Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

it is even better ...

MOSCOW, July 19 - RIA Novosti, Andrei Kotz. The Russian Defense Ministry plans in 2025 to lay a new aircraft-carrying  cruiser,, which will be part of one of the country's naval fleet. This was at the aerospace show MAKS-2017 told the deputy head of the military department, Yuri Borisov. He stressed that the final decision will be, when the country will be a new generation of aircraft.
"The plans of the Ministry of Defense we are discussing the creation of the deck of the aircraft, and it may be a VTOL" - said Borisov.

РИА Новости https://ria.ru/arms/20170719/1498773102.html

Number of MiGs 35 decreased to 24.... maybe there is a link between resumption of Yak-141 "2"  and less money for MiGs 35?  

TAVKR - with Zircons, s-500, ASW torpedoes... sounds like a flag-ship not only AC. Tilt-rotor drones can replace AWACS or even strike missions and fighters just to protect fleet.  But lets wait first

I would not read too much into the terminology of aircraft carrying cruiser.

The Soviets and Russians had a tradition of arming all their ships with a little bit of everything so that even if they were on their own... which should never actually happen, they can at least defend themselves with something... even the SS-N-14s had a secondary anti ship capability for this reason.

They will likely have UKSK launchers for their land attack and anti ship strike capability anyway...

As for wasting money on VSTOL aircraft I think they are being stupid.

No vertical takeoff and landing aircraft like the Harrier or F-35 will ever actually take off vertically... it reduces the take off weight and burns the most fuel... the ship has been payed for... use the skijump deck and carry more fuel and weapons further with a rolling takeoff. Rolling landings are also safer and less damaging to an aircraft structure... so what we are actually talking about is an aircraft with TVC to improve landing and takeoff performance... you can get that from a MiG-29K2 if you really want.

The Yak-141 is vastly inferior to the MiG-29K and there is no way you can do anything to the design to make it superior to the MiG-29K2, because the extra weight of lift engines, the internal complication and weight of pipes to carry high pressure air to the nose, tail, and both wing tips for puffer jets to allow manouver performance in the hover, and also therefore vulnerability to damage both accidental and battle damage is expensive and effects performance too.

VSTOL is a dead end one trick pony that in real combat would be very vulnerable to even old model IR guided missiles.

Modern BVR IR guided missiles would have devastated the Harrier fleet in 1982 in the Falklands war... if Argentina had MiG-23s with R-24Ts those Harriers would have been in serious trouble.

IMHO what these latest rumours mean is that, at this stage, the Russian Navy is more inclined to develop a conventionaly powered surface fleet,
leaving the nuclear propulsion to its SSBNs/SSGNs/SSNs.

The "aircraft carrying cruiser" would be a kind of LHA version of the Priboi/Lavina LHD.

Now that the project 22350M has scaled up to Udaloy size, maybe an AAW version will be developed, replacing the cruisers,
and that would be all for the surface fleet.

The submarine component would remain the backbone of the Russian Navy and 50 Tu-160M2 would be a better power projection
tool than any super-expensive super-carriers (besides maintaining a strong bomber component of the nuclear triad).

SLB wrote:The "aircraft carrying cruiser" would be a kind of LHA version of the Priboi/Lavina LHD.

I agree with this. I think they want to give a fixed wing aircraft in these ships. For fire supports like anti-helo, anit-radar and typical air to ground mission with minimal air-to-air focus.They can improve the Yak-43 design (Or 141, but I like 43 more). Adding a ski jump at the end could reduce the fuel cost as well, only landing will be at vertical.


But I don't think its time for this luxury right now. Ka-52K can handle fire support role very well, includes anit-helo op.

PapaDragon wrote:It's not a luxury if someone else is paying for it. In this case UAE otherwise nobody would even be considering this.

Ah, my bad. Didn't notice that. One thing, can a Kirov can hold Yak VTOLs in its hanger? I read the hanger is designed for 5 helos but usually 3 are carried. So there are spaces for 2 more. Just for fun but it'll be nice to see a jet jumping out from a battle-cruiser

VTOL plane like Yak-141 could have good potential for special environments. The plane will be for NAVY and they could place them on those new LHDs. Simply put 2 or 4 for air protection. There is also another environment in NAVY hands, which could be protected by this jet. These are Arctic islands like Kotelny, which are too far away and building there concrete runways for classical jets is too expensive. They could still build smaller concrete platforms, from where plane like Yak-141 could take off nad land vertically. Vietnam could be as well very interested in them as they don't have that big island in South China Sea to place fighter jets there and Su-30 from mainland are too far for quick reaction. Helicopter sized concrete pads could be build there to place such jets there for guarding their islands there.

IMHO what these latest rumours mean is that, at this stage, the Russian Navy is more inclined to develop a conventionaly powered surface fleet,
leaving the nuclear propulsion to its SSBNs/SSGNs/SSNs.

They have developed new naval nuclear power plants especially for large cruisers and aircraft carriers... they are not just going to shelve them and develop large conventional propulsion units.

The "aircraft carrying cruiser" would be a kind of LHA version of the Priboi/Lavina LHD.

Don't be confused by the terminology, they called the Kuznetsov and the Kiev class carriers aircraft carrying cruisers too.

VTOL plane like Yak-141 could have good potential for special environments.

Very expensive for something with very specific uses...

The plane will be for NAVY and they could place them on those new LHDs. Simply put 2 or 4 for air protection.

So adding equipment and spares and weapons for just 2-4 fighter aircraft on a helicopter carrier... it would make more sense to fit R-37M missiles with large solid rocket boosters to Ka-52ks and use the ships radar to detect targets.

I mean lets face it... if Russia is going to mount an actual opposed landing it will have its fixed wing carrier there too, so spending money on VSTOL aircraft you might have 6-8 of operationally on 2-3 landing vessels makes no sense at all...

There is also another environment in NAVY hands, which could be protected by this jet. These are Arctic islands like Kotelny, which are too far away and building there concrete runways for classical jets is too expensive. They could still build smaller concrete platforms, from where plane like Yak-141 could take off nad land vertically.

Ka-52K is already developed and entering in service...

It could find targets for ground based 400km range missiles to attack and monitor the results for further attacks or calling up long range fighters.

GarryB wrote:

They have developed new naval nuclear power plants especially for large cruisers and aircraft carriers... they are not just going to shelve them and develop large conventional propulsion units.

I don't think new conventional propulsion units would be needed. Just those already planned for Lavina and Gorshkov-M.

The talk about STOVL aircraft makes me think that the aircraft carrier concept the navy is playing around with is definitely under 40000 tonnes.
While it could have nuclear propulsion, what I think it is more likely, if such concept is approved, is that the ship would be a Lavina variant of
20 something thousand tonnes, with a similar propulsion unit to the LHD.

As for the other possible user of these new nuclear power plants, the Leader destroyer, we already hear that the Gorshkov-M is leading
to a rethink of the prospective destroyer project, so who knows what's going to happen there, or if there will be a new destroyer at all.

Maybe in the end the new nuclear power plants will be just for the icebreaker fleet.

Again, let me state that this is just my opinion and my current assessment, which could very well be wrong.

What the Russian Navy has to ponder is what costs more: developing a large carrier (40000 tonnes and above) and associated infrastructure (if needed)
plus a naval version of PAK-FA (or LMFS), or developing small carrier and a STOVL aircraft.

GarryB wrote:They have developed new naval nuclear power plants especially for large cruisers and aircraft carriers... they are not just going to shelve them and develop large conventional propulsion units.

So the design philosophy of Russian aircraft carrier designer is completely different from their US counterparts, isn't it? For example, US aircraft carriers are considerably larger

I don't think new conventional propulsion units would be needed. Just those already planned for Lavina and Gorshkov-M.

They were probably Ukrainian...

They have about 12 cruisers planned that will use NPP, so I really don't understand why you think their future carriers wont have NPP.

Anything above about 15K tons means nuke propulsion makes sense... especially as that means high speed to get to locations around the world fast without having to plan refuelling stops... especially when Russian ships can be banned from EU and western friendly ports...

The talk about STOVL aircraft makes me think that the aircraft carrier concept the navy is playing around with is definitely under 40000 tonnes.

The Yak-141 was supposed to operate from the Kuznetsov and later carriers were going to be bigger.

While it could have nuclear propulsion, what I think it is more likely, if such concept is approved, is that the ship would be a Lavina variant of
20 something thousand tonnes, with a similar propulsion unit to the LHD.

You are confusing their fixed wing carrier requirements with their helicopter carrier requirements.

they wont have VSTOL aircraft on their Mistral replacements... it simply does not make sense to take helos off a helicopter carrier to fit it with short range slow fighter aircraft, when any time Russia would actually use a helicopter carrier it would also have a fixed wing carrier present too with real carrier aircraft on board.

As for the other possible user of these new nuclear power plants, the Leader destroyer, we already hear that the Gorshkov-M is leading
to a rethink of the prospective destroyer project, so who knows what's going to happen there, or if there will be a new destroyer at all.

the original Gorshkov is a frigate. An expanded version has been called a destroyer.

whether they expand the Gorshkov into a destroyer or not they will still need destroyers and cruisers.

The modular nature of the weapons and sensors means new Russian ships are going to start looking alike... the whole purpose of modular design is the bigger ships have more modules... corvette has 1 or two UKSK launchers so Frigate needs two or three, Destroyer needs 4-6, cruiser 10+.

Same with Air defence missiles and other equipment... the bigger vessel has more of the same or a larger model.

Maybe in the end the new nuclear power plants will be just for the icebreaker fleet.

They spent a lot developing NPPs... it is pretty unlikely they wont fit them to large carriers.

AFAIK there are no models of cruisers with conventional power plants and no actual engine designs currently available to use... the only Kirov sized vessels they have are the Kirovs and the Kuznetsovs and the conventional propulsion components of both vessels were Ukrainian AFAIK...

Do you think it makes sense to say to Saturn... hey now that you have spent a small fortune expanding your operations to make conventional engines for frigates, could you now do the same for destroyers, cruisers, and a couple of carriers...

Again, let me state that this is just my opinion and my current assessment, which could very well be wrong.

Indeed and I could just as easily be wrong.

I doubt very much anything is even set in stone right now so even current plans can change... what ever they are.

But I don't think they would pay the South Koreans enormous amounts of money to upgrade their ship building capabilities in the far east and a small fortune to develop NPP for large vessels to make sub 40K ton carriers with conventional propulsion. It is like building a five car garage for a motor bike... a motor bike with a 5hp motor and pedals.

What the Russian Navy has to ponder is what costs more: developing a large carrier (40000 tonnes and above) and associated infrastructure (if needed)
plus a naval version of PAK-FA (or LMFS), or developing small carrier and a STOVL aircraft.

It is not about cost.

Having no navy at all it by far the cheapest option of all, but it does not suit the future plans of Russia.

A small carrier will still need a carrier battlegroup to operate with it... in fact it will need it more and all the infrastructure to support a large carrier is not that much more expensive than the infrastructure to support a smaller carrier. A smaller carrier just carries less aircraft with shorter ranged slower aircraft and also lacks airborne early warning and control performance.

A larger vessel costs more but actually does the job better.

Just look at the UK... they thought a VSTOL fighter and small carrier would do... they went from Phantoms and Buccaneers on the Ark Royal, to Harriers on the Hermes. What are they looking at now? VSTOL carriers or fixed wing carriers?

the British actually use their carriers more like the Russians do even though they look rather different... Russian and British carriers are first and foremost air defence carriers to defend groups of ships.

US carriers are an attack weapon of strike aircraft with a group of ships to protect it.

So the design philosophy of Russian aircraft carrier designer is completely different from their US counterparts, isn't it? For example, US aircraft carriers are considerably larger

US carriers are about force projection... ie strike aircraft with fighters to support strike missions. The ships in the battlegroup are there to protect the carrier... ie AEGIS class vessels.

Russian carriers are to defend the ships. They are currently looking at giving their aircraft better ground attack performance, but primarily they are fighter interceptors to protect the ships the carrier operates with... if a ground target needs to be attack the ships will use their long range cruise missiles to strike ground targets at extended range at no risk to pilots.

Any naval plane is expensive and all are made in small series. Su-33 in 24 jets, MiG-29K same 24 jets. Other MiG-29K are exported. Yak-141 is already developed, so it only need upgrades and to be put in production. MiG-29K use Zhuk-M radar, which could be also used in Yak-141. True, that VTOL planes are more exposed to IR AAMs, but with modern MAWS sensors and with new flares and DIRCM equipment, they could protect themselves against those missiles. We could see in Syria, that this equippment on helicopters is effective. YAK-141 have the same range as MiG-29K, when operate as classical jet. With modernized engines with lower fuel consumption will increase range and service life. Of course with VTOL operation it will have shorter range than MiG-29K, but still good enough and equipped with IFR, this problem could be solved. VTOL capabilities made them operational in environments, where is not enough space for classical runways like in small islands or in environments, where building runways is too expensive, like in some Arctic islands.

Russia will have classical carriers with classical fixed wing jets, but VTOL jets could be operated in smaller helicopter carriers or LHDs like US marines Wasp or America class amphibious ships with Harriers or F-35B or new Japanese helicopter destroyers Hyuga and Izumo, which could also carry VTOL planes. Russia could simply enlarge and modify Priboy or Lavina ship in Izumo class carrier and equipp them with Ka-52K and Yak-141 squadrons. While classical carriers will serve in RuNAVY Northern and Pacific fleet, this Izumo style carriers could serve in Black sea fleet, because helicopter destroyers could sail through Bosporus, while classical carriers could not.

medo wrote:Any naval plane is expensive and all are made in small series. Su-33 in 24 jets, MiG-29K same 24 jets. Other MiG-29K are exported. Yak-141 is already developed, so it only need upgrades and to be put in production. MiG-29K use Zhuk-M radar, which could be also used in Yak-141. True, that VTOL planes are more exposed to IR AAMs, but with modern MAWS sensors and with new flares and DIRCM equipment, they could protect themselves against those missiles. We could see in Syria, that this equippment on helicopters is effective. YAK-141 have the same range as MiG-29K, when operate as classical jet. With modernized engines with lower fuel consumption will increase range and service life. Of course with VTOL operation it will have shorter range than MiG-29K, but still good enough and equipped with IFR, this problem could be solved. VTOL capabilities made them operational in environments, where is not enough space for classical runways like in small islands or in environments, where building runways is too expensive, like in some Arctic islands.

Russia will have classical carriers with classical fixed wing jets, but VTOL jets could be operated in smaller helicopter carriers or LHDs like US marines Wasp or America class amphibious ships with Harriers or F-35B or new Japanese helicopter destroyers Hyuga and Izumo, which could also carry VTOL planes. Russia could simply enlarge and modify Priboy or Lavina ship in Izumo class carrier and equipp them with Ka-52K and Yak-141 squadrons. While classical carriers will serve in RuNAVY Northern and Pacific fleet, this Izumo style carriers could serve in Black sea fleet, because helicopter destroyers could sail through Bosporus, while classical carriers could not.

No need to reinvent the wheel. RuN has the planes, all they need is three 60-70k ton CTOL or C&STOL carriers (pure STOL is a waste of tonnage). If they plan this as a 15-year project now, they can have it all by 2030. If they start reinventing the wheel, developing useless tech for new planes, etc. They will get nothing in the end (like with the Yasen, 17 years for one sub to be active).

Aircraft-wise, what they need to develop right now is a fixed-wing, twin-engined, carrierborne AEW&C platform.

KiloGolf wrote:

GarryB wrote:

US carriers are about force projection... ie strike aircraft with fighters to support strike missions. The ships in the battlegroup are there to protect the carrier... ie AEGIS class vessels.

Russian carriers are to defend the ships.

US carriers and their groups/squadrons do both.
The Russian carrier and its grouping can barely do one task. They rarely deploy, with Su-33s providing fleet defense and air cover of sorts. Their single attempt to do both (incorporate strike/ground attack component when deployed) ended up with ditching two of their fighters in the Med (just a some few weeks apart). 1 out 4 MiG-29Ks gone and one Su-33.

So they packed it in and went home.

Nothing wrong with planes themselves, the problem was with wires on deck. Kuz will now go through modernization and they will solve issues, which was exposed in the first real combat deployment and this is good to RuNAVY and ship builders to learn from experiences. On the other hand VTOL Yak-141 is not dependent on wires on deck, so problems with wires will not prevent them with landing on carrier. Izumo style carrier with a squadron of Yak-141 and Ka-52K would be ideal for Black Sea fleet and operations in Mediterranean sea and for operations like in Syria.

medo wrote:Izumo style carrier with a squadron of Yak-141 and Ka-52K would be ideal for Black Sea fleet and operations in Mediterranean sea and for operations like in Syria.

Yeah sure about the Black Sea or potential Syrian base (no need to depend on the Straits). But still both Pacific and North Sea need proper CVs, without cutting corners. Conventional take-off is a must (read AEW&C) and respectable tonnage too (in the Kuz league or more).

KiloGolf wrote:

medo wrote:Any naval plane is expensive and all are made in small series. Su-33 in 24 jets, MiG-29K same 24 jets. Other MiG-29K are exported. Yak-141 is already developed, so it only need upgrades and to be put in production. MiG-29K use Zhuk-M radar, which could be also used in Yak-141. True, that VTOL planes are more exposed to IR AAMs, but with modern MAWS sensors and with new flares and DIRCM equipment, they could protect themselves against those missiles. We could see in Syria, that this equippment on helicopters is effective. YAK-141 have the same range as MiG-29K, when operate as classical jet. With modernized engines with lower fuel consumption will increase range and service life. Of course with VTOL operation it will have shorter range than MiG-29K, but still good enough and equipped with IFR, this problem could be solved. VTOL capabilities made them operational in environments, where is not enough space for classical runways like in small islands or in environments, where building runways is too expensive, like in some Arctic islands.

Russia will have classical carriers with classical fixed wing jets, but VTOL jets could be operated in smaller helicopter carriers or LHDs like US marines Wasp or America class amphibious ships with Harriers or F-35B or new Japanese helicopter destroyers Hyuga and Izumo, which could also carry VTOL planes. Russia could simply enlarge and modify Priboy or Lavina ship in Izumo class carrier and equipp them with Ka-52K and Yak-141 squadrons. While classical carriers will serve in RuNAVY Northern and Pacific fleet, this Izumo style carriers could serve in Black sea fleet, because helicopter destroyers could sail through Bosporus, while classical carriers could not.

No need to reinvent the wheel. RuN has the planes, all they need is three 60-70k ton CTOL or C&STOL carriers (pure STOL is a waste of tonnage). If they plan this as a 15-year project now, they can have it all by 2030. If they start reinventing the wheel, developing useless tech for new planes, etc. They will get nothing in the end (like with the Yasen, 17 years for one sub to be active).

Aircraft-wise, what they need to develop right now is a fixed-wing, twin-engined, carrierborne AEW&C platform.

True, they need carrierborne AEW&C plane. But classical big carriers could be in use only with Northern and Pacific fleet. The most crucial hot spots are in Mediterannean region and in ME, which are in domain of Black Sea fleet. They have now ships with Kalibr LACM, but they need a carrier to sail in Mediteranean Sea, but classical carrier could not sail through Bosporus. To have a carrier inside Black Sea is of no use as this job could be done by the planes stationed in Crimea.

Deciding for STOL carriers or helicopter destroyers is a long term decision, which is in accordance with strategy and doctrine of RuNAVY. If RuNAVY decide to restart VTOL planes, than they have their place in it.

KiloGolf wrote:

medo wrote:Izumo style carrier with a squadron of Yak-141 and Ka-52K would be ideal for Black Sea fleet and operations in Mediterranean sea and for operations like in Syria.

Yeah sure about the Black Sea or potential Syrian base (no need to depend on the Straits). But still both Pacific and North Sea need proper CVs, without cutting corners. Conventional take-off is a must (read AEW&C) and respectable tonnage too (in the Kuz league or more).

Of course. Northern fleet and Pacific fleet need classical carriers as they operate in open oceans. I didn't say any different. Those two fleets will also have LHDs like Priboy/Lavina, which could also place some VTOL planes together with helicopters if needed, but the main air cover will be done by classical carriers and their jets. Smaller STOVL carriers or helicopter destroyers like Izumo are ideal for fleets in closed seas like Black sea fleet and potentionaly Baltic fleet with exposed Kaliningrad enclave. In closed seas those planes don't need big range, but quick deployment where needed.

medo wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

medo wrote:Izumo style carrier with a squadron of Yak-141 and Ka-52K would be ideal for Black Sea fleet and operations in Mediterranean sea and for operations like in Syria.

Yeah sure about the Black Sea or potential Syrian base (no need to depend on the Straits). But still both Pacific and North Sea need proper CVs, without cutting corners. Conventional take-off is a must (read AEW&C) and respectable tonnage too (in the Kuz league or more).

Of course. Northern fleet and Pacific fleet need classical carriers as they operate in open oceans. I didn't say any different. Those two fleets will also have LHDs like Priboy/Lavina, which could also place some VTOL planes together with helicopters if needed, but the main air cover will be done by classical carriers and their jets. Smaller STOVL carriers or helicopter destroyers like Izumo are ideal for fleets in closed seas like Black sea fleet and potentionaly Baltic fleet with exposed Kaliningrad enclave. In closed seas those planes don't need big range, but quick deployment where needed.

Agreed on all counts.

PapaDragon wrote:And regardless of general dislike for ski ramps it should have one just in case. They cost next to nothing and  you never know if something unexpected will happen. Safety is worth sacrificing some aesthetics.

Voila



that's what they need, two side catapults plus a ski ramp at the front. For a total of four launch positions.
That's how the Soviets wanted it. It works. Use the catapult for the heavily-loaded strikers/AEW&C. Then keep the ski jump for lightly loaded A2A fighters.

PapaDragon wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:And regardless of general dislike for ski ramps it should have one just in case. They cost next to nothing and  you never know if something unexpected will happen. Safety is worth sacrificing some aesthetics.

Voila

http://a133.idata.over-blog.com/600x376/4/34/37/64/Porte-avions/PA-russe.jpeg

that's what they need, two side catapults plus a ski ramp at the front. For a total of four launch positions.
That's how the Soviets wanted it. It works. Use the catapult for the heavily-loaded strikers/AEW&C. Then keep the ski jump for lightly loaded A2A fighters.

Precisely.

Although it may be a bit on the big side for this day and age but I would put that down to size of aircraft it carries (Flanker series).

New one equipped with smaller jets should have more manageable size as a result. Avoiding White Elephant scenario is important as well.

The bare minimum would be something like PRC's Kuz, with at least a side catapult (2 is ideal if they make the deck large enough). I agree anything over 70,000 tons and larger deck are than the Kuz is not needed by Russia.