Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

GarryB wrote:

Of course, the synergistic values of stealth combined with camouflage can be more significant than the values of each of these methods taken independently.

But couldn't you say stealthy is a type of camouflage? Stealth is more than radar cross section... there are IR and even visible aspects to stealth too.

Just like ECM is different from stealth, camouflage is different from stealth too. All these techniques may share some of their goals but they are fundamentally different.

With respect to the second part, I should say that stealth is a nonconstant function of the frequency (or wavelength).

If you can reduce the RCS of an unstealthy aircraft like F-15C to a level comparable to the RCS of a MiG-21bis, that’s stealth. If you can change the signature of an F-15C to look like a mountain, that’s camouflage.

Now here we disagree... I would call custom designed stealth aircraft as being stealth, while aircraft modified to reduce their RCS as being low observable rather than actually stealthy.

I wasn’t trying to say that an aircraft like F-15C to actually being modified to reduce its RCS. What I was trying to say was that if an aircraft with, let’s say, the size of F-15C gets designed that has the RCS of a MiG-21, then that design would be considered a stealth design.

Also, for all designs that rely on geometry and RAM, “stealth” = “low observable”. The term “low observable” is just a more respectable term that the colloquial “stealth”. I know about the history and the reason of the urban myth about those terms being different.

1- For a Russian AC to look like a container ship, and for the idea to have an impact, it would at least be required for the AC to look like a container ship in the visible spectrum (to eyeball Mark 1).

In the dark on a rainy day it would.

the amount of time it would take to eyeball every large vessel on the open ocean would make it impractical for tracking enemy carriers.


More importantly if its radar cross section makes it look like a container ship then radar guided anti ship missiles will need to be reprogrammed to attack container ships... how will that effect a conflict in a busy shipping area?

About this statement of mine and the one below, I was intentionally speaking in riddles and was expecting the reader to read between the lines. I will expand upon this one a little bit: The Russian ECM capabilities is at such a capability level that, in a real war, even the enemy eyes would get jammed/suppressed, let alone radars and optical sensors. It is considered that the enemy would be insane to even turn their radars on. Just look at the realities of the Russian 2008 action regarding Georgia.

2- The probability of a container ship being attacked is much higher that a Russian AC.

How do you determine the nationality of a container ship?

What if they are yours or an allies?

The blueprint of Russia's next-generation aircraft carrier will be ready in six years.

The announcement was made by the state shipbuilding company working on the design.

No details have been released yet. Earlier reports suggested it will be nuclear-powered, with a displacement of 80,000 tons. Soviet carriers had a maximum of 50,000 tons.

It is not clear if the ship will actually be built, as the Defense Ministry is deciding whether Russia needs a second aircraft carrier at all. Anyway, the design bureau says, by the time the ministry makes a decision, the aircraft carriers price and design need to be blueprinted.

If approved, the new carrier would be part of the Defense Ministrys decade-long plan to upgrade the Russian military. The program is expected to cost Russia over 23 trillion rubles.

This one of three designs made by State Shipbuilding Company.

The design is clearly based on the Queen Elizabeth class you can see both navalized PAK FA and MIG-29K aircrafts.

I think it will take too long to build and the design is too detectable for future naval combat. The conning tower should get a low RCS design and the tonnage dropped to 65000-70000 tons.

This one of three designs made by State Shipbuilding Company.

The design is clearly based on the Queen Elizabeth class you can see both navalized PAK FA and MIG-29K aircrafts.

One of many potential designs...

why do you say it is clearly based on the Queen E Class?

Do you think that is the only carrier design with that layout?

do you have access to Russian design archives?

GarryB wrote:

This one of three designs made by State Shipbuilding Company.

The design is clearly based on the Queen Elizabeth class you can see both navalized PAK FA and MIG-29K aircrafts.

One of many potential designs...

why do you say it is clearly based on the Queen E Class?

Do you think that is the only carrier design with that layout?

do you have access to Russian design archives?

No i dont have acces to Russian Design Archives  

And i never have seen an aircraft carrier with two towers except for the Queen Elizabeth class so that is why i thought so.

I have seen plenty of designs (drawings and models) with two towers... one to control the aircraft from and one to control the ship from...

Weve discussed alot of Things About future aircraft carriers of Russia but what we dont discussed alot were the escorts.

I would say one nuclear Powered aircraft carrier, 2 of those new destroyers russia is going to build, 3-4 Admiral gorshkov class frigates and 1-2 yasen class submarines, wouldnt that be one hell of a power projection force??  

Nice   

Russia has started to develop an electromagnetic catapult

Finally some common sense. Without a modern catapult aircraft carriers are completely useless. No AWACS mean that they can operate only against enemies with non-existent ground defenses.

AMAZING who knows it is for the K but it is for future AC for sure!

MOSCOW, February 3 (RIA Novosti) – The development and construction of a new aircraft carrier for the Russian navy could take about 10 years, a St. Petersburg-based ship design bureau said Monday.

Sergei Vlasov, general director of the Nevskoye design bureau, said the overall cost of the ship could range between 100 and 250 billion rubles ($2.8-7.1 billion).

“If the ship will be armed with a variety of weaponry, its cost will skyrocket, but if it will carry only air defense systems, the cost will be less,” the official said.

Vlasov said his bureau could design both a nuclear-powered and conventional version of the aircraft carrier. The former would have a deadweight of up to 85,000 metric tons, while the latter – up to 65,000 tons.





© RIA Novosti.

Admiral Kuznetsov. INFOgraphics.


The nuclear-powered ship would be able to carry some 70 aircraft and helicopters, while the conventional vessel – up to 55, he said.

Vlasov added that the new carrier would serve as a seaborne platform for new-generation fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, in particular a fifth-generation fighter set to replace the Su-33 multirole fighter aircraft currently in service, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).

According to Vlasov, the Russian navy needs at least four aircraft carriers: two for the Northern Fleet and two for the Pacific Fleet.

At present, Russia has only one aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, built in 1985, with a displacement of 55,000 metric tons, a crew of 1,500 and capability to carry more than 50 aircraft.


http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140203/187171199/Russia-May-Build-New-Aircraft-Carrier-by-2023--Designer.html

Nice, 85k tons sounds awesome!!!. With PAK-FA and potentially LMFS as her air wing this would be the most powerful AC!!!
Even better if they manage to make it cost a hell of a lot less than the Gerald Ford- would make even the murican navee jelly.
Yasen and Borei are already giving the best western subs a run for their money- would be delicious if the russkies can beat them
at Aircraft carriers too.

collegeboy16 wrote:Nice, 85k tons sounds awesome!!!. With PAK-FA and potentially LMFS as her air wing this would be the most powerful AC!!!
Even better if they manage to make it cost a hell of a lot less than the Gerald Ford- would make even the murican navee jelly.
Yasen and Borei are already giving the best western subs a run for their money- would be delicious if the russkies can beat them
at Aircraft carriers too.

The russian cant ever beat the usa in aircraft carriers the russians will be able to defeat the UK and France tough.

Flyingdutchman wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:Nice, 85k tons sounds awesome!!!. With PAK-FA and potentially LMFS as her air wing this would be the most powerful AC!!!
Even better if they manage to make it cost a hell of a lot less than the Gerald Ford- would make even the murican navee jelly.
Yasen and Borei are already giving the best western subs a run for their money- would be delicious if the russkies can beat them
at Aircraft carriers too.

The russian cant ever beat the usa in aircraft carriers the russians will be able to defeat the UK and France tough.

You mean Russian's can't ever beat America's $17 trillion debt, that's largely contributed by the 11 mega carriers in the U.S. Navy? If Russia want's to "beat" a U.S. aircraft carrier than they can do it at 1/1000th the cost of a carrier, it's called advanced anti-ship missiles, a Kh-32 travelling at mach 5 carrying a 1000kg warhead should do the trick.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:Nice, 85k tons sounds awesome!!!. With PAK-FA and potentially LMFS as her air wing this would be the most powerful AC!!!
Even better if they manage to make it cost a hell of a lot less than the Gerald Ford- would make even the murican navee jelly.
Yasen and Borei are already giving the best western subs a run for their money- would be delicious if the russkies can beat them
at Aircraft carriers too.

The russian cant ever beat the usa in aircraft carriers the russians will be able to defeat the UK and France tough.

You mean Russian's can't ever beat America's $17 trillion debt, that's largely contributed by the 11 mega carriers in the U.S. Navy? If Russia want's to "beat" a U.S. aircraft carrier than they can do it at 1/1000th the cost of a carrier, it's called advanced anti-ship missiles, a Kh-32 travelling at mach 5 carrying a 1000kg warhead should do the trick.

Thats not where we were talking about....

Flyingdutchman wrote:
The russian cant ever beat the usa in aircraft carriers the russians will be able to defeat the UK and France tough.

Why not? the russkies are the ones who are best aware of the the threats to an AC- they invented most of them.
Sure, the other side can boast an insane amount of experience in operating their carriers but most of that is based on decades(ww2 era) old tactics and strategies.

Also, on its own the russky AC would be deadlier than the Gerald Ford/Nimitz carriers, simply because it would be packing SAMs, and cruise missiles aside from its airwing which is much better than the latters.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:
The russian cant ever beat the usa in aircraft carriers the russians will be able to defeat the UK and France tough.

Why not? the russkies are the ones who are best aware of the the threats to an AC- they invented most of them.
Sure, the other side can boast an insane amount of experience in operating their carriers but most of that is based on decades(ww2 era) old tactics and strategies.

Also, on its own the russky AC would be deadlier than the Gerald Ford/Nimitz carriers, simply because it would be packing SAMs, and cruise missiles aside from its airwing which is much better than the latters.

I am pretty sure the new AC wont be having anti-ship cruise missiles actually i am very sure.
And do you really think the US still uses ww2 tactics?? When there werent jets and they didnt have anti-ship cruise missiles? And not to forget air to air missiles!

Weve discussed alot of Things About future aircraft carriers of Russia but what we dont discussed alot were the escorts.

I would say one nuclear Powered aircraft carrier, 2 of those new destroyers russia is going to build, 3-4 Admiral gorshkov class frigates and 1-2 yasen class submarines, wouldnt that be one hell of a power projection force??

The new escorts will be much more effective than older model Soviet ships mainly because older model ships were custom designs, so you would need an ASW destroyer and an ASh or anti surface unit Destroyer, whereas the new vessels carry anti ship and anti sub weapons in the same tubes and also have land attack missile capability all in the one launcher.

Personally I would go with one nuclear powered carrier, an upgraded Kirov or Slava class for the moment until a modern replacement can be developed, and then pretty much what you suggest... 2 new destroyers, probably go with 4 frigates, and a couple of Yasens.

A very powerful group.

Viktor wrote:Nice

Russia has started to develop an electromagnetic catapult

Very cool... If the new EM cat is ready for the new carrier in 2018 then perhaps the new EM cats or a test example might be ready for a K upgrade by 2019-2020?

It could be used to test the system and get practical experience in using it.

It could be used for boosting the weights of aircraft already used initially and later used for heavier aircraft like AEW and AWACS.

Finally some common sense. Without a modern catapult aircraft carriers are completely useless. No AWACS mean that they can operate only against enemies with non-existent ground defenses.

Actually the vast majority of air forces around the world don't operate with AWACS support or with 4+ gen fighters like the MiG-29K.

Keep in mind that Russian carriers are largely fleet carriers and are not going to be used as land invasion or land attack groups. The US has lots of strike aircraft and lots of other support aircraft... Russian carriers will largely provide air support to the other vessels in the group... any land attacks will be by cruise missile.

I do however agree that AWACS aircraft vastly increase the vision range and reach of aircraft and sea power, which means much better defence and much better attack capabilities.

AMAZING who knows it is for the K but it is for future AC for sure!

Maybe prototype testing on the K?

It would help development and could be fitted where the SS-N-19 missile tubes were located.

“If the ship will be armed with a variety of weaponry, its cost will skyrocket, but if it will carry only air defense systems, the cost will be less,” the official said.

I don't agree... I think the modularity of the new systems should mean a few UKSK tubes mounted to allow protection from subs and enemy ships, and of course Redut and Morfei should allow decent self defence performance...

I am pretty sure the new AC wont be having anti-ship cruise missiles actually i am very sure.
And do you really think the US still uses ww2 tactics?? When there werent jets and they didnt have anti-ship cruise missiles? And not to forget air to air missiles!

Actually now that F-14 and Phoenix has gone the US has no AAM in the same class as RVV-BD and on in the class of RVV-MD (the Russians will have the RVV-MD and the R-74 and indeed Morfei which will also be used by the ship for point defence and land forces) and the RVV-SD (it seems the Russians will have the R-77M, plus possibly a scramjet model and there is a new medium range missile they are working on for the PAK FA).

Having said that they likely will add a few UKSK launchers on the new vessels because they are relatively compact and add a range of capabilities.

I doubt the Russians will have carriers like US carriers.. Russia has no need of a strike capability now and wont likely have one for the near future so a carrier that carries aircraft to protect the carrier group is about as much as they will need.

The result will be much cheaper.

Ok so what most of us know is that having a single carrier like Kuznetsov is not good enough.
I do agree that they need atleast 4 carriers. 2 carriers on deployment and 2 stationed in homeports.
Additionally to that having a mixture of heavy and medium sized carriers is not a bad idea.
It does mean to develop 2 projects, but i believe that both of them will have common ground and will differ from each other only by some minor details or size or propulsion. Having a heavy nuclear carrier is good for sustained deployment in distant area. Having additional medium one is good for regional use, budgetary constraint, quick reaction force and possible foreign customers for its export variant. Many navies like India or Brazil are focused only to defend its regional waters. For them such a Russian medium sized carrier would be ideal. So maintaining a mix of heavy medium sized carriers does have a benefit in my eyes.
Most of us agree that Carrier battlegroup needs decent escort. I think having those escorts first, having experience with the new ships and weapons systems onboard is crucial to estimate the size of carrier task force needed. Perhaps the Yasen class subs as an escort wont be needed if a tanker would be part of the task force Lada class could refuel and resupply when needed. In my view diesel electric subs are the best for an escort and the most quiet ones (most dangerous for potential enemy). If however no tanker is present an all the ships are nuclear powered then submarine would have to be nuclear powered as well and that would make sense to use Yasen or Akula. When it comes to equipment on aircraft carrier, having a modular design would be beneficiary.
I do think that the equipment onboard should be more defensive oriented: SAMs, AAA, anti-torpedo (PAKET-N). Leave the offensive capabilities on the rest of the task force. Carrier is a platform and should not be seen as a weapon in and of itself. Instead the space saved should be used to store fuel, airplanes equipment, munition, and other cargo needed by the task force. The Carrier should be seen as one big hauler. Im glad they started to build infrastructure for those carriers. It will take them some time. When it comes to aircrafts aboard: I think having a couple of naval PAK-FA versions would be fine, but not the entire deck. Rest of the deck could be legacy fighters like Mig-29K and helis. But the Heavy class carrier should be able to launch and recover a AWACS based plane, and a cargo plane. Both classes should be able to launch UAVs, UCAVs, refueling planes. The Heavy class carrier needs a cargo plane for logistics. Helicopter is not an option. Imagine a situation where Brits were in in 1980s with Falklands. If they would miss the runway in the Falklands, they would be screwed. It took them ages to arrive to the islands and on top of that, they relied on local supplies. If Russia would be in a similar situation that it would need - for some reason - project power in distant region, they would need to send in a task force and have the task force constantly supplied from a friendly regional nation/country. A greyhound like plane would be needed for this. Using such a plane, you could bring ammunition, spare parts, medicine, food, evacuate seriously wounded, rotate crew members, bring fuel - you could do so much. It is essential to have such plane.

The big carrier should be able to carry up to 70 aircraft, so lets say 6 AWACS planes, 2-4 cargo planes 18 helicopters, 4 ucavs and up to 40 jets mix of navalized pak fa and mig-29k.

altough i dont see the reason of so much helicopters the US only has 8 on their huge carriers!

Gib the helos to the frigates/destroyers, they have much better use for those.
50 stealth jets at max capacity would be awesome. Naval PAK-FA AND LMFS would eat hornets/rafales/F-35 for breakfast.
Also, since each russky ship in the group has adequate SAM protection for their size they could focus the entire air wing on attack.
GF and nimz carrier group would lose in the battle of attrition against their russky counterparts because they would have to split the
air wing for offence and defence to make up for the rel. lack of SAM protection- the other side can attack with as much of his stealth jets
(tho this rests solely if the russkies can make the LMFS viable- Mig-29 wont do).

collegeboy16 wrote: Naval PAK-FA AND LMFS would eat hornets/rafales/F-35 for breakfast.

The question is: will they eat the Super hornets replacement for Breakfast?

And dont forget the Arleigh Burkes wich can come up in the US Strike group in numbers from 4 to 7 can carry a hell load of weapons!!

Flyingdutchman wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote: Naval PAK-FA AND LMFS would eat hornets/rafales/F-35 for breakfast.

The question is: will they eat the Super hornets replacement for Breakfast?

Of course they would, the Super Hornet replacement is none other than the infamous F-35, which is unanimously hated and despised by Western and Eastern military analysts (the ones that aren't on the Lockheed Martin payroll)! The F-35 has tiny wings that gives insufficient lift, a fat fuselage that significantly increases drag thus making the F-35 very stiff and lacking of any kind of super-maneuverability whatsoever.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote: Naval PAK-FA AND LMFS would eat hornets/rafales/F-35 for breakfast.

The question is: will they eat the Super hornets replacement for Breakfast?

Of course they would, the Super Hornet replacement is none other than the infamous F-35, which is unanimously hated and despised by Western and Eastern military analysts (the ones that aren't on the Lockheed Martin payroll)! The F-35 has tiny wings that gives insufficient lift, a fat fuselage that significantly increases drag thus making the F-35 very stiff and lacking of any kind of super-maneuverability whatsoever.

Wrong that aint the super hornet replacement, the program to replace the super hornet didnt even begin yet it is to be started in 2015 the first look they gave the public in the program is this:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xI1_6z5BmRw/UN5KTQgE4BI/AAAAAAAAAXo/nU27vg6gzRc/s1600/F:A-XX.jpg

Of course this is one of many possible designs.

Flyingdutchman wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote: Naval PAK-FA AND LMFS would eat hornets/rafales/F-35 for breakfast.

The question is: will they eat the Super hornets replacement for Breakfast?

Of course they would, the Super Hornet replacement is none other than the infamous F-35, which is unanimously hated and despised by Western and Eastern military analysts (the ones that aren't on the Lockheed Martin payroll)! The F-35 has tiny wings that gives insufficient lift, a fat fuselage that significantly increases drag thus making the F-35 very stiff and lacking of any kind of super-maneuverability whatsoever.

Wrong that aint the super hornet replacement

...Dont tell Boeing that, because they believe they lost out on hundreds of billions of dollars of (including naval) contracts to the F-35: