Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

I suspect they will go for a pure carrier solution, no big internal missile armament.

With every new Russian vessel able to carry land attack cruise missiles and likely hypersonic Zircon anti ship missiles by 2025 I rather suspect the new carriers they develop will just carry aircraft and will likely be 40-60K tons rather than the 100K tons plus like the US carriers.

the purpose of the Russian carriers is to provide air support for the navy just like airfields supply air support for the army.

GarryB wrote:With every new Russian vessel able to carry land attack cruise missiles and likely hypersonic Zircon anti ship missiles by 2025 I rather suspect the new carriers they develop will just carry aircraft and will likely be 40-60K tons rather than the 100K tons plus like the US carriers.

the purpose of the Russian carriers is to provide air support for the navy just like airfields supply air support for the army.

Can you send me a link on these Zircon missiles please?

Naval Fan wrote:Hey all

I was reading an article about the Russian Navy planning a new aircraft carrier which they want launched by 2025. My question is in doing so, wouldnt they be stepping up the Ukraine war for their ship yard, or will they use 2 builders, and assemble it in a basin. And what are your guys opinion on the dimentions, and armament of this planned monster.

They will use either Sevmash or one of the new shipyards being built in Vladivostok, that will apparently be able to handle the construction of carrier-class ships. In which case they will certainly transfer many specialists from Sevmash to that new yard.

I suspect the new yard will be employed - as Sevmash will have its hands full with nuclear submarines.

TR1 wrote:These plans are so long term that talking about them right now is pointless IMHO.

I wouldn't say so. We're already hearing talk of designs being drawn up for the carrier project. A carrier is the biggest undertaking yet; but if other projects are anything to judge by - we'll hear more and more talk soon.

I doubt the defense budget is going to be large enough for 3-4 carriers being built by mid-2025 or anywhere near that date; but I do think it likely that 1 will start construction within the next 5 years. They will want to put their new technologies to the test, and take out a new-gen carrier for a spin for 5-10 years in order to formulate proper tactics for its use, as well as identify its weaknesses and areas for possible improvement - before constructing any more carriers.

If Russia gets 1 carrier into service in the 2020s; that will give the Kuznetsov a companion and will ensure constant air cover to at least the Northern Fleet, as well as a possibility for attaching the Kuznetsov to the Meditteranean task force more frequently.

Russia should need one more carriar which carry aircrafts and helicopters for stabilze military zones in the ocean pacific for stabilze militant religious organizations in the world and work for Russian values in the world. The navy should focus on a strong development with the growing military budget in order to defend Russian sea and work for a prosper, peaceful world where human and economic progress is insured. The new carriar should also be able to operate along the arctic ocean and in Europe in order to uphold Russian values. The Russian Navy should work for a closely cooperation between all units, and above all, submarines should strongly support the navy in order to get a strong offensive off the Russian navy. One more carriar with the already existing should also be able to support the navy at the eastern ocean of the country. A development of submarines and warships should be guarnteed with the growing military budget to control the ocean to win the war. Russian's navy must be able to operate worldwide in order to guarantee Russian values and the army existence and safety. The bases should be placed at places where Russia can control the sea and stand for a offensive against alien powers. Russian navy should operate at the baltic sea, Mediterranean Sea and worldwide for Russian values, and the navy bases should also operate in worldwide interest.

Don't forget they expect to have two Helicopter carriers in the next 2-3 years and if they don't get them there is certainly the possibility that they might just use the design they paid for and build them themselves with further Russian modifications...

GarryB wrote:Don't forget they expect to have two Helicopter carriers in the next 2-3 years and if they don't get them there is certainly the possibility that they might just use the design they paid for and build them themselves with further Russian modifications...

Garry, isn't the French gov not handing over the Mistrals, even though Russia has paid for them?

Garry, isn't the French gov not handing over the Mistrals, even though Russia has paid for them?

At the moment yes, but the French have no use for the two ships built for Russia... what else are they going to do with them?

Will Russia Really Build a Fleet of Supercarriers?


Russian defense officials' plans to build a supercarrier have been scrutinized at home and abroad. However, the idea could have a surprisingly practical side.
A new article in Newsweek rekindled rumors from March that Russia could be building a new supercarrier. The article notes that Russia has no strategic need for a supercarrier and the project could be a waste of funds.

However, there are two reasons why Russia could want a carrier: a completely new strategy that would be followed after the current rearmament program is complete or a replacement for the aging Admiral Kuznetsov.

Plenty of Promises

Russia's current state rearmament program does not have plans for any aircraft carrier construction and the end of the program may be delayed by several years due to funding shortfalls. The commander of the Russian Navy's aviation told radio station Echo of Moscow that there are no plans for a new carrier until at least 2030.


 


"The work on defining the look of the prospective aircraft carrier is not stopping. The Navy will have a carrier," Russian Navy Commander Vladimir Chirkov said in March.

However, the Admiral Kuznetsov could go into the Sevmash shipyard as soon as 2017 and for at least three years Russia would have no carrier at all. It may also mean that the modernized Kuznetsov would become a prototype for the new carrier.
No apparent expansions to the shipyard have been proposed to accommodate the construction of a supercarrier. The United Shipbuilding Corporation's President Aleksey Rakhmanov said in March that no requests to develop a new carrier have been submitted to the company.
Arctic Ambitions
A March article in Real Clear Defense suggested that the carrier could be used for power projection in the Arctic, which would be friendly to aircraft carriers in the 2030s when the Arctic Ocean is expected to become ice-free due to climate change. However, there is no need for land-based power projection in the Arctic as all other countries with stakes in the region are NATO members. Although US Army Europe Commander Ben Hodges has accused Russia of attempting to split the organization from the inside, even if the allegations were to be true, no internal contradictions are apparent among the NATO countries which lay claims to the Arctic.
Russia's current program for providing security in the Arctic also does not appear to be significantly challenged by other countries. In addition, a modernized Admiral Kuznetsov, would likely be sufficient for any security needs in the region if a carrier were to be needed.
A Post-Carrier World
A recent release from DARPA suggests that the United States may be doing away with the carrier-based model in favor of drone-based battle groups. According to the National Interest, the decision is based on the development of anti-carrier ballistic missiles by China and Iran.


 

"Our Phase 2 performers are each designing a new unmanned air system intended to enable two  previously unavailable capabilities: one, the ability for a UAS to take off and land from very confined spaces in elevated sea states and two, the ability for such a UAS to transition to efficient long-duration cruise missions," DARPA program chief Dan Patt said in March.

According to the DARPA release, the Tern program would allow ships to use armed drones for reconnaissance and intelligence gathering. However, such a program would also limit the US' ability to deploy tactical groups from carriers.
There are also no apparent projects for drones that would challenge fighter jets. The US Navy is developing a drone that would be an auxiliary to manned fighter jets, but that would require the presence of a carrier when at sea.


What Now?
While Russia's carrier plans are still on the drawing board, the Russian Navy has expressed a desire for two carriers in each fleet: one at sea and one in reserve. That would mean a total of eight new carriers by 2040, compared to the US' current 10 and China's allegedly planned five.The new carrier would also need to address an entire complex of challenges, from new multirole submarines to ballistic missiles and possibly even drone attacks. At that rate, the cost of systems to defend the carriers could outmatch the cost of the carriers themselves.
In that respect, the Russian Navy's ambitious plans for a supercarrier could be more of a political bargaining chip. The demands for an ambitious eight carriers and effective defense measures that even the US Navy has not been able to develop after decades of attempts, and even the plans for a "supercarrier" may be part of a political strategy to build a reserve ship for the Kuznetsov.
Such an arrangement would also be practical in that Russia's Navy would get an updated carrier to maintain its naval aviation capabilities. A slim program that does not make politicians and the public see the idea of carriers as a boondoggle would also keep the door open for future plans to expand the program.


http://sputniknews.com/science/20150426/1021410841.html#ixzz3YRaWKyFl  

Russia doesn't need a super carrier... ie a 100,000 ton strike carrier.

What it needs is a much smaller carrier to allow the Russian navy to move with air cover.

Whether that air cover is naval PAK FAs or UCAVs we don't really know... likely will be both.

And they wont ever build 8 carriers... two carriers per actual fleet really means two for the Northern Fleet and two for the Pacific fleet... the Baltic, Black sea, and Caspian sea fleets will not get carriers.

I don't think every fleet needs Carriers the Black sea fleet wouldn't need one i think.
That isn't even possible with the Bospurus, and the Baltci fleet won't either i think, if they need a Carrier there it would be supplied from the Northern Fleet i think?

Russia developing Shtorm supercarrier

http://www.janes.com/article/51452/russia-developing-shtorm-supercarrier

Russia's Krylovsky State Research Center (KRSC) has developed a new multipurpose heavy aircraft carrier design called Project 23000E or Shtorm (Storm).

A scale model of the ship is going to be demonstrated for the first time at the International Maritime Defence Show 2015 in St Petersburg from 1-5 July, Valery Polyakov, the deputy director of KSC, told IHS Jane's .

"The Project 23000E multipurpose aircraft carrier is designed to conduct operations in remote and oceanic areas, engage land-based and sea-borne enemy targets, ensure the operational stability of naval forces, protect landing troops, and provide the anti-aircraft defence," Polyakov said.

The design has a displacement of 90-100,000 tons, is 330 m in length, 40 m wide, and has a draft of 11 m. It has a top speed of 30 kt, cruising speed of 20 kt, a 120-day endurance, a crew of 4-5,000, and designed to withstand sea state 6-7. Currently it has been designed with a conventional power plant, although this could be replaced by a nuclear one, according to potential customers' requirements.

The ship carries a powerful air group of 80-90 deck-based aircraft for various combat missions. The model features a split air wing comprising navalised T-50 PAKFAs and MiG-29Ks, as well as jet-powered naval early warning aircraft, and Ka-27 naval helicopters.

The carrier's flight deck is of a dual design, features an angled flight deck, and four launching positions: two via ski-jump ramps and two via electromagnetic catapults. One set of arrestor gear is included in the design. The design also features two islands; a feature only previously seen on the latest UK design.

Protection against air threats will be provided by four anti-aircraft missile system combat modules. An anti-torpedo armament suite is available.

The electronic support complex includes integrated sensors, including a multifunction phased array radar, electronic warfare system, and communications suite.

Polyakov pointed out that these specifications are subject to change, correction, and modification during the ship's design and development at every stage of work, once potential customers come up with a demand to change the weapons package and equipment.

Storm looks a phenomenal ship.
PLUS it has a cool name..

I wonder if India and Russia/Eurasian Union. could share the development. Or even share the usage.

I read that the Ru Navy wants a real 21st Century carrier. Which means much more than an updated Ulyanovsk.
That ship is absolutely gigantic. Esp when you think that version is without nuclear reactors.

The Navy said it wanted to have satelitte launching capability.

So I wonder, to save costs in peacetime, perhaps a carrier could sail to the equator and launch satellites into space?
Would mean it could be *somewhere near* to being self financing in terms of upkeep.

Finally, I wonder how all this compares to America's plans to possibly introduce smaller carriers...

I do think carriers are an essential for Russia. Even as part of the strategic deterrent. AND to provide security for foreign friends who may otherwise be harrassed by rogue states.

Well i think that time has come for Russia to build the infrastructure, maintenance facilities, escorting ships, carrier itself and airplanes for it.
Kuznetsov is old and tends to break from time to time. Russia if it wants to implement a strategy of multipolar world, needs a true global presence capability.
Im not talking here just about bases in differrent countries - yes they need couple of those as well to support such battlegroup and not just for that. Im talking about projecting power in various parts of the world. Having a carrier battlegroup has wide implications, having more of these battlegroups have even wider implications...

Conventional thinking from the point of politics in the context of these ships is that a small country would never want to mess with a country having one of these ships. You can send out a battlegroup to assist a friendly nation in their defense or offense. Another mission it could fill would be the protection of sea lanes. Russian economy is growing at fast rate and in another 10 years lifetime it would be able to export high tech products to countries that are today thanks to the US sanctions considered 3rd world ones... Venezuela, Cuba just to name few.... these countries would be heavens for Russian technology exporters and business and trade would need ships to deliver goods. Ships would also be used to deliver goods back to Russia - especially dairy products which Russia has banned to be imported from Europe. So trade between Latin America and Russia would boom... Vietnam is another friendly country where Russian business could bloom... this trade would require protection. Another very pressing ussie is ABM defense... Russia more than any other nation needs a ship based platform so that in case of potential attack the platform can be stationed relative close to the launch site and intercept the ICBM in its beginning or intermediate stages. This ABM defense ship would have also ASAT capability and would need protection. Another role the Carrier can be used for would be disaster relief (loaded with humanitarian cargo instead of weapons and tons of helis instead of planes) - this could save a lot of lives and would serve as a very good PR in order to get some nation onboard of the "friendlies" group... ROSKOSMOS also needs global presence to have nearly full coverage of earth orbit in order to have constant monitoring capability and quick reaction if some of the launched satellites experience problems. This also requires global presence. There are tons of roles a carrier would be good for. But it has to go hand in hand with a new policy. And i believe that im not alone that think the time has come to switch to a new "policy". A policy of opposing american interventionism a policy of maintaining global prosperity and peace. Let the Shtorm be a materialization of this new policy. The sooner these carriers will set sail on the stage of world oceans, the sooner hundreds if not thousands of lives will be saved in wars that will otherwise happen - because i don't see America stopping in its interventionism anytime soon. They may be scared to wage wars in regions where Russia has a say but other than that they are very trigger happy nation.

Speaking of future carriers, i was reading not without surprise that the CHINESE 1000 tons crane (americans have a 1100 tons crane to build their CVNs, Kuznetsov and Varyag were built with a 900 ton crane) that the UK bought to build the two QE class costs just £15 million or so. On the other hand, based on what i know the only russian shipyard capable to produce a CV is the Baltic one (slipway 350 m long), but they don't have  a big enough crane. So to me, the solution is blindingly obvious, just buy SEVERAL of these cranes from China and install them not only in the Baltic shipyard, but also f.e. Sevmash (slipway 300m long, so they at least could do some LHD/LHAs). They are surprisingly cheap, £15 million is peanuts surely, even if accounting for higher costs for the necessary infrastructure! Did anything about such a potential purchase by Russia ever transpired?

BTW, hereand hereare projects of VTOL aircraft able to achieve high flight cieling and long duration,
essentially the raison-daitre of CATOBAR being enabling ASW/AWACS which need those qualities...
Rather than developing entire new tech for CATOBAR (including EM catapults) AND new CATOBAR platforms for ASW/AWACS,
new innovative VTOL platforms can be developed that fit into operation concepts compatable with broader range of ship operating concepts,
(whether from destroyers or simpler/smaller platforms ala Mistral)
and that concidentally are also applicable/beneficial to non-carrier operations (A-160 Hummingbird was funded by US Army not Navy).
(while CATOBAR platforms would not offer any benefit to be used in other applications)
Also concepts such as hybrid airships (aerodynamic but lighter than air etc) may be relevant, perhaps even inflating on-deck/ deflating for under-deck maintenance.

They are likely already spending money on both EM cats and VTOL AWACS aircraft... both technologies would be useful for a range of roles.

On a carrier the EM cats could be used for a range of tasks including increasing the takeoff weights of both manned and unmanned vehicles, and the technology is relevant to a range of very long range ballistic weapons.

Most AWACS aircraft require large antenna and lots of computer processing equipment, all of which adds weight and reduces performance. Having a VSTOL version would further reduce performance... personally I think reducing the crew to a minimum to keep weight down and just automate most systems is the best design... the aircraft operating with these AWACS will likely be 5th gen PAK FA naval aircraft so these AWACS aircraft could simply transmit their data to nearby friendly aircraft and let them make decisions for themselves rather than have humans on the AWACS directing aircraft and ships based on target information.

I think very high altitude airships would also be a good idea... filled with Helium or Hydrogen... at more than 30km altitude there will be very little oxygen so the fire risk would be minimal...

George1 wrote:Russian Navy to Receive Advanced Aircraft Carrier by 2026-2027

Capacity of abt. 100 planes

http://www.newsru.com/russia/30may2015/avia300.html

Shtorm design it true! maybe like this one?

40 Mig 29k
24 T50k
12 Kh 31 EW
24 Kh 27 ASW
____________

100 plane

40 Mig 29k
24 T50k
12 Kh 31 EW
24 Kh 27 ASW

Not bad, but more like 48 MiG-29K, 24 PAK FA, 4 Yak-44M AWACS, 12 Ka-32/27 ASW, 4 Ka-32 pilot recovery and search and rescue, 4 Yak-44M2 light fixed wing transport aircraft, and 2 Ka-64 utility helos.

I would be much happier if it was all MiG LMFS, some Su-25TM and some Ka-62s instead of Ka-32s.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I would be much happier if it was all MiG LMFS, some Su-25TM and some Ka-62s instead of Ka-32s.

Good idea with tiny detail LMFS is not planned and so far Ka-62 has French engines. not the best choice for military helo.

Wasn´t navalized PAK FA to replace Su-33 and MiG-29K.

GarryB wrote:

40 Mig 29k
24 T50k
12 Kh 31 EW
24 Kh 27 ASW

Not bad, but more like 48 MiG-29K, 24 PAK FA, 4 Yak-44M AWACS, 12 Ka-32/27 ASW, 4 Ka-32 pilot recovery and search and rescue, 4 Yak-44M2 light fixed wing transport aircraft, and 2 Ka-64 utility helos.

Yak-44M ? again Shoigu wants to restart production?

I think Yak 141 it nice. but dream