Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

Isos wrote:

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.

GunshipDemocracy wrote: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

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

Если говорить конкретно про авианесущие крейсера, то конец программы.

PapaDragon wrote:'
One thing everyone is forgetting: single engine STOVL fighter jet can easily be converted into much simpler and cheaper standard light​ fighter jet which is another item on MoD wishlist.

As for not building supercarriers, again explanation is simple: they don't need them. They do need LHDs and anti-sub cruisers. And they need more than one of them which is number of supercarriers they would build if they went full retard and decided to have another white elephant.

KiloGolf wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:'
.

But lets get some things straight. Russia has already two types of advanced, fixed-wing carrier-borne fighters, MiG-29K and Su-33. So the plane part has already paid for itself. Nobody's talking super-carriers, just something in the size/tonnage of the Kuz, just more modern and with at least one cat for the heavy stuff.

All they have to develop is a twin-engined AEW&C platform and build 4-6 of them max.

Done.

PapaDragon wrote:Correct and if this was 1990 they should definitely do that. Problem is it's three decades past 1990 and those airplanes don't have that much mileage left in them.

KiloGolf wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:Correct and if this was 1990 they should definitely do that. Problem is it's three decades past 1990 and those airplanes don't have that much mileage left in them.

I think the Su-33s hardly flew any missions in the 90s and 00s (most were built between 1991-1993 iirc). I'd think they got well over a decade ahead of them. If not more.

PapaDragon wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:Correct and if this was 1990 they should definitely do that. Problem is it's three decades past 1990 and those airplanes don't have that much mileage left in them.

I think the Su-33s hardly flew any missions in the 90s and 00s (most were built between 1991-1993 iirc). I'd think they got well over a decade ahead of them. If not more.

Individual airplanes yes they are in very good condition but as airplane model overall they are past their prime.

They do have well over a decade left like you said, maybe more but that's pretty much the amount of time before new carrier will be built at best.

Isos wrote:Russian navy isn't US navy for sure but they do need Something Worth the money. US doesn't give a shit about the money they will just make other pay like for the F-35.

VSTOL are more than limited in terms of capacities.even if you make them multirole they will be able to take one or two bombs/missile like the yak-141 or the f-35.

Su-33 will be useless when F-35 will be flown by most of the countries around russia. In terms of BVR they lack long range missiles like last AMRAAM and their RCS make them very difficult to hide with jaming.

Mig-29K is not mature and will have the same problem as Su-33 but it has some advantages.

What they need is a either a naval pak fa or a new light Mig. If they want to start a new program they should try with a new mig.

For the ship I would definitly go for Something like a modern nuk Kuznetsov. With new technology it can be almost a supercarier. Even french CdG is smaller but actually more capable.
Helicopter carrier would be good too but if you want to use nuk, it is wasting money.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:Russian navy isn't US navy for sure but they do need Something Worth the money. US doesn't give a shit about the money they will just make other pay like for the F-35.

VSTOL are more than limited in terms of capacities.even if you make them multirole they will be able to take one or two bombs/missile like the yak-141 or the f-35.

Su-33 will be useless when F-35 will be flown by most of the countries around russia. In terms of BVR they lack long range missiles like last AMRAAM and their RCS make them very difficult to hide with jaming.

Mig-29K is not mature and will have the same problem as Su-33 but it has some advantages.

What they need is a either a naval pak fa or a new light Mig. If they want to start a new program they should try with a new mig.

For the ship I would definitly go for Something like a modern nuk Kuznetsov. With new technology it can be almost a supercarier. Even french CdG is smaller but actually more capable.
Helicopter carrier would be good too but if you want to use nuk, it is wasting money.

Russia shores are not the Pacific ocean.

The US had a lot of actions with ships in the II WW, but did you heard any Germany Vs Russia big naval battle  during that period ?

So, that is the reason why Russia has not so much naval ambitions.

Militarov wrote:



Germany had very limited surface naval assets during WW2, hence they had no major naval engagements during the war with anyone, let alone USSR. You are bringing up things that make no sense whatsoever. Whole Kriegsmarine had 4 battleships and in total had less than half dozen worth mentioning surface naval battles with British navy.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:



Germany had very limited surface naval assets during WW2, hence they had no major naval engagements during the war with anyone, let alone USSR. You are bringing up things that make no sense whatsoever. Whole Kriegsmarine had 4 battleships and in total had less than half dozen worth mentioning surface naval battles with British navy.

So ,summarise it : Germany has limited naval asses, but it used this nt on the main front ( CCCP ) but on a secondary /tercier fronts to.

Means that the ships had little use to concuer Russia.

GarryB wrote:

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.

Actually that STOVL applies to conventional aircraft like the Storch or An-72 or An-2 that have short takeoff and landing.

The correct term for the Harrier and Yak-38M is V/STOL which stands for Vertical or Short Takeoff or landing... ie vertical takeoff or vertical landing or short take off or short landing.... any aircraft that can take off vertically can also do a rolling take off and any aircraft that can land vertically can use a rolling landing to use wing lift to offset some engine requirements.

It would make more sense to use arrested landings using a high speed landing with arrestor wires, which when they are working properly are a very efficient way to stop an aircraft in a small area.

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

So the new VTOL aircraft could be a high speed helicopter.... or the Ka-52K.

He knows nothing about what he is talking about.

Yes, he is full of the sky is falling.... they can't afford anything but have invested in development of a nuclear power plant for heavy vessels and an EM cat and a naval model of PAK FA, but they don't know how to build large ships despite spending a small fortune to get South Korea to upgrade their Zvezda plant in the far east to build ships up to 350K ton... Of course they wont build big ships, that is just silly.

single engine STOVL fighter jet can easily be converted into much simpler and cheaper standard light​ fighter jet which is another item on MoD wishlist.

The only STOVL single engined aircraft was the Harrier and I don't remember any cheap simple version of that...

The Sea Harrier was a potent aircraft but fit its radar and comparable fixed engine in a conventional plane and it would be a superior aircraft.

As for not building supercarriers, again explanation is simple: they don't need them. They do need LHDs and anti-sub cruisers. And they need more than one of them which is number of supercarriers they would build if they went full retard and decided to have another white elephant.

A super carrier is a strike carrier, which is not what the Russians need or want.
An air defence carrier on the other hand greatly improves the performance of a fleet of vessels in terms of vision and reach.

In terms of attack performance a hypersonic cruise missile can penetrate enemy defences much better than any carrier aircraft.

And what exact limitations do STOVL jets have that are such hindrance for Russia? They would not fit into US Naval doctrine but this is not USN, this is Russian Navy. Different priorities, different tasks, different purpose.

The US Marines want VSTOL F-35s for their little carriers.

The Russians are better off with better performance aircraft like Su-33 adn MiG-35 and a PAK FA naval model and perhaps a new light 5th gen fighter.

Su-33 will be useless when F-35 will be flown by most of the countries around russia. In terms of BVR they lack long range missiles like last AMRAAM and their RCS make them very difficult to hide with jaming.

The Su-33 in the air will offer much better radar coverage than a ships radar set a few metres above the water... and AEW aircraft will also boost the vision of the fleet... if the threat is F-35s then long wave radar on the ships should be able to detect F-35s are rather large distances and the Su-33s can monitor the S-400 missiles as they destroy F-35s 400km from the ship that launched the missile...

It Will be developped from Yak-141, which was quite decent fighter. At to it modern electronics, weapons and engine from Su-57 and you get a jet, which could do its job to protect the fleet and make strikes where needed.

No. The Yak-141 was not a decent fighter.... it had a small weak radar and four wing hardpoints and could only carry AAMs... normally two R-77s and two-R-73s and a single barrel cannon... it was mediocre.

Anything you could put in the Yak-141 you could put in the MiG-29K but it would be faster and longer ranged and much more capable and robust and cheaper.

GarryB wrote:

It Will be developped from Yak-141, which was quite decent fighter. At to it modern electronics, weapons and engine from Su-57 and you get a jet, which could do its job to protect the fleet and make strikes where needed.

No. The Yak-141 was not a decent fighter.... it had a small weak radar and four wing hardpoints and could only carry AAMs... normally two R-77s and two-R-73s and a single barrel cannon... it was mediocre.

Anything you could put in the Yak-141 you could put in the MiG-29K but it would be faster and longer ranged and much more capable and robust and cheaper.

The Yak-141 uses the C-41M armament management system (M is "modernized"), which is the development of the early SUV projects for Yak-41 - C-41 and S-41D (D - "modified"). The system is built around a multimodal on - board radar "Beetle" with a slit antenna array (modification M002). This radar station is similar to the MiG-29M fighter radar , but has smaller overall dimensions. The range of detection of air targets with EPR of 3 m² is 80 km, small surface vessels - 110 km. The station is capable of escorting up to 10 targets, and also provides firing of 4 targets simultaneously. The radar weight is 250 kg. All incoming information is processed by an onboard digital computerand is provided to the pilot using the information display system. Means of display - indicator on the windshield and multifunction indicators . The latter were not used in the experimental "Yaks", although they were installed in one of the full-size mock-ups of the Yak-41 cockpit. In the cockpit of the second flight sample, which is located in the museum of Vadim Zadorozhny , a line-of-sight (IPV) indicator is installed. It was also planned to use a helmet-mounted target designation system [44] .

GarryB wrote:

Actually that STOVL applies to conventional aircraft like the Storch or An-72 or An-2 that have short takeoff and landing.

The correct term for the Harrier and Yak-38M is V/STOL which stands for Vertical or Short Takeoff or landing... ie vertical takeoff or vertical landing or short take off or short landing.... any aircraft that can take off vertically can also do a rolling take off and any aircraft that can land vertically can use a rolling landing to use wing lift to offset some engine requirements.

It would make more sense to use arrested landings using a high speed landing with arrestor wires, which when they are working properly are a very efficient way to stop an aircraft in a small area.