't forget the TU-95/142s, -22M3s & -160s with their long range AShMs! Land based air tankers can extend USN fighters range, but they & their bases could be targeted & in any case the RF bombers unrefueled ranges are several times bigger. The Kilos could wait for
CSGs in mid ocean undetected, just like the Chinese Ming sub did in the E. China Sea before it surfaced within a torpedo striking distance of the USS Kitty Hawk some years ago. The USN CVN can't be used in the power projection ashore against RF & PRC anymore, unless SSGN/SSNs/CGNs/DDGs & USAF bombers destroy all their theater anti-ship assets 1st. Since no BDA is foolproof, & even excluding submarine threat, the risk of being engaged by them will remain. Therefore, CVNs will have to stay out of range of their own fighters. After the 1st Russian CM attack into Syria, 1 Russian wrote that the American carriers are now scrap metal. He wasn't far from the truth!

Yeah what you call local wars are just bombing against men with Ak-47...

Don't trivialise it... there is an enormous difference between Soviet bombing of terrorists in Afghanistan in the 1980s and the Russian bombing of ISIS in Syria...

Being able to hit point targets with just dumb bombs with the accuracy approaching guided weapons performance is something no one else has done AFAIK.

I was just telling him that a carrier is not easy to hide when it a war between two big nations. Once you detect a f-18 you will know the carrier will be at max 1000km from it even less and a A-50U is enough to find it. So if you don't have all the OTH radars or satellite is not the end for you if you have a decent air force and good air defence.

Of course to know it is an F-18 and not something else you need to send up interceptors that need to get close enough for a proper ID.

When your A-50U starts scanning for carriers and other aircraft any platform within 1000kms will detect it and could fire upon it... an AWACS doing the same thing over Europe would be fired upon by S-400 missiles out to 400km distance simply because the target is illuminating itself which takes 80% of the work out of the interception/attack.

After the 1st Russian CM attack into Syria, 1 Russian wrote that the American carriers are now scrap metal. He wasn't far from the truth!

Carriers don't make navies invincible. They add a lot of options ships captains would not otherwise have which actually makes them very very useful most of the time.

Ask a land army whether they want to fight an enemy force with air support or without it and they will generally choose to have air support and to also deny their enemy air support... that is what a carrier offers.

Russian cruise missiles means they don't need super carriers with lots of strike aircraft, but even having a flight of PAK FA*Naval aircraft to fly at medium to high altitude to jam enemy radar and shoot down any interceptor or fighter aircraft they might have and to take out any major SAM sites during a cruise missile attack launched by Russian ships or subs greatly improves the chances of a successful attack at minimum risk.

Don't trivialise it... there is an enormous difference between Soviet bombing of terrorists in Afghanistan in the 1980s and the Russian bombing of ISIS in Syria...

Being able to hit point targets with just dumb bombs with the accuracy approaching guided weapons performance is something no one else has done AFAIK.

I meant you don't need a carrier for that. We saw that cheap Su-25 do the job better than any hornet or F22 out there. That's not an argument for having a supercarrier of 100Kt.

Of course to know it is an F-18 and not something else you need to send up interceptors that need to get close enough for a proper ID.

When your A-50U starts scanning for carriers and other aircraft any platform within 1000kms will detect it and could fire upon it... an AWACS doing the same thing over Europe would be fired upon by S-400 missiles out to 400km distance simply because the target is illuminating itself which takes 80% of the work out of the interception/attack.

I also said you need to have a decent airforce and air defence to find the carrier and protect against Hornets. Of course a lonely A-50 will be destroyed but if you have pak fa and su 35 to protect him it will have the time to find the carrier. 30 min after antiship missiles will be scaning for it. They would need to destroy the A50 before it sent the localization of the carrier to be safe, that's just impossible. You will also need to sacrifice some figters too but then if you manage to sink the carrier it was worth the sacrifices.

US AWACS also scan the sky and Mig-31 were made to destroy them at safe distance of escort while hornets will need to come close to Su-35 and Pak fa. If the carrier loose its 4 awacs it is in big trouble. Russia has the best air defence network in the world while without awacs detection range against antiship missiles will be just 40km for aegis.

Carriers are good when they are used for naval battles in the open ocean. But they are useless against modern forces like Russia or China because on one US carrier you have like the equivalent of a big modern army so if they loose it, it will have more impact than the loses they make to the potential enemy.

However in the middle of the ocean, if you have one of them then you control the airspace and have the best picture possible of who is where and that's possible because of the AWACS. That's a huge power-up unless if it is sink by a SSN then you will feel stupid.

Paraphrasing from the new report (they prohibit any reproduction): The (STOVL) aircraft enabled to have airpower at sea,..for le$$ than with the CATOBAR carriers. http://www.janes.com/images/assets/862/74862/Carrier_comeback_Investing_in_power_projection.pdf

They'll keep upgrading & using the Adm.K while perhaps building smaller STOVL carriers to save $ & time until the economy improves to afford new CATOBAR carriers, should they they decide to have them by then. I don't think Yak-141 design will need to be radically changed & could probably used a stopgap till a new type of STOVL is built. As mentioned, CATOBAR w/o long range missiles can't go to/from the Black Sea unlike the Adm.K, so I expect many, if not all their future carriers to have them as well. Besides, this will add extra firepower given the shortage of escort ships in 4 widely separated fleets.

Well this discussion still going, might as well give my 2 cents on the issue.
As i see it Russia has 2 options,

1: A small AC based on project Lavina similar in design to the Invincible-class carrier.
Pros are, lower cost, smaller size (for a carrier) shorter construction time.
The cons here are of course, similar level of both offense and defensive capabilities to the Kuz, probably less (with respects to defense), and possibly fewer aircraft.
And probly the biggest con of all, most likely a conventional propulsion system.

2: A medium carrier similar in size to the Kuz.
Pros are, with current tech both offensive and defensive capabilities can be more than doubled if not tripled, and with the use of Nuclear propulsion room can be made for more aircraft.
Cons are, bigger size, higher cost and longer development/construction time.


IMO, option 2 would be best in the long run.

P.S: Is that Janes article correct, did they suspend development work on the future carrier project, does this mean any Carrier development or just Project Shtorm, since they mentioned "the" future carrier project ?

Future carrier was never mentionned in official budget plan I think. All these shtorm project are just made and exposed by the shipyards to show what it could be.

First russian navy has yo decide what they want. Shtorm is a supercarrier, maybe the navy with its budget won t ask for such a big ship. So they didn t actually suspended anything as the navy didn t give the oficial order for a carrier.

But maybe I m wrong and they are actually working on it. You should check for official statements and not janes or sputnik articles. Both of them are propaganda... can t trust them.

I meant you don't need a carrier for that.

You do if the enemy is not located near a friendly country that will let you fly aircraft there to operate from.

We saw that cheap Su-25 do the job better than any hornet or F22 out there. That's not an argument for having a supercarrier of 100Kt.

Actually it is... an Su-25 could certainly do a great job, but an Su-33 could defend itself and do the bombing, and operating from an aircraft carrier can operate from 2/3rds of the Earths surface without needing landing permission from any other country.

I also said you need to have a decent airforce and air defence to find the carrier and protect against Hornets. Of course a lonely A-50 will be destroyed but if you have pak fa and su 35 to protect him it will have the time to find the carrier. 30 min after antiship missiles will be scaning for it. They would need to destroy the A50 before it sent the localization of the carrier to be safe, that's just impossible. You will also need to sacrifice some figters too but then if you manage to sink the carrier it was worth the sacrifices.

PAK FA and Su-35 wont protect an emitting A-50U from Standard SAMs fired from long range.

I am not suggesting a carrier is invincible but it is generally very well protected... many people view it as some giant barge that can be used for target practise, but it is more comparable to an airfield... ie it is defended and can contribute to both defence and attack operations with the forces it operates with.

US AWACS also scan the sky and Mig-31 were made to destroy them at safe distance of escort while hornets will need to come close to Su-35 and Pak fa. If the carrier loose its 4 awacs it is in big trouble. Russia has the best air defence network in the world while without awacs detection range against antiship missiles will be just 40km for aegis.

Any fighter in the air has excellent look down capability. Even if all the Hawkeyes are shot down or can't be used, an F-18 or F-35 could still use their radar to detect incoming anti ship missiles and pass that target information to the ships of the carrier group.

Carriers are good when they are used for naval battles in the open ocean. But they are useless against modern forces like Russia or China because on one US carrier you have like the equivalent of a big modern army so if they loose it, it will have more impact than the loses they make to the potential enemy.

A carrier will be very valuable during peace time and small wars. During big wars they still have significant value in that they are aircraft plus significant ship based air defences. I would argue that the air defences on a US carrier group are better than those in a NATO land formation, with fully integrated missiles and aircraft working together to fend off potential enemy attacks and to support attacks into enemy territory.

However in the middle of the ocean, if you have one of them then you control the airspace and have the best picture possible of who is where and that's possible because of the AWACS. That's a huge power-up unless if it is sink by a SSN then you will feel stupid.

they also have that power near the majority of the countries on this planet... the exceptions being Russia and China.... and when they induct the S-400 fully, India and Turkey.

As mentioned, CATOBAR w/o long range missiles can't go to/from the Black Sea unlike the Adm.K, so I expect many, if not all their future carriers to have them as well. Besides, this will add extra firepower given the shortage of escort ships in 4 widely separated fleets.

All of their new ships will have UKSK launchers... not necessarily that many... maybe only 2 or 4, for 16-32 missiles.... that will be useful for anti submarine use at the very least, but it will also likely have S-500 missiles too for anti satellite use which means they are not just aircraft carriers.

I don't think Yak-141 design will need to be radically changed & could probably used a stopgap till a new type of STOVL is built.

The Yak-141 was a very ordinary aircraft... even early model MiG-29Ks were better in terms of top speed, range, cost, payload weight, payload options, manouverability, and several other factors.

VSTOL aircraft are a total waste of money and time.

The main purpose of the VSTOL model of the F-35 is to allow western aircraft to fly with expensive munitions and then land with them without having to dump them before landing.

For the Russians the primary weapons carried by their carrier aircraft will be AAMs which are not that heavy and therefore likely to be able to be returned to carrier if not used, and cheap dumb bombs which could easily be dumped if not used on a mission because they are cheap dumb bombs.

The fact that they are as effective as the expensive bombs just makes them more useful.

Besides, this will add extra firepower given the shortage of escort ships in 4 widely separated fleets.

Only two fleets are likely to actually operate carriers... the northern fleet and the pacific fleet.

All new Russian ships from corvette upwards in size will have the Sigma battle management and C4ISTAR system, so support ships wont be a huge problem once they get their destroyer sized vessels into production.

I would hope they produce their new cruisers at the same time they start producing their carriers...

IMO, option 2 would be best in the long run.

They have developed new compact nuclear power plants for ships designed to operate for decades without refuelling... it is refuelling that makes them expensive, so these units should be rather cheaper.

As they are making their larger vessels nuclear powered too it would make sense to make their carriers nukes as well... this would free up space for more aircraft, more fuel for aircraft operations and more space for munitions for those aircraft to deliver meaning faster transit times to areas that need attention and better combat persistence once it arrives in situ.

Carriers are not cheap.... if you want cheap then don't bother with carriers.

They don't have to be gold plated expensive like western carriers, but they add more value than they take away from a naval grouping of ships.

Janes and sputnik like sensational stuff and most of their sources are shipyards and ship designers... ie marketing people, not the people actually doing the buying.

If the Russian Navy decides it wants super carriers with deep strike capability then these designs make sense, but if they wanted little carriers they could have scrapped the K in the 1990s and done to the Gorshkov what they did for India for themselves.

It is pretty clear to me that a redesigned Kuznetsov sized carrier makes the most sense... take out the huge Granits and fit UKSKs for Zircons, and mount S-500 systems as well as other air defence missiles, and modify the rest of the carrier to have EM Cats and state of the art radar and sensors and PAK FA aircraft or a light 5th gen fighter variant that is not VSTOL and they will have a winner they could probably sell to a few countries too.

As a flag ship it could monitor underwater, the sea surface, land, air, and space...  a real tough nut to crack.

If they had the $ & time, all those ideal options u describe would've been taken by now. That's why they are discussing the less costly options; as in the USSR, the lion's share of new construction is taken by submarines.
STOVL could be used on Adm. K. (besides MiGs & SUs) & assault ships even after the other carriers are built. Ships that can be used as escorts are better be in all 4 fleets- recall that besides the 4 Mistrals class in N. & Pac. Fleets, there are going to be 2 Ivan Gren class in the Black Sea.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Gren-class_landing_ship#Ships
Even w/o any carriers in that sea & the Baltic, the ships from there could be detached for escort duties in the Med. Sea & beyond. The Pac. Fleet Varyag CG had to spend a few months off Syria; the NF P.Velikiy did so in the Arabian Sea; if the BSF had 1-2 more CGs (recall the still incomplete Ukraina & RF wanted it but didn't get it), those deployments would've never happened. It's not normal to be sending ships from the most remote fleets to help the 1 that is a lot closer to the E.Med & Arabian Seas. The BSF (with a nick name "the resort fleet") was the "black sheep" of the Russian/Soviet VMF, at least since the 1905 & until the start of the latest naval buildup.

Did you already see this article?

https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/08/28/aircraft-carriers-drama

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Did you already see this article?
https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/08/28/aircraft-carriers-drama

Thanks for that! From the article:

Can STOVL carriers offer a viable alternative? In terms of costs they can. In the end, only these type of carriers and STOVL aircraft can show their real modern combat record against a relatively competent adversary during the Falklands War. Due to their significantly lower costs, such carriers may provide what really counts in combat—numbers. In the end, even massive Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth-class STOVL carriers’ costs is estimated to be around $8 billion—not bad for two ships capable of carrying together 80 combat aircraft. What the Russian Navy can do for $8 billion remains to be seen, but judging by the costs of Russian-made hardware since the mid-2000s, Russia probably will be able to eventually deploy more than two STOVL carriers. Emergence of relatively inexpensive and numerous STOVL carriers and possibly of the STOVL aircraft with characteristics rivaling those of being used from CVNs, coupled with further proliferation of the long-range hypersonic weapon, may write a final chapter for this drama.

I don't have much to add here.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
......Thanks for that! From the article:

Can STOVL carriers offer a viable alternative? In terms of costs they can. In the end, only these type of carriers and STOVL aircraft can show their real modern combat record against a relatively competent adversary during the Falklands War. Due to their significantly lower costs, such carriers may provide what really counts in combat—numbers. In the end, even massive Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth-class STOVL carriers’ costs is estimated to be around $8 billion—not bad for two ships capable of carrying together 80 combat aircraft. What the Russian Navy can do for $8 billion remains to be seen, but judging by the costs of Russian-made hardware since the mid-2000s, Russia probably will be able to eventually deploy more than two STOVL carriers. Emergence of relatively inexpensive and numerous STOVL carriers and possibly of the STOVL aircraft with characteristics rivaling those of being used from CVNs, coupled with further proliferation of the long-range hypersonic weapon, may write a final chapter for this drama.

I don't have much to add here.

Me neither, sums it up perfectly, 100% agreed. 


Also this:

To be sure, the Russian Navy was looking attentively at the US Navy’s LHA-6 (USS America) as one of the possible avenues to pursue with its own carrier program. With America-class ships costing around $3.4 billion, financial comparisons, especially adjusted for Russia’s economic realities, are not in favor of the proposed CVNski, let alone U.S. CVNs whose costs reach upward of $13 billion. Operation costs are also immense

These guys are reading my mind 

Russia has one short take off aircraft in the pipeline, it is the su-57.


Instead to build in a lift fan or an additional vertical engine, they increased the power of the main engines to the level when with the help of a ram it can take off in short distance with full weapon load.

I don't think Yak-141 is that bad. It was designed as multirole jet from the beginning, but the plane was from the eighties, times of USSR fall and lack of money to support project. Today it will get far more modern radar and electronics which are also lighter. Today engines are also more fuel efficient and with longer service live than those from eighties. Yak-141 would get IFR, which is now standard equippment in Russia to increase its range and it already have longer range than Ka-52K. Main point is, that Yak-141 could work from same small carriers and LHDs as Ka-52K could and give air protection and support to helicopters and to marine operations. Four such jets on Lavina LHD could well increase air capabilities comparing to helicopters only.

Singular_Transform wrote:Russia has one short take off aircraft in the pipeline, it is the su-57.


Instead to build in a lift fan or an additional vertical engine, they increased the power of the main engines to the level when with the help of a ram it can take off in short distance with full weapon load.

The advantage is also that they know the weaknesses of those type of aircraft. So they just need to build more powerfull engines with a longer flight deck so that it can achieve higher speed than su33 or mog 29 and can take off full loaded. A longer deck is not hard to build or expensive at all.

The problem of K is that it was build around its missiles and not around the fighters. Future carrier will be optimized for naval pak fa to be used in the most efficient way. VLS will be put where there is space. K problem is not the size but the design. French carrier is smaller but better suited for its aviation ...

Vertical take off is bad and will never be better than normal fighters. A ka 52 is way better than a yak 141. At least it can carry full load of air to ground missiles and even kh 35. A yak 141 or f 35 will always be limited by the weight of the armement and will be able just to carry few missiles and engage two or three targets while a su25k or ka 52 can engage more than 16 when full loaded.

A mig 29k with full load will have 8 hard points so 8 targzts and even more if thzy build luncher whih can carry many bombs.

Hi all, I am a new forum's member.

I don't think STOVL carriers are a viable solution to Russia.

First you need a GOOD STOVL aircraft.

Invincible class born because Barriers were developed for a RAF requirement, without that requirement there would have been no Invincible.

F-35B born because both the US Marine Corps and the British wanted an advanced aircraft able to operate from LHDs and, for the British, from a carrier whatever they could build.

Now Russia has neither an existing fleet of flat tops nor an advanced STOVL aircraft.

What Russia has, it is a couple of pretty decent embarked fighters like Mig-29K and Su-33, and an advanced land based fighter that perhaps could be modified to become an embarked one.

Spending billions of dollars to develop a STOVL aircraft, to build in the dozens, wouldn't be effective.

Give the size of present and likely future fixed wing aircrafts available for a Russian carrier, and provided that even a pure air defence mission would require around 30 of such aircrafts embarked, money would better spent on a CAN.

If you give up most of power projection requirements, and design the vessel around its aviation mission and related facilities, something similar to the Kuznetsov, or slightly larger, would do the trick.

Would it cost maybe four to five billion dollars a piece?

Develop an advanced STOVL combat aircraft and you will have already spent as much, maybe more, before having a single regiment and still no a single flat top to embark them.

The big trouble, anyway, lies with the escorts.

In war, last thing you want is your capital ship cruising (be it Peter the Great, Kuznetsov or a future carrier) radiating hundreds of km away with its radar.

This is what escorts are for: until the very last moment, capital ship's active sensor are to be operated at minimum power level or to be idle, and all the surveillance and tracking job should be performed by escorts cruising far away from the capital ship, giving up just a broad estimate of the capital ship's position and route to the enemy.

So at least a couple of very capable AAW destroyers or cruisers are needed along any carrier operating in a real war, and with them one or two escorting SSNs, plus some ASW frigates providing close protection against enemy subs.

In the end, if you are not subtracting all those escorts from other missions, you need to build and operate far more than a flat top.

Again, costs are so huge, there is little to no savings designing a STOVL carrier, unless you happen to have viable STOVL aircrafts already.

Singular_Transform wrote:Russia has one short take off aircraft in the pipeline, it is the su-57.


Instead to build in a lift fan or an additional vertical engine, they increased the power of the main engines to the level when with the help of a ram it can take off in short distance with full weapon load.

Using Su-57 means that any resulting ship will need to be almost twice as large for same number of airplanes and will need God knows how much time and money to build and operate. 

And it will run into same problem as other large ACs: huge expensive target in the age of rapidly evolving anti-ship missiles. And much fewer of them will eventually be available as always.

Su-57 is air superiority fighter at it's core. Navy doesn't need those. They need something small that can easily fit on the ship (reason for MiG-29K), that can take off and land on the moderate sized ship and that can haul bombs and anti-ship missiles around. They don't need super dogfight airplane, those days in Naval warfare are over.

Navy needs small preferably​ single engine fighter. VTOL or not it's besides the point, what matters is size.

Any nuclear carrier would have catapults anyway. Keeping ship's size and pricetag manageable is priority here.

PapaDragon wrote:

Using Su-57 means that any resulting ship will need to be almost twice as large for same number of airplanes and will need God knows how much time and money to build and operate. 

And it will run into same problem as other large ACs: huge expensive target in the age of rapidly evolving anti-ship missiles. And much fewer of them will eventually be available as always.

Su-57 is air superiority fighter at it's core. Navy doesn't need those. They need something small that can easily fit on the ship (reason for MiG-29K), that can take off and land on the moderate sized ship and that can haul bombs and anti-ship missiles around. They don't need super dogfight airplane, those days in Naval warfare are over.

Navy needs small preferably​ single engine fighter. VTOL or not it's besides the point, what matters is size.

Any nuclear carrier would have catapults anyway. Keeping ship's size and pricetag manageable is priority here.

There is marginal difference between the size of the two aircraft, and the take off distance the same for both.


The SU-57 more fit for AWACS job, and for land attack.
So I don't think that there is big difference between the two aircraft.


However to design a vertical take off airplane is simply waste of time.

At the end of the day one fighter cost as much as 30-50 cruise missile, means that if the chance on each sortie of kill is 5% then it makes more sense to use crusie missiles rather than bombers.


This means that the times when a bomber attack ships with short range weapons is over, it is cheaper to attack with anti ship missiles.


The aircraft needed only as a sensor platform, and if the enemy air defence is inoperable.

Fact remains that Russian Navy is downsizing so it's extremely unlikely that anything larger than MiG 29 will be going on ships