Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

Has a full blue water force.

I would not define a major naval player as needing thousands of ships all over the place... 8 Borei class SSBNs would actually suffice in being able to remove any country from existence within a few hours of the order being given.

they are the only country with a decent icebreaking fleet.

The corvs are for off shore defense means and areas close to home.

The weapons it carries are standard weapons that will be carried by every new Russian vessel from Corvette to Cruiser... the fact that they can hit point land targets up to 2,500km from their launch position and also fire supersonic anti ship missiles... which in less than five years will include hypersonic anti ship missiles means nothing to you?

That I am not sure about I highly doubt A Sovremennyy can beat a British type 45

So what is so wonderful about the Type 45s? Harpoons are not a huge threat to Sovs, but Moskits might be an issue for Type 45s... have they worked out how to shoot down sea skimming missiles yet?

Contract on aircraft carrier for Russian Navy may be signed by late 2025 — official

More:
http://tass.ru/en/defense/876770

By then the likely main fixed wing aircraft on board will likely either be a naval PAK FA or light 5th gen fighter made by MiG...


Or perhaps Tegas Mk 7...

GarryB wrote: The critical component of a US carrier group are the strike aircraft used to bomb countries... the carrier group is there to protect the carrier.

For the Russians the purpose of an aircraft carrier is to take air power with a carrier group to protect the carrier group.

It is the carrier groups purpose to sink enemy carrier groups hense the carrier carries 12 Granits, but the Kirov and Slava class cruisers carry 20 and 16 Granits respectively.

and thats why Russians need vtol fighter like Yak-141 or MiG suggested LMFS prototype I-25V

good ideas but not going to happen, this is totally out of the box lol. but the articles are worth a read even if its just to see the impressive models especially the one about the Typhoon.

http://englishrussia.com/2015/10/23/awesome-soviet-ekranoplan-aircraft-carrier-project/




http://englishrussia.com/2016/03/09/the-mysterious-story-of-russian-rogue-typhoon-submarine-aircraft-carrier/

d_taddei2 wrote:good ideas but not going to happen, this is totally out of the box lol.  but the articles are worth a read even if its just to see the impressive models especially the one about the Typhoon.

...

Unrealistic, but cool. I'm not sure what the point of a swing wing ekranoplan would be.

Well you have to give them that, their fantasy is surprisingly awesome. Would probably be good for some sci fi movie if the movie overall does not have a sucking story.

Zivo wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:good ideas but not going to happen, this is totally out of the box lol.  but the articles are worth a read even if its just to see the impressive models especially the one about the Typhoon.

...

Unrealistic, but cool. I'm  not sure what the point of a swing wing ekranoplan would be.

Not to mention the "technical difficulties" in attempting flight deck operations while subjected to 500 knot head winds and jet wash....

This tho would be really epic

I mean, not like something similar wasnt tried before.

If it's an aircraft carrying submarine, then i would definitely go with the Chinese design, it's the closest thing to the conventional sub design, although with a lesser size then the one pictured.

AlfaT8 wrote:If it's an aircraft carrying submarine, then i would definitely go with the Chinese design, it's the closest thing to the conventional sub design, although with a lesser size then the one pictured.

I like the concept of carrying submarines but not the concept of submarine carrier. 4 kilo class carried by a Aircraft carrier woud give a lot of protecion to it when it comes close to its deployment area.

Perhaps a scaled down version based on the Akula SSBN with UCAVs instead of manned aircraft and with an air ship as an AWACS.

The main thing these models lack is the angled flight deck so aircraft can take off and land at the same time without the risk of the landing aircraft running into an aircraft on deck ready for take off.

Without that arrangement the landing/takeoff cycle is much much slower and performance is greatly degraded in terms of getting aircraft up and getting them back on board.

Perhaps with the Akula class side extensions for a flat top so you have two straight runways on each side so one side can be for take offs and the other side for landings... this has the advantage of allowing two landings or takeoffs at one time to speed up either process. It does make the deck are larger however.

Some sort of EM cat would greatly shorten the required take off run and add to the takeoff weight of the aircraft on board.

I remember an Amiga 500 game from about 1989 called F-18 Interceptor by Bob Dinnerman where the enemy MiG-29s (which were black F-16s) attacked the US from a submersible carrier... it was about the first flight sim I can remember with external views of the aircraft...

takes me back...

Just had the best idea : They should call the new aicraft carrier USSR

Isos wrote:Just had the best idea : They should call the new aicraft carrier USSR

+1

Isos wrote:Just had the best idea : They should call the new aicraft carrier USSR

I don't think the men of the sea will appreciate such a cursed name.
A country and political system that spectacularly collapsed causing wars and depression, to this very day.

KiloGolf wrote:

Wow, so these so called "fatal flaws" are the price/necessity and the engines, how cute, this article insinuates that the Russian military still doesn't know whether or not they need the T-50 which is insane, if they didn't need it they wouldn't have made it in the first place, if i had to guess the actual debate is on where and how to use it.

As for the engines, the current ones are fully capable, at worst you can call this issue an inconvenience, but a fatal flaw it is not.

How reliable of a source for mil issues is Izvestia?
Engine-wise whatever their fuel consumption issues are, they ought to be more pro-active on integrating low observability on the exhaust nozzle, like yesterday.

Assume that the main user of theese planes will be the russian navy, and it will be the attacking plane for the next generation aircraft carriers.

Then they are not in hurry, to certificate the airplane they need the final engine, capable to sky jump with full load.

Or they need invest in developing proper carriers and give them steam catapults.

Proper carriers?

I guess if they are not like American carriers they can't be real carriers...

And WTF would they waste time developing steam cats?

Catapults are expensive and time consuming to develop... Why waste time developing an already obsolete technology?

AFAIK the plans for the PAK FA have not changed... there was always a new engine in development by Saturn and nothing has changed...

Perhaps they would be better to do a story on the fatal flaw of the F-35... its crap.

KiloGolf wrote:

Singular_trafo wrote:The only place when this bird needs more thrust is the sky jump,

I think the t-50 considered as attacking plane, designed for the new russian aircraft carriers.

Or they need invest in developing proper carriers and give them steam catapults.

Main advantage of a catapult is not the launch of fighter jets, but the capability to launch small AWACS airplanes.

With new and modern engines it is possible the launch fighter / bomber jets with full load from sky jump ramps, but the awacs is a different problem.

I think in the new carriers they will consider two catapul + skyjump ramp,and the catapults will be used by awacs / refueling / freight planes.


Advantage of this is the capability to use medium sized carriers, like the Kuznetsow with full strike capability.

KiloGolf wrote:Or they need invest in developing proper carriers and give them steam catapults.

Using steam catapult to launch fighters is stupid. It takes a lot of time for steam catapult to be fully loaded and more time for the aircraft to by properly arranged at the launching site.

Meanwhile, using ski jump, fighters can continously take off one-by-one, consumes less time for each, which means in a short time you can launch a lot of fighters to the battlefield.

Singular_trafo wrote:With new and modern engines it is possible the launch fighter / bomber jets with full load from sky jump ramps, but the awacs is a different problem.

Current fighters can carry full load and do ski-jump. You just need to add a rocket propulsion to the aircraft.

GarryB wrote:

Or they need invest in developing proper carriers and give them steam catapults.

Proper carriers?

I guess if they are not like American carriers they can't be real carriers...

And WTF would they waste time developing steam cats?

Catapults are expensive and time consuming to develop... Why waste time developing an already obsolete technology?

Evidently your problem is USN utilizing catapults (and MN), so check the design of Ulyanovsk again and come back to us.

higurashihougi wrote:Current fighters can carry full load and do ski-jump. You just need to add a rocket propulsion to the aircraft.

yeah

PS. by all means if steam is obsolete there's also EMALS, just super expensive to develop.

Using steam catapult to launch fighters is stupid. It takes a lot of time for steam catapult to be fully loaded and more time for the aircraft to by properly arranged at the launching site.

It will take a lot of time and money to develop cats... em cats or steam cats... makes little sense to spend money on steam cats when they could spend it on em cats.

As mentioned cats allow heavier aircraft like fixed wing AWACS aircraft to operate safely... which greatly increases the performance of the carrier. It can also launch tankers and transport aircraft to improve flight range of the air group and make transfers and resupply easier...

Current fighters can carry full load and do ski-jump. You just need to add a rocket propulsion to the aircraft.

EM cats would be a useful technology that could be used to launch all sorts of things including unmanned aircraft from smaller vessels.

Rocket assisted takeoff presents a threat to other aircraft and personal on deck.

Evidently your problem is USN utilizing catapults (and MN), so check the design of Ulyanovsk again and come back to us.

I have no problem with cats, but why waste time and money developing steam cats when it is old technology?

If they are developing a new sniper rifle will they start with a matchlock smooth bore?

The main reason for cats on Ulyanovsk was the Yak-44, and it would still be the main reason for such systems... though in a rather significantly upgraded form.

PS. by all means if steam is obsolete there's also EMALS, just super expensive to develop.

Hahahahaha... yeah because everything about US super carriers is cheap... 14 billion each at the moment aren't they?

The technology is closely related to railguns, which they are working on anyway...

KiloGolf wrote:Evidently your problem is USN utilizing catapults (and MN), so check the design of Ulyanovsk again and come back to us.

The problem is not utilizing catapults, but to completely depend on it. U.S. carrier launchs solely by catapult, both fighters and AWACSs have to take of using catapult. That is stupid, since it is faster and more convenient for fighters to use skijump.

Catapult is only useful to launch aircrafts which are unable to do skijump, like AWACS and other things as Singular_trafo and GarryB mentioned above.

Russian future carrier utilizes both skijump (for fighters) and catapult (for others).

BTW,

Ski-jumps mean a large fuel burn on takeoff, and in most cases a minimized weapons load. See the Su-33.

GarryB wrote:It will take a lot of time and money to develop cats... em cats or steam cats... makes little sense to spend money on steam cats when they could spend it on em cats.

As mentioned cats allow heavier aircraft like fixed wing AWACS aircraft to operate safely... which greatly increases the performance of the carrier. It can also launch tankers and transport aircraft to improve flight range of the air group and make transfers and resupply easier...

Didn't the Soviet develop cats?
Russia can send a few technicians to Brazil if they want to get any ideas. Shouldn't cost much for the budget Russia has outlined.

OminousSpudd wrote:Ski-jumps mean a large fuel burn on takeoff, and in most cases a minimized weapons load. See the Su-33.

+1

it's the poor man's way into CVs though.

OminousSpudd wrote:Ski-jumps mean a large fuel burn on takeoff, and in most cases a minimized weapons load. See the Su-33.

And yet mitigated with MiG-29K.