Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

They probably lack expertise in this type of construction. Russia sometimes amazes me and sometime mortifys me. The Kerch bridge was done in record time. World Cup stadiums, amazing. This one, clearly not the tier one companies. Its all very inconsistant. Digging hole and building the rebar walls should not really be that complex a job, but there could be some local conditions that make it harder. Who knows. I always suspected they sunk that dock so they could get the state to build a drydock. Something was fishy and it is not the sea air lol

The problem is most likely a lack of urgency... the delays seem to be engine part related, which the availability of a new dry dock will make no difference over, and with the K likely back in the water in 2023 they should have at least one upgraded Kirov class ship plus some Slavas to go sailing with her for testing and training.

They would be better focusing on Corvettes and converting the current frigate design into a destroyer variant that they can produce in significant numbers before worrying too much about the Kuznetsov. It is a work in progress and they now have two land based training facilities so the future has never looked better for them.

Assistant driver of the deck tractor on board the Admiral Kuznetsov

The aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" is planned to be transferred to the fleet at the end of 2023

According to Vladimir Korolev, vice president for military shipbuilding at USC, the aircraft carrier in June-July 2023 after the completion of the repair will go to sea for tests that will last about a year.

SAINT PETERSBURG, June 23. / TASS /. Repair and modernization of the aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov will be completed in 2023, and at the end of the same year it will be handed over to the Russian Navy. Vice-President for military shipbuilding of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) Vladimir Korolev told TASS on the sidelines of the International Maritime Defense Show.

"Repairs and modernization of Admiral Kuznetsov will be completed in the first half of 2023. The avionics, the flight deck with a springboard, power equipment, and the power plant will be completely replaced. The ship will receive a new control system for the takeoff and landing of aircraft entirely of domestic design. The composition of carrier-based aviation will remain the same. There will be no strike weapons on the cruiser, it will be equipped with the Pantsir-M anti-aircraft missile and cannon system, Korolev said.

According to him, in June-July 2023, after the completion of the repair, the aircraft carrier will go to sea for tests that will last about a year. “At the end of 2023, it is planned to transfer the Admiral Kuznetsov to the fleet,” concluded the USC vice president.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/11730349

No "new" strike weapons, or not strike weapons at all, like in removal of the existing ones??

Maybe they want to clear some hanger space for more aircraft? I personally would like to see it being modernized with Tzirkons instead.

Mir wrote:Maybe they want to clear some hanger space for more aircraft? I personally would like to see it being modernized with Tzirkons instead.

I would rather like to see air launched Tsirkons carried by the Su-33. They could carry many more onboard and they would have like twice the range of the regular ones

LMFS wrote:

Mir wrote:Maybe they want to clear some hanger space for more aircraft? I personally would like to see it being modernized with Tzirkons instead.

I would rather like to see air launched Tsirkons carried by the Su-33. They could carry many more onboard and they would have like twice the range of the regular ones

Yes I would actually like to see both options as the SU-33's would (initially at least) be used in a CAP and AD role. The range and speed of the missile itself is quite adequate from any ship to be a huge threat to enemy ships. The more you can field the better.

Mir wrote:Yes I would actually like to see both options as the SU-33's would (initially at least) be used in a CAP and AD role. The range and speed of the missile itself is quite adequate from any ship to be a huge threat to enemy ships. The more you can field the better.

Naval strike is something in which they need to start working seriously, the Su-33 is being updated and the MiG-29K is multirole from the start, so I think they know well. The Tsirkon is a formidable weapon, but if it has ca. 1000 km range vs surface targets, it can be countered by the air power of the USN. When carried by aircraft whose range is 3000 km (Su-33 on internal fuel) and which can be refuelled in flight, then it multiplies its value and there is no workable way for the enemy to keep the Russian launchers under threat from a safe position, now or in a foreseeable future.

Now can you imagine (yes you can!) throwing those modded Backfires and Anteys into the mix!

No "new" strike weapons, or not strike weapons at all, like in removal of the existing ones??

Sounds like they have removed the Granits and are not replacing them... unless they put UKSK launchers in there and intend to carry Ovtets only, but he lists the Pantsir missile and gun system only... and I doubt they are removing TOR as well so maybe they expect to carry Ovtets in UKSK launchers replacing the Granits, but are replacing the Kashtans with Pantsirs and keeping and upgrading the TOR.

The Granits have to go because they are not in production and likely don't have a lot... which was a driving force for replacing them on their Oscar SSGNs.

Maybe they want to clear some hanger space for more aircraft? I personally would like to see it being modernized with Tzirkons instead.

The Granit launchers are right up the front of the ship and I would expect surrounded by some pretty substantial firewalls and protection to separate them from everything else in the ship.

Taking the missiles out is one thing but removing the entire section would be quite a job... if you were replacing the Granit launch tubes with UKSK then keep the firewalls and wiring etc etc, but I am not sure removing the entire section would allow expansion of the hangar deck... but these missiles are huge and go down quite a few deck levels so the volume of space freed up would be significant.

Maybe put an ordinance lift at one end and store munitions in there to load aircraft on the deck would be interesting...

I would rather like to see air launched Tsirkons carried by the Su-33. They could carry many more onboard and they would have like twice the range of the regular ones

There would certainly be a performance boost but I don't think it would be double range because the solid rocket booster is only to get it up and going, unlike the Kinzhal, which is all solid rocket booster.

Maybe a 50% range boost... hard to say.

It can carry a Moskit so there should be no problem to integrate it.

Shown at air shows but never actually integrated.

From the long takeoff position I am not sure the Su-33 could get airborne from the K with a 4.5 ton Moskit.

Perhaps if the Zircon is only 2.5 to 3 ton then it should be possible...

Yes I would actually like to see both options as the SU-33's would (initially at least) be used in a CAP and AD role. The range and speed of the missile itself is quite adequate from any ship to be a huge threat to enemy ships. The more you can field the better.

If they have UKSK launch tubes then they can carry what will be useful... most of the time Ovtet or 91ER1 anti sub ballistic rockets, but also anti ship or long range land attack missiles could be carried too.

Obviously a carrier that size and with support ships it should be able to reload at sea perhaps?

Naval strike is something in which they need to start working seriously, the Su-33 is being updated and the MiG-29K is multirole from the start, so I think they know well. The Tsirkon is a formidable weapon, but if it has ca. 1000 km range vs surface targets, it can be countered by the air power of the USN. When carried by aircraft whose range is 3000 km (Su-33 on internal fuel) and which can be refuelled in flight, then it multiplies its value and there is no workable way for the enemy to keep the Russian launchers under threat from a safe position, now or in a foreseeable future.

Should a carrier be doing that or should the carrier be defending itself and the ships around it, in which case helicopters and anti sub missiles and fighters operating near the surface ships to protect them... if you need to send off attack dogs to defend the fleet send Yasens instead...

ALAMO wrote:ударного вооружения на крейсере не будет

So no offensive weapon.

They also say that the air composition won't change - but that is open for interpretation. I do agree with Gary though - it would take a lot of effort to cut out everything for rather limited extra space.
It would be much simpler and cheaper to add Tsirkons and other strike elements instead, but we'll see I guess.

GarryB wrote:Sounds like they have removed the Granits and are not replacing them... unless they put UKSK launchers in there and intend to carry Ovtets only, but he lists the Pantsir missile and gun system only... and I doubt they are removing TOR as well so maybe they expect to carry Ovtets in UKSK launchers replacing the Granits, but are replacing the Kashtans with Pantsirs and keeping and upgrading the TOR.

No mention to defensive weapons and I am pretty sure they would never intend to turn the Kuznetsov into some easy target, quite the opposite.

They do not need to use the space of the Granits for hangar, it can be a weapons magazine for the airwing for instance. The existing armour would help and the capacity as aircraft carrier would be increased.

Taking the missiles out is one thing but removing the entire section would be quite a job... if you were replacing the Granit launch tubes with UKSK then keep the firewalls and wiring etc etc, but I am not sure removing the entire section would allow expansion of the hangar deck... but these missiles are huge and go down quite a few deck levels so the volume of space freed up would be significant.

Installing the UKSK is a major change...

Maybe put an ordinance lift at one end and store munitions in there to load aircraft on the deck would be interesting...

Exactly

There would certainly be a performance boost but I don't think it would be double range because the solid rocket booster is only to get it up and going, unlike the Kinzhal, which is all solid rocket booster.

Maybe a 50% range boost... hard to say.

Yeah, I am not even talking about the advantage of being launched at high altitude and speed, I assume simply the booster would be made much smaller to save space and weight on the aircraft and increase the amount of missiles available on board. What I mean is that the launching point is say 1000 km away from the fleet, or maybe even more if IFR is used. That is the flexibility air power contributes with and about which I write all the time.

Should a carrier be doing that or should the carrier be defending itself and the ships around it, in which case helicopters and anti sub missiles and fighters operating near the surface ships to protect them... if you need to send off attack dogs to defend the fleet send Yasens instead...

See above. The Kuznetsov would have a disadvantage if an enemy does have actually effective air launched AShM and can stay away of the fixed range of the ship based AShMs of the VMF while launching their missiles, or force the Russian subs to operate under surveillance of their own ASW. It is pretty clear I think.

ударного вооружения на крейсере не будет

So no offensive weapon.

Just like AEGIS ASHORE, perhaps a UKSK-M launcher that is intended to only carry self defence anti sub ballistic rockets and perhaps some large SAMs and other more exotic loadouts... maybe long range hypersonic drones based on Zircon that can remove the warhead and reduce the solid rocket component and increase the scramjet fuel so perhaps it only reaches mach 9 at its last stages of flight but can fly about it a bit more and use its kinetic energy to destroy lighter targets while distracting air defences from other weapons intended to kill them...

No offensive weapons suggests no land attack cruise missiles but does it suggest no anti ship missiles if it is an air control carrier and not a strike carrier.

If it was a strike carrier then anti ship missiles would be part of its strike capacity, but as an air defence carrier anti ship missiles would be like anti sub rockets... self defence weapons to allow it to continue doing its air defence job.

They also say that the air composition won't change - but that is open for interpretation. I do agree with Gary though - it would take a lot of effort to cut out everything for rather limited extra space.
It would be much simpler and cheaper to add Tsirkons and other strike elements instead, but we'll see I guess.

The easiest cheapest solution would be to take out the Granits and do nothing else.

Not a great use of a very large volume of space however.

Plan B might be to replace the Granit tubes with UKSK tubes and carry anti sub rockets to defend the ship from sub attack together with some helicopters onboard and nearby ships as well of course all using modern capable sonar sets looking for threats.

Plan C might be to store munitions there for aircraft with a lift so aircraft can be armed on deck just before takeoff.

Plan D might be to just remove everything, firewalls and all and just use it for other things instead, but the location makes me think it might be too far away from the Hangar deck and it would go 4-5 decks down and right up to deck level, so maybe put a fixed roof on top and carry extra stores or material in there to increase the endurance of the ship... so dry stores or cold stores or whatever.

Maybe a tiny new hangar area for drones?

It is hard to say without seeing the plans showing where existing ordinance is stored and where the hangar is in relation to these former missile tubes... what we can be sure of is that the firewalls between where the Granits sat and the rest of the ship will be substantial in every direction.

No mention to defensive weapons and I am pretty sure they would never intend to turn the Kuznetsov into some easy target, quite the opposite.

The Redut systems they have shown with the 10km and 28km range missiles for export is exactly the sort of systems they will be loading onto their new helicopter carrier, though the Russian models might be 15km range and 60km range but they wont bother with the bit 9M96 missile at 150km range because these are for self defence.

They still have the TOR guidance systems in each corner of the Island so they will still be there and they used to have 192 missiles in the four corners of the deck... the current TOR missiles are half the size and pack twice as many missiles in the same area... ie the Klintok are based on the 1980s TOR with 8 per vehicle while the current TOR missiles are 16 per same vehicle so even without any modification of the area they take up they should be able to carry 384 missiles ready to fire and that does not include the new mini missiles they are developing for engaging targets that don't require a 50kg HE warhead to destroy.

They do not need to use the space of the Granits for hangar, it can be a weapons magazine for the airwing for instance. The existing armour would help and the capacity as aircraft carrier would be increased.

Well an important point is that so far the Kuznetsov has been an air defence carrier so I am not sure it was intended to carry a lot of unguided dumb bombs to begin with.

Adding this area to allow dumb iron bombs and unguided rockets perhaps like the large calibre S-25s would be a useful addition to allow the safe storage of such ammo without eating into the available space for air to air ordinance which has been the primary air weapon load so far.

Now they have upgraded their Su-33s and have fully multirole MiG-29KRs the variety of guided munitions should be able to be expanded dramatically.

The two seat MiGs allowing the Su-25s to be retired from the training role.

Installing the UKSK is a major change...

After removing Granit tubes and replacing them with UKSK launch tubes on two Kirovs and how many Oscars and Oscar IIs, they should be able to work out a few tricks to make it easier and faster and cheaper I suspect.

They might not change it this time there might be other things they want to test that they think are more important like the SAM load-out and new sensors and electronic equipment.

Yeah, I am not even talking about the advantage of being launched at high altitude and speed, I assume simply the booster would be made much smaller to save space and weight on the aircraft and increase the amount of missiles available on board. What I mean is that the launching point is say 1000 km away from the fleet, or maybe even more if IFR is used. That is the flexibility air power contributes with and about which I write all the time.

By making it air launched I would say changing the design quite dramatically by reducing the solid rocket to a minimum but also adding more scramjet fuel, because in essence with a scramjet the scramjet is a rocket motor that can burn for much much longer than a solid rocket motor and put out comparable levels of thrust... you could seriously improve performance and also make it rather more suitable for loading onto aircraft... it has enormous potential and its high speed means reducing the warhead size can dramatically reduce the size and weight of the weapon too... a warhead optimised to start fires rather than just explode would be ideal because at mach 9-10 it is going to be moving faster than some types of explosives explode at.

See above. The Kuznetsov would have a disadvantage if an enemy does have actually effective air launched AShM and can stay away of the fixed range of the ship based AShMs of the VMF while launching their missiles, or force the Russian subs to operate under surveillance of their own ASW. It is pretty clear I think.

With a proper AWACS aircraft eventually flying with them there are no HATO anti ship missiles that look especially dangerous... launching them in enormous numbers just means the enemy ship force will be carrying more anti ship missiles than SAMs because they can't fill them up with both, which would make them horribly vulnerable to a sneaky sub attack from an unexpected direction.

The Russian Navy needs to defend itself from enemy carrier groups but it does not need to worry about being able to send off carrier based planes to hunt them down... it is pretty obvious who the aggressor is and that is unlikely to change any time soon.

GarryB wrote:The Redut systems they have shown with the 10km and 28km range missiles for export is exactly the sort of systems they will be loading onto their new helicopter carrier, though the Russian models might be 15km range and 60km range but they wont bother with the bit 9M96 missile at 150km range because these are for self defence.

They still have the TOR guidance systems in each corner of the Island so they will still be there and they used to have 192 missiles in the four corners of the deck... the current TOR missiles are half the size and pack twice as many missiles in the same area... ie the Klintok are based on the 1980s TOR with 8 per vehicle while the current TOR missiles are 16 per same vehicle so even without any modification of the area they take up they should be able to carry 384 missiles ready to fire and that does not include the new mini missiles they are developing for engaging targets that don't require a 50kg HE warhead to destroy.

The main issue is to have enough control channels to target many dozens of incoming missiles at the same time, the 9M100 with IR guidance would be very useful in that regard. Of course doubling the amount of Tor missiles would not be bad either...

Now they have upgraded their Su-33s and have fully multirole MiG-29KRs the variety of guided munitions should be able to be expanded dramatically.

Yes, you don't need to carry 2,000 t of bombs like a USN carrier, but some dozens of high-end AShM would make it extremely dangerous to mess with a VMF detachment.

They might not change it this time there might be other things they want to test that they think are more important like the SAM load-out and new sensors and electronic equipment.

They have enough vessels with Kalibr to bother IMHO.

By making it air launched I would say changing the design quite dramatically by reducing the solid rocket to a minimum but also adding more scramjet fuel, because in essence with a scramjet the scramjet is a rocket motor that can burn for much much longer than a solid rocket motor and put out comparable levels of thrust... you could seriously improve performance and also make it rather more suitable for loading onto aircraft... it has enormous potential and its high speed means reducing the warhead size can dramatically reduce the size and weight of the weapon too... a warhead optimised to start fires rather than just explode would be ideal because at mach 9-10 it is going to be moving faster than some types of explosives explode at.

You don't need to change anything in the missile itself and range, warhead etc. should remain, you just need a smaller booster because the carrying aircraft does a good part of the job. The launching point and therefore the range of the whole weapons system is variable and that is the big difference. The enemy cannot practically plan where to station safely to attack you.

The Russian Navy needs to defend itself from enemy carrier groups but it does not need to worry about being able to send off carrier based planes to hunt them down... it is pretty obvious who the aggressor is and that is unlikely to change any time soon.

Clearly we see it differently. Do you expect to win a box fight without landing some blows on your enemy? The most mobile, flexible and less vulnerable asset they have to strike is aviation, without it they are conceding an advantage just for the fun of it.

Completion date for Kuznetsov repairs has been moved to 2023

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4337368.html

Just enough time to fit those Tsirkons!

The main issue is to have enough control channels to target many dozens of incoming missiles at the same time, the 9M100 with IR guidance would be very useful in that regard. Of course doubling the amount of Tor missiles would not be bad either...

Which would be why the Kashtan-M and TOR combination would be so useful... if you look at any photos of the Kuznetsov the most obvious things you notice is the Klintok control module in each corner of the Island... I would think for a naval version that they could seriously upgrade that to use the ships search radar and control module AESA radar tracking system that could perhaps handle dozens of missiles to dozens of targets instead of the land based three missiles to three targets plus one target and one missile via optical guidance (four channels).

Obviously with four control modules that is 16 targets engaged at once but then Kashtan systems could also engage targets at the same time so overwhelming the system would take work...

They have enough vessels with Kalibr to bother IMHO.

But the UKSK-M can carry more than just Kalibres and Onyx/Zircons. They carry the anti sub rockets but also have other optional potential loads too which are only going to further expand over time...

You don't need to change anything in the missile itself and range, warhead etc. should remain, you just need a smaller booster because the carrying aircraft does a good part of the job. The launching point and therefore the range of the whole weapons system is variable and that is the big difference. The enemy cannot practically plan where to station safely to attack you.

But it is like the Brahmos vs the proposed Brahmos-M where the latter was smaller and lighter and faster and fighters like the Flankers could carry five of them instead of just one.

The point is that with altitude and some speed with the launch you can really reduce the size and weight of the weapon dramatically... and even more so if you reduce the warhead weight by perhaps half.

Using five lightened missiles means more of a death of a thousand cuts and increases the number and speed of the targets trying to penetrate enemy defences... and can be carried by a much wider range of aircraft too.

Imagine a deck launched drone that is essentially subsonic wings and a huge fuel tank and solid rocket boosters to get airborne with basic flight controls and an autopilot with 10 Zircon-M missiles scabbed conformally to its upper and lower body... launch it from the carrier and have it slowly climb and fly sub sonically towards the target area... when it gets close it can go full AB and accelerate and climb as high as it can climb and when the fuel is empty the 10 missiles are launched to attack the target, perhaps it flew around to attack from the side or rear from where your ships are located for the enemy, so a real surprise attack... the drone could have a cheap detonation engine like the V-1 buzz bomb did...

Clearly we see it differently. Do you expect to win a box fight without landing some blows on your enemy?

Clearly we do, Russian carriers don't need to and should not get involved in sinking carriers... whether they are American or French or British, their purpose is to defend Russian shipping from enemy attack... ships might get sunk, but they are not there to take on HATO or anyone else... if such a conflict develops then all their ships should be heading to home ports and ICBMs and SLBMs will determine the outcome.

The most mobile, flexible and less vulnerable asset they have to strike is aviation, without it they are conceding an advantage just for the fun of it.

The air defence of the Russian ships will mostly be SAMs and guns... Aircraft will play some role in extending vision and reach, but wont be the dominant core they are in the US.

9K95 is a Tor only by name. It has rotating drum lunchers, that are totally different from the classic 2x4 layout of a Tor.

The old rotating missile systems for naval TOR and naval S-300F are obsolete and are unlikely to be continued... mainly because they are likely out of production and for new production they are hardly likely to start making the older missiles any time soon.

Newer fixed cell based systems are simpler lighter and cheaper and easier to maintain and use.

The main problem for the Soviets was that they were ahead in vertical launch missiles but not so far ahead in computing and diagnostic systems, so missile tubes had to be accessible below decks for checking and maintenance. That meant the large rotating weapon systems that stored missiles vertically which is quite efficient, but in rotary drums which is not.

The Shtil-1 is an example of the shift from mechanical ammo handling systems for a single arm missile launcher to a multicell missile launch system.

They would have to double the missiles located on that circle, but what worries me more, is the weight question.
Don't suppose the luncher to be made with 100% extra power for servo mechanism, rack construction etc.
Although the issue is tempting, as it is still a very potent close-range asset.

They will of course go for fixed cell launchers which pack missiles in much more efficiently because there is no empty space inside and around the outside of rotary drums of missiles.

The only mechanisms you need are hatch covers.

GarryB wrote:The point is that with altitude and some speed with the launch you can really reduce the size and weight of the weapon dramatically... and even more so if you reduce the warhead weight by perhaps half.

The discussion was about ship launched Tsirkons vs. air launched ones, the difference being the smaller booster and everything else remaining the same, which is the fair comparison. Of course we know there are other air launched missiles being developed, among them a hypersonic one compatible with internal carriage for the Su-57, a Kh-32 related one for tactical bombers and then the GZUR. One of those to the bridge, mission control systems or VLS of any vessels and it is game over for them, no need to blow them to pieces.

Clearly we do, Russian carriers don't need to and should not get involved in sinking carriers... whether they are American or French or British, their purpose is to defend Russian shipping from enemy attack... ships might get sunk, but they are not there to take on HATO or anyone else... if such a conflict develops then all their ships should be heading to home ports and ICBMs and SLBMs will determine the outcome.

The conventional deterrence is based in actual capabilities of conventional forces, not considering nukes. This is necessary to settle disputes among superpowers in the international arena, where existential threat is out of question and only influence and economical interests are at stake. Nobody will end the world over such issues.

So back to the topic, of course naval strike is one crucial mission of the carrier air wing, maybe the main one. It is absurd to talk about fighters taking care of the defence of the fleet if they cannot down the attackers, what kind of BS is that? Will they also have to abstain from performing DCA missions and shoot enemy fighters down because of fears of "starting a big conflict"? What is the fundamental difference between shooting n enemy fighters down and sinking their carrying vessel? In essence, this approach makes no sense. In naval as much as in land domain, the main role of the air power is strike, while attaining air superiority is just a means to that end. Just taking a look at the composition of the VKS allows to see what missions play the core military role in order to degrade the enemy's capabilities and attain victory and which ones have a supporting one.

The air defence of the Russian ships will mostly be SAMs and guns... Aircraft will play some role in extending vision and reach, but wont be the dominant core they are in the US.

First, I was talking about naval strike and not AD

Second, if air power is not used for strike and also not for AD, then why on Earth do you propose Russia to have carriers??

One should keep in mind that the Russians have a defensive military posture which means that they are likely to do the defending - initially at least. The US are quite the opposite.

In any major naval battle the Russian carrier(s) and the air components (even the Mig-29K's) would most likely have to do a lot of defending at first. This is exactly why the Kirov's and the Kuznetsov have these unprecedented amount of air defense assets on board. The fighters would probably only switch to the strike role once they survive the pew pew from the other side.

Edit: The initial strike from Russia will be air assets, but in the form of the Tu-22's and Mig-31K's.

ALAMO wrote:

Well, they did not on Shaposhnikov, and it was an obvious candidate for testing.
They were cutting the hull wide open anyway, so why not just make another cut? As long as all the radars and wiring are already there, it was quite easy to upgrade.

Shaposhnikov is a more of a prototype ship. It's even "downgraded" as a frigate atm. Expect some more stuff on the follow up Udaloy ships - and all this would eventually benefit the new destroyers.

Depending on how quickly the future destroyers may get into the water - the Shaposhnikov may see some further upgrades.