Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

PapaDragon wrote:
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.

Offsetting it further to starboard?  Have you seen the K from the front?....

Carriers don't operate alone... to be useful the entire carrier group, from carrier down to refuelling vessel and cruisers and destroyers in between would need to be ice breakers...

And if only the carrier was an icebreaker then sailing single file through an ice sheet would make them horribly vulnerable to attack... especially from enemy subs... ASW helos are not really very efficient through ice but torpedoes set to run under the ice still work.

Most carriers have a waste position for take offs at higher weights...

The advantage of nuclear power plant and electric drive propulsion is that you don't need an enormous drive shaft and an engine connected in line with that enormous drive shaft. You can place components where you like for balance and with several propulsars you get the benefit of excellent manouver performance as well... no tugs needed.

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.

The design of the angled deck... most inventions of carriers are british inventions by the way... is intended to allow two aircraft to be set up near the nose to take off while landing operations can continue. The landings are angled so that if an aircraft misses its arrester wire or if the wire breaks then the aircraft can get airborne again... generally as it touches down to catch the wire the pilot selects full AB so that if the wire is missed the aircraft can quickly recover speed and fly around for another attempt.

The long takeoff position is therefore only usable when there are not landing operations underway, but greatly increase the payload capacity of the aircraft operating from that position.

To launch an attack, when no aircraft need to land the waist launch positions are used to increase launch rates.

As you can see from this drawing there are two launch angles... indicated by two dotted yellow lines moving from the centre of the ski jump back to the two standard launch positions. Also as you can see the top one goes all the way back to level with the rear of the island... the three box shapes are the blast deflectors that are raised to protect things on the deck from jet engine wash when aircraft on those positions take off.

Obviously the rear position can only be used when no aircraft are landing and can of course also only be used when the front takeoff position has been vacated. That means the front one or two launch positions take off first and then the rear position is launched. All three can be rapidly launched as only two positions conflict for takeoff.

Ok guys, here's the thing, i have been looking at the map and the only places i can see for Russia to one day build a true blue-water fleet are the Northern regions of Murmansk and the Kamchatka region, because i am not to sure of the amount of ice these places have i was asking whether any future carrier would have ice-breaking abilities.

On that note, i have been wanting to ask whether there are any major plans to expand the naval base in Kamchatka?

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Ok guys, here's the thing, i have been looking at the map and the only places i can see for Russia to one day build a true blue-water fleet are the Northern regions of Murmansk and the Kamchatka region, because i am not to sure of the amount of ice these places have i was asking whether any future carrier would have ice-breaking abilities.

On that note, i have been wanting to ask whether there are any major plans to expand the naval base in Kamchatka?

The russians legitimately have no good area to build a base for a carrier fleet.

Since all the ships would require icebreaking ability and the other regions can be locked down to bottle up the Carrier fleet.

People don't seem to understand the Russians have no viable warm water naval ports that have open access to the ocean all.

The only way for Russia to change this is to build annex land which they will not do or perhaps build a major base near the Kurils while they will be close to japan. They will have some easy access to the pacific.

This is a problem they have had since soviet times and one they cannot solve unless some seas stop freezing over or they magically get some new land.

Your argument only applies to the arctic ocean and baltic sea(irrelevant). The black sea hasn't frozen since the 50s and will never freeze again. Same with Vladivistok. So Russia is perfectly capable of having a blue water navy in the pacific. Once it secures Syria as an eternal ally so will the black sea fleet be capable of becoming blue water in the mediterranean.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Ok guys, here's the thing, i have been looking at the map and the only places i can see for Russia to one day build a true blue-water fleet are the Northern regions of Murmansk and the Kamchatka region, because i am not to sure of the amount of ice these places have i was asking whether any future carrier would have ice-breaking abilities.

On that note, i have been wanting to ask whether there are any major plans to expand the naval base in Kamchatka?

The russians legitimately have no good area to build a base for a carrier fleet.

Since all the ships would require icebreaking ability and the other regions can be locked down to bottle up the Carrier fleet.

People don't seem to understand the Russians have no viable warm water naval ports that have open access to the ocean all.

The only way for Russia to change this is to build annex land which they will not do or perhaps build a major base near the Kurils while they will be close to japan. They will have some easy access to the pacific.

This is a problem they have had since soviet times and one they cannot solve unless some seas stop freezing over or they magically get some new land.

Your argument only applies to the arctic ocean and baltic sea(irrelevant). The black sea hasn't frozen since the 50s and will never freeze again. Same with Vladivistok. So Russia is perfectly capable of having a blue water navy in the pacific. Once it secures Syria as an eternal ally so will the black sea fleet be capable of becoming blue water in the mediterranean.

Buliding carrier battlegroup in Black sea? Why not in a bathtub? Syria is not a good place for carrier to be permanently deployed either. Best place that Russia has on disposal for carrier fleet is Pacific fleet.

eehnie wrote:It is curious to see how some people here is obsessed with smaller aircraft carriers than the US has (better if they are only helicopter carriers), or..., if big aircraft carriers are done, they must be to counter China (as US tools).

WTF.

There is here a bench of "Russian supporters" that are sistematically talking against every real Russian ally. Just trolling.

And yet there are also people that are saying how China is somehow biggest Russian ally, based on what.. noone really knows.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:It is curious to see how some people here is obsessed with smaller aircraft carriers than the US has (better if they are only helicopter carriers), or..., if big aircraft carriers are done, they must be to counter China (as US tools).

WTF.

There is here a bench of "Russian supporters" that are sistematically talking against every real Russian ally. Just trolling.

And yet there are also people that are saying how China is somehow biggest Russian ally, based on what.. noone really knows.

Stop liying. The people is not silly.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0#/media/File:SCO_MAP_10_July_2015_-_Including_two_new_permanent_members_Pakistan_and_India.png



https://www.rt.com/news/385912-russia-backs-iran-shanghai-pact/

Militarov wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Ok guys, here's the thing, i have been looking at the map and the only places i can see for Russia to one day build a true blue-water fleet are the Northern regions of Murmansk and the Kamchatka region, because i am not to sure of the amount of ice these places have i was asking whether any future carrier would have ice-breaking abilities.

On that note, i have been wanting to ask whether there are any major plans to expand the naval base in Kamchatka?

The russians legitimately have no good area to build a base for a carrier fleet.

Since all the ships would require icebreaking ability and the other regions can be locked down to bottle up the Carrier fleet.

People don't seem to understand the Russians have no viable warm water naval ports that have open access to the ocean all.

The only way for Russia to change this is to build annex land which they will not do or perhaps build a major base near the Kurils while they will be close to japan. They will have some easy access to the pacific.

This is a problem they have had since soviet times and one they cannot solve unless some seas stop freezing over or they magically get some new land.

Your argument only applies to the arctic ocean and baltic sea(irrelevant). The black sea hasn't frozen since the 50s and will never freeze again. Same with Vladivistok. So Russia is perfectly capable of having a blue water navy in the pacific. Once it secures Syria as an eternal ally so will the black sea fleet be capable of becoming blue water in the mediterranean.

Buliding carrier battlegroup in Black sea? Why not in a bathtub? Syria is not a good place for carrier to be permanently deployed either. Best place that Russia has on disposal for carrier fleet is Pacific fleet.

The Persian gulf is also not a good place to keep carriers. That doesnt stop the US navy from putting one of them there.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Militarov wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:Ok guys, here's the thing, i have been looking at the map and the only places i can see for Russia to one day build a true blue-water fleet are the Northern regions of Murmansk and the Kamchatka region, because i am not to sure of the amount of ice these places have i was asking whether any future carrier would have ice-breaking abilities.

On that note, i have been wanting to ask whether there are any major plans to expand the naval base in Kamchatka?

The russians legitimately have no good area to build a base for a carrier fleet.

Since all the ships would require icebreaking ability and the other regions can be locked down to bottle up the Carrier fleet.

People don't seem to understand the Russians have no viable warm water naval ports that have open access to the ocean all.

The only way for Russia to change this is to build annex land which they will not do or perhaps build a major base near the Kurils while they will be close to japan. They will have some easy access to the pacific.

This is a problem they have had since soviet times and one they cannot solve unless some seas stop freezing over or they magically get some new land.

Your argument only applies to the arctic ocean and baltic sea(irrelevant). The black sea hasn't frozen since the 50s and will never freeze again. Same with Vladivistok. So Russia is perfectly capable of having a blue water navy in the pacific. Once it secures Syria as an eternal ally so will the black sea fleet be capable of becoming blue water in the mediterranean.

Buliding carrier battlegroup in Black sea? Why not in a bathtub? Syria is not a good place for carrier to be permanently deployed either. Best place that Russia has on disposal for carrier fleet is Pacific fleet.

The Persian gulf is also not a good place to keep carriers. That doesnt stop the US navy from putting one of them there.

That is different, they do not use Gulf as permanent base, its not their homeport, they are there on deployment.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:It is curious to see how some people here is obsessed with smaller aircraft carriers than the US has (better if they are only helicopter carriers), or..., if big aircraft carriers are done, they must be to counter China (as US tools).

WTF.

There is here a bench of "Russian supporters" that are sistematically talking against every real Russian ally. Just trolling.

And yet there are also people that are saying how China is somehow biggest Russian ally, based on what.. noone really knows.

Stop liying. The people is not silly.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0#/media/File:SCO_MAP_10_July_2015_-_Including_two_new_permanent_members_Pakistan_and_India.png



https://www.rt.com/news/385912-russia-backs-iran-shanghai-pact/

It is curious to see how some people here is obsessed with smaller aircraft carriers than the US has (better if they are only helicopter carriers), or..., if big aircraft carriers are done, they must be to counter China (as US tools).

WTF.

There is here a bench of "Russian supporters" that are sistematically talking against every real Russian ally.

Some real Russians see China as a potential threat... and why would they not... China is no buddy of Russia and acts in its own interests.

Therefore it is best to ensure Russia has capabilities to counter them if needed.

If not needed of course they can be used against other more real problems like the US and UK etc.

The US needs huge carriers to bomb countries and to mount invasions... they need 100K ton super carriers with large capacities of aircraft types for strike roles, and helicopter carriers to mount landings in places like Somalia and Grenada and Iraq etc etc.

The Russians don't need that... a decent ability to carry capable fighters to escort their ships and subs is what they need... any land attack can be mounted by cruise missiles... currently by Kalibr but later by hypersonic Zircon...the F-35 on US carriers wont match Mach -8 penetration of enemy air space performance...

A really big carrier is more expensive to buy and to operate... it offers capabilities the Russians wont need or even want.

Ok guys, here's the thing, i have been looking at the map and the only places i can see for Russia to one day build a true blue-water fleet are the Northern regions of Murmansk and the Kamchatka region, because i am not to sure of the amount of ice these places have i was asking whether any future carrier would have ice-breaking abilities.

On that note, i have been wanting to ask whether there are any major plans to expand the naval base in Kamchatka?

The russians have the worlds largest fleet of icebreakers... if they want to operate carrier groups in ice they could.

The Northern Fleet and Pacific fleets are the only places they would find carrier groups useful to operate from most of the time.

The Black Sea can be bottled up with little Effort via the Bos straight. also, a carrier fleet will never be deployed within the black sea.

Vladivostok can be locked down by Japan with Ease with US assistance try again.

Are you a bit slow?

The point of carrier groups is not to hang out around their port of origin... you sail them out into open water and resupply them there... they leave port in times of tension... times of tension is not a good time to try to bottle up a fleet in the Black Sea or Vladivostok... the reaction could be lethal.

And yet there are also people that are saying how China is somehow biggest Russian ally, based on what.. noone really knows.

There is little to no benefit in making China an enemy of Russia.

Holy crap, somebody painted map green !!!

Russian allies confirmed

The real problem is that so many have their brains locked in the cold war.

Russia can have friendly relations with Turkey and China and India and Pakistan and Taiwan and North and South Korea... it is the advantage of a no longer communist Russia that is just interested in commerce and cooperation with countries not looking to screw them like the west does.

That is different, they do not use Gulf as permanent base, its not their homeport, they are there on deployment.

True, but then the threat of a nuclear strike on any country that attacks their carrier group in port... say Vladivostok, would be an excellent deterrent against a country like say Japan who might think of supporting a pre-emptive self defence attack.

As such that port is no less or more safe than any other on the planet... US ports hosting super carriers will be glowing 30 minutes after kickoff... I doubt US allies near Russian ports could do worse to be honest.

Besides in WWIII carrier groups and a navy are not going to be worth shit to Russia anyway.

It is during peace time that it gives her power and capacities to do certain things that a lack of such things means she can't do.

Britain and the US didn't become great and then develop their navies... they became great because they developed great naval forces.

Air power means air cover for their ships and subs away from Russia, and it also means better air warning of threats... better sight with AWACS platforms (fixed or rotary) and better protection with fighter aircraft that can be sent out to investigate threats rather than just shoot them down.

Flexibility and of course better information in times of conflict and times of peace.

GarryB wrote:Russia can have friendly relations with Turkey and China and India and Pakistan and Taiwan and North and South Korea... it is the advantage of a no longer communist Russia that is just interested in commerce and cooperation with countries not looking to screw them like the west does.

The first part is right, but the communism has nothing to do with it. There are other communist countries having friendly relations with its neighbors that are also interested in commerce and cooperation.

GarryB wrote:

It is curious to see how some people here is obsessed with smaller aircraft carriers than the US has (better if they are only helicopter carriers), or..., if big aircraft carriers are done, they must be to counter China (as US tools).

WTF.

There is here a bench of "Russian supporters" that are sistematically talking against every real Russian ally.

Some real Russians see China as a potential threat... and why would they not... China is no buddy of Russia and acts in its own interests.

Therefore it is best to ensure Russia has capabilities to counter them if needed.

If not needed of course they can be used against other more real problems like the US and UK etc.

The US needs huge carriers to bomb countries and to mount invasions... they need 100K ton super carriers with large capacities of aircraft types for strike roles, and helicopter carriers to mount landings in places like Somalia and Grenada and Iraq etc etc.

The Russians don't need that... a decent ability to carry capable fighters to escort their ships and subs is what they need... any land attack can be mounted by cruise missiles... currently by Kalibr but later by hypersonic Zircon...the F-35 on US carriers wont match Mach -8 penetration of enemy air space performance...

A really big carrier is more expensive to buy and to operate... it offers capabilities the Russians wont need or even want.

The Black Sea can be bottled up with little Effort via the Bos straight. also, a carrier fleet will never be deployed within the black sea.

Vladivostok can be locked down by Japan with Ease with US assistance try again.

Are you a bit slow?

The point of carrier groups is not to hang out around their port of origin... you sail them out into open water and resupply them there... they leave port in times of tension... times of tension is not a good time to try to bottle up a fleet in the Black Sea or Vladivostok... the reaction could be lethal.

That is different, they do not use Gulf as permanent base, its not their homeport, they are there on deployment.

True, but then the threat of a nuclear strike on any country that attacks their carrier group in port... say Vladivostok, would be an excellent deterrent against a country like say Japan who might think of supporting a pre-emptive self defence attack.

As such that port is no less or more safe than any other on the planet... US ports hosting super carriers will be glowing 30 minutes after kickoff... I doubt US allies near Russian ports could do worse to be honest.

Besides in WWIII carrier groups and a navy are not going to be worth shit to Russia anyway.

It is during peace time that it gives her power and capacities to do certain things that a lack of such things means she can't do.

Britain and the US didn't become great and then develop their navies... they became great because they developed great naval forces.

Air power means air cover for their ships and subs away from Russia, and it also means better air warning of threats... better sight with AWACS platforms (fixed or rotary) and better protection with fighter aircraft that can be sent out to investigate threats rather than just shoot them down.

Flexibility and of course better information in times of conflict and times of peace.

I have not doubt some Russians see China as a threat, and would love to see the Russian Armed Forces used to counter China, like the US would like, following the scheme used in the Arab countries around Israel, promoting the fight between them so make safer Israel. I would bet this Navalny oppositor does, as example. But well, Russia has a gouvernment that does not see China as a threat.

Your comment that say: "If not needed of course they can be used against other more real problems like the US and UK etc.", is enlightening about where you are, and comes after to see you denying the attacks of Israel to Syria. For me is not casual, that you come also in defense of small aircraft carriers for Russia, and to defend explicitly that Russia does not need aircraft carriers of the size of those owned by the US, despite what has been published in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015, and about the Project 23000 aircraft carrier, which would be of 90000-100000 tons (in the size of the aircraft carriers of the US). You really think Russia would offer to India bigger aircraft carriers than what Russia plans to have?

https://in.rbth.com/economics/defence/2016/07/20/russia-offers-nuclear-aircraft-carrier-to-india_613285

I would not expect Russia to use its aircraft carriers like the US does, to invade other countries, but at same time, I do not think your defense of small aircraft carriers for Russia is right.

You said some thing about why Russia would need their aircraft carriers. To escort ships and subs, for better sight with AWACS platforms, for better air warning of threats, and by economic reasons. Can you elaborate more about what is threatening these Russian ships and subs to need to be escorted? Can you elaborate more about what can threat a good sea based air warning of threats? Can you elaborate more about what can threat sea based AWACS platforms?

Isos wrote:

That is different, they do not use Gulf as permanent base, its not their homeport, they are there on deployment

Still stupid to put one in a place like that where antiship missiles can be lunched in low-low trajectory and where Iranian Kilo subs are very hard to detect.

And then they would bring other 9 carries and scorch the ground where Iran used to be... Smart move right there.

PapaDragon wrote:

Simple math:

It costs 10-15 billion dollars to construct super carrier and it takes 10-15 years to do it.

So for 10-15 billion dollars you have a choice to buy:

a) 1 x super carrier whose maintenance costs alone would be half a billion per year

b) 10-15 x nuclear submarines whose maintenance is fraction of that cost combined

So which option makes more sense from strategic, financial and scheduling standpoint?

What about a smaller carrier around 70+kT, similar to the Kuz?

The first part is right, but the communism has nothing to do with it. There are other communist countries having friendly relations with its neighbors that are also interested in commerce and cooperation.

I mentioned the absence of communism to highlight that Russia no longer has an ideology to push... they don't need to convert Taiwan or Turkey any more than they have to convert North Korea or Cuba. They have no need to convert of change the countries they trade with... unlike the US/West.

You really think Russia would offer to India bigger aircraft carriers than what Russia plans to have?

India was operating Su-30MKIs at a time Russia had Su-27s.

You said some thing about why Russia would need their aircraft carriers. To escort ships and subs, for better sight with AWACS platforms, for better air warning of threats, and by economic reasons. Can you elaborate more about what is threatening these Russian ships and subs to need to be escorted? Can you elaborate more about what can threat a good sea based air warning of threats? Can you elaborate more about what can threat sea based AWACS platforms?

Can we agree that Russian subs and ships need protection from enemy air power? I mean they do carry SAMs for that purpose, but then Russian Army units have SAMs as well but the Russian forces would be better protected with the cooperation of the Air Force as well as the Army.

To have air power to support the navy you need a type of aircraft carrier. You can have big ones, medium ones or small ones. Each has advantages and problems... the big ones are capable but expensive to buy and to operate. The little ones might not be that useful for longer deployments.
My opinion is that the medium ones (ie 40-70K ton) are better than the big ones (100K ton) or the small ones (20K ton).