Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

Intersting picture that shows the size of carriers. Kuz' size is very nice for a future carrier. The big problems are the Granit that takes lot of space under the deck which can be used to store more fighter, lack of catapult for AWACS, non-nuclear propulsion and the very big bridge which can be reduced in size with updated technolgies. They can transform it into a catamaran by adding some surface on the left with more space to park aircrafts and addig two catapults.

The second interesting thing on this picture is the Indian Vikrant class which is awfull and smaller than the Vikramaditya.

Any updates on Shtorm?

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Any updates on Shtorm?

Vaporware

No, just not a priority. At best a supercarrier or two allows Russia to be more forceful during interverventions against small states (eg supporting Syria against jihadi orcs), but that isn't an existential need, and they won't do this until other pressing priorities are sorted. Carriers are likely to be of limited use in battles between peer-adversaries as the advent of reliable high-performance AShMs (including SRBMs & IRBMs) will make the job of defending these huge obvious targets all the more difficult.

It only takes ONE hit by a decent AShM like an Oniks to inflict a mission kill on even the largest carrier. A carrier that cannot launch or recover aircraft due to a fucking great burning hole in its deck is less than useless. it is no longer an asset, but a huge LIABILITY that will soak up resources in order to protect (and her crew) and make the job of defending the fleet even more difficult. Hit one with a Granit after her escorts defensive potential is absorbed by waves of smaller missiles, and its a wreck, and PR NIGHTMARE for the USN.

The USN brass stay awake at night due to nightmares of 4-5 sub-launched Oniks slamming into the side of a Ford-class carrier. The Russian navy brass just don't need that sort of needless aggravation.

Key dates:
Kuznetsov refurbishment finish date : 2020-2022
LK-110Ya class construction start : 2021

Based on this the earlies date for the Russian super aircraft carrier is 2023.
Most probable is 25.

They have to learn how to make new, complex ships. The icebreaker will be the most important milestone in this process.

Singular_Transform wrote:Key dates:
Kuznetsov refurbishment finish date : 2020-2022
LK-110Ya class construction start : 2021

Based on this the earlies date for the Russian super aircraft carrier is 2023.
Most probable is 25.

They have to learn how to make new, complex ships. The icebreaker will be the most important milestone in this process.

Hopefully before the Chinese get their carriers operational.

PapaDragon wrote:Just because they may want to have something does not mean that they need it.

India could invest loads of money and successfully design and build nuclear icebreaker. But what use would they have for it? Other than some basic scientific stuff none at all.

Same applies for Russia and oversized aircraft carriers. For 10+ billion that the project construction would cost for just one unit (to say nothing of timetable) they could purchase entire new navy composed of vessels they have actual need for.

They should build more than one type of ships but those types should be missile ships, corvettes, frigates and landing ships. Destroyers at later phase. Small carriers at much later one. That is it.

Everything else is just waste of time and money on needless bling.

We don't need 11 like the US but at least 2 carriers would be nice in Pacific to counter Chinese interests.

Well, China is probably going to have 4 carriers, certainly atleast 3.5 by 2025, and maybe even 6 (atleast 5) by 2030.

2 Type 001 aka Kuznetsov-class (1 of them improved, the recently launched Type 001A)

2 Type 002 class, conventionally-powered, with catapults

2 Type 003 class, supercarriers, nuclear-powered, probably with EMALS

They are going to launch their first Type 002 carrier around 2019-22. In any case it seems to already be under construction, so the Chinese are building atleast 2 carriers simultaneously. They are also building 4 (!) Type 055 cruisers/heavy destroyers simultaneously. The good thing for Russia is that that will keep the US quite busy...

PapaDragon wrote:

Russian Patriot wrote:..........

We don't need 11 like the US but at least 2 carriers  would be nice in Pacific to counter  Chinese interests.

Still those that you would need would be much smaller than supercarrier.

Ships no larger than Kuznetsov with nuclear propulsion and catapults would more than suffice.

Well we're getting off topic, but IMO the only issue with the Kuz is that it's aircraft can't launch with full-load, a Russian carrier that can allow this would be enough.

The Chinese navy want to get complete control above the Chinese sea first.

Second will be Taiwan.

Without having control above Taiwan the Chinese Navy doesn't has chance to cause problem to anyone on the Pacific ocean.


It hasn't got to pass through Korea and Japan to the Russian areas as well.

So, at the moment China is "contained" .

However as it seems in 10 years time Japan will have to be in good military friendship with China.Not with the US .

To go further off topic from the long launch position the current aircraft can take off with a full load.

The real issue is what is the point of having air cover if you don't have anything to cover.

Destroyer/cruisers are a must to provide mutual defence for AC.

No, they don't want or need US strike carriers... but some fixed wing carriers for the Pacific and Northern fleets would be useful and would extend the vision and reach of any group of ships and subs they operate with.

Talk of Russia and China fighting at sea or anywhere else gives the US an immediate erection...

Both countries have rather too much to lose and so very little to gain from fighting each other.

GarryB wrote:To go further off topic from the long launch position the current aircraft can take off with a full load.

The real issue is what is the point of having air cover if you don't have anything to cover.

Destroyer/cruisers are a must to provide mutual defence for AC.

No, they don't want or need US strike carriers... but some fixed wing carriers for the Pacific and Northern fleets would be useful and would extend the vision and reach of any group of ships and subs they operate with.

Please clarify, also note that when i said full-load, i meant in both fuel and weapons.

GarryB wrote:To go further off topic from the long launch position the current aircraft can take off with a full load.

The real issue is what is the point of having air cover if you don't have anything to cover.

Destroyer/cruisers are a must to provide mutual defence for AC.

No, they don't want or need US strike carriers... but some fixed wing carriers for the Pacific and Northern fleets would be useful and would extend the vision and reach of any group of ships and subs they operate with.

US havn't solved the issue of the the carrier's lack of defence against subs too. Russian's sub would have the same problem and US has more ocean going SSNs while Russia still hasn't got enough support big warships to provide defence for carriers. The problem is bigger for chinese navy and Indian navy as they lack in number and technology for SSN.

While it's doubtfull that an US carrier can survive in a modern war against oniks, SSNs, aviation ... The situation is totaly different for Indian and chinese. They would lost their carriers the first day. IMO it's a wast of time for them to start building carriers while SSN could be more usefull. But they are doing the same mistake than USSR by building what the opponent build and not by adaptating their strategy. If india has to face Chinese carrier they should buy 2 more Akula than buying the Vikramanditha (very bad carrier by the way). And if china wants to face US navy they should invest more in long range detection capabilities, long range bombers and very long range missiles and modern SNA.

Economicaly India can't do what China does and China can't do what US does. The US has all he EU to buy their weapons and invest in their program while China, Russia and India doesn't have. The main advantage of US is in a economical war, not a military. That's the tactic they used against USSR and they are trying to use it against china too.

I constantly hear that Taiwan needs to be cleared first. I don't understand what is in Taiwan that needs any clearance.

Hannibal Barca wrote:I constantly hear that Taiwan needs to be cleared first. I don't understand what is in Taiwan that needs any clearance.

Taiwan blocking the access of China to the Pacific.

Actualy, ifTaiwan willing to host a few Chinese submarine base then everything would be OK.

Please clarify, also note that when i said full-load, i meant in both fuel and weapons.

The Su-33 cannot carry external fuel tanks so its max weapon load is 10 AAMs. That is no where near its normal max payload, but it is the max weapon load it would be able to carry from a carrier.

From the long launch position on the K the Su-33 can get airborne with a full weapon and fuel load.

GarryB wrote:

Please clarify, also note that when i said full-load, i meant in both fuel and weapons.

The Su-33 cannot carry external fuel tanks so its max weapon load is 10 AAMs. That is no where near its normal max payload, but it is the max weapon load it would be able to carry from a carrier.

From the long launch position on the K the Su-33 can get airborne with a full weapon and fuel load.

Ok, interesting, i am assuming that pad way in the back is the long launch position, if so than i have little issues with the ship, although any future carrier will likely not have such an odd launch position.



P.S: Any further discussion will be on the proper thread.

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:........



P.S: Any further discussion will be on the proper thread.

Man, inefficiency of this thing is staggering. Although a lot of it comes from the fact that it uses conventional powerplant that takes up a lot of space when you include fuel supply.

However, that tower it taking up huge amount of real estate on deck. Just by offsetting it to the side you could immensely improve this ship by extending takeoff lane.

There is no way Russian Navy needs anything bigger than this. They can easily get the job done with ship 1/3 smaller with more efficient arrangement and nuclear propulsion.

To say nothing of catapults and new smaller weapons systems.

Also that 5th gen fighter jet contract with UAE will prove to be blessing from heavens for any next carrier project.

IMO, even if the tower were shrunk the new space would probly be used for UKSKs in order to make room for EMALS on the Ski-jump.

As for size, personally i think any new carrier will probly at least have a minor increase in size compared to the Kuz.

How is a contract with the UAE gonna help the carrier project??

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:.......

As for size, personally i think any new carrier will probly at least have a minor increase in size compared to the Kuz.

How is a contract with the UAE gonna help the carrier project??

I fully expect next one to be smaller than Kuz. Other than price and construction speed you need to keep in mind that with nuclear propulsion and catapults it will have much more useful space regardless of smaller ship size overall.

Also, new weapons like UKSK take up much less space than Granit launchers in this case. Same for AA missiles.

UAE contract is important because one of the reasons they moved to MiG-29K for carrier aviation it's smaller size so they are easier to move around in confined space and you can fit more of them than Flankers.

But with completely new fighter jet financed by UAE and developed from ground up they will have 5th gen aircraft with the same size as MiG-29 or even smaller.

Superior aircraft that takes up less space and paid for by someone else. Perfect. They could not ask for better setup.

I expect otherwise, but whatevs.

True, but i expect a hell of a lot more missiles, 32 minimal.

I see, so you're not talking about Pak-FK, you're talking about a new LMFS, can i get some info/sources on this UAE contract.

BTW, i have been meaning to ask, does the Kuz have ice-breaking abilities and if not, than would a future carrier be likely to have such abilities?