Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

Book. wrote:I think Yak 141 it nice. but dream  

We share the same dream then. Yak141 seem to have characteristics not far from F-35... with modern electronics who knows? Ideal IMHO as deck fighter for carriers or cruisers with air wings of light tactical fighter. why not?

Well that is the sort of forced development of niche platforms that wouldn't otherwise be needed, that I meant earlier.
As far as AEW/ASW provide reason for carrier, I don't think they really do, given 24hr+ duration VTOL platforms in development NOW (by US).
If fast jet carrier aviation itself is considered necessary, then so it is, but then I wonder if boutique CATOBAR AEW/ASW platform would still
be worthwhile to develop for the, what, 2-3 carriers Russia would concievably field?  Instead, long duration VTOL platforms which could
also launch/land on non-carrier assets, e.g. destroyers, would be an investment that pays off across RU's entire fleet, rather than just carriers.
Of course, similar mission systems could be installed on both fixed wing CATOBAR platforms and VTOL operable from destroyers etc.

Regardless, these hypothetical carrier wings using current platforms are stand ins, a 2030 carrier would have a replacement to Ka-31, for one.
(likely the hybrid/pusher helicopter supposedly both Kamov and Mil are collaborating on, faster but also longer range)
I wouldn't worry about engines in Ka-62 by then either.  Couldn't HAL export the Ardiden/Shaktis to Russia without provoking EU sanctions anyways?

I prefer helo AWACS than fixed wing AWACS... because a smaller helo can carry a bigger radar than fixed winger.

Unless Yak-44 will be some sort of AESA which enable it to put a big radar on aerodynamic surface like T-50.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Book. wrote:I think Yak 141 it nice. but dream  

We share the same dream then. Yak141 seem to have characteristics not far from F-35... with modern electronics who knows? Ideal IMHO as deck fighter for carriers or cruisers with air wings of light tactical fighter. why not?

Yak-141 would be also ideal for exposed Arctic bases, where they could not build whole airfields, but they could build smaller concrete heliports, from where Yak-141 could operate. It is no worse fighter than JF-17 or Tejas.

GarryB wrote:

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

Potentially...

The Navy plans to use Russian on the future of the new Russian aircraft carrier deck version of the Russian fifth generation fighter T-50 (PAK FA project), said Saturday on Radio "Echo of Moscow" Deputy Commander of the Russian Navy weapons, Rear Admiral Victor Bursuc.

and

"The development of of the aircraft fleet there was envisaged by the program of shipbuilding. This is - deck fighters Su and MiG. In planning there is a further development of T-50 (in a deck version)" - said Rear Adm.

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20141025/1030053844.html




PAK FA needs take off field ~350m depending on source, with no catapult or ski-jump
F-18 Supa Hornet 1345ft ~410m

As for me not bad for candidate. If Russians decide to build 2-4 medium ACS (IMHO much better then 1 supa) say Charles de Gaulle size T-50 would constitute a nice fighter wing.

F-18 Supa Hornet take off field length

GarryB wrote:

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

AWACS aircraft... pencil in your own designation for a new model (I did put Yak-44M)

VSTOL aircraft risk smaller less capable carriers... if they plan to have 100 aircraft then it should be big enough for PAK FA and MiG-29K... both of which should be more capable than Yak-141 except in take off length and landing length...

One big AC is more risk you loose all what you have after one strike and you cannot cannot be in more than one theater at the time. 2-3-4 medium can. Besides V/STOL can keep niche not only for ACs also for Helo Carriers if needed.
Or even mistral size.

So far i have only heard about constructing one aircraft carrier, is there a possibility that there will be constructed more?

Flyingdutchman wrote:So far i have only heard about constructing one aircraft carrier, is there a possibility that there will be constructed more?

They will be when needed. After all the backbone of Russian naval combat is cruise missile ships, not aircraft carrier. The number of Russian aircraft carriers probably should not be too many.

But of course, we can say the cruise missiles are some sort of suicide UAVs... and so the Kirov, Slava, Tu-xx, Su-xx are some sort of aircraft carriers...

Hiya. It's my first post here, but I've been following the sorry saga that is the "new carrier" programme for a while.

I honestly don't think the programme is going anywhere at the moment and won't until the RuNavy really sits down with the other forces and the gov't and thrashes out exactly what their role is.

As an article on the Moscow Times ("Russia Wants an Aircraft Supercarrier, But Can It Build One?") discussed, the way carriers are being talked about in Russia now is very different to their historical role as ASW and fleet defence platforms. Current thinking with 100-aircraft capacity seems to be less about a new doctrine, and more about "The Americans have got them, so we should too".

The well known problem, as the article agrees, is that large carrier construction (>60,000ton) during the Soviet era was undertaken in Ukraine. The only Russian yard with any carrier experience whatsoever is Sevmash, which doesn't have the facilities for construction of supercarriers.

With that in mind I think any Russian ambition of getting a supercarrier built before the Kuznetsov starts attracting archaeologists is... optimistic at best. But the problem with the Kuznetsov is primarily it's state of decay and solitary nature rather than it's size.

So if big carriers are a problem and the state of the Kuznetsov makes it urgent.. How about building new carriers that actually answers Russia's specific security issues rather than being the biggest and bestest everest?

A Russian carrier fleet needs to be able to engage in anti-submarine and air defence activities of the fleet, including providing air cover to amphibious operations, all of which the Kuznetsov can do. Some degree of global force projection of the supercarrier variety is useful as a strategic ability, but no current or foreseeable scenarios genuinely necessitate it.  

Sticking to what Russia needs rather than what she is want gives us the possibility for an achievable carrier programme that can guarantee the future of a blue-water Russian navy, *and it already exists*. Essentially a Kuznetsov II class carrier. Using an existing design saves time and money - neither of which Russia is blessed with an abundance of. Modifications could be made to provide a more capable and reliable platform within the basics of the existing design, much as the Kuznetsov itself is a more capable Kiev design.

* Swap conventional propulsion for two KN-3 reactors rather than design new, tried and tested from the Kirov class. Much more reliable, and greater range.

* Steam catapults. The existing designs from the Ulyanovsk can be used/modified, saving time and cost. Greater aircraft flexibility from an existing hull design.

* Delete the P-700s to manage costs and complexity.

* Obviously, going with the latest design versions of sensor suites, using those of the Gorshkov class frigates where possible.

* Focus on operating drones alongside traditional aircraft. More drones can be carried in a given area than conventional aircraft and can loiter/patrol for longer. Drones allow a smaller carrier to do more.

* Realistically, only three hulls need be built for a viable fleet. One each for the Pacific and Northern fleets, with the third a reserve "floater", assigned to either fleet as needed to cover maintinance or a crisis event.

Ideally, an additional ship could be completed for the Black Sea fleet, and the Kuznetsov herself fully overhauled (and perhaps upgraded to Kuz. II specification) to serve as additional floater. This would give each fleet one active carrier at all times, with any one fleet being able to operate up to three active carriers for a limited time, without sacrificing cover elsewhere.

By keeping these carriers smaller and based on existing technology the project becomes possible - still expensive and demanding - but possible rather than pie-in-the-sky. Three or four new Kuznetsov size ships can guarantee a true blue-water capability that can meaningfully defend Russian interests much better than a paper drawing of a 100 plane, 120,000 ton carrier can. It makes the most use of existing designs, technologies and shipyards - and demands little new/clean-sheet development - so resources go straight into the ships (and aircraft) themselves.

Another advantage is that though the Kuznetsov design has issues, these are already known. Essentially the Kuznetsov can be treated long serving design prototype to identify faults and teething problems that the new design can mostly avoid. Whilst the changes to the design for the new class would doubtlessly introduce new issues, they will be far fewer in number than a completely new design where the number of unknowns is far, far greater.

Given that evolutionary designs are something of a tradition in Russia dating right back to the Soviet era, it seems interesting that the idea isn't currently being currently considered given the state of the Russian navy. Any thoughts/ideas?

Well, as far as ASW/AWACS, I think innovative VTOL platforms can achieve long endurance/ high altitude equivalent to CATOBAR platforms.
The cost of a carrier fleet dev/construction/operation, + that of unique CATOBAR platforms, will be much more than going with new VTOL platforms.
I would agree that strike carrier is not needed by Russia, and on this basis doubt the need for this at all.
All that is left is fleet defence CATOBAR jets.  I honestly feel that taking all the huge amount of money needed for full strike carrier + platforms,
and putting it in more VTOL support platforms that can be organically spread across the rest of the fleet, along with SAMs, can achieve same effect,
likely at lesser cost, and also less risk by not depending on single point of failure (carrier) that itself necessitates resources to protect it etc.
The only pro I see towards a carrier is if Russia can split the dev/production costs by sharing design with another country = China, Brazil?
Although honestly, even including associated air platforms in the deal, that will just be a very small cost decrease in the larger scheme.
As far as your proposals go, I dont think the cost savings from going with Kuznetsov II really compare to the larger scheme of things,
and if Russia is going to go forward with all the costs of a carrier, having carrier strike aviation is a decent capability to have in the package.
I would assume Russia would want to leverage ToT from Mistral and do a modular/block construction approach, as the British carrier is made...

Armya-2015, "Shkval" carrier:
http://nortwolf-sam.livejournal.com/930616.html

mack8 wrote:Armya-2015, "Shkval" carrier:
http://nortwolf-sam.livejournal.com/930616.html

If they are able to build atleast four of these... 2 per each oceangoing fleet.

Flanky wrote: If they are able to build atleast four of these... 2 per each oceangoing fleet.

and if Russia will return to 7% GDP growth per year then 1 for Baltic and one Caspian Fleets

All deck fighters here look like PAK-FA no wonder that no export of those birds on horizon BTW PAK FA take-off strip is about 350metersv-same as F-18 Hornet...

Well i believe that Baltic and Black seas are basically ponds... there isn't much of a need to have carriers there as you can reach all the region from Russian mainland by air. Tankers could provie enough of endurance extention when it comes to fuel. These are not very "hot" regions anyway... wxcept for Meditarranean where Black sea is close-by...

mack8 wrote:Armya-2015, "Shkval" carrier:
http://nortwolf-sam.livejournal.com/930616.html

There's A LOT of real estate on this thing. Are they sure this makes sense money-wise? How much time and money would it take to get this thing built and maintained?
Wouldn't several smaller carriers make more sense today instead of just couple of these behemoths?

Flanky wrote:Well i believe that Baltic and Black seas are basically ponds... there isn't much of a need to have carriers there as you can reach all the region from Russian mainland by air. Tankers could provie enough of endurance extention when it comes to fuel. These are not very "hot" regions anyway... wxcept for Meditarranean where Black sea is close-by...

Exactly.

Large carriers are for large oceans.

No need to deploy them into seas that may be covered in their entirety by land-based aircraft and missiles.

Flanky wrote:Well i believe that Baltic and Black seas are basically ponds... there isn't much of a need to have carriers there as you can reach all the region from Russian mainland by air. Tankers could provie enough of endurance extention when it comes to fuel. These are not very "hot" regions anyway... wxcept for Meditarranean where Black sea is close-by...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sarcasm

GarryB wrote:They wouldn't need really big carriers like US carriers.

US carriers are strike carriers designed to project power an to invade.

What the Russian Navy needs is an air component that allows air cover and air search capabilities to protect the naval vessels it operates.

This means anti sub and air defence.

60K to 70K ton max should be fine with nuclear propulsion reducing the refuelling requirements of the vessel... obviously it would still need tanker support for the aviation fuel.

Since for some time there is continuous discussion about large disp.placements I presume then 1-2 large (for war on antipodes but not NZ and couple smaller (like Avalnche ) that can be used as Amphibious Assault Carriers - so transport troops or no troops as ASW helo carrier with larger air-wing. BTW Japanese Izumo is more less size of Avalanche ...and a Korean Dok-Do a bit smaller but still has air-wing of 10 helos. On top possibility to also carry VSTOL planes

Tech sheet for Aircraft Carrier Project 23000E. Ship's layout is different than the scale models:



http://twower.livejournal.com/1700670.html

PapaDragon wrote:
Tech sheet for Aircraft Carrier Project 23000E. Ship's layout is different than the scale models:



http://twower.livejournal.com/1700670.html

Translation:

Multi(can't see the rest of the word) Aircraft Carrier Project 23000E

Assignments of Ship:

Destruction of land and sea targets, security of ship convoys, protection of sea marines by air.

Displacement: 100,000 Tons
Dimensions:

Length: 330 meters(?)
Width: 40 meters
Tower: 11 meters
Speed at full pace: 28 knots
Autonomous operation: 120 days max
GEY, limited fuel
Weapon Armaments:
4 modules of anti-aircraft systems
2 launchers of torpedo protection units
Flying object of miscellaneous function: 80-90
Radiotechnical, ESBY, Operational Tactical Level, Multifunctional Intergration PLS, Integration Subsystem PEB, Integrated System Communication

Aviation-Technical Resources of Ship

(Trampoline)<--wtf? Catapult: 2
Electromagnetic Acceleration Device: 2
AviaFinisher(Landing strip): 1

Information about developers:
none

Some beautiful looking models/designs there...thanks.
Interesting that the spec sheet for the carrier only shows one tower or island.

Also interesting to see that electromagnetic catapults get a mention, which means they are at least in consideration.
Seeing as it is placed next to the catapult or acceleration devices, maybe what the translation for "trampoline" really means is arresting gear or arrestors?