Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

Any naval battlegroup can expect to get ship losses. But the chances are that you can take out more or a similar number of their ships.
But if someone advanced concentrates resoruces on a US carrier, it can be taken out quickly.
Can a Russian carrier be taken out quickly? With S-500 and S400, I suspect this may be impossible in most, or MAYBE all cases ( if there is no mass saturated attack).
Ofcourse, the balance of power mnight change over the course of a carrier's lifespan.

Garry is right. Whilst a carrier IS a target, it helps the rest of the fleet massively. And ofcrouse land forces. It also helps submarines that will naturally give their locations away once a conflict starts. In short, I think its an essential constituent of a naval battle group.

Something I wonder about is the possibility of modularised carriers eg 2 or 3 smaller ships join to form a carrier. Individually, these ships could be stealthy and its a case of "not putting all your eggs in one basket".

I also saw some (very old!) and newish plans for a submarine which could act as a launch for planes.
Ofcourse for UCAVs this would be pretty easy. I wonder how much it would cost to be done for fighter planes?

eg 2 subs surface ( or perhaps a smaller surface ship+ a sub) join and become a launch platform for planes. Ofcourse this would be a seriously complex project. But there's no reason why it cant happen.

The Nimitz work well in controlling low level militaries. But not so well against advanced opponents.
My question is, does Russia plan on defending places like Venezuela and assisting India? Or is it just concentrated on neighbours and the Arctic?

Its these factors that dictate what Russia really needs.

GarryB no aircraft at world can offer an effective air screen for an aicraft carrier group ,against enemy ASM-delivering intruders ,even only equal to half of this range.

Let me clarify.

An S-400 can engage targets at 400km range. That does not mean that all aircraft inside 400km range are dead, or indeed that all aircraft at 401km are safe.

If you are a group of ships and you get some information from another platform about enemy activity 1,000km to your south... if you have no carrier you wonder what the enemy is up to. If you have a carrier with 80 fighter aircraft you send some fighters and perhaps some UCAVs to investigate.

Being able to do this is tremendously useful as one of the greatest problems in war is uncertainty.

If the USS Vincennes was operating as part of a carrier group instead of launching a Standard SAM at the Iranian airbus it could have sent a few F-14s to investigate.

The point is that aircraft extend vision and have claws too... they add an extra layer that makes defeating a surface group harder... not impossible, but much much harder.

You can easily realize that capability to execute and useful interception of high supersonic intruder groups coming from two-three vectors of attack ,following the up-described flight profile and tactics (for remain silent of the chance of the presence of an OCA escorts for the strike groups ....) and armed with ASM with astounding stand-off ranges is practically NEAR TO ZERO.

A very carefully coordinated and planned attack that needs critical timing and very specific knowledge and assets to be successful. Not many militaries around the world could perform such an attack successfully... either because they don't have all the components, they don't have the skill or both.

In comparison an attack against a group of ships with no carrier air cover is much easier and requires far fewer assets/planning/skill.

Carriers make naval groups much more effective and also much safer, though it doesn't make them perfect or invincible.

Already in plain Cold War the same US. Navy was perfectly aware that CVBG, far from NORAD ,was not survivable when the same Admiral Hyman Rickover declared that in a conventional WWIII scenario against URSS them expected theirs carrier battle groups fleets to last no more than two days.

Russia wont be facing the USSR or the US with its ships/carriers. It will be facing small countries and pirates and carriers make a naval force more powerful and more effective.

CVBG are not conceived and even less optimized to fight a conflict against a sophisticated enemy ;

And explosives were conceived as entertainment to scare away bad spirits and ghosts.
Air Power can't be ignored. It is not the be all and end all that the west thinks it to be, but the comparison of an Army fighting while controlling the air over the battlefield, compared with an Army fighting without air control and I know which I would choose. It is no different for the Navy.

the stellar costs of the carriers itself ,of all the aircraft them carry and of the ships that are forced at the mere role to defend them , could be employed dozen of times better for construct a much greater amount of incomparably more survivable and lethal ships moreover relieved from the slaving task to defend a frail whale.

Carriers and aircraft are pieces of the same puzzle that complete a naval force. A naval force with its own air component is far more potent than the same naval force without aircraft. Even just helicopters and UAVs make an enormous difference.

And carriers are not cheap, but they don't have to be 100,000 ton white elephants either.

Nothing will ever be cheap again now that Russia has decided to go high tech, but there is no reason for these carriers to be super expensive.

[Sorry but i can't say to agree with you on that GarryB, and i am in good company:

They are not invincible, but they are not sitting ducks either. Their aircraft give them better vision and better weapons reach than any capital ship like a Kirov. In many ways they compliment such vessels. I rather suspect a Russian carrier will have plenty of SAMs and cruise missiles... unlike US carriers.

The sum of these innovative and low-cost threats is the looming obsolescence of the U.S. Navy carrier force. Against a clever enemy, “a Ford-class carrier plus its full complement of the latest aircraft would represent potentially a $15-to-$20 billion set of hardware at risk,” Gates said.

Reminds me of people who claim tanks are obsolete. He is looking for costs to cut and carriers is an obvious target. The question is... how do you replace that capability?

With a tank what you do is you put a very powerful gun in a heavily armoured chassis... and you have another tank.

Imagine what effect a Russian carrier group in the Med when NATO was bombing the crap out of Serbia and Kosovo might have had...

Russia has said it wants a global presence, now if it wants to learn from British experience in the Falklands where very small aircraft carrying bombs could fly low using cover from the islands and attack ships close to the shore providing fire support for troops on the ground... well the best way to control the airspace in such a situation is carrier based AEW aircraft and fighters. There are thousands of islands in Indonesia alone and plenty of civilian shipping too... would you prefer to sit in your robocruiser and decide what is a threat and what isn't based on the blip on a radar screen, or would it be useful to send aircraft to find out in a few minutes.

Going the robocruiser way ended in the deaths of over 200 civilians and certainly didnt make US ships safer.

In comparison an attack against a group of ships with no carrier air cover is much easier and requires far fewer assets/planning/skill.

You mean that if from a today CVBG someone remove the carrier with its entire air wing complement that naval group will be more vulnerable ?
The response to that hypothesis is: yes of course.

If you mean instaed that if from a today CVBG someone remove the carrier with its entire air wing complement and.....replace the carrier/airwing/fuel/crew with an equal value in destroyers, frigates, and submarines
The response to that hypothesis is: no way on the Earth.

The same notion that a carrier's air wing could offer any real defensive capability against attacks conducted with sophisticated stand-off anti ship missiles (deliverable from high supersonic aircraft, ships, land or submarines) is wronged in its most elementary foundation.
Even today the most modern aircraft on Nimitz class wouldn't get that very slim chances ( for hard, unavoidable temporal reasons) to reach an useful interecept point for engage a 1980 supersonic bomber before it would deliver its long range missiles payload.
In reality almost the total sum of defensive capabilitites of US CVBGs is constituted by its "Aegis" system and almost the totality of the weapons conceived to engage and destroy modern CVBG are designed to try to overcome IT, not its air wing .


The attestation of the quick obsolescence experimented by "aircraft carriers" ,in its classic shape and CONOPS, for the effect of the proliferation (also among nations not frozen, like URSS in the past and Russia today,in the thermonuclear MAD balance) of advanced ASCMs and anti-access weapons , is not only a concern of Russian experts tasked to develop a future concept of "carrier" but it is a concept ,by now, strongly rooted also among a big share of US Navy insiders.


http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2011-05/twilight-uperfluous-carrier

If you mean instaed that if from a today CVBG someone remove the carrier with its entire air wing complement and.....replace the carrier/airwing/fuel/crew with an equal value in destroyers, frigates, and submarines
The response to that hypothesis is: no way on the Earth.

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

A carriers worth of frigates and destroyers will not add any of the capabilities that make carriers useful... the extra frigates and destroyers will just add a few more targets without greatly extending the vision or reach of the group... except by moving those extra vessels to picket radar positions and then they become sitting ducks.

Having a carrier means AEW aircraft can fly hundreds of kms from any surface vessels at very high altitudes and scan for threats without giving away the precise location of the carrier. Real time information can be relayed back to the surface group without revealing their location... even at the very least in the mission against enemy subs you need more than the odd individual helo carried by Frigates and Destroyers and the odd cruiser. Having dozens of helos available for an anti sub mission is as valuable as having fighters able to fly out and recon potential threats or targets. A surface group without fixed wing aircraft will not be able to distinguish a civilian crude oil carrier from an enemy aircraft carrier without getting dangerously close. Aircraft can do the job much faster and more efficient.

Suggesting the Navy doesn't need an Air Force, is like suggesting the Army doesn't need air power... and strictly speaking it doesn't, but I think you will agree that an army fighting under an enemy controlled sky is going to get badly mauled in this day and age.

Going back to the Falklands... if the Argentines had been better prepared... if they had bought Mig-23s with R-24 BVR missiles and R-60MK missiles and most importantly built a runway and airfield on the islands the British would have had a much more difficult time of it.

In reality almost the total sum of defensive capabilitites of US CVBGs is constituted by its "Aegis" system and almost the totality of the weapons conceived to engage and destroy modern CVBG are designed to try to overcome IT, not its air wing .

The CAP is part of AEGIS and represents a major part of its data collection (AWACS) and its interception performance (F-14s were designed to fly to meet the incoming bombers and intercept them and any missiles they would launch as an outer layer. The next layer was Standard SAMs and the inner layer was Phalanx and jammers and decoys to stop the leakers. No one layer was expected to be perfect. No one layer was expected to do all the work.

As with the Soviet ground based equivalent AD network the aircraft are supposed to intercept everything they can as early as possible, while long and medium range SAMs do the same, then finally short range SAMs are used near targets to kill leakers. Claiming the Air Force is too expensive with their large fixed vulnerable air fields and that the extra money could be used to make more targets so the enemy will run out of ammo before it is all destroyed just doesn't make sense in my opinion.

This is not a case of lets spend 14 billion US per carrier and make 6 new carriers for Russia.

Most importantly I would think that 4 carriers with Pak Fa stealthy naval fighters will actually be a real threat to US carriers with F-35s on board, and for any third world country they would be a formidible threat if they need to be.

There have always been factions within the US Navy... the submariners wanting carriers cut and the carrier crew wanting subs cut, both claiming they are not replaceable but the other is too expensive... to be honest the fact that both the US Navy and the USMC both have carriers of different types that they claim they can't do without suggests they do find them useful.

I think Russia needs carriers, there can be no doubt.
BUT also the Ru Navy is right to say that RADICAL designs need to be developed.

I read up on the WW2 work that was done for submarine aircraft carriers. And also a declassified CIA report drooling ( and worried) over the incredible size and ingenuity of the Typhoon subs vs their own.

Maybe we could have gone down a parallel path of more stealthy aircraft carriers eg if Japan succeeded in sub carriers in WW2.

I know a more stealthy carrier sub would be expensive, as would a multi-ship modular carrier. But imagine if a "lucky strike" causes a carrier loss v a low level nation on day 1 of a conflict?
It would be a huge catastrophy. And have many billions of knock-on cost losses.

There are so many options - STOL aircraft, even planes modified for water landing/ takeoff. Perhaps a fighter could be carried up in a "cradle" that would look like a huge rocket man pack, but that would leave the difficulty of landing. The reality is that a sub carrier WOULD be possible.
After all, even a bog standard carrier, for all its limitations, isnt exactly cheap.
Stealthy carriers could mean huge savings in other areas.

Airpower is absolutely vital in conflict. But carrier vunerability is an issue.

A carriers worth of frigates and destroyers will not add any of the capabilities that make carriers useful

Absolutely true GarryB : if your opponent has no mean to render any of your carriers ,with its whole air wing, a single multibillionaire target , the capabilities to project military power offered by CVBG are perfect.

And that is exactly the reason for which US strategists have mantained a similar force structure for theirs Navy : MAD element during the whole Cold War had effectively rendered the fraility of carriers a factor totally ininfluent against the only enemy with the required technological level to capitalize it ,while the capabilities offered by the carrier Air Wings against "small player" in bringing sustained military force on any spot of the planet was simply unreplaceable with different fleet's unit composition.

Having a carrier means AEW aircraft can fly hundreds of kms from any surface vessels at very high altitudes and scan for threats without giving away the precise location of the carrier.

Is best to reason in terms of number of units and figures for ranges in those instances ,otherwise similar hypothesis begin to detach very quickly and dangerously from reality.

A Nimitz class has ....at best.... 4 air-worthy E-2 at anytime, this mean that....at best....2 of them could be used contemporaneously for area reconnaisance missions (and naturally at this rate several hours at day will be totally devoid of airborne sensor coverage !!).

Now we must try to give a number for the "fly hundreds of kms from any surface vessels" and a vector of separation from fleet position ,taking into account that :

1) The more those 2 E-2s move away from fleet the more widen the gap angular projection ,from fleet's actual position, not covered by theirs sensor footprint.
2) The more those 2 E-2s move away from fleet the more will shorten theirs persistence time on the selected area (increasing hours/day not covered by airborne sensors at all).
3) The more those 2 E-2s move away from fleet the less defensive coverage them will get from carrier tactical air wing .(becoming targets even more trivial for any aircraft escorting enemy strike group ...for not say theose armed with modern LRAM )
4) The more those 2 E-2s move away from fleet the more time them will require to return under "Aegis" protective umbrella if an engaging enemy squadron is detected.

How anyone can easily realize, at worsen furtherly the picture, none of those relations are linear....


Now some easy exemplificative numbers for scrambling aircraft and interception of a Cold War menace, at 10000 m of altitude (TPS) an aircraft traveling at an average speed of Mach 1 cover almost 17,6 km at minute; therefore this aircraft, mantaining constant this speed of Mach 1 for 20 minutes ,will reach a point about 350 km far and could enage a no receding target at this moment placed at about 400 km with an AIM-120C5 (420-430 with C7).
Naturally we must add to that also the time necessary for the crew (alerted by the Air Wing command ,receiving and processing ,at its own time, the data coming from the E-2) to man the scrambling aircraft ,the time for preparation of the aircraft for the take-off and the time to reach the speed of Mach 1 and 10000 m of altitude.

The only role ,at this point, that could play carrier air wing in this situation (and that could prevent an entire multi-bilionaire air wing, to be entirely lost witht the sinking of a single mulit-billionaire ship. will be the prevention that enemy bombers squadrons will delivery theirs missile cargo -obviously highly concentrated on this single immnensely "paying target"-.

Cold war era Kh-22M has an effective engagement range ,when delivered at high altitude by supersonic TU-22M3, greater than 550 km .
From the first second of detection..if any detection ever happen (several vectors of enemy attack and sensor assets moving far from the central area to protect are concepts which don't stand well toghter) the only factor that could transform the presence of a carrier in a resource instead of a liability, would be.....to have AAMs hitting ,in useful time, those supersonic TU-22M3 at.... 560-570 km of distance from the carrier

I image that my previous "near to zero" can appear now even a bit optimistic.

The CAP is part of AEGIS and represents a major part of its data collection (AWACS) and its interception performance

Obviously not.

"Aegis" can receive informations by external assets (land/sea/air/space based) but none of them is a part of Aegis Combat System .
ACS is designed to opearate totally authonomously in a very precise and compartmentalized way, founded on the basis of well defined ellipse of integrated systems the two focus of which are AN/SPY-1 radar and SM-3 missile

but I think you will agree that an army fighting under an enemy controlled sky is going to get badly mauled in this day and age.

GarryB how one of the most important Soviet conceiver of the capablity degradation theory said :
"On this planet ,at today,don't exist airborne targets ,but only momentarily flying ground ones"

Until a war against a very strong enemy nation will happen (and this could be a very dangerous sistuation for the entire world) those words will not appear very clear ; probably by then somoeone could realize why longe range missiles are highly limited in weapon control treaty while tactical aircraft are not....

There are so many options - STOL aircraft, even planes modified for water landing/ takeoff. Perhaps a fighter could be carried up in a "cradle" that would look like a huge rocket man pack, but that would leave the difficulty of landing. The reality is that a sub carrier WOULD be possible.
After all, even a bog standard carrier, for all its limitations, isnt exactly cheap.
Stealthy carriers could mean huge savings in other areas.

I remember reading about submersible carriers and thinking that was pretty stupid.

The primary role of the carrier is to provide eyes and ears and a fist on the end of a very long arm and a carrier can't do that while submerged.

I remember a game called Interceptor, by Bob Dinnerman that had Mig-29s (black coloured F-16s) that operated from a submersible carrier.

The thing is that subs are not invulnerable either and a submersed carrier is not useful as a carrier till it surfaces and launches aircraft.

STOVL and other carriers are expensive and their aircraft are expensive. Submersible carriers would be very expensive too.
CTOL carriers offer cheaper aircraft with better compatibility with land based aircraft... the problems that need to be solved is how to pack lots of aircraft in a very small space in a way that they are fully usable yet you can carry enormous numbers in the smallest possible ship in terms of weight.

Bigger heavier ships are expensive ships... but at the end of the day you get what you pay for. No one will tell you that 20 Corvettes are better than a Cruiser because each of those Corvettes are more vulnerable because of their small size. They will lack radar range and power, and they wont pack the same punch as a much larger vessel.

They serve a purpose but at the end of the day a bigger ship is safer all things considered.

Nothing is invincible, but thinking carriers are big slow targets is like saying AWACS aircraft are big slow targets. The reality is that they provide a capability that makes them worth having and integrating them into your force structure means they are as protected as any other component... often their presence makes everything better protected.

A Nimitz class has ....at best.... 4 air-worthy E-2 at anytime, this mean that....at best....2 of them could be used contemporaneously for area reconnaisance missions (and naturally at this rate several hours at day will be totally devoid of airborne sensor coverage !!).

But we are not talking about American carriers... by 2025 the main fighter on the new Russian carriers will be PAK FAs... likely each with their own 360 degree radar sensor suite. The dedicated AWACS platform might be a UAV designed to fly for days, or it could even be an aerostat that can be towed by a frigate or destroyer...

How anyone can easily realize, at worsen furtherly the picture, none of those relations are linear....

Except that for most of the time Russia will have satellite coverage as well, so the AEW aircraft can be directed to where activity has already been detected to get a better look, or to decoy the enemy into thinking you are somewhere you are not...

Cold war era Kh-22M has an effective engagement range ,when delivered at high altitude by supersonic TU-22M3, greater than 550 km .

But the problem remains... which countries have supersonic bombers delivering rather large supersonic anti ship missiles? Right now... not many.

More importantly how would a Russian naval group be any safer without a carrier... most of the time it will be AEW aircraft from the carrier that detect threats first, so remove the carrier and you strip away that vision.

Also even Mig-29Ks will be carrying RVV-BDs with a flight range of up to 280km, so in many ways they will be more like F-14s with Phoneix missiles than Hornets with AMRAAMs.

Obviously not.

"Aegis" can receive informations by external assets (land/sea/air/space based) but none of them is a part of Aegis Combat System .
ACS is designed to opearate totally authonomously in a very precise and compartmentalized way, founded on the basis of well defined ellipse of integrated systems the two focus of which are AN/SPY-1 radar and SM-3 missile

Russia doesn't have AEGIS, it has Sigma, which combines data from a range of platforms and sources both within the surface group and also submarines and satellites, and aircraft.

No one will tell you that 20 Corvettes are better than a Cruiser because each of those Corvettes are more vulnerable because of their small size.

GarryB here we don't talk of ships with similar gamut of capabilities , where effectively your position is absolutely shareable (a modern frigate, a destroyer or, even more, a cruiser, have all similar "kind" of capabilities ,but the first could ,at example, employ for air defense tasks only 9M96 missiles while the other two could integrate without problems also variant of 48N6DM or 40N6 -or even S-500 - interceptors with increases in capabilities effectively immenses ,placing them in another category, in respect to the area AD offered by the frigate ).

Here we talk of a ship offering unique capabilities ,not shared in the same form by different kind of ships, for force protection against enemies within a certain threshold of strength and sophistication ,which are however almost totally uncapable to defend itself from high end menaces (from that derive the necessity to "enslave" at the exclusive task of theirs defense the operations of 6-7 other surface and subsurface units !!!) and with a price tag equal to an entire fleet.

The same aircraft carrier's existence represent the barycenter of a whole naval discipline and an unpayable resource against an inferior enemy and an enromous liability and a very dangerous Achilles heel against a big ,advanced enemy.

How i have highlighted previously ,the emergence of China as an emerging superpower,has generated revised plan just within US NAvy environment on the possibility to mantain aircraft carrier still as the center of US Naval Doctrine.


http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2011-05/twilight-uperfluous-carrier


in facts China's attempt to gain naval dominance in the Southern and Souther eastern Pacific sector would be not frozen by the nuclear MAD equilibrium (like was for URSS with NATO in the European continent during Cold War) because no NATO member would be involved in conventional disputes in those regions, therefore not only no "article 5" could be invoked to justify US intervention but no basis to respond with nuclear weapons to military actions conducted ,instead, using only conventional weapons (like would be the sinking of carriers with anti ships cruise or ballistic missiles) could be foreseen.

But we are not talking about American carriers... by 2025 the main fighter on the new Russian carriers will be PAK FAs... likely each with their own 360 degree radar sensor suite. The dedicated AWACS platform might be a UAV designed to fly for days, or it could even be an aerostat that can be towed by a frigate or destroyer...

GarryB ,if you have read the article i've provided you will realize that jsut the nation that more than any other has invested in UCLASS class see clearly that the roles now comited to classical aircraft carriers must find new actors to be carryed out .

Russia must think to a future environment and must try to give maximum military value to the economic resources it employ for the construction of the new carrier.
Is for this reason that the new domestic unity must remain relevant against any kind of enemy in any kind of conflict ,from a regional skirmish to strategical crysis.

]Here we talk of a ship offering unique capabilities ,not shared in the same form by different kind of ships, for force protection against enemies within a certain threshold of strength and sophistication ,which are however almost totally uncapable to defend itself from high end menaces (from that derive the necessity to "enslave" at the exclusive task of theirs defense the operations of 6-7 other surface and subsurface units !!!) and with a price tag equal to an entire fleet.

You keep talking about future Russian carriers like they will be analogs of US carriers...

Present evidence is to the contrary... they are talking about 160 SAM missiles for Mistrals plus UKSK launchers for anti sub and anti ship and land attack capacity.

I rather suspect their carriers... in addition to the 80 odd aircraft they want to deploy, will also have a broad range of SAMs and missile launcher bins.

The plan for the carriers include its ability to take part in subsurface, sea surface, land, air, and space... this suggests to me that they will be defended by decent CIWS, plus layers of SAMs too.

George1 wrote:The new carrier will cost the Russian budget of 400 billion rubles

Do it

On 3 November 2011 the Russian newspaper Izvestiya reported the naval building plan now included (first) the construction of a new shipyard capable of building large hull ships, after which Moscow will build two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers by 2027. The spokesperson said one carrier would be assigned to the Russian Navy's Northern Fleet at Murmansk, and the second would be stationed with the Pacific Fleet at Vladivostok.

Can Anyone tell me if they already started building these shipyards or any progress has been made at all?
Or do you know the plans have changed or anything about the future Aircraft Carriers?

Please tell me, greetings from the Netherlands.

Hi Flyingdutchman,

Welcome to the forum  

We have a rule here that the first post should be an introduction in the "Members rules and introductions" section.
Too late now, you don't have to delete your first posts but I would appreciate it if you take the time to look in the "Members Rules and Introductions" section and start a new thread to introduce yourself.

While you are there there are a couple of rules threads you might like to look through, and of course feel free to look at the introduction posts by other members so you have an idea of who you are talking to and to see what is expected in your intro thread.

Regarding your question however perhaps you mean this:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t861-new-shipyard-being-built-in-far-east-russia

Of course that was 2010, so this is more recent:

http://www.crewing.biz.ua/Article65739.html

BTW I rather suspect their experience of giving the Kuznetsov a serious upgrade will allow them to have a better idea of what their options are.

They will need a very powerful but compact and safe naval nuclear reactor for the upgrade of the Kuz and the Kirovs hopefully that can also be adopted on their new build larger vessels.

Experience with new weapons and radar systems should also benefit plans for new carriers in the future.

I remember planned carriers from the 1970s that showed models with naval Mig-23s on their decks but by the time they got them into service it was Mig-29s and Su-27s(33) that were eventually deployed.
I suspect the new carriers and even the K might have a new variant of the PAK FA operating from its deck which will be quite interesting.

GarryB wrote:BTW I rather suspect their experience of giving the Kuznetsov a serious upgrade will allow them to have a better idea of what their options are.

They will need a very powerful but compact and safe naval nuclear reactor for the upgrade of the Kuz and the Kirovs hopefully that can also be adopted on their new build larger vessels.

Experience with new weapons and radar systems should also benefit plans for new carriers in the future.

I remember planned carriers from the 1970s that showed models with naval Mig-23s on their decks but by the time they got them into service it was Mig-29s and Su-27s(33) that were eventually deployed.
I suspect the new carriers and even the K might have a new variant of the PAK FA operating from its deck which will be quite interesting.

Thank you for all the info:D 

I will introduce myself on the forum right now.

So is it safe to say that those new shipyards that USC was planning in St. Petersburg are now canceled and more effort is being placed on the Zvezda-DSME and Vostok-Raffles shipyards in the Far East?

I **seem** to recall hearing that aircraft carriers will be built at a new shipyard owned by Sevmash (Severodvinsk, over by the White Sea); the shipyard is under construction or soon to be.

The St. Petersburg and Vladivostok yards may have something to do with it I dunno; but only large enough dry dock for ships of such class will be in Severodvinsk; so that's where the bulk of the construction will take place.

Makes sense too since they are the ones with the most experience. Rebuilding the Vikramadityu/Admiral Gorshkov for the Indian fleet and preparing to construct a Mistral class in the near future; not to mention their experience with nuclear-propelled vessels such as building atomic subs and the modernisation of the Admiral Nakhimov (Kirov class) due to start there soon.

flamming_python wrote:I **seem** to recall hearing that aircraft carriers will be built at a new shipyard owned by Sevmash (Severodvinsk, over by the White Sea); the shipyard is under construction or soon to be.

The St. Petersburg and Vladivostok yards may have something to do with it I dunno; but only large enough dry dock for ships of such class will be in Severodvinsk; so that's where the bulk of the construction will take place.

Makes sense too since they are the ones with the most experience. Rebuilding the Vikramadityu/Admiral Gorshkov for the Indian fleet and preparing to construct a Mistral class in the near future; not to mention their experience with nuclear-propelled vessels such as building atomic subs and the modernisation of the Admiral Nakhimov (Kirov class) due to start there soon.

How long will it take to construct a shipyard?
Cant wait for the carriers to come!

How long will it take to construct a shipyard?

The South Korean/Russian program at Vladivostok was signed in about 2010 or so and was expected to start taking ship production orders in 2013 according to the articles I have read... so not actually that long it seems.

To be honest I really don't think they are ready for two fixed wing carriers... the K will enter docks and start its 5+ year upgrade shortly but it is not just about a carrier or two, it is about support ships to operate with the carrier as well.

The two Mistral class helicopter carriers will be a good first step and a challenge for the Russian Navy to operate properly and they can formulate operations and work out what they can or cannot do with them over the next few years.

One offshoot will be likely a range of upgraded naval helos including attack and transport as well as rescue and anti sub models, which will be good for any fixed wing carriers that enter service in the near future.

GarryB wrote:

How long will it take to construct a shipyard?

The South Korean/Russian program at Vladivostok was signed in about 2010 or so and was expected to start taking ship production orders in 2013 according to the articles I have read... so not actually that long it seems.

To be honest I really don't think they are ready for two fixed wing carriers... the K will enter docks and start its 5+ year upgrade shortly but it is not just about a carrier or two, it is about support ships to operate with the carrier as well.

The two Mistral class helicopter carriers will be a good first step and a challenge for the Russian Navy to operate properly and they can formulate operations and work out what they can or cannot do with them over the next few years.

One offshoot will be likely a range of upgraded naval helos including attack and transport as well as rescue and anti sub models, which will be good for any fixed wing carriers that enter service in the near future.

So the russians need experience first right?
When can i expect the beginning of a second aircraft carrier?

The shipyard is already there then right?

Russian Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief Vice-Adm Alexander Fedotenkov said earlier this month that the Navy will take delivery of 36 new warships and auxiliary vessels in 2013-14 . Though he did not specify how these new ships will be distributed among the country's different fleets, he said , it is safe to assume that a significant portion will be used to bolster the Pacific Fleet.

The state armament program makes no mention of new aircraft carriers procurement before 2020 .

http://www.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/pepm_125.pdf

Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said last year that R&D work pertaining to a nuclear powered carrier is currently being carried out, but until the results are presented, there can be no talk whatsoever of ordering such a carrier.

Russia intends to field a heavy air-capable new generation cruiser, which is expected to be put to use by the Russian Navy in 2020.The new aircraft carrier will combine the properties of a command and control vessel with that of a powerful defensive ship.

The Russian navy has 4 subdivisions - thus, it is expected that Russia will have 4 battle groups headed by aircraft carriers.These groups will consist of the aircraft carrier itself, at least 6 more other battle ships and 1 or 2 submarines.The displacement of the new aircraft carrier will be >50,000 tonnes which is higher than that of the Admiral Kuznetsov .

Sujoy wrote:Russian Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief Vice-Adm Alexander Fedotenkov said earlier this month that the Navy will take delivery of 36 new warships and auxiliary vessels in 2013-14 . Though he did not specify how these new ships will be distributed among the country's different fleets, he said , it is safe to assume that a significant portion will be used to bolster the Pacific Fleet.

The state armament program  makes no mention of new aircraft carriers  procurement before 2020 .



Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said last year that R&D work pertaining to a nuclear powered carrier is currently being carried out, but until the results are presented, there can be no talk whatsoever of ordering such a carrier.

Russia intends to field a heavy air-capable new generation cruiser, which is expected to be put to use by the Russian Navy in 2020.The new aircraft carrier will combine the properties of a command and control vessel with that of a powerful defensive ship.

The Russian navy has 4 subdivisions - thus, it is expected that Russia will have 4 battle groups headed by aircraft carriers.These groups will consist of the aircraft carrier itself, at least 6 more other battle ships and 1 or 2 submarines.The displacement of the new aircraft carrier will be >50,000 tonnes which is higher than that of the Admiral Kuznetsov .

Thanks man you really helped me with this!
Its great to read that the russians will be having a great fleet again!
And especially the aircraft carriers cant wait till hey show the bleuprints to the public.

When wil the bleuprints be ready?
Will they show them to the public?

Flyingdutchman wrote:When wil the bleuprints be ready?
Will they show them to the public?

I don't know if any timeline has been set for the blueprint to be made available . Since no new aircraft carrier are likely to join the Navy before 2020 , the designers have considerable amount of time . Constructing the carrier should take 6 - 7 years .

Designing an aircraft carrier is a complex issue . Advances in sub system technologies is one of the critical factors that influences the design of an aircraft carrier. The greatest influence on the design will of course be Launching and recovering aircrafts . Then there is the overall machinery concept for propulsion, aviation launch and recovery equipment, and other ship systems.Chances are the Russian Navy will go for nuclear propulsion.

And also one cannot loose sight of the cost factor. To reduce costs Navies round the world are considering selected tradeoffs in capabilities and adopting new ways of doing business .

Flyingdutchman wrote:

flamming_python wrote:I **seem** to recall hearing that aircraft carriers will be built at a new shipyard owned by Sevmash (Severodvinsk, over by the White Sea); the shipyard is under construction or soon to be.

The St. Petersburg and Vladivostok yards may have something to do with it I dunno; but only large enough dry dock for ships of such class will be in Severodvinsk; so that's where the bulk of the construction will take place.

Makes sense too since they are the ones with the most experience. Rebuilding the Vikramadityu/Admiral Gorshkov for the Indian fleet and preparing to construct a Mistral class in the near future; not to mention their experience with nuclear-propelled vessels such as building atomic subs and the modernisation of the Admiral Nakhimov (Kirov class) due to start there soon.

How long will it take to construct a shipyard?
Cant wait for the carriers to come!

Unfortunately you are going to have to wait a decade realistically my friend!

There are some interesting things going on in shipbuilding until then though.