Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

Rmf wrote:the most sensible way actually is a join-venture. like this new carrier china is building let china produce hulls and then tow them to vladivostok far east for nuclear propulsion installation. 1 goes back to china 1 stays in russia.
so china provides hulls, russia provide propulsion and compensate with an air wing if needed or so.... each country then installs its own sensor suite.
its easiest ,fastest ,and cheapest way.

They should do the same for destroyers and engines to be honest.

Sounds sensible in an economic/money saving point of view, however imo being able to independently build your own ships is still the way to go for Russia, it is expensive but long term it will pay off.

Project Canada wrote:
Sounds sensible in an economic/money saving point of view, however imo being able to independently build your own ships is still the way to go for Russia, it is expensive but long term it will pay off.

They only need handful of aircraft carriers. Better to co-produce them and use money and time for ships they need in bigger numbers.

PapaDragon wrote:

Project Canada wrote:
Sounds sensible in an economic/money saving point of view, however imo being able to independently build your own ships is still the way to go for Russia, it is expensive but long term it will pay off.

They only need handful of aircraft carriers. Better to co-produce them and use money and time for ships they need in bigger numbers.

Minimal number of carriers to have operational consistency is 3, one deployed, one in docks, one on overhaul. Criteria which at this moment only US fulfils, France fills the gap with Mistrals atm, UK is building carriers and Roterdams and Italy well.... Italy.

Well strictly speaking the actual minimum number of carriers for operations would be 2.

One in service or training and one in overhaul/maintainence.

The three ship operational tempo is one operational, one in training and one in dock getting repairs or upgrades... where in an emergency you can have two ships ready for emergencies at any one time.

With modular systems the new Russian ships should be rather cheaper, but unless China or India adopt the same modules then the designs wont be the same.

Engines are not an issue for carriers as nuke propulsion is expected and has largely been developed already.

The sensors and systems and weapons to be put on a new Russian carrier are essentially basically the same as the equipment installed on a Russian corvette... just scaled up.

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Project Canada wrote:
Sounds sensible in an economic/money saving point of view, however imo being able to independently build your own ships is still the way to go for Russia, it is expensive but long term it will pay off.

They only need handful of aircraft carriers. Better to co-produce them and use money and time for ships they need in bigger numbers.

Minimal number of carriers to have operational consistency is 3, one deployed, one in docks, one on overhaul. Criteria which at this moment only US fulfils, France fills the gap with Mistrals atm, UK is building carriers and Roterdams and Italy well.... Italy.

Yes, Italy : two harrier capable carriers (only western europe Navy having it), three San Marco landing craft than operate a Ch-47 and a Aw-101 together , frigates able to carry a AW-101 and a N-90, twelve 4500 ton heavy armed OPV and a 20000 LPD in order actually.
So thank you, we are just fine there with the our fleet.
For news about your's, have I to call 00385, 00386 or 00382?

kvs wrote:

par far wrote:What I don't get is, India(whose MIC, is a mere fraction of Russia), can have decent Aircraft Carriers but Russia can't? Are Russian shipbuilders that bad, that they can not build Aircraft Carriers? It just sucks that Russia missed out on the Mistrals, if the shit, in Ukraine was delayed, by 6-8 months, than Russia would probably had the Mistrals(at least one of them). That would have been a lovely dream, come true, imagine, taking the Mistral, to Syria.

Take a f*cking aliuvm, dude.   All you saps who think that the bitumen grade fuel that they burn in this ship should be producing a little bit of
white fluffy smoke should go and do some research.    The diesels in this ship can burn Orimulsion (water + bitumen) and other "soft coal" type
fuel that would choke any other engine.    So yeah, it smokes as if it is burning coal.   What a disaster!

To evaluate this ship based on the colour of the smoke is beyond retarded.

I did not say anythings bout smoke or anything, I just said decent(compared to US carriers in terms of how many fighters it can carry and in terms of size), I already about the smoke and why it is coming out, I never go on west media, so I don't buy into that crap about smoke> I don't need to take anything.

marcellogo wrote:

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Project Canada wrote:
Sounds sensible in an economic/money saving point of view, however imo being able to independently build your own ships is still the way to go for Russia, it is expensive but long term it will pay off.

They only need handful of aircraft carriers. Better to co-produce them and use money and time for ships they need in bigger numbers.

Minimal number of carriers to have operational consistency is 3, one deployed, one in docks, one on overhaul. Criteria which at this moment only US fulfils, France fills the gap with Mistrals atm, UK is building carriers and Roterdams and Italy well.... Italy.

Yes, Italy : two harrier capable carriers (only western europe Navy having it), three San Marco landing craft than operate a Ch-47 and a Aw-101 together , frigates able to carry a AW-101 and a N-90, twelve 4500 ton heavy armed OPV and a 20000 LPD in order actually.
So thank you, we are just fine there with the our fleet.
For news about your's, have I to call 00385, 00386 or 00382?

"Harrier capable carriers" - nice oxymoron. At this moment Harriers are adequate aircraft as much as Gazelle is adequate as gunship helicopter.

San Marco class does not exist, you wanted to say San Giorgio class, one of which is named San Marco.

However i was refering to the fact no matter what Italians operated they will make it useless as shown by already established legendary tradition of Italian armed forces, incapable of fighitng for anything except worldwide crusade aganist ketchup spread on pizza.

You could have Ford class carriers we would still laugh at Italians.

Militarov wrote:

marcellogo wrote:

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Project Canada wrote:
Sounds sensible in an economic/money saving point of view, however imo being able to independently build your own ships is still the way to go for Russia, it is expensive but long term it will pay off.

They only need handful of aircraft carriers. Better to co-produce them and use money and time for ships they need in bigger numbers.

Minimal number of carriers to have operational consistency is 3, one deployed, one in docks, one on overhaul. Criteria which at this moment only US fulfils, France fills the gap with Mistrals atm, UK is building carriers and Roterdams and Italy well.... Italy.

Yes, Italy : two harrier capable carriers (only western europe Navy having it), three San Marco landing craft than operate a Ch-47 and a Aw-101 together , frigates able to carry a AW-101 and a N-90, twelve 4500 ton heavy armed OPV and a 20000 LPD in order actually.
So thank you, we are just fine there with the our fleet.
For news about your's, have I to call 00385, 00386 or 00382?

"Harrier capable carriers" - nice oxymoron. At this moment Harriers are adequate aircraft as much as Gazelle is adequate as gunship helicopter.

San Marco class does not exist, you wanted to say San Giorgio class, one of which is named San Marco.

However i was refering to the fact no matter what Italians operated they will make it useless as shown by already established legendary tradition of Italian armed forces, incapable of fighitng for anything except worldwide crusade aganist ketchup spread on pizza.

You could have Ford class carriers we would still laugh at Italians.

oh my...

Militarov wrote:

marcellogo wrote:

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Project Canada wrote:
Sounds sensible in an economic/money saving point of view, however imo being able to independently build your own ships is still the way to go for Russia, it is expensive but long term it will pay off.

They only need handful of aircraft carriers. Better to co-produce them and use money and time for ships they need in bigger numbers.

Minimal number of carriers to have operational consistency is 3, one deployed, one in docks, one on overhaul. Criteria which at this moment only US fulfils, France fills the gap with Mistrals atm, UK is building carriers and Roterdams and Italy well.... Italy.

Yes, Italy : two harrier capable carriers (only western europe Navy having it), three San Marco landing craft than operate a Ch-47 and a Aw-101 together , frigates able to carry a AW-101 and a N-90, twelve 4500 ton heavy armed OPV and a 20000 LPD in order actually.
So thank you, we are just fine there with the our fleet.
For news about your's, have I to call 00385, 00386 or 00382?

"Harrier capable carriers" - nice oxymoron. At this moment Harriers are adequate aircraft as much as Gazelle is adequate as gunship helicopter.

San Marco class does not exist, you wanted to say San Giorgio class, one of which is named San Marco.

However i was refering to the fact no matter what Italians operated they will make it useless as shown by already established legendary tradition of Italian armed forces, incapable of fighitng for anything except worldwide crusade aganist ketchup spread on pizza.

You could have Ford class carriers we would still laugh at Italians.

There's nothing wrong with Italian Navy kit, in fact they're doing very well in that department.
Concerning pizzas, I bet Kuz's pizza smoker is superior indeed.

KiloGolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:

marcellogo wrote:

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Project Canada wrote:
Sounds sensible in an economic/money saving point of view, however imo being able to independently build your own ships is still the way to go for Russia, it is expensive but long term it will pay off.

They only need handful of aircraft carriers. Better to co-produce them and use money and time for ships they need in bigger numbers.

Minimal number of carriers to have operational consistency is 3, one deployed, one in docks, one on overhaul. Criteria which at this moment only US fulfils, France fills the gap with Mistrals atm, UK is building carriers and Roterdams and Italy well.... Italy.

Yes, Italy : two harrier capable carriers (only western europe Navy having it), three San Marco landing craft than operate a Ch-47 and a Aw-101 together , frigates able to carry a AW-101 and a N-90, twelve 4500 ton heavy armed OPV and a 20000 LPD in order actually.
So thank you, we are just fine there with the our fleet.
For news about your's, have I to call 00385, 00386 or 00382?

"Harrier capable carriers" - nice oxymoron. At this moment Harriers are adequate aircraft as much as Gazelle is adequate as gunship helicopter.

San Marco class does not exist, you wanted to say San Giorgio class, one of which is named San Marco.

However i was refering to the fact no matter what Italians operated they will make it useless as shown by already established legendary tradition of Italian armed forces, incapable of fighitng for anything except worldwide crusade aganist ketchup spread on pizza.

You could have Ford class carriers we would still laugh at Italians.

There's nothing wrong with Italian Navy kit, in fact they're doing very well in that department.
Concerning pizzas, I bet Kuz's pizza smoker is superior indeed.

Kuz's has a pelmeni smoker get it right. SU-33s and MIG-29Ks as well as KA-52Ks like to hang out and eat at the Kuz's shop. Way better than Harriers IMO.

VladimirSahin wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:

marcellogo wrote:

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Project Canada wrote:
Sounds sensible in an economic/money saving point of view, however imo being able to independently build your own ships is still the way to go for Russia, it is expensive but long term it will pay off.

They only need handful of aircraft carriers. Better to co-produce them and use money and time for ships they need in bigger numbers.

Minimal number of carriers to have operational consistency is 3, one deployed, one in docks, one on overhaul. Criteria which at this moment only US fulfils, France fills the gap with Mistrals atm, UK is building carriers and Roterdams and Italy well.... Italy.

Yes, Italy : two harrier capable carriers (only western europe Navy having it), three San Marco landing craft than operate a Ch-47 and a Aw-101 together , frigates able to carry a AW-101 and a N-90, twelve 4500 ton heavy armed OPV and a 20000 LPD in order actually.
So thank you, we are just fine there with the our fleet.
For news about your's, have I to call 00385, 00386 or 00382?

"Harrier capable carriers" - nice oxymoron. At this moment Harriers are adequate aircraft as much as Gazelle is adequate as gunship helicopter.

San Marco class does not exist, you wanted to say San Giorgio class, one of which is named San Marco.

However i was refering to the fact no matter what Italians operated they will make it useless as shown by already established legendary tradition of Italian armed forces, incapable of fighitng for anything except worldwide crusade aganist ketchup spread on pizza.

You could have Ford class carriers we would still laugh at Italians.

There's nothing wrong with Italian Navy kit, in fact they're doing very well in that department.
Concerning pizzas, I bet Kuz's pizza smoker is superior indeed.

Kuz's has a pelmeni smoker get it right. SU-33s and MIG-29Ks as well as KA-52Ks like to hang out and eat at the Kuz's shop. Way better than Harriers IMO.

Comparing the needs of Russian and Italian expeditionary groups will most definitely give different answers.
Both have different missions and potential threat environments. One is still lagging at its respective field. Guess which one.

KiloGolf wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:

marcellogo wrote:

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Project Canada wrote:
Sounds sensible in an economic/money saving point of view, however imo being able to independently build your own ships is still the way to go for Russia, it is expensive but long term it will pay off.

They only need handful of aircraft carriers. Better to co-produce them and use money and time for ships they need in bigger numbers.

Minimal number of carriers to have operational consistency is 3, one deployed, one in docks, one on overhaul. Criteria which at this moment only US fulfils, France fills the gap with Mistrals atm, UK is building carriers and Roterdams and Italy well.... Italy.

Yes, Italy : two harrier capable carriers (only western europe Navy having it), three San Marco landing craft than operate a Ch-47 and a Aw-101 together , frigates able to carry a AW-101 and a N-90, twelve 4500 ton heavy armed OPV and a 20000 LPD in order actually.
So thank you, we are just fine there with the our fleet.
For news about your's, have I to call 00385, 00386 or 00382?

"Harrier capable carriers" - nice oxymoron. At this moment Harriers are adequate aircraft as much as Gazelle is adequate as gunship helicopter.

San Marco class does not exist, you wanted to say San Giorgio class, one of which is named San Marco.

However i was refering to the fact no matter what Italians operated they will make it useless as shown by already established legendary tradition of Italian armed forces, incapable of fighitng for anything except worldwide crusade aganist ketchup spread on pizza.

You could have Ford class carriers we would still laugh at Italians.

There's nothing wrong with Italian Navy kit, in fact they're doing very well in that department.
Concerning pizzas, I bet Kuz's pizza smoker is superior indeed.

Kuz's has a pelmeni smoker get it right. SU-33s and MIG-29Ks as well as KA-52Ks like to hang out and eat at the Kuz's shop. Way better than Harriers IMO.

Comparing the needs of Russian and Italian expeditionary groups will most definitely give different answers.
Both have different missions and potential threat environments. One is still lagging at its respective field. Guess which one.

Agreed here, Russia needs 3-4 carriers. Italians can pull off having harrier only carriers because they are in NATO. No come backs from me there

VladimirSahin wrote:

Agreed here, Russia needs 3-4 carriers. Italians can pull off having harrier only carriers because they are in NATO. No come backs from me there

4 is too much for Russia even in ideal situation, they would do perfectly with 3 carriers, real carriers at least. However they would find alot use for good LHD-s, even dozen wouldnt be a waste.

I did not say anythings bout smoke or anything, I just said decent(compared to US carriers in terms of how many fighters it can carry and in terms of size), I already about the smoke and why it is coming out, I never go on west media, so I don't buy into that crap about smoke> I don't need to take anything.

But why compare with the US... that is like saying someones diet is bad because they are not eating as much fat and sugar as a fat guy...

Would you be happy to see Russia bankrupt itself by trying to equal all of NATO and the US?

The Russians could certainly do with 2-3 fixed wing carriers... the worlds great powers did not become great and then use that wealth and power to build large navies... it happens the other way around... a country develops a powerful navy that gives it global power... it is how it uses that power that history will judge it in the future.

KiloGolf wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:

marcellogo wrote:

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Project Canada wrote:
Sounds sensible in an economic/money saving point of view, however imo being able to independently build your own ships is still the way to go for Russia, it is expensive but long term it will pay off.

They only need handful of aircraft carriers. Better to co-produce them and use money and time for ships they need in bigger numbers.

Minimal number of carriers to have operational consistency is 3, one deployed, one in docks, one on overhaul. Criteria which at this moment only US fulfils, France fills the gap with Mistrals atm, UK is building carriers and Roterdams and Italy well.... Italy.

Yes, Italy : two harrier capable carriers (only western europe Navy having it), three San Marco landing craft than operate a Ch-47 and a Aw-101 together , frigates able to carry a AW-101 and a N-90, twelve 4500 ton heavy armed OPV and a 20000 LPD in order actually.
So thank you, we are just fine there with the our fleet.
For news about your's, have I to call 00385, 00386 or 00382?

"Harrier capable carriers" - nice oxymoron. At this moment Harriers are adequate aircraft as much as Gazelle is adequate as gunship helicopter.

San Marco class does not exist, you wanted to say San Giorgio class, one of which is named San Marco.

However i was refering to the fact no matter what Italians operated they will make it useless as shown by already established legendary tradition of Italian armed forces, incapable of fighitng for anything except worldwide crusade aganist ketchup spread on pizza.

You could have Ford class carriers we would still laugh at Italians.

There's nothing wrong with Italian Navy kit, in fact they're doing very well in that department.
Concerning pizzas, I bet Kuz's pizza smoker is superior indeed.

Kuz's has a pelmeni smoker get it right. SU-33s and MIG-29Ks as well as KA-52Ks like to hang out and eat at the Kuz's shop. Way better than Harriers IMO.

Comparing the needs of Russian and Italian expeditionary groups will most definitely give different answers.
Both have different missions and potential threat environments. One is still lagging at its respective field. Guess which one.

Not so much different indeed, both Italian and Russian share some common trait when it come to design military ships, they both have a lot of weapons on board, we both have a great role left for conventional artillery onboard, long range antiship missiles and heavy torpedo on frigateseven external look of ships is somewhat similar.
Given we are talking about a carrier in this thread, let's just compare Vittorio Veneto and Garibaldi with Moska and Kiev classes on that regard.
Certainly sheer dimension were different but operative concepts they stemmed forth made surely more akin one another than to the other Nato harrier carriers.
About that denomination, Cavour actually operate with them but is obviously designed around F-35B while Garibaldi will stay operative as an air assault helo carrier until the new landing ship would be ready, so we would have no lack of capability and in the same time we would build sorely needed OPV, each one armed like a pair of other NATO navye's frigates (or ten LCS) obviously.
Now, I leave to prepare for the 4th november celebration, because you know, maybe not so often but sometimes also we won.

Militarov wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:

Agreed here, Russia needs 3-4 carriers. Italians can pull off having harrier only carriers because they are in NATO. No come backs from me there

4 is too much for Russia even in ideal situation, they would do perfectly with 3 carriers, real carriers at least. However they would find alot use for good LHD-s, even dozen wouldnt be a waste.

We'll see what the next ten years brings along I guess.

Militarov wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:

Agreed here, Russia needs 3-4 carriers. Italians can pull off having harrier only carriers because they are in NATO. No come backs from me there

4 is too much for Russia even in ideal situation, they would do perfectly with 3 carriers, real carriers at least. However they would find alot use for good LHD-s, even dozen wouldnt be a waste.

no if they want a CSG for both Pacific and Northern Fleets.

They need at least four 1 active, 1 undergoing repair and refit and just cycle them like that.

That is how carriers work if you want one active at all times.

That said they don't need more then four ether.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Militarov wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:

Agreed here, Russia needs 3-4 carriers. Italians can pull off having harrier only carriers because they are in NATO. No come backs from me there

4 is too much for Russia even in ideal situation, they would do perfectly with 3 carriers, real carriers at least. However they would find alot use for good LHD-s, even dozen wouldnt be a waste.

no if they want a CSG for both Pacific and Northern Fleets.

They need at least four 1 active, 1 undergoing repair and refit and just cycle them like that.

That is how carriers work if you want one active at all times.

That said they don't need more then four ether.

Doubtful they will ever heave 4 carriers, even 3 is optimistic. However with 3 they would be just fine, as 2 would be available for operations 95% of the time, one permanently kept in Northen fleet and one visiting Pacific threatre while one is on maintenance or overhaul.

Militarov wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Militarov wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:

Agreed here, Russia needs 3-4 carriers. Italians can pull off having harrier only carriers because they are in NATO. No come backs from me there

4 is too much for Russia even in ideal situation, they would do perfectly with 3 carriers, real carriers at least. However they would find alot use for good LHD-s, even dozen wouldnt be a waste.

no if they want a CSG for both Pacific and Northern Fleets.

They need at least four 1 active, 1 undergoing repair and refit and just cycle them like that.

That is how carriers work if you want one active at all times.

That said they don't need more then four ether.

Doubtful they will ever heave 4 carriers, even 3 is optimistic. However with 3 they would be just fine, as 2 would be available for operations 95% of the time, one permanently kept in Northen fleet and one visiting Pacific threatre while one is on maintenance or overhaul.

I do think if they actual start building a Skorm class...I don't even wanna guess how long that will take to finish one. It's not impossible but it may not be in our lifetimes ether.

Personally they will get more use out of LHA's.

Russia to build new naval aircraft carrier based off experience in Syria



The experience the Russian Navy have had in Syria because of the involvement of the aircraft carrier The Admiral Kuznetsov in combat operations will help guide the construction of a new aircraft carrier according to the chairman of the State Duma’s defense committee, Vladimir Shamanov.

"Any experience that we’ve gained will certainly come in handy in building a new aircraft carrier. Creating such a ship has long been an urgent need, because our country is washed by seas and oceans all around. We are destined to not only restore, but also to build up the fleet’s combat potential," he said to TASS.

Shamanov believes that The Admiral Kuznetsov’s participation in the operation in Syria could be described as "another step forward in developing our Navy, because the effectiveness of the most advanced weaponry it gets should be put to test in situations approximating combat ones, if not real combat operations, and not stay idle," TASS reported him as saying.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russia-build-new-naval-aircraft-carrier-based-off-experience-syria/

"Urgent" by 2035.

Something that really puzzles me is the claim that the USSR was never interested in building or using aircraft carriers. OK it WAS later than the US etc in developing them but, look at this:-

1)Moskva helicopter carrier- 3 planned, 2 completed
2)Kiev aircraft carrier - 4 completed
3)Kuznetsov aircraft carrier - 2 built
4)Ulyanovsk aircraft carrier -1 part built, 3 planned.

This was the situation in about 1991.
You could certainly suspect more would have been planned.

These were all newish or brand new ships (barring the Moskvas).
Its conceivable that ALL (except the Moskvas) would have been in service today.

I wonder how rebuilding will go, once the Eurasian Union grows and strengthens?
Ofcourse there has been talk of 6 huge Storm carriers. And 2 sizes of heli carriers. Maybe as much as a total of 6 or 8 there? Priboy and Lavina, as I recall.

You have to look at what the navies are for... for small or big island nations like the UK or the US respectively, the aircraft carrier projected power around the entire world.

Both air attack and ground attack in one mobile package.

Of course for the Soviets land attack was not an issue... that is what ICBMs were for.

The Soviet navy was to protect Soviet ports and therefore could rely on ground based air cover most of the time.

the Kiev and moskva classes were sub hunters where the helos hunted subs and in the case of the Kievs the fighters offered a limited fixed wing protection for the fleet hunting down subs. They were intended to protect friendly SSNs by shooting down enemy MPAs... which is about as much as you could expect from a Yak-38M.

The K and later models were intended to improve the air defence of a carrier group to enable the defence of the anti ship armed ships from enemy aircraft so they could close in and fire their missiles against enemy carriers and the ships supporting them.

The western use of carrier based aircraft for land attack is redundant now as the cruise missile offers similar performance without the risk or cost.... to send a manned aircraft into enemy airspace you need the aircraft plus further aircraft to deal with air defence systems and enemy fighters and might need to prepare the way by taking out air defence systems on the way to and from the target... in comparison firing 2-3 cruise missiles on different flight paths is cheaper and easier.

The change from the Su-33 to the MiG-29KR has nothing to do with the latters ground attack capability and everything to do with the fact that the latter was put into production for India so it was cheaper to order more for the RuNavy.

The Russians don't want US type carriers... they are too big and too expensive and don't offer anything new that would be useful.

They will likely put EM cats on their new designs but likely only so larger aircraft like AWACS aircraft can be used.