Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

PapaDragon wrote:
Oh boy, gentlemen start your engines...

Three Good Reasons Why Russia May Not Actually Need a Supercarrier

https://sputniknews.com/military/201707231055802542-russian-supercarrier-pros-cons/

Looks like Shtorm is permanently on ice. So it begins....

Well, it would make sense only if somebody else (india) would be paying part of the development.cost.. and even in that case I would prefer somethin (an aircraft carrying cruiser) between kutzetov and the never completed ulianovsk size, so between 55000 and 75000 tons

PapaDragon wrote:
Oh boy, gentlemen start your engines...

Three Good Reasons Why Russia May Not Actually Need a Supercarrier

https://sputniknews.com/military/201707231055802542-russian-supercarrier-pros-cons/

Looks like Shtorm is permanently on ice. So it begins....

In short "we've run out cash"
I like the 50s-like explanations on how "missiles can do that job". Lots of men dies following that logic over half a century ago.

On to the corvettes and gunboats comrades! Our icebreakers and minesweepers will prevail and our smoke will decimate them

PapaDragon wrote:
Oh boy, gentlemen start your engines...

Three Good Reasons Why Russia May Not Actually Need a Supercarrier

https://sputniknews.com/military/201707231055802542-russian-supercarrier-pros-cons/

Looks like Shtorm is permanently on ice. So it begins....

Nowhere do they state it is on ice. It blatantly said about need of ships and navy aviation. What people are debating on Sputnik is what we are debating here - should it be a super carrier or a pocket carrier or none at all? I think the general consensus may be a pocket carrier. Hence why they are looking at possibly brining back jump jets so they can fit more on less. Understandable. Super carrier costs a lot and a smaller carrier may do a better job for Russia.

I think many of you in here either don't read your own links or have reading comprehension issues. The "experts" are people like us who are guessing. They didn't ask anyone in the defense ministry. As well, they are assuming the costs. Recall the assumption on costs for fighter jets PAK FA and Su-35 or Armats tanks?  That is also assuming it would be a 100,000 ton carrier instead of a 70,000 ton carrier.

The important part is where the MoD is putting emphasis on new surface ships and submarines, and navy jets.  Sometimes I wonder if you guys even try.

miketheterrible wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Oh boy, gentlemen start your engines...

Three Good Reasons Why Russia May Not Actually Need a Supercarrier

https://sputniknews.com/military/201707231055802542-russian-supercarrier-pros-cons/

Looks like Shtorm is permanently on ice. So it begins....

Nowhere do they state it is on ice. It blatantly said about need of ships and navy aviation. What people are debating on Sputnik is what we are debating here - should it be a super carrier or a pocket carrier or none at all? I think the general consensus may be a pocket carrier. Hence why they are looking at possibly brining back jump jets so they can fit more on less. Understandable. Super carrier costs a lot and a smaller carrier may do a better job for Russia.

Nobody ever talked about a supercarrier. Tuchkov seems to mention it so as to serve a "no need for a CV at all" agenda. Now realistically, if the UK can get the job done, there's no reason why Russia can't get 2 ships in the Kuz size/tonnage within the next decade (by 2030).

Some circles just keep making excuses because they want to direct that money to other programs. Corvettes, gunboats, minesweepers and God know what else. I fear there's a lot of lobbying that prefers to stick to what they know/do right now, when it comes to surface ships, than take more risks for more serious projects.

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Oh boy, gentlemen start your engines...

Three Good Reasons Why Russia May Not Actually Need a Supercarrier

https://sputniknews.com/military/201707231055802542-russian-supercarrier-pros-cons/

Looks like Shtorm is permanently on ice. So it begins....

Nowhere do they state it is on ice. It blatantly said about need of ships and navy aviation. What people are debating on Sputnik is what we are debating here - should it be a super carrier or a pocket carrier or none at all? I think the general consensus may be a pocket carrier. Hence why they are looking at possibly brining back jump jets so they can fit more on less. Understandable. Super carrier costs a lot and a smaller carrier may do a better job for Russia.

Nobody ever talked about a supercarrier. They seem to mention it so as to serve a "no need for a CV at all" agenda. Now realistically, if the UK can get the job done, there's no reason why Russia can't get 2 ships in the Kuz size/tonnage within the next decade.

They just keep making excuses because they want to direct that money to other programs. Corvettes, gunboats, minesweepers and God know what else.

You are aware that no one from the ministry made mention in article, right? In other words, the experts are couch commanders like us.

The military made their mind they want carriers, didn't specify what exactly. The experts mentioned would be like taking the experts at themess as truth of the ministry of defense in the US, or f-16.net as the Pentagon.

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Oh boy, gentlemen start your engines...

Three Good Reasons Why Russia May Not Actually Need a Supercarrier

https://sputniknews.com/military/201707231055802542-russian-supercarrier-pros-cons/

Looks like Shtorm is permanently on ice. So it begins....

Nowhere do they state it is on ice. It blatantly said about need of ships and navy aviation. What people are debating on Sputnik is what we are debating here - should it be a super carrier or a pocket carrier or none at all? I think the general consensus may be a pocket carrier. Hence why they are looking at possibly brining back jump jets so they can fit more on less. Understandable. Super carrier costs a lot and a smaller carrier may do a better job for Russia.

Nobody ever talked about a supercarrier. They seem to mention it so as to serve a "no need for a CV at all" agenda. Now realistically, if the UK can get the job done, there's no reason why Russia can't get 2 ships in the Kuz size/tonnage within the next decade.

They just keep making excuses because they want to direct that money to other programs. Corvettes, gunboats, minesweepers and God know what else.

You are aware that no one from the ministry made mention in article, right? In other words, the experts are couch commanders like us.

Yeah I added that to my edit just when you posted. The guy probably represnts some lobbies, which made his position published to Sputnik no less.

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Oh boy, gentlemen start your engines...

Three Good Reasons Why Russia May Not Actually Need a Supercarrier

https://sputniknews.com/military/201707231055802542-russian-supercarrier-pros-cons/

Looks like Shtorm is permanently on ice. So it begins....

Nowhere do they state it is on ice. It blatantly said about need of ships and navy aviation. What people are debating on Sputnik is what we are debating here - should it be a super carrier or a pocket carrier or none at all? I think the general consensus may be a pocket carrier. Hence why they are looking at possibly brining back jump jets so they can fit more on less. Understandable. Super carrier costs a lot and a smaller carrier may do a better job for Russia.

Nobody ever talked about a supercarrier. They seem to mention it so as to serve a "no need for a CV at all" agenda. Now realistically, if the UK can get the job done, there's no reason why Russia can't get 2 ships in the Kuz size/tonnage within the next decade.

They just keep making excuses because they want to direct that money to other programs. Corvettes, gunboats, minesweepers and God know what else.

You are aware that no one from the ministry made mention in article, right? In other words, the experts are couch commanders like us.

Yeah I added that to my edit just when you posted. The guy probably represnts some lobbies, which made his position published to Sputnik no less.

They probably don't even lobby. They probably get paid by some kind of military blogs and or magazines to talk. Article didn't even mention corvettes, just masturbating around the idea of a 100,000 carrier makes sense for Russia or not.

One thing I can tell you though for sure, Sputnik is looking to be like the guardian or Sun news day by day. Yellow journalism. Tass is really only Russian based English news that has any form of honesty left. RT, Sputnik are semi decent but becoming yellow journalism. English Russia, Russia def policy and alike are atrocious.

Hard to find decent news these days.

I would imagine that the aircraft would have to be VTOL like yak-38 shouldn't be massively hard to produce. I personally think that Russia won't build one for a very long time if ever. Upgrading the kuznetzov will be enough. Aircraft carriers can easily be taken out now thanks to long range cruise missiles and advances in anti shipping systems. Aircraft carriers can't go anywhere without massive amounts of support. LHD are enough. Once the Russian surface and sub fleet are sorted then they could look at aircraft carriers, carriers is like putting all your eggs in one basket in terms of money. Kuznetzov isn't great but new engines upgraded air defence and kaliber and fully upgraded su-33 and mig-29k and it's all good

I think that in any navy investment large aircraft carriers right now is put in question by the emergence of new competing technologies, in power projection,
or in multiplying the capabilities of small carriers:

- Very long range cruise missiles (air, ship and sub launched).

- Hypersonic bombers.

- Drones.

- New VTOL systems (F-35B, V-22, etc.).

I don't it will be too long in till they will be launching larger ucav drones from ships the ships could benefit of being smaller, more drones compared to aircraft and more offensive and defensive systems due to more space. A drone craft carrier lol

VSTOL are needed for 20K ton vessels, but with 50-70K ton vessels most Russian fixed wing land based aircraft have the thrust to weight ratio to operate with the addition of folding wings, a bit of structural strengthening, and a tail hook of course.

Having a plane 90% related to a land based model makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately for the intoxicators, one of the most important points in the economic balance of the big aircraft carriers vs the small ones is in the air component. The big aircraft carriers need not specific designs, need not different aircrafts, wich means very big cost saving for the Russian Navy.

The next aircraft carrier will be comfortable for the aircrafts of the MiG-29/35, Su-27/30/33/35 and the Su-PAK-FA platforms. This is a minimum. Of course combat helicopters and unmanned aircrafts.

And surely it will allow the use of something else.

As i see it, the next AC will have to handle Mig-29/35K, mini AWACS (very important), Perhaps a navalised SU-34K (unlikely), UCAVs, and of course T-50K, considering Russia's priorities the main wing will consist of mostly of Migs, 1/2 mini AWACS and the usual choppers, should be easily doable given the Migs size compared to the Su-33s, and of course the new carrier having Nuclear instead of conventional propulsion.

I agre. Surely mini AWACS will be also unmaned (I was including them between the unmanned aircrafts)

Su-34? Likely in mind.

A tethered airship could have enormous conformal array antennas on its outer surface and operate at 30km or higher, tethered to a destroyer or large vessel providing it with power via the tether.

It could operate 24/7 with excellent views of the surrounding airspace.

The Su-34 is too heavy to operate from aircraft carriers... hypersonic cruise missiles would make rather more operational sense anyway for land attack missions.

GarryB wrote:A tethered airship could have enormous conformal array antennas on its outer surface and operate at 30km or higher, tethered to a destroyer or large vessel providing it with power via the tether.

It could operate 24/7 with excellent views of the surrounding airspace.

The Su-34 is too heavy to operate from aircraft carriers... hypersonic cruise missiles would make rather more operational sense anyway for land attack missions.

Wouldn't it make sense to have an airship solar panel powered, or lots of very small turbines on it (I mean really small ones effectively forming the "skin"). Or even some sort of nuclear system?

I'm convinced many things could be done with airships in the military AND civillian spheres. Much like ekranoplans.

Airships could be used as radar posts. They could be faster cargo carriers than ships. They could be bases for drones, or even landing strips for planes. They could be launch posts for missiles. They could even be lowered towards sea level to hide from enemy radar.

Perhaps a more outlandish option would be for airships to compact themselves/depressurise and sink under the waves, in readiness for the ultimate in stealth attacks OR launch anti-ICBMs.

The oceans are so vast that certain times of airship could really disappear for lengths of time.

Firebird wrote:
Wouldn't it make sense to have an airship solar panel powered, or lots of very small turbines on it (I mean really small ones effectively forming the "skin"). Or even some sort of nuclear system?

I'm convinced many things could be done with airships in the military AND civillian spheres. Much like ekranoplans.

Airships could be used as radar posts. They could be faster cargo carriers than ships. They could be bases for drones, or even landing strips for planes. They could be launch posts for missiles. They could even be lowered towards sea level to hide from enemy radar.

Perhaps a more outlandish option would be for airships to compact themselves/depressurise and sink under the waves, in readiness for the ultimate in stealth attacks OR launch anti-ICBMs.

The oceans are so vast that certain times of airship could really disappear for lengths of time.

Dayyymmm Firebird, even Avengers didn't have that type of thing

For a cargo role an airship could have a payload capacity of 1,000 tons... you could build whole turbine sets for a dam and pick it up from the factory it is made at and carry it directly into the middle of nowhere where the dam is to drop it off on site.

to ship it or to fly it there you would need to partially dismantle it load it into the aircraft or ship and fly or sail it to the nearest port (air or sea) and then transport it likely by rail or road to the dam... which means building rail or road networks to and from the dam.

A very large airship could carry a dozen enormous radar arrays covering a wide range of radar and radio frequencies to allow scanning for air targets through to communications with submerged submarines.

Using modern light composite materials for the structure and hydrogen for the lifting gas you could regulate height with a fuel cell that generates power and converts the hydrogen to water and vice versa. Solar panels, nuclear power plants, diesel engines, fuel cells, could all provide power and lift... diesel engines can also generate heat to add buoyancy and thrust... a tethered airship could get power directly from the ship it is tethered to...

Most people think of the Hindenberg, but its outer skin was basically guncotton so the fire risk was enormous. Nitrogen purged airship with both hydrogen and helium for lift and a fuel cell so hydrogen can be turned to water and back again to hydrogen so there would be no need to vent lifting gas to operate.

Note in a conventional airship it always weighs the same so when it comes in to pick up its 20 ton payload it needs to dump 20 tons of ballast, or lose 20 tons of lifting power to remain buoyant. As it moves it normally burns diesel which generates heat and lightens the aircraft by removing liquid diesel from the fuel tanks. Converting some of the lifting hydrogen to water means the lift remains the same, but if you need to climb or descend water can be dumped or converted to hydrogen fairly rapidly.

New technologies therefore make the airship concept much more efficient... and I like the idea of a submersable airship... a hard inner shell and the ability to store a lot of water ballast would make a sub perfectly possible... using a fuel cell and an electrical current to turn the water into hydrogen should not be impossible either...

SeigSoloyvov wrote:40k tons is too small tho, 60-70 is the range they should focus on.

I could see them building a couple of smaller carriers first and then move on to a bigger one, like china is doing.

The
carrier looks like a LK-110 icebreaker.

If they can manufacture the icebreaker, then the carrier will be an easy ride.