Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

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

Still better than a yak141. And it could get aesa radar from the 35 which will make it more multirole.

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

got a quote/link for this claim about downsizing?

Papa, because lots of systems are still actually being worked on. They aren't rushing development after first Gorshkov mistake. Initial plans are still in place. Downsizing may mean something different in Serb, but in English it means more or less abandoning a lot and reducing overall size in terms of numbers. Which isn't truth in this.

Did you see anything resembling anything 'big' being laid down or even planned?

Mentioned multiple times with the upgrade of the huge Zvezda shipyard that they intend to build huge oil tankers and also huge gas tankers of 350,000 ton weight tops, they are also able to build capital military vessels there too up to the size of super carriers if needed.

The fact is that it would require a huge investment to build a VSTOL aircraft that was just as capable as a MiG-289K is now.... its ability to carry hypersonic long range missiles must be some sort of joke as they will likely be 2-4 tons each so no little VSTOL aircraft operating in vertical take off mode will be armed with them.

They have already stated they are developing EM cats, so combine this with the already created nuclear power plants for large ships and why would you need little ships with VSTOL fighters?

Britain tried little ships with Harriers which were successful only because the Argentine air force consisted of Skyhawks and old model Mirages. Even if they only had MiG-23s the British would have been in serious trouble.

Conversely if they had the Ark Royal with Phantoms they would have been much much safer with proper AWACS support and much faster interception performance and operational range.

A ship the size of the K would be ideal with an EM cat system and MiG-29K sized aircraft and nuke propulsion.

Being able to move fast without burning through available fuel means faster reaction time anywhere, and it frees up space for fuel for air operations and for munitions too.

VSTOL aircraft are fragile and IR targets, and have a poor safety record.

Russia already tested the Yak-38M in Afghanistan in the CAS role and it was worse than useless. It needed runways because vertical take offs blast soil into the air which instantly ruins the engines. Payloads were pathetic, and vulnerability to MANPADS was horrendous... on a normal jet an old Strela can only lock from behind, but with a VSTOL aircraft with the engine nozzles visible from the sides means over pretty much any angle you can see a Yak you can get a lock and a kill with any old model Redeye or Strela.

Even with the Yak-141 it has over a ton of lift engines that it carries everywhere with it reducing its performance... it is junk.

Want a small carrier to save money, which results in crap fighters of inferior performance... you are better off with no carrier. Just get lots of missile heavy large ships and accept that you wont always see what you kill so a few airliners are going to get shot down...

MiG 29 can't take off from LHD hence no time and money saved again

The Yak-141 was cancelled.... let it go.

The plans for a new light 5th gen fighter as a numbers aircraft would make enormous sense as a carrier aircraft.

I very much doubt they will make the same mistake the US has made with the F-35 and have the design compromised by making it VSTOL capable.

There is no point in developing EM cats AND VSTOL fighters.

If it is a choice between cats and VSTOL fighters (Dogs) it is pretty clear that cats offer much more in terms of AWACS support and superior takeoff weights for all aircraft... not so important for Russian Navy aircraft as they will be interceptors not bombers, but the comparison is that the VSTOL design offers an inferior aircraft that means the ships it operates from can be smaller and cheaper but also therefore less capable too.

A downward spiral of cheap and less effective... I can see the bean counters in the British military loving that, but why would Russia inflict that on her Navy?

They don't need either right now, but in 2030 when  BRICS means much more and Russia has investments around the world to protect then a few operational carriers will be critical to that.

About those extra heat emitting nozzles, is it possible to seal them off during in-flight operation? Surely obscuring the heat signature or at least filtering it (as first seen on the Mi-24 in Afghanistan) would not require much in terms of weight or engineering?

As for kicking up dust when landing/taking off from an airbase, this could be remedied by making sure the aircraft is STOL capable as well as VTOL/STOVL...

GarryB wrote:

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.

I am wondering about that as well, but if the Navy's priority is minimizing costs, than there's a high possibility of them using conventional propulsion instead of nuclear.
This should also speed up construction time.

No, the Russians wouldn't have kept the Gorshkov, to expensive to retrofit and to old by the time it's done.
Makes more sense to build a new carrier with new design and new tech.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Did you already see this article?

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

Ok, after reading, this i would like to clarify my previuos statement with that Project Lavina AC.

In no way did i purpose the use of VTOL or STOVL aircraft.
I was thinking of an AC with a single runway with the longest take-off distance on the Kuz and a Ski-jump with possible EMALS as well.
To launch Mig-29Ks and maybe 1 AEW aircraft.

I get where people are going with this VTOL/STOVL thing, but i don't see it being viable.
Especially given the delays it will bring to just develop such an aircraft, to say nothing of the premium payed for each.

P.S: Would thrust-vectoring on the Mig help reduce the take-off distance, anyone??

Developing & perfecting their own steam or EM CAT may take many more years then building a CVNski & new STOVL fighters. Even after it's done, "cold launches" with loss of a/c & sometimes crews can & will happen, as they do in the USN. To minimize it, use CATs only for heavy fixed wing AEWC & supply a/c, leaving STOVL & other fighters using angled deck & a ski-jump. They can engage AShMs & small boats (why waste S-400 & Zircons on them?) besides other a/c & coastal targets. For heavier war loads, why not use rocket assisted takeoff?

Has any navy ever tested JATO stile rocket assisted take-off from aircraft carriers? I think that might be the method of allowing bigger payloads then usual even on Kuznetsov stile jump ramp, without needing to install catapult.

It has been tried several times in the past, just to prove itself not effective for carrier based operations.

By the way, RATO or JATO devices have always been regarded and managed as live ordnance, and as such very critical devices to have aboard.

They have never been deemed neither safe nor practical.

Relating to carrier size (and aircrafts' size) every single carrier in the past got obsolete first because unable to manage properly new aircrafts that were always larger or heavier than the ones those carrier embarked by design.

Building a carrier around the smallest aircraft you could embark, is not the best way to design it.

As always, a project is the result of several requirements, not always fully mutually compatible.

Still a safe margin for future growth should always been taken into account, to not waste such a large investment.

I think it's about time for the admins to relocate this long discussion to the proper thread.
https://www.russiadefence.net/t2631p875-future-russian-aircraft-carriers

Part of the sales pitch for the Harrier was that it could take off from supermarket car parks and operate practically anywhere.

Experience showed that any type of rubbish lying around ruined the engines and made flight a no no...

When deployed operationally the ground based army version of the harrier needed PSP or pierced steel planking to operate from.

In other words you had to lay down sheets of metal for the aircraft to take off and land on... not really that versatile.

The main fame comes from the Sea Harrier which was an average quality aircraft with a good radar  and very good pilots with short range AAMs and what they managed to do to the Argentine air force in 1982.

Most of what they did manage to do was the quality of the Lima and Mike model Sidewinders the UK took from NATO stores to use in the Falklands.

Without those new state of the art all aspect missiles they would have suffered losses.

Even if the enemy had BVR missiles.... as I mentioned if they had MiG-23s the Sea Harriers would have been in serious trouble.

The MiG-23 is a much longer ranged aircraft and would have been able to operate from airfields on the islands and not had to operate from the mainland.

About those extra heat emitting nozzles, is it possible to seal them off during in-flight operation? Surely obscuring the heat signature or at least filtering it (as first seen on the Mi-24 in Afghanistan) would not require much in terms of weight or engineering?

More weight and more complication will not make it less fragile or much safer... or for that matter cheaper.

DIRCMS would reduce the vulnerability of the aircraft to optical and IR guided missiles, but it will always be vulnerable to any sort of damage to any part of the aircraft because of the extra internal piping.

I am wondering about that as well, but if the Navy's priority is minimizing costs, than there's a high possibility of them using conventional propulsion instead of nuclear.
This should also speed up construction time.

No.... it would extend construction time as they would have to develop a whole new propulsion system to replace the NPPs already developed and used on icebreakers and any new cruisers they would make.

Reducing the top speed and limiting the range of their capital ships is not a money saving area... it would make more sense to not arm them as a money saving idea... then you can just call them aircraft carrying barges.

No, the Russians wouldn't have kept the Gorshkov, to expensive to retrofit and to old by the time it's done.
Makes more sense to build a new carrier with new design and new tech.

Are you suggesting they lied to the Indians? The facts are that they made a mistake estimating the cost of the upgrade... which meant the Russian Navy would have started the process and then found out it was going to cost rather more that they first thought... why do you think the Indians continued and the Russian Navy would not have? What other option did either navy have at the time? And BTW where is the Indigenous Indian carrier now?

Carriers are not cheap whether it is your first or your 300th.

P.S: Would thrust-vectoring on the Mig help reduce the take-off distance, anyone??

It should improve it but would never reduce it to the levels of a VSTOL.

Developing & perfecting their own steam or EM CAT may take many more years then building a CVNski & new STOVL fighters

They have already started on EM cats and the benefit would be rather more useful than VSTOL aircraft and carrier that are too small for anything but parades.

Even after it's done, "cold launches" with loss of a/c & sometimes crews can & will happen, as they do in the USN. To minimize it, use CATs only for heavy fixed wing AEWC & supply a/c, leaving STOVL & other fighters using angled deck & a ski-jump.

EM cats can adjust power settings during a launch so if there is a problem and the thing was set wrong it can increase the load to ensure the aircraft gets airborne.

A steam cat set wrong will either not accelerate the aircraft enough and it will fall into the water or it will rip the nose leg of the aircraft off.

For heavier war loads, why not use rocket assisted takeoff?

Solid rockets are expensive and a danger to everything else on the deck during operation and you can only carry so many at a time... more valuable to carry more bombs.

GarryB wrote:

I am wondering about that as well, but if the Navy's priority is minimizing costs, than there's a high possibility of them using conventional propulsion instead of nuclear.
This should also speed up construction time.

No.... it would extend construction time as they would have to develop a whole new propulsion system to replace the NPPs already developed and used on icebreakers and any new cruisers they would make.

Reducing the top speed and limiting the range of their capital ships is not a money saving area... it would make more sense to not arm them as a money saving idea... then you can just call them aircraft carrying barges.

The idea is that it'll be based on the Lavina Project and will incorporate a similar conventional propulsion system to save costs.
The NPP would be a separate thing, this is all assuming the Lavina is deployed first, which all indications point towards.

You're assuming the Russian navy would consider there small carrier a capital ship.
If the navy wants to go for this budget approach, than "aircraft carrying barges" is what they want.

Hopefully even if they still go for the small A/C approach, they'll still nuke 'em up.

No, the Russians wouldn't have kept the Gorshkov, to expensive to retrofit and to old by the time it's done.
Makes more sense to build a new carrier with new design and new tech.

Are you suggesting they lied to the Indians? The facts are that they made a mistake estimating the cost of the upgrade... which meant the Russian Navy would have started the process and then found out it was going to cost rather more that they first thought... why do you think the Indians continued and the Russian Navy would not have? What other option did either navy have at the time? And BTW where is the Indigenous Indian carrier now?

Carriers are not cheap whether it is your first or your 300th.

Dude, i have no idea what your going on about.
Your words read:

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.

The retrofit would have cost them (as you yourself said "Carriers are not cheap") and when it's done it'll be an old design, makes sense for India (considering there aging carrier), not so much for Russia, since they already have the Kuz.

P.S: Would thrust-vectoring on the Mig help reduce the take-off distance, anyone??

It should improve it but would never reduce it to the levels of a VSTOL.

I believe i made myself crystal clear on the VSTOL issue.
So, a carrier with a single runway with a max take-off distance similar to the Kuz's longest take-off position, with a Ski-jump, along with Thrust-vectoring Migs and maybe an EM-CAT for AEWs, and we got ourselves a very viable small Aircraft Carrier concept.

The idea is that it'll be based on the Lavina Project and will incorporate a similar conventional propulsion system to save costs.

Except that the Lavina is a helicopter carrier and therefore would not be an effective substitute for the Kuznetsov.... which is not a helicopter carrier.

They could also save money by making their Destroyers and Cruisers using the Buyan-M design because it is small and cheap too...

The NPP would be a separate thing, this is all assuming the Lavina is deployed first, which all indications point towards.

Using your logic the Kuznetsov would never have existed because it would have just been another Kiev class ship with a few modifications.

If the Kievs are too small then why would a Mistral class sized ship be suitable when it is even smaller?

You're assuming the Russian navy would consider there small carrier a capital ship.
If the navy wants to go for this budget approach, than "aircraft carrying barges" is what they want.

If they want the budget approach then no carrier is the cheapest option... the worst option is to try to do it on the cheap and end up spending money on something that is no use at all.

The retrofit would have cost them (as you yourself said "Carriers are not cheap") and when it's done it'll be an old design, makes sense for India (considering there aging carrier), not so much for Russia, since they already have the Kuz.

No.

If they had scrapped the K as being too big early on they didn't need to piss around for 10 years bargaining like the Indians did and the upgrade could have been much much cheaper and certainly much much faster.

So, a carrier with a single runway with a max take-off distance similar to the Kuz's longest take-off position, with a Ski-jump, along with Thrust-vectoring Migs and maybe an EM-CAT for AEWs, and we got ourselves a very viable small Aircraft Carrier concept.

Sounds very limiting... a single runway means no angled landing option so either landing or taking off and one at a time... very slow and very limiting for ops where you need to get aircraft into the air quickly, or get them down quickly.


The ideal carrier for Russia would be the Kuznetsov with new sensors and electronics and new weapons with the launchers rearranged and of course a NPP to make the propulsion system vastly more compact and efficient.

Add S-500 and UKSK launchers and load it initially with a mix of MiG-29s and Su-33s and eventually embark a light 5th gen CTOAL fighter and they have everything they need.

GarryB wrote:

The idea is that it'll be based on the Lavina Project and will incorporate a similar conventional propulsion system to save costs.

Except that the Lavina is a helicopter carrier and therefore would not be an effective substitute for the Kuznetsov.... which is not a helicopter carrier.

They could also save money by making their Destroyers and Cruisers using the Buyan-M design because it is small and cheap too...

I am not saying a "substitute for the Kuz", but a small carrier based on the Lavina, similar in design to the Centaur-class or invincible-class carriers.
Also was the Gorshkov not a Helo-carrier?

Yea, and the flip side to that is go full Shtorm on every carrier, what's your point?

The NPP would be a separate thing, this is all assuming the Lavina is deployed first, which all indications point towards.

Using your logic the Kuznetsov would never have existed because it would have just been another Kiev class ship with a few modifications.

If the Kievs are too small then why would a Mistral class sized ship be suitable when it is even smaller?

I feel like i am missing some historical context here in order to grasp what your going on about.
So, let me try here.
The Kuz is based on Kiev, the Kiev was an already deployed helo-carrier as well, so to save cash, the USSR made a aircraft carrier modification out of it.

And i am purposing the same for the Lavina, but for a small carrier.
Also i never said anything about the Kiev being to small.
And i never said the Lavina AC being more suitable, i am just trying to guess what the Russian navy will do depending on which approach they go for (budget or effectiveness/small or Medium sized).

You're assuming the Russian navy would consider there small carrier a capital ship.
If the navy wants to go for this budget approach, than "aircraft carrying barges" is what they want.

If they want the budget approach then no carrier is the cheapest option... the worst option is to try to do it on the cheap and end up spending money on something that is no use at all.

That depends on them, although this talk of VSTOL by Yuri Borisov indicates the budget approach.
I'm not sure, i think it's better to have something rather than nothing, so long as that something can do something.
I feel like a Smurf now.

The retrofit would have cost them (as you yourself said "Carriers are not cheap") and when it's done it'll be an old design, makes sense for India (considering there aging carrier), not so much for Russia, since they already have the Kuz.

No.

If they had scrapped the K as being too big early on they didn't need to piss around for 10 years bargaining like the Indians did and the upgrade could have been much much cheaper and certainly much much faster.

But they stuck with the Kuz and retired the Kievs 5 years later, because of the Yeltsin era they couldn't support the Kievs so they stuck with the more capable and modern Kuz.
Money was needed so they sold them to China and one oddly to S.Korea.
Considering the time it was retired to time it was sold to India, could Russia have modified the Gorshkov  faster and cheaper during the Yeltsin and early post Yeltsin era, i doubt that.

So, a carrier with a single runway with a max take-off distance similar to the Kuz's longest take-off position, with a Ski-jump, along with Thrust-vectoring Migs and maybe an EM-CAT for AEWs, and we got ourselves a very viable small Aircraft Carrier concept.

Sounds very limiting... a single runway means no angled landing option so either landing or taking off and one at a time... very slow and very limiting for ops where you need to get aircraft into the air quickly, or get them down quickly.

The ideal carrier for Russia would be the Kuznetsov with new sensors and electronics and new weapons with the launchers rearranged and of course a NPP to make the propulsion system vastly more compact and efficient.

Add S-500 and UKSK launchers and load it initially with a mix of MiG-29s and Su-33s and eventually embark a light 5th gen CTOAL fighter and they have everything they need.

I am in complete agreement (although i would add 1 AEW to that list), but if they do go the budget route, this is the best compromise i can think of.
P.S: What does CTOAL stand for?

Also was the Gorshkov not a Helo-carrier?

No.

this is their only helicopter carrier:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_helicopter_carrier_Moskva

Yea, and the flip side to that is go full Shtorm on every carrier, what's your point?

The point is that extremes are not very useful.

The Kievs were about 40K tons, compared with the UK invinsible class ships that were about 22K tons and the Kievs were too small to be useful.

What they don't need is 100K ton ships.... 50-60K ton ships will do fine.

The Kuz is based on Kiev, the Kiev was an already deployed helo-carrier as well, so to save cash, the USSR made a aircraft carrier modification out of it.

The Kuznetsov is NOT based on the Kiev..... they are totally different.

Do you not appreciate the difference between a through deck cruiser and an angled deck carrier?

The Kiev class carriers had a single straight deck with the front of the carrier covered in things you would normally find on a conventional cruiser.

the kuznetsov has an angled deck at the rear so landings can be carried out continuously independent of take offs over the front.

And i am purposing the same for the Lavina, but for a small carrier.
Also i never said anything about the Kiev being to small.
And i never said the Lavina AC being more suitable, i am just trying to guess what the Russian navy will do depending on which approach they go for (budget or effectiveness/small or Medium sized).

The Kiev is too small for anything but a VSTOL fighter... and at 30-40K tons it is larger than Mistral at 20K tons and the Lavina at 14K tons.

Lavina is an amphibious landing ship/helicopter carrier... it is not even close to being a fixed wing aircraft carrier.

If you need to develop VSTOL aircraft to make it viable why not just operate VSTOL aircraft from the helo decks of frigates, or just build a container ship and operate VSTOL aircraft from them?

That depends on them, although this talk of VSTOL by Yuri Borisov indicates the budget approach.

The money needed to make a VSTOL aircraft approach the performance of a much simpler and much cheaper already designed aircaft already operating from land (ie MiG-29k or Su-33 or 5th gen MiG fighter operating on land and at sea) means it is not actually a cheaper option.... especially when you include the loss rate.

Considering the time it was retired to time it was sold to India, could Russia have modified the Gorshkov  faster and cheaper during the Yeltsin and early post Yeltsin era, i doubt that.

I don't see why not.... they negotiated the damn contract for 10 years... even if they took 2 years that leaves 8 years to make it before the real upgrade was even started.

Of course making it 10 years earlier means an inferior upgrade with older materials and technology so about now they would be looking to further upgrade it, but that is the same for every ship... commit to an upgrade now and risk new technology being developed soon that means it needs another upgrade sooner rather than later.

I am in complete agreement (although i would add 1 AEW to that list), but if they do go the budget route, this is the best compromise i can think of.

The whole point of cats would be AEW or AWACS so we agree there too.

The fact is that a smaller lighter AWACS aircraft like the Yak-44 but with modern radar would be a very useful aircraft to Russia and her allies and would be worth spending a lot of money on to develop because they could make quite a few of them.

Countries with mountains where ground based radar are not so effective would love them and countries with huge borders would also find them useful too... mobile radar sites that can operate with fighters to coordinate patrols and defensive operations and even strikes.

P.S: What does CTOAL stand for?

Conventional takeoff but arrested landing...  CATOBAR catapult assisted take off but arrested landing as an option for heavier aircraft.

Dunno whats all this fuss about with the KUz honestly it's fine for what they need the problem is.

1. The Russians have very little carrier training and very little time spent operating them, this isn't a navy who uses carriers on a regular basis so they make mistakes which is to be expected

2. They need to modernize the darn ship. ETC just update it's electronic and fix its propulsion. I'd even remove the weapons to make more room for aircraft it carries what 40 yeah that's abit small by today's standards don't get me wrong but it's not terrible.

It has enough hangar space to function has a strike carrier.

The case with the kuz isn't the ship it's the fact the Russians just don't know what to do with it nor are they sure what they wanna do with it.

In anycase this ship will remain for decades because the Russians will not have another flat top to replace it anytime soon and it's better to have even a shit carrier than no carrier at all.

AlfaT8 wrote:

I am not saying a "substitute for the Kuz", but a small carrier based on the Lavina, similar in design to the Centaur-class or invincible-class carriers.
Also was the Gorshkov not a Helo-carrier?

Yea, and the flip side to that is go full Shtorm on every carrier, what's your point?

Fact is that Lavina is pretty small even for a pure LHD, let alone any ambition to operate fixed wing aircrafts.

It's a no go, even before identifying the requirements an hypothetical embarked STOVL aircraft should fulfill, and in turn its size and its mass.

A carrier, whatever a strike carrier as american CVNs or a pure air space interdiction platform, has to be designed around two primary requirements, its embarked aircrafts weights and sizes, and the operational tempo it has to sustain which in turn dictate the number of aircrafts to be embarked, how many refueling and rearming spots are available on the flying bridge, how large maintenance facilities for engines, electronics and hydraulics systems in the hangar have to be, how many crew member per aircraft to embark, how may personnel tasked with mission planning, ATC, C3I to have and so on.

The first step is to identify the minimum set of missions the carrier should perform, then what kind of and how many aircrafts are needed to perform such missions, and last start the designing phase trying to optimize costs, performances and logistical overhead.

If savings are paramount, the safest way is simply to give up missions not deemed vital, reducing in turn several requirements.

For a strike carrier, it is hard to conceive something short of the american CVNs, unless the requirement is for a token strike capability mostly to be used against second rate opponents.

If the focus is on air space interdiction and local air superiority, then carrier size and costs could be scaled back, and something able to manage properly 30 to 40 fixed wings aircrafts, and a dozen helicopter for SAR, ASW and ancillary missions, could be within the size of Kuznetsov.

As I see it, main mission of any future russian carrier will be to provide local air superiority in the near abroad of Russia, from Scandinavia to Vladivostock, and to act as a tool of diplomacy during peace times.

They should not be real strike carriers, because in the event of a real conflict, their mission will turn to a pure defensive role.

The problems related to costs are quite troublesome, of course.

But in no way spending money in tiny vessel with substandard aircrafts that not even exist would be beneficial.

I find it likely it would cost the same than a proper carrier on the size class of Kuznetsov without a third of the performances.

The same has been recognized on any requirement definition phase performed in the past by french, british and americans.

Saving on the hull size has been always deemed counterproductive, and not economically efficient.

There should always be a line not to cross related to maximum size and costs, but on the other hand there is no point building something smaller and cheaper if it cannot fulfill totally the core missions expected from it.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Dunno whats all this fuss about with the KUz honestly it's fine for what they need the problem is.

1. The Russians have very little carrier training and very little time spent operating them, this isn't a navy who uses carriers on a regular basis so they make mistakes which is to be expected

2. They need to modernize the darn ship. ETC just update it's electronic and fix its propulsion. I'd even remove the weapons to make more room for aircraft it carries what 40 yeah that's abit small by today's standards don't get me wrong but it's not terrible.

It has enough hangar space to function has a strike carrier.

The case with the kuz isn't the ship it's the fact the Russians just don't know what to do with it nor are they sure what they wanna do with it.

In anycase this ship will remain for decades because the Russians will not have another flat top to replace it anytime soon and it's better to have even a shit carrier than no carrier at all.

Kuznetsov, propulsion system let alone, was designed as a defensive platform charged with defence of soviet's SSBNs bastions.

It hadn't even to achieve local air superiority, in event of a war against NATO, she (or they if the sisters had been built), had the mission to fend off any incursion within bastions' air space for the time required by soviet SSBNs to safely launch their SLBM.

At the time, soviet SLBMs' range where a little on the short side, and they had to cruise quite far from home waters to stay within useful range from the USA, which in turn made them vulnerable both to western SSNs and NATO naval task forces, which in turn required active surface contrast against such task forces to prevent them to track and chase soviet SSBNs.

Secondary mission was to provide early warning against cruise missile attacks and to force NATO naval strike groups to launch such cruise missiles as far as possible from Soviet Union shores, hence the heavy antiship missiles embarked.

So by today probable requirements, Kuznetsov is less than ideal as a project, even removing the silos would benefit very little to air operations.

Frankly speaking, Kuznetsov and her sisters were conceived almost as expendable systems to assure a retaliation nuclear attack would succeed.

The continuing soldiering of Kuznetsov is likely a testimony that Russian Navy has a real requirement for carriers, but until strategic forces, Air Force and Air Defense will not reach the desired level of modernization, I don't think there will be any fund provided for such endeavor.

As I see it, main mission of any future Russian carrier will be to provide local air superiority in the near abroad of Russia, from Scandinavia to Vladivostok, and to act as a tool of diplomacy during peace times.

& as I mentioned, while supported by land based assets. The same can be said about Chinese carriers. Adm.K is indeed a good training & diplomacy tool with some value as a sea denial/ASW platform, & that's why it's being upgraded now. It could also be a mother ship for U/CAVs & submersible drones like the Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV). http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/10/navy-plans-deploy-submarine-drone-squadron-2020/123179/
And it could be very useful in the E.Med & Black Seas in protecting Russia's interests in Syria, & keeping NATO from interfering with her current & future plans regarding Ukraine & Georgia, while keeping Turkey from any potential mischief.

Peŕrier wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Dunno whats all this fuss about with the KUz honestly it's fine for what they need the problem is.

1. The Russians have very little carrier training and very little time spent operating them, this isn't a navy who uses carriers on a regular basis so they make mistakes which is to be expected

2. They need to modernize the darn ship. ETC just update it's electronic and fix its propulsion. I'd even remove the weapons to make more room for aircraft it carries what 40 yeah that's abit small by today's standards don't get me wrong but it's not terrible.

It has enough hangar space to function has a strike carrier.

The case with the kuz isn't the ship it's the fact the Russians just don't know what to do with it nor are they sure what they wanna do with it.

In anycase this ship will remain for decades because the Russians will not have another flat top to replace it anytime soon and it's better to have even a shit carrier than no carrier at all.

Kuznetsov, propulsion system let alone, was designed as a defensive platform charged with defence of soviet's SSBNs bastions.

It hadn't even to achieve local air superiority, in event of a war against NATO, she (or they if the sisters had been built), had the mission to fend off any incursion within bastions' air space for the time required by soviet SSBNs to safely launch their SLBM.

At the time, soviet SLBMs' range where a little on the short side, and they had to cruise quite far from home waters to stay within useful range from the USA, which in turn made them vulnerable both to western SSNs and NATO naval task forces, which in turn required active surface contrast against such task forces to prevent them to track and chase soviet SSBNs.

Secondary mission was to provide early warning against cruise missile attacks and to force NATO naval strike groups to launch such cruise missiles as far as possible from Soviet Union shores, hence the heavy antiship missiles embarked.

So by today probable requirements, Kuznetsov is less than ideal as a project, even removing the silos would benefit very little to air operations.

Frankly speaking, Kuznetsov and her sisters were conceived almost as expendable systems to assure a retaliation nuclear attack would succeed.

The continuing soldiering of Kuznetsov is likely a testimony that Russian Navy has a real requirement for carriers, but until strategic forces, Air Force and Air Defense will not reach the desired level of modernization, I don't think there will be any fund provided for such endeavor.

I agree with your general point but the carrier still can be somewhat useful if it's properly fixed is the point I made.

sure they need something better also I said a strike carrier now a full blown carrier.

GarryB wrote:No.

this is their only helicopter carrier:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_helicopter_carrier_Moskva

Hmm..., so it's not a Helo-carrier because of the Yak-38.

The point is that extremes are not very useful.

The Kievs were about 40K tons, compared with the UK invinsible class ships that were about 22K tons and the Kievs were too small to be useful.

What they don't need is 100K ton ships.... 50-60K ton ships will do fine.

Were the Kievs to small to be usefull or were the Yak38s to fragile to be usefull, why weren't they useful??

I'd put a 70K ton as the max, but yea, i agree.

The Kuznetsov is NOT based on the Kiev..... they are totally different.

Do you not appreciate the difference between a through deck cruiser and an angled deck carrier?

The Kiev class carriers had a single straight deck with the front of the carrier covered in things you would normally find on a conventional cruiser.

the kuznetsov has an angled deck at the rear so landings can be carried out continuously independent of take offs over the front.

It's hull was indeed based on the Kiev, although enlarged.

Correct, and it's aircrafts were Helos and Yaks that take-off and land vertically.

Yes, which won't be possible on a small carrier, since it will only have one runway.

The Kiev is too small for anything but a VSTOL fighter... and at 30-40K tons it is larger than Mistral at 20K tons and the Lavina at 14K tons.

Lavina is an amphibious landing ship/helicopter carrier... it is not even close to being a fixed wing aircraft carrier.

If you need to develop VSTOL aircraft to make it viable why not just operate VSTOL aircraft from the helo decks of frigates, or just build a container ship and operate VSTOL aircraft from them?

That has more to do with it's deck being for VTOL aircrafts, the conversion of the Gorshkov tells us an Kiev AC is doable.
"14K tons"?????..... the info say 23K tons or am i reading this wrong:


That's why it needs to be converted to such.

True, but the VTOLs need to coordinate, and having having multiple ships give different orders is a recipe for disaster, especially when going against other enemy air groups, so the container ship would probly work.
But again, VTOLs are flying coffins here.

The money needed to make a VSTOL aircraft approach the performance of a much simpler and much cheaper already designed aircaft already operating from land (ie MiG-29k or Su-33 or 5th gen MiG fighter operating on land and at sea) means it is not actually a cheaper option.... especially when you include the loss rate.

Yap, i already mentioned this few pages back.

I don't see why not.... they negotiated the damn contract for 10 years... even if they took 2 years that leaves 8 years to make it before the real upgrade was even started.

Of course making it 10 years earlier means an inferior upgrade with older materials and technology so about now they would be looking to further upgrade it, but that is the same for every ship... commit to an upgrade now and risk new technology being developed soon that means it needs another upgrade sooner rather than later.

No i don't see it, especially not during and early post Yeltsin era.
Hmm... can you give me timeline your thinking of, i am looking at it from right after retirement in the mid 90s to 04', but it sounds like you are talking about 2004 above.
Overall i don't see Russia doing the conversion for themselves, since the major rearmament started after 8-8-8.

The whole point of cats would be AEW or AWACS so we agree there too.

The fact is that a smaller lighter AWACS aircraft like the Yak-44 but with modern radar would be a very useful aircraft to Russia and her allies and would be worth spending a lot of money on to develop because they could make quite a few of them.

Countries with mountains where ground based radar are not so effective would love them and countries with huge borders would also find them useful too... mobile radar sites that can operate with fighters to coordinate patrols and defensive operations and even strikes.

Of course, it's pointless to make a new carrier without AEW/AWACS.

Feels like we're walking into the P3 vs Il-38 comparison again, but the Yak-44 is way lighter, not sure whether Russia has a use for a land based variant, i can definitely see other countries being interested.
As for carrier variant, all i can see is India.

1. The Russians have very little carrier training and very little time spent operating them, this isn't a navy who uses carriers on a regular basis so they make mistakes which is to be expected

They manage to not run into giant cargo ships in heavily congested shipping lanes though...

2. They need to modernize the darn ship. ETC just update it's electronic and fix its propulsion. I'd even remove the weapons to make more room for aircraft it carries what 40 yeah that's abit small by today's standards don't get me wrong but it's not terrible.

I agree, they need serious upgrades, but they would never disarm it and you show you really don't understand them to suggest such a thing... the Makarov was the first space gun... The Soviets know when things go wrong sometimes a weapon is useful... where ever you are.

I am sure the sailors on the USS Liberty would have liked more than two 50 cal HMGs...

With newer multifunction aircraft you don't need a dozen aircraft per mission....

It has enough hangar space to function has a strike carrier.

I just has no reason to. CAP aircraft and maybe an AWACS type is all she needs for her primary role.

The case with the kuz isn't the ship it's the fact the Russians just don't know what to do with it nor are they sure what they wanna do with it.

They know exactly what they want to do with it. They tested in Syria to see if it could do other things but the rate they are deploying land attack cruise missile equipped corvettes suggests that the strike function wont be rested on the shoulders of a few carrier based bombers.

Hmm..., so it's not a Helo-carrier because of the Yak-38.

Is the Kirov a helicopter carrier then... it can carry 3 helos...

The Moskva was designed to carry helos and that is all it carried.

The Kievs were specifically designed to carry Yak based VSTOL fighter jets... it also carried helos, but its design was for jump jets.

Were the Kievs to small to be usefull or were the Yak38s to fragile to be usefull, why weren't they useful??

The Kievs in their Soviet built state could not launch any fixed wing aircraft other than VSTOL aircraft, which lacked range and payload and speed to be very much use. A Ka-52K with a modern AESA radar fitted with R-37 missiles would be 100 times more potent than a Yak-38M... it could climb to 5K metres and launch missiles and hit targets at over 100km and more importantly detect targets at more than 100km... something the Yaks were never able to do.

Modify them to the Gorshkov shape with a proper runway and angled landing deck and you could operate real aircraft like MiG-29s with an order of magnitude better performance.

I'd put a 70K ton as the max, but yea, i agree.

With nuke propulsion that would include a lot of aviation fuel and weapons but the more the better I suppose.

It's hull was indeed based on the Kiev, although enlarged.

Any evidence of that?

Follow the wiki link to that comment and it goes to a pro american naval website I wouldn't trust very far.

Correct, and it's aircrafts were Helos and Yaks that take-off and land vertically.

The Yaks used rolling takeoffs to improve lift off weight, and usually had rolling landings to minimise the amount of time they needed to operate at full throttle.

That has more to do with it's deck being for VTOL aircrafts, the conversion of the Gorshkov tells us an Kiev AC is doable.

And the fact that the Russian Navy did not just say lets have this Kiev class carrier converted to operate like the Kuznetsov as it will be just as capable but also smaller and cheaper, suggests they think the K is the better option for them.

The Gorshkov was the only option for India and they took it.

"14K tons"?????..... the info say 23K tons or am i reading this wrong:

The projected 165 meter-long Lavina will displace 14,000 metric tons. Its contingent of attack and ASW helicopters can include up to a dozen choppers in total.

From:  https://sputniknews.com/military/201706041054305747-lavina-class-amphibious-assault-ship/

Feels like we're walking into the P3 vs Il-38 comparison again, but the Yak-44 is way lighter, not sure whether Russia has a use for a land based variant, i can definitely see other countries being interested.

Russia has been spending money on only a few types of aircraft and one of them is the upgraded A-50U and another is the A-100.

The Russian Army has bought Ka-31 AEW aircraft for monitoring the battlefield... why do you think they would not jump at the chance to get a lighter cheaper AWACS aircraft that can operate with small groups of fighters over territory well away from the populated areas of Russia?

The far north is another area where AWACS support would be useful too.

They could buy dozens of these aircraft for the RKO as well as the Army and Navy.

For a small country like Iran or even Australia or Canada if they weren't so pro US.

Any airforce would be greatly enhanced with AWACS support but only the richest NATO countries can afford Sentrys.

Having a cheaper smaller model would sell well to countries not blinded by politics.

And would fill a lot of gaps in the Russian air defence network.

Airborne radar have a much better view of low flying threats... link them in to the IADS and you are much better protected from cruise missile attack just as one example. Turkey would buy some to make their S-400s even more effective.