Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

The Ministry of Defense told about the development of aircraft-carrying cruisers

The draft of the new state armament program of the Russian Federation envisages the development and laying of aircraft-carrying cruisers, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov told reporters.
"Speaking specifically about aircraft-carrying cruisers, (their development and laying are scheduled for) the end of the program," Borisov said.

РИА Новости https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20171123/1509477278.html

So

1) now light V/STOL fighter plans start to make sense

2)  looks like new cruisers will have similar tasks as in Soviet items:  to chase US subs and protect ship grouping from enemy fighters/bombers (vide Arctic/Pacific near Kamchatka

3) tke me guess universal VLS systems can carry both ZIrcon and AAD missiles.

Sweet. Hate to repeat but didnt I tell ya lads?

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

If this is true then it means they intend to go with more Kuz style warships, a move. I do support and think makes good sense.

Unless recently elected The head of the Committee on Defense and Security of the Council of Federation Bondarev was joking then true...

'
Makes perfect sense. Been saying it all along. Anti-sub work is absolute priority.

Take Avalanche class LHD, install reactors, sonars and UKSK launchers, park VTOL aircraft on it and you are good to go.

No need to reinvent the wheel.

PapaDragon wrote:'
Makes perfect sense. Been saying it all along. Anti-sub work is absolute priority.

Take Avalanche class LHD, install reactors, sonars and UKSK launchers, park VTOL aircraft on it and you are good to go.

No need to reinvent the wheel.

aka  form follows  function. Same as in Soviet times. Only technology advanced.  BTW such a ship with strong AAD/ASW capabilities is a perfect company for bunch of Karakurts. They keep US Aircraft Carriers at bay and Cruiser covers group with  anti sub and anti aircraft umbrella



\

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

It's more just because the guy said doesn't mean it will become reality, guys like him say many things that never happen.

True. But t is not the first time he said about aircraft carrying cruisers. But first time when he said that this is in planned budget.

When people say "save money, build smaller carriers", I can't help but think they've lost the key to what its all about.

Russia estimated the cost of a new supercarrier at between 3 and 9bn USD before the Ruble sank. But the big cost isn't size. Its how advanced the carrier is. Does it allow for satellite launches? Large planes? Super advanced electronics? Act as a base for drones and underwater drones?

The US actually looked at building more smaller carriers - the "don't have all your eggs in one basket" argument. But it decided it was too expesnive.

If a 5th rate power like Britain can have 2 large carriers, as can France, China and India, there is no reason why Russia can't.

The trick is in seeing that the funds are efficiently used. For instance, sharing development with India and China, maybe even an ASEAN bloc aircraft carrier? And building the Eurasian Union and trade/military arrangements around the World. I also wonder if a new supercarrier could have a "semi civillian" use in peacetime.

Whatever some people say, I'm sure most superarmies had soldiers on semi civillian projects. China does to this day, as does N Korea. And I'm sure the Soviet Union did. America claims it doesn't because of its bogus "free market" ideology claims. Yet we all know how private investors are milking the US arms budget to death!

PS I had a look to see the largest plane ever to land on a carrier. It was a C130 Hercules in the early 1960s (on many occasions). So I wonder, how about using Russia's would be "spare" supercarrier as a "staging post" for jets in some area they are required to land for refuelling?
OK it may sound a bit weird, but slightly different ideas are what makes expensive projects turn into potential money spinners!

'
It's not about the price, it's about the fact that Russia simply doesn't need supercarriers.

All potential hotspots are easily accessible by land or air and those few that might pop up that aren't can easily be handled by several aircraft carrying cruisers. Those situations will always be anomaly for Russia.

Meanwhile anti sub missions will always be top priority.

PapaDragon wrote:'
It's not about the price, it's about the fact that Russia simply doesn't need supercarriers.

Exact!!!

Russia needs new frigate, destroyers and/or cruisers. For me the new "Lider Class" and "Super-Gorshkov" is 1000 times more important than every carrier. A carrier is only needed for military operations against third world countries, for intimidation and power projection.

A few small carrier makes sense for Russia, but NO super carrier.

Azi wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:'
It's not about the price, it's about the fact that Russia simply doesn't need supercarriers.

Exact!!!

Russia needs new frigate, destroyers and/or cruisers. For me the new "Lider Class" and "Super-Gorshkov" is 1000 times more important than every carrier. A carrier is only needed for military operations against third world countries, for intimidation and power projection.

A few small carrier makes sense for Russia, but NO super carrier.

This is not small carrier. This is an aircraft carrying cruiser. I.e. heavily armed flattop. Thus no need for large escort, can protect small ship groupings(22800 or 20386) with AAD ASW.


BTW
Russia is developing hypersonic weapons and vertical takeoff aircraft

https://iz.ru/674713/2017-11-23/rossiia-razrabatyvaet-giperzvukovoe-oruzhie-i-samolet-vertikalnogo-vzleta

Russia is developing hypersonic weapons, this issue was discussed at meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Also, work is underway to create a vertical takeoff aircraft.

This was reported by Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov, noting that these developments are taken into account in the draft new state arms program.

A few small carriers would be just a little nuisance to any real carrier, the more so if equipped with an handful of  subpar aircrafts.

The british won at the Falkland mainly because of the Hermes, a true carrier with large technical facilities for fixed wing aircrafts.

Hermes was far more instrumental to their defeat of argentinean air force than the Invincible, even if using the very same Harriers.

And they fully recognized their error in designing relatively small STOVL carriers, aiming to acquire two large aircraft carrier when the Invincible class was to be replaced.

By the way, the correct term is STOVL, i.e. Short Take Off Vertical Landing.

Yak-38 was a VTOL aircraft, i.e. Vertical Take Off and Landing.

VSTOL as reported by some, is simply meaningless.

About what Russian Navy needs, of course first and foremost it needs frigates and destroyers.

But building pocket carriers and designing STOVL aircrafts, or worst case at all VTOL aircrafts, wouldn't save them a ruble nor ease anyway building the needed frigates and destroyers.

If they are serious at looking to a replacement for Mig-29/35, and want to use them easily on flat tops as well, the best they could do will be designing a combat aircraft capable of really short take off and SHORT landing.

It would be anyway a source for technical compromises, costs and performances wise, but still far better than aiming at something able to land vertically.

Even the british are developing the rolling landing tecnique with their F-35B, to avoid most of the troubles  coming with vertical ones.

Just developing a similar capability without any try to get a vertical landing capability, would be a more reasonable approach.

Peŕrier wrote:A few small carriers would be just a little nuisance to any real carrier, the more so if equipped with an handful of  subpar aircrafts.

[]

Just developing a similar capability without any try to get a vertical landing capability, would be a more reasonable approach.

so you know better what Russians fleet needs then Russia's admiralty?

Russian aircraft cruisers are nothing like small aircraft. Air wing is just add-on. Offensive capabilities can be 16x zircons which no British AC cannot handle.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
This is not small carrier. This is an aircraft carrying cruiser. I.e. heavily armed flattop. Thus no need for large escort, can protect small ship groupings(22800 or 20386) with AAD ASW.

This? "Shtorm" is a heavy aircraft carrying cruiser?

There is a reason why the Kuz is called a aircraft carrying heavy cruiser...the "Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits". Aircraft carriers are a problem.

wikipedia - Treaty of Montreux wrote:Although the Montreux Convention is cited by the Turkish government as prohibiting aircraft carriers in the straits,[16] the treaty actually contains no explicit prohibition on aircraft carriers. However, modern aircraft carriers are heavier than the 15,000 ton limit, making it impossible for non-Black Sea powers to transit modern aircraft carriers through the Straits.

They are not explicit forbidden, but a "real carrier" could lead to problems with Turkey. There is simply no need for P-700 onboard!? The AD systems makes sense for me, but I'm not a naval specialist.

But a small carrier makes sense! The costs explode not only from sheer size, think about the crew. The Ford Class has 4600 crew members and they don't work for free! The same problem with Russian supercarriers, so better to have a few small, or let's call them "aircraft carrying heavy carriers". I don't care about the name and classification, I care about the size and abilities.

By the way...
I love the thought Russsia having a vertical take-off fighter and something like America Class. But there is no official announcement
EDIT: Ok, this sounds a bit official with vertical take-off plane.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:A few small carriers would be just a little nuisance to any real carrier, the more so if equipped with an handful of  subpar aircrafts.

[]

Just developing a similar capability without any try to get a vertical landing capability, would be a more reasonable approach.

so you know better what Russians fleet needs then Russia's admiralty?

Russian aircraft cruisers are nothing like small aircraft. Air wing is just add-on. Offensive capabilities can be 16x zircons which no British AC cannot handle.

No, I know pretty well history of naval warfare, and cheap ships have always been severely defeated by even just a few serious ships.

16 or even 100 Zirkon would not hit anything but water without detection and targeting capabilities at very long range.

Something only aircrafts could provide for.

So a bunch of small flat tops equipped with aircrafts not able to hold their ground against their opponent's aircrafts, will see their own aircrafts wiped out without even knowing where the enemy's aircraft carriers are, then they will become just targets.

Moskva and Kiev classes were not some smart vessels, they were the most Soviet Navy could convince the Politburo to fund at first.

Having demonstrated their limited capabilities, they got the required funds and switched to the Kuznetsov class, and then designed the 1143.7  class, a full fledged CVN.

While a modern 1143.7 could prove itself to be too expensive and to be exceeding the needs of today's Russian Navy, a modern Kiev would be a waste of money.

A modern Kuznetsov could be the sweet spot for russian navy, maybe getting rid of all the hype about having long range ASh missiles.

Give it aircrafts only, and top notch sensors and command facilities.

All the attack roles should be performed by aircrafts only, and to a lesser degree by the escorts, not by the aircraft carrier on its own.

In turn, if the only need is ASW capabilities, just design an helicopter carrier able to keep pace with frigates and destroyers.

Then you will actually save lots of money to build the required frigates and destroyers, avoiding to design and build VTOL junk.

Azi wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
This is not small carrier. This is an aircraft carrying cruiser. I.e. heavily armed flattop. Thus no need for large escort, can protect small ship groupings(22800 or 20386) with AAD ASW.

This? "Shtorm" is a heavy aircraft carrying cruiser?

There is a reason why the Kuz is called a aircraft carrying heavy cruiser...the "Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits". Aircraft carriers are a problem.

nope. This refers only to Black Sea basin. Not far north. Russian aircraft cruisers had different tasks then American ACs. First priority is anti sub and air defense of SSBNs dwelling areas.

Azi wrote:

But a small carrier makes sense! The costs explode not only from sheer size, think about the crew. The Ford Class has 4600 crew members and they don't work for free! The same problem with Russian supercarriers, so better to have a few small, or let's call them "aircraft carrying heavy carriers". I don't care about the name and classification, I care about the size and abilities.

By the way...
I love the thought Russsia having a vertical take-off fighter and something like America Class. But there is no official announcement
EDIT: Ok, this sounds a bit official with vertical take-off plane.

Shtorm? no,no aircraft cruiser but aircraft carrier.


US AC have always task group with them and are used for force projection around the world.Russia does need such stuff. AKA no need for massive aggression about nations who dont want to be enslaved by democracy.,

1) Russia does not have enough large ships to to create couple of CVBG + landing forces
2) first priority is not those
3) imagine Aircraft Cruiser can act as main ship in task force to protect ocean area or SSBNs dwelling terrain. If you add some even 22160 (long range patrol boats with missile containers) or even 22800 calibers then couple of them and 16x zircons can be A2/AD for enemy's CVBG

4) Aircraft carrier can be used to support blue water humanitarian or low insensitivity operations



That's the way I can see it. It is only my speculation though.

I know the advantage of a aircraft cruiser comapered with a heavy cruiser. And as you correct wrote, if you want to enslave third world countries and bring them "democracy" a cruiser is a disadvantage? But would you really let a aircraft cruiser acting alone with no battle group? I personally wouldn't! Ok, you are more flexible, the group could be much smaller...

By the way...
Talking about sensors and detection of enemy ships. Are there any plans to upgrade bigger Russian ships with drones acting as a flying eye and ear for a ship? I mean no small 5 cm drone, something bigger but smaller as the smallest aircraft with pilot. I know there are many problems with this kind of technology, but could be a good addition to Kuz or a amphibious warship.

[quote="Peŕrier"]
No, I know pretty well history of naval warfare, and cheap ships have always been severely defeated by even just a few serious ships.

16 or even 100 Zirkon would not hit anything but water without detection and targeting capabilities at very long range.

Something only aircrafts could provide for.

{/quote] or helos or drones

Peŕrier wrote:


So a bunch of small flat tops equipped with aircrafts not able to hold their ground against their opponent's aircrafts, will see their own aircrafts wipe out without even knowing where the enemy's aircraft carriers are, then they will become just targets.

Zircon has range 1000kms  so you have suddenly F-18 with 1000 km combat range instead of 600 km? ? BTW if it would be so then Peter The great would not been built - no air wing but still build to fight carrier groups.  There also long range AAD missiles (S-300/S-400 or even S-500)

Peŕrier wrote:

Kiev classes were not some smart vessels, they were the most Soviet Navy could convince the Politburo to fund at first.

All the attack roles should be performed by aircrafts only, and to a lesser degree by the escorts, not by the aircraft carrier on its own.

Aircraft carrier for different role than aircraft cruiser.  Long range grants kept US grous at bay. No need to using air wing then. To fight planes drones or cruise missiles attack you got limited air wing + AAD missiles.

Peŕrier wrote:

In turn, if the only need is ASW capabilities, just design an helicopter carrier able to keep pace with frigates and destroyers.

Then you will actually save lots of money to build the required frigates and destroyers, avoiding to design and build VTOL junk

.

Tell it to Bondarev he says something else,  do you think Russians top brass knows less?

Azi wrote:But would you really let a aircraft cruiser acting alone with no battle group? I personally wouldn't! Ok, you are more flexible, the group could be much smaller...

that's the idea IMHO

Azi wrote:
By the way...
Talking about sensors and detecting of enemy ships. Are there any plans to upgrade Russian ships with drones acting as a flying eye and ear for a ship? I mean no small 5 cm drone, something bigger but smaller as the smallest aircraft.

N

[/quote]

for last year discussion both underwater and flying drones will be en masse used. Besides there is still Ka-31R AWACS maybe also Ka-52K in such role?

So Helos have, let's say, 800 km range to detect enemy ships that are barely within Zircon range?

And such Helos (or even drones) could stay undetected and survive enemy's CAP?

As a matter of fact, in the Cold War the Soviet Navy assumed to deploy dozens of SSNs and of Tu-142, providing the much needed detction and targeting capabilities.

In today's russian force structure, the very same assets are in far lower numbers, so they could not be used with the same prodigality.

In turn, it put much more weight on the surface fleet shoulders.

So if you want to deploy a surface task force anywhere farther than a few dozen miles from its base, such a task force needs to have its own long range suirveillance capability if not willing to fight like a blind with big fistfuls.

It's not a matter of power projection, it's just a matter of survival.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:A few small carriers would be just a little nuisance to any real carrier, the more so if equipped with an handful of  subpar aircrafts.

[]

Just developing a similar capability without any try to get a vertical landing capability, would be a more reasonable approach.

so you know better what Russians fleet needs then Russia's admiralty?

Russian aircraft cruisers are nothing like small aircraft. Air wing is just add-on. Offensive capabilities can be 16x zircons which no British AC cannot handle.

Where did you read the Russian admilalty or some Russian official source rejecting big aircraft carriers?

I never readed it. Do you have some link?

Firebird wrote:When people say "save money, build smaller carriers", I can't help but think they've lost the key to what its all about.

Russia estimated the cost of a new supercarrier at between 3 and 9bn USD before the Ruble sank. But the big cost isn't size. Its how advanced the carrier is. Does it allow for satellite launches? Large planes? Super advanced electronics? Act as a base for drones and underwater drones?

The US actually looked at building more smaller carriers - the "don't have all your eggs in one basket" argument. But it decided it was too expesnive.

If  a 5th rate power like Britain can have 2 large carriers, as can France, China and India, there is no reason why Russia can't.

...

PS I had a look to see the largest plane ever to land on a carrier. It was a C130 Hercules in the early 1960s (on many occasions).
...

Peŕrier wrote:A few small carriers would be just a little nuisance to any real carrier, the more so if equipped with an handful of  subpar aircrafts.

The british won at the Falkland mainly because of the Hermes, a true carrier with large technical facilities for fixed wing aircrafts.

Hermes was far more instrumental to their defeat of argentinean air force than the Invincible, even if using the very same Harriers.

And they fully recognized their error in designing relatively small STOVL carriers, aiming to acquire two large aircraft carrier when the Invincible class was to be replaced.

By the way, the correct term is STOVL, i.e. Short Take Off Vertical Landing.

Yak-38 was a VTOL aircraft, i.e. Vertical Take Off and Landing.

VSTOL as reported by some, is simply meaningless.

...

But building pocket carriers and designing STOVL aircrafts, or worst case at all VTOL aircrafts, wouldn't save them a ruble

...

Peŕrier wrote:No, I know pretty well history of naval warfare, and cheap ships have always been severely defeated by even just a few serious ships.

16 or even 100 Zirkon would not hit anything but water without detection and targeting capabilities at very long range.

Something only aircrafts could provide for.

So a bunch of small flat tops equipped with aircrafts not able to hold their ground against their opponent's aircrafts, will see their own aircrafts wiped out without even knowing where the enemy's aircraft carriers are, then they will become just targets.

...

Good comments from the previous page. Basically right.

On VTOL technologies, I think they are not usefull for fighters today. The smartest application that I see for them is for maritime patrol roles. It would be likely unmanned, and would not be bigger than a combat helicopter. This can be enough to make them of long range.

The aircraft carriers will have a conventional fighter with STOVL capability...the VTOL aircraft is envisaged as equipping helicopter carriers

It is expected that the number of aircraft carriers 1 - 2 units by the mid 2030s. Therefore, the striking power of carrier-based aviation is planned to add a vertical takeoff aircraft, which is likely going to be placed on the prospective helicopter being developed instead of "Mistral".

https://warfiles.ru/168777-krutoy-virazh-mo-rf-sdelalo-vybor-v-polzu-avianesuschih-kreyserov-i-vertoletonoscev.html

Cyberspec wrote:The aircraft carriers will have a conventional fighter with STOVL capability...the VTOL aircraft is envisaged as equipping helicopter carriers

It is expected that the number of aircraft carriers 1 - 2 units by the mid 2030s. Therefore, the striking power of carrier-based aviation is planned to add a vertical takeoff aircraft, which is likely going to be placed on the prospective helicopter being developed instead of "Mistral".

https://warfiles.ru/168777-krutoy-virazh-mo-rf-sdelalo-vybor-v-polzu-avianesuschih-kreyserov-i-vertoletonoscev.html

Are they stupid ? They should know the capabilities of VSTOL and stupid carrier with VSTOL fighters more than anyone else and they keep saying they want to use that shit.

Seriously even the indian carrier is better than any future carrier with only VSTOL fighters ...

Why put them on helicopter carrier ? It can't do as good as an helicopter in the field of helicopter missions (actually it can do anything) and can't do as good as normal fighter in missions for fighters.

Why the f*ck are they even thinking about that ?

Isos wrote:Are they stupid ? They should know the capabilities of VSTOL and stupid carrier with VSTOL fighters more than anyone else and they keep saying they want to use that shit.

Seriously even the indian carrier is better than any future carrier with only VSTOL fighters ...

Why put them on helicopter carrier ? It can't do as good as an helicopter in the field of helicopter missions (actually it can do anything) and can't do as good as normal fighter in missions for fighters.

Why the f*ck are they even thinking about that ?

The explanation is simple, they prefer a seemingly doable, lucrative project (aka jobs program) for the industry, rather than give the industry a hard target to achieve like a proper CTOL or hybrid carrier to build (> 60,000 t). They also seem to be running out of cash, if indeed they end up with no carrier but rather an LHD.

A huge downgrade to what Russia used to possess back in 1992-1995.

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:Are they stupid ? They should know the capabilities of VSTOL and stupid carrier with VSTOL fighters more than anyone else and they keep saying they want to use that shit.

Seriously even the indian carrier is better than any future carrier with only VSTOL fighters ...

Why put them on helicopter carrier ? It can't do as good as an helicopter in the field of helicopter missions (actually it can do anything) and can't do as good as normal fighter in missions for fighters.

Why the f*ck are they even thinking about that ?

The explanation is simple, they prefer a seemingly doable, lucrative project (aka jobs program) for the industry, rather than give the industry a hard target to achieve like a proper CTOL or hybrid carrier to build (> 60,000 t). They also seem to be running out of cash, if indeed they end up with no carrier but rather an LHD.

A huge downgrade to what Russia used to possess back in 1992-1995.

If it is the reason why, they should just build the frigates and destroyers that they really need so they will have modern ships they could use and make work for shipyards.