Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Well it seems there will perhaps be helicopter carriers in the near future:

They paid for and half built two Mistral class ships and developed the systems and aircraft for them to carry (Ka-52K etc) and have those aircraft and likely ground vehicles and systems in production for use on the two ships they didn't receive and likely the other two they would have built if France was not full of surrender monkeys.

Not to mention they likely planned and built support vessels and infrastructure for those vessels to operate in their chosen role.

Having invested all that money and time that they wont get back from the Frogs it makes sense for them to build replacements... they have full systems blueprints of Mistrals and have had time to decide on modifications to match more accurately their own special interests... ie make them more arctic friendly and likely better armed and more robust.

Things like this need lots of planning... even making sure there are enough qualified and trained people to operate the ships and shipyard space for maintainence etc.

R&D work for the helicopter carriers will kick off in 2018, the construction of the lead ship is expected to start in 2020 and in 2024 it will join the fleet.

So they clearly have not totally defined its design yet... personally I hope they use Nuke propulsion as a test for later larger projects/upgrades and try independent electric pod drive...

They have shown that when they are spending money they have not skimped on the new stuff, even if upgrades to existing models have been done at budget levels... like the T-72 upgrade and the Su-25SM upgrade etc etc.

The not skimping on new stuff means later upgrades can be based on brand new stuff so will offer greater performance increases because of the better designs... ie MiG-29SMT is affordable, but when MiG-35s with AESAs are in service then it makes sense to put AESAs in MiG-29SMTs as a down the line upgrade to expand the base of AESAs in service and to eliminate older models... making the SMTs more desirable for export too eventually when it comes time to replace them.

Regarding the other crap on this thread... time lines for plans change all the time.. for a decade and a half we have been hearing about the unified upgrade for their long range bombers/cruise missile carriers... to improve the Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 and Tu-95MS to Tu-22M3M and Tu-160M and Tu-95MSM level with new unified radars and new fire control systems to allow all three to carry new more capable missiles and all sorts of other advantages.

The way it was mentioned you would think it was already underway, but actually it was not and was only a very very slow process that probably didn't start until well after 2013...

They wont build a fixed wing carrier before they have a few new cruisers and destroyers to operate with it... otherwise it would be a sitting duck and rather useless on its own.

More importantly they need somewhere to go with it... they need strong international commerce that they need to protect with an ocean going fleet of ships... they wont have that until late 2020s if not early 2030s.

It appears they are working on VSTOL aircraft, but they are also working on cats and an upgrade of a light 5th gen fighter would make an excellent carrier aircraft... with 5th gen systems it does not need to carry 10 tons of bombs over enormous distances... for an air defence role it just needs to get airborne with max fuel and a few AAMs... it could simply be an airborne eye that detects threats at long range and directs ship launched missiles to intercept them, with a few AAMs to defend itself... or it could carry an air launched hypersonic antiship missile... or super fast hypersonic AAMs that can chase down and catch hypersonic anti ship missiles from behind....

GarryB wrote:They wont build a fixed wing carrier before they have a few new cruisers and destroyers to operate with it... otherwise it would be a sitting duck and rather useless on its own.

More importantly they need somewhere to go with it... they need strong international commerce that they need to protect with an ocean going fleet of ships... they wont have that until late 2020s if not early 2030s.

About the first paragraph tt seems that you consider without value the current ships of the Russian Navy. Russia has now enough ships to make a decent escort for 2 aircraft carrier. They are 313 combat ships, of them:
- 90 warships (including the current aircraft carrier): 6 warships over 10000 tons, 16 warships between 5000 and 10000 tons, 17 warships between 1500 and 5000 tons, 50 warships between 500 and 1500 tons,
- 70 submarines: 45 nuclear submarines and 25 conventional submarines.

Modernizations are and will be done. Plus, more new ships coming. This is not a real problem. Russia will not have a problem of escort for 2 aircraf carriers. The Northern fleet that should have around 100 combat ships would be entirely under the command of the new aircraft carrier, while the current aircraft carrier would likely move between the Pacific, and the Black-Caspian-Mediterranean fleets, that should have 81 combat ships each, while the Baltic fleet should have around 50 ships. Note 312 in total.

About the second paragraph, the main Russian commerce lines are with Asia and Europe. It means commerce by land, air or sea following the coast. As you can see in the following link less than a 10% of the exports of Russia today are out of Europe or Asia, and this will not change. Nothing that requires blue water fleets with aircraft carriers for protection.

https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/rus/#Trade_Balance

eehnie wrote:
About the first paragraph tt seems that you consider without value the current ships of the Russian Navy. Russia has now enough ships to make a decent escort for 2 aircraft carrier. They are 313 combat ships, of them:
- 90 warships (including the current aircraft carrier): 6 warships over 10000 tons, 16 warships between 5000 and 10000 tons, 17 warships between 1500 and 5000 tons, 50 warships between 500 and 1500 tons,
- 70 submarines: 45 nuclear submarines and 25 conventional submarines.
..while the current aircraft carrier would likely move between the Pacific, and the Black-Caspian-Mediterranean fleets, that should have 81 combat ships each,..
About the second paragraph, the main Russian commerce lines are with Asia and Europe. It means commerce by land, air or sea following the coast. As you can see in the following link less than a 10% of the exports of Russia today are out of Europe or Asia, and this will not change. Nothing that requires blue water fleets with aircraft carriers for protection.
https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/rus/#Trade_Balance

U better count only warships with good seakeeping & long endurance as capable escorts & SSNs to be part of a CBG!
But, yes, they'll have enough of them for a 2nd CBG as 1 CV will be in the yards/training inside the EEZ most of the time anyway!
The helo carriers will act as both defensive (ASW, S&R, C3ISR, disaster relief) & offensive platforms, & they'll need the same escorts as any future CBGs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expeditionary_Strike_Group#Early_1990s_%E2%80%93_present
Until there's a deep enough waterway between Black & Caspian Seas &/ Caspian & Arabian Gulf/Sea, CV/Ns can't get in & out the Caspian Sea! The Volga-Don canal can only be used by "Max. allowed vessel size is 140 m (460 ft) long, 16.6 m (54 ft) wide and 3.5 m (11 ft) deep", or up to destroyer size. Learn geography 1st before posting nonsense! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manych_Ship_Canal- 6.5m deep, if built.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga%E2%80%93Don_Canal
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/volga-don-canal.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranrud
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201603301037229773-iran-russia-caspian-persian-gulf-canal/

My congratulations- from what u said, let me paraphrase:
the RF has no SLOCs far from its shores that need protection with CBGs- now u can see that the Storm CVN can wait till better times, as Russia has no need for it & has other means to project power! So, what else is new?
Garry, u or some1 else said earlier that Su-34 could be navalized- i never said "it was navalized". On the Su-57, I didn't like the tone of that article myself but it had some good points. I doubt Russia will have a CVN for it before 2030, if at all, but China may be interested in the navalized Su-57. It doesn't make sense to spend $ on it before the start of construction of a CV/N large enough to accomodate more than a dozen of them, since it's of similar size as the Su-33, & only 12 of them r carried on the Adm.K: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov
Su-57 Length: 19.8 m (65 ft) Wingspan: 13.95 m (45 ft 10 in)
             Height: 4.74 m (15 ft 7 in) Wing area: 78.8 m² (848.1 ft²) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-57#Specifications_(T-50)
Su-33 Length: 21.19 m (69 ft 6 in) Wingspan: 14.7 m (48 ft 3 in)
             Height: 5.93 m (19 ft 6 in) Wing area: 67.84 m² (730 ft²)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-33#Specifications

So, let's say 3 medium CV/Ns r built, capable of supporting up to 12-15 Su-57s; that's =only 36-45 navalized Su-57s. Is it worth it, per unit? OTH, more smaller TAKRs/UDKs (aka helo carriers) can be built for le$$ & carry more STOVLs (i.e. SHORT TAKEOFF, VERTICAL LANDING, not VTOVL) per ship. And since they r now going to build them, will they have enough escorts for both classes? 5 warships for medium CV/Ns, with only 1 ready 24/7+ another 12 (3 per each) warships for at least 4 TAKRs/UDKs- 1 in BSF, 1 in BaltF, 1 in NF, & 1 in PacF ready 24/7, to be very modest- that's 17 warships total ready for escort duty 24/7. But to get that number, ideally at least 3x of that is needed, or 15+36=51 warships, to allow for repairs, refit, & training.
When will Russia have 51 corvettes, FFGs, DDGs, & CGs, in the right combination, to form all those groups, even if all the Caspian Flotilla ships r included as they can transfer to the BSF?

Isos wrote:https://www.noradsanta.org

F@ck, the NORAD is trying to track the santa and found the destroyer !!!

Eehnie !!! CALL PUTIN AND TELL HIM !!! Hurry up !!

Another one panicking

Tsavo Lion wrote:
Garry, u or some1 else said earlier that Su-34 could be navalized- i never said "it was navalized". On the Su-57, I didn't like the tone of that article myself but it had some good points. I doubt Russia will have a CVN for it before 2030, if at all, but China may be interested in the navalized Su-57. It doesn't make sense to spend $ on it before the start of construction of a CV/N large enough to accomodate more than a dozen of them, since it's of similar size as the Su-33, & only 12 of them r carried on the Adm.K: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov
Su-57 Length: 19.8 m (65 ft) Wingspan: 13.95 m (45 ft 10 in)
             Height: 4.74 m (15 ft 7 in) Wing area: 78.8 m² (848.1 ft²) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-57#Specifications_(T-50)
Su-33 Length: 21.19 m (69 ft 6 in) Wingspan: 14.7 m (48 ft 3 in)
             Height: 5.93 m (19 ft 6 in) Wing area: 67.84 m² (730 ft²)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-33#Specifications

So, let's say 3 medium CV/Ns r built, capable of supporting up to 12-15 Su-57s; that's =only 36-45 navalized Su-57s. Is it worth it, per unit? OTH, more smaller TAKRs/UDKs (aka helo carriers) can be built for le$$ & carry more STOVLs (i.e. SHORT TAKEOFF, VERTICAL LANDING, not VTOVL) per ship. And since they r now going to build them, will they have enough escorts for both classes? 5 warships for medium CV/Ns, with only 1 ready 24/7+ another 12 (3 per each) warships for at least 4 TAKRs/UDKs- 1 in BSF, 1 in BaltF, 1 in NF, & 1 in PacF ready 24/7, to be very modest- that's 17 warships total ready for escort duty 24/7. But to get that number, ideally at least 3x of that is needed, or 15+36=51 warships, to allow for repairs, refit, & training.
When will Russia have 51 corvettes, FFGs, DDGs, & CGs, in the right combination, to form all those groups, even if all the Caspian Flotilla ships r included as they can transfer to the BSF?

Nope.

An aircraft large as Su-57 is not dramatically larger than an F-18E.

It has to be seen if they will develop a folding wing, that's the main point about storage capabilities both on deck and in hangar.

A medium sized carrier means something far larger a Charles de Gaulle, probably about the size of Kuznetsov, and if developed as a pure carrier could easily support between 20-24 fixed wing aircraft (Su-57 without folding wings) plus supporting helicopters, up to 30 - 40 fixed wings aircrafts (Su-57 with folding wings) plus supporting helicopters.

The main point, the key measure, is wingspan only.

Neither length nor height matters when speaking of storage capabilities onboard a carrier.

Whoever takes a look at a flying deck could easily see that parked aircrafts on the deck have almost 50% of the airframe overboard.

And on real missions hangar's main purpose is maintenance and not storage, most of the time it hosts, meaning it is mandatory, only those aircrafts in need of checks and maintenance. Every other aircraft has (again, it is mandatory) to be parked on the deck, ready to be refueled and armed with zero delay if requested.

So the real capacity is given by two different characteristics: parking slots on the deck, maintenance stations in the hangar.

So we would be speaking, in the worst case, of about 60-70 aircrafts for the carriers plus spare planes for land based training plus a reserve amount to sustain attrition and replacing airframes scheduled for deep maintenance or upgrades, easily reaching more than 80 airframes in total.

With a folding wings variant, those number would grow to more than 100 airframes in total, accounting for 30 or more airframes for carrier plus the usual additional airframes for land based training and attrition reserve.

But, even if the numbers would be far lower, it will always be cheaper to develop a variant of an existing aircraft, making it able to withstand landings on an angled deck and corrosion caused by sea spray, than develop from scratch a STOVL aircraft.

It would not cost only less, it would cost a fraction only.

Developing a STOVL for an handful of airframes needed is pure madness, nothing else.

Actually, it has little to no sense anyway for Russia no matter what are the costs: Russia has not a large number of LHDs, and if available data are true, the Lavina will be so small, without even a decently sized hangar or elevator, that in no possible way could support any fixed wing aircraft at all.

We are speaking of practical impossibility, without any possible amendment.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Until there's a deep enough waterway between Black & Caspian Seas &/ Caspian & Arabian Gulf/Sea, CV/Ns can't get in & out the Caspian Sea! The Volga-Don canal can only be used by "Max. allowed vessel size is 140 m (460 ft) long, 16.6 m (54 ft) wide and 3.5 m (11 ft) deep", or up to destroyer size. Learn geography 1st before posting nonsense! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea

Between all the non-sense that you write, that most of the time deserve not an answer, this part is funny. A US citizen giving lessons of geography. Funnier still giving lesons of European geography to an European  

If I was talking before of a Black-Caspian-Mediteranean sea fleet, is because we can see how every one of the Russian combat ships in the Caspian sea can move to the Black sea. As consequence Russia is able to join all their combat ships in the Black, Caspian and Mediterranean seas in a single fleet in the Black sea.

To see it, is necessary to look previously about the geography of the area, about the size of the available channels and about the size of the Russian combat ships deployed in the Caspian sea.

U wrote:"..while the current aircraft carrier would likely move between the Pacific, and the Black-Caspian-Mediterranean fleets,.."
U keep changing ur story! Carriers r too big to go in/out of the Caspian- they can't even go into the shallow Azov Sea on the way there! Earlier, u made a similar mistake about a carrier in the Baltic- sure, it can go in, but may not get out as it's straits r controlled by Denmark & Sweden, & Germany's Kiel Canal has a low bridge over it!
"To see it, is necessary to look previously about the geography of the area, about the size of the available channels and about the size of the Russian" current & future CV/Ns, including ur louded Storm class!
FYI, I'm originally from E. Europe myself, lived & traveled in those areas; but to know its geography in the 21st century it's not even essential to be an ex- or current European! How about answering this part:

My congratulations- from what u said, let me paraphrase:
the RF has no SLOCs far from its shores that need protection with CBGs- now u can see that the Storm CVN can wait till better times, as Russia has no need for it & has other means to project power! So, what else is new?

Surely after "all the non-sense that you write" is exposed & ur resulting insults & character assassinations, it confirms once again that "even a fool who keeps silent may be thought of as a smart man!" Take a break or give me 1 from ur mumbling!
Peŕrier:
As I said, since the Yak-141 exists, a new STOVL won't be developed from scratch, & they'll be needed in large #s for both UDK (not LPD) & future TAKRs/CVs. Hangars can be used for aircraft (it's both singular & plural form, ur "s" ending is wrong) storage, not only maintenance; unless it's a VGW like the F-14, all non-trainer fixed wing aircraft aboard CV/Ns have folding wings. So, the length does matter! The airframe must be strong enough to endure Ks of CATOBAR cycles- forget about commonality between the AF Su-57 & the NAF Su-57, it won't save enough $ to be worth it!

'
When I want to explain to kids in class why smoking crack cocaine is bad for you I just show them eehenie's fantasies on this tread   

Previous lesson: Lider already under construction

Next lesson: ships can move easily between Black and Caspian sea

Don't​ smoke crack kids, it causes brain damage     

About the first paragraph tt seems that you consider without value the current ships of the Russian Navy. Russia has now enough ships to make a decent escort for 2 aircraft carrier. They are 313 combat ships, of them:

The Russian Navy has already visited Venezuela and other places, so of course it can send a carrier group on such expeditions... the problem or question is why do that? You don't just spend that sort of money for fun... there have to be goals and objectives to achieve... and right now it would be empty rhetoric that would mean producing vessels before they are needed... it would stunt the growth of the baby to have aircraft carriers before you produced destroyers or cruisers.

About the second paragraph, the main Russian commerce lines are with Asia and Europe. It means commerce by land, air or sea following the coast. As you can see in the following link less than a 10% of the exports of Russia today are out of Europe or Asia, and this will not change. Nothing that requires blue water fleets with aircraft carriers for protection.

Russia has spent time and money and is getting itself into a position where it offers a land route and a northern sea route that is shorter and cheaper than the traditional route from Asia to Europe, so that will be good for them economically. In the future however they need to look beyond just being a transit stop to europe and asia and look to Africa and south and central america for partners economic and military and for that they will need a solid navy.... not a huge navy... not a 10,000 ship navy but a good high tech capable navy that can look after itself.

CV/Ns can't get in & out the Caspian Sea!

WTF would Russia want a CVN in the Caspian sea? Land based air power could do anything a CVN could do in such a lake... why would the USN want CVNs in the great lakes?

Garry, u or some1 else said earlier that Su-34 could be navalized- i never said "it was navalized".

No it could not... it is a long range strike aircraft... the Russian Navy does not need long range strike aircraft... new model Kalibr missiles based on the new engines of the Kh-101/102 give the missiles a range of 5,500km so why would you need an Su-34?

On the Su-57, I didn't like the tone of that article myself but it had some good points. I doubt Russia will have a CVN for it before 2030, if at all, but China may be interested in the navalized Su-57. It doesn't make sense to spend $ on it before the start of construction of a CV/N large enough to accomodate more than a dozen of them, since it's of similar size as the Su-33, & only 12 of them r carried on the Adm.K:

The Su-57 is smaller than an Su-33... so why would you not strengthen its undercarriage and make its wings fold and cheaply turn it into a carrier based aircraft?

The Su-33 and MiG-29K didn't break the bank.

The Kuznetsov can carry more than 12 planes... it can carry up to 32 or so.

So, let's say 3 medium CV/Ns r built, capable of supporting up to 12-15 Su-57s; that's =only 36-45 navalized Su-57s. Is it worth it, per unit? OTH, more smaller TAKRs/UDKs (aka helo carriers) can be built for le$$ & carry more STOVLs (i.e. SHORT TAKEOFF, VERTICAL LANDING, not VTOVL) per ship. And since they r now going to build them, will they have enough escorts for both classes? 5 warships for medium CV/Ns, with only 1 ready 24/7+ another 12 (3 per each) warships for at least 4 TAKRs/UDKs- 1 in BSF, 1 in BaltF, 1 in NF, & 1 in PacF ready 24/7, to be very modest- that's 17 warships total ready for escort duty 24/7. But to get that number, ideally at least 3x of that is needed, or 15+36=51 warships, to allow for repairs, refit, & training.

You are being silly... a bit of structural strengthening of the Su-57, plus a tail hook and folding wings cannot be compared with developing from scratch a 5th gen STOVL fighter... and having to land vertically even if it does not need to take off vertically seriously limits its weapons options... are you going to tell the Russian taxpayer why it costs 20 million dollars to fly a STOVL fighter because all the weapons need to be ditched to get the weight low enough for a vertical landing each time?

Not to mention the promises that it will only cost x billion and then the bill comes it is x+10 billion... but you have no choice but to pay it now because there were no alternatives allowed in case they proved cheaper and killed the deal.

When will Russia have 51 corvettes, FFGs, DDGs, & CGs, in the right combination, to form all those groups, even if all the Caspian Flotilla ships r included as they can transfer to the BSF?

Their new ships will be vastly more capable than their old ships so they wont need dozens of support ships... in fact I suspect their carriers will be rather well armed and able to defend themselves against many threats.

As I said, since the Yak-141 exists, a new STOVL won't be developed from scratch,

They will need to develop a new engine from scratch... that will take 10 years on its own. The Yak-41 is not suitable for the engine they are talking about using... a version of the NK-32 upgraded in the PD-35 version for the Tu-160M2 and the PAK DA.

For the Yak-141 to become "real", It would be needed far more than anche engines.

Most of the electronics would have to be replaced with new generation ones, the airframe itself would have to be reengineered to allow a manteinance per condition approach instead of the old school maintenance per schedule.

We are speaking basically of a complete redesign of the aircrafts just to get It to present standards.

About a CVN escorts, unfortunately corvettes have no file because lacking the needed persistente.

Frigates are give or take the minimum as escorts, but destroyer size vessels are the optimum.

And any CVN will need a good escort task force even if loaded with AAW and ASW weapons itself.

You will need ASW escorts sailing ahead and in flanks. of the main Force, and you would like to have one or two AAW ships scanning the surroundings with their long range radars instead of the carrier doing by itself.

Whatever people could think, a Carrier sailing in high Sea, with most or all of its Active sensors shut down or kept idle is not that easy to identify and track, the more so when sailing with escorts performing the surveillance duties.

Any enemy's platform would surely catch escorts' EM emissions, but in order to identify what really they are, they will have to risk both escorts' engagement through AAW, ASW or AShW weapons, and carrier's own aircrafts engagement, all' together without still not knowing positively where the carrier is and what its course is.

I think I just found the reason that the naval forum is infested with people who are fixated on LHDs and VTOL fighters...



South Front does not seem to have very good naval coverage as they seem to only agree with a design of ship when Russia or China does as clearly shown in the following videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl4qKcIQVzc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChAeaMZ49vk

Even if Adm.K could get into Caspian, the N. section next to RF coast is only 6m deep on average - too shallow for its 10m draft, & it's icy in winter! https://www.lakepedia.com/lake/caspian-sea.html

In the Central & S. Sectors, there r many oil wells & heavy merchant/ferry/fishing traffic, so those deeper areas (Iran even has mini-subs there) r bad for training. The USN had small unarmed training carriers in the Gr. Lakes in the 1940s. But for Russia, the Black Sea & the Seas of Japan & Okhotsk (in summer) would be ideal to train in. In the meantime, Russian pilots may be sent to train on the Chinese CV-16; is as well armed, but still need 2 big DDGs to protect it: http://www.atimes.com/article/powerful-destroyers-protect-chinas-aircraft-carriers/

Can any1 tell me why a Tu-160 engine isn't suitable for Yak-141?
Bomber engines were used by fighters before:

In many cases, the same basic engine was used in both fighters and bombers. https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/aircraft-engines-world-war-ii/

The STOVLs will be used by both the Navy & Marines, like in other militaries- so their #s r not going to be determined only by the # of ships that'll carry them. On TAKRs/CVs, they can use the STOBAR.
But, I wouldn't worry about them dumping their ordinance before VLs: those can be disarmed & jettisoned in designated areas ashore/shallow water, to be picked up later by EOD teams, & reused. In any case, attack helos don't have that problem, so most precision weapons won't be wasted, IMO.

Why can't Russia build carriers in the Crimean Zaliv shipyard? The tonnage limit there is 115000tons AFAIK.

GarryB wrote:

Well it seems there will perhaps be helicopter carriers in the near future: role.

Having invested all that money and time that they wont get back from the Frogs it makes sense for them to build replacements... they have full systems blueprints of Mistrals and have had time to decide on modifications to match more accurately their own special interests... ie make them more arctic friendly and likely better armed and more robust.

Things like this need lots of planning... even making sure there are enough qualified and trained people to operate the ships and shipyard space for maintainence etc.

Agreed however now lets wait if ships will have well-deck =. If so then  their LHD is pretty much their main one. If not then a light / ASW carrier more probably?

GarryB wrote:

R&D work for the helicopter carriers will kick off in 2018, the construction of the lead ship is expected to start in 2020 and in 2024 it will join the fleet.

So they clearly have not totally defined its design yet... personally I hope they use Nuke propulsion as a test for later larger projects/upgrades and try independent electric pod drive...
+
More importantly they need somewhere to go with it... they need strong international commerce that they need to protect with an ocean going fleet of ships... they wont have that until late 2020s if not early 2030s.

I hope as well, especially that Northern Route seems to be the first area to defend

It appears they are working on VSTOL aircraft, but they are also working on cats and an upgrade of a light 5th gen fighter would make an excellent carrier aircraft... with 5th gen systems it does not need to carry 10 tons of bombs over enormous distances... for an air defence role it just needs to get airborne with max fuel and a few AAMs... it could simply be an airborne eye that detects threats at long range and directs ship launched missiles to intercept them, with a few AAMs to defend itself... or it could carry an air launched hypersonic antiship missile... or super fast hypersonic AAMs that can chase down and catch hypersonic anti ship missiles from behind....

They also work on 20t heavy UCAV (Sukhoi), tilt-rotors both drones and maned. It looks interesting future then. But  I seriously doubt that MiG-29/35 will have anything to do with a new fighter. Perhaps scaled down  MiG-1.44  or whatever MiG (less likely  Yak) proposed to LFMS with new redesign of course.

And of course I hope VSTOL will be a chosen variant 

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Why can't Russia build carriers in the Crimean Zaliv shipyard? The tonnage limit there is 115000tons AFAIK.

[]

The shipyard is also old and was neglected by Ukraine, they are restoring it kinda.

True  however no 1 Montreaux convention and no 2 then lack of qualified  of workforce/ design capabilities in Zaliv. 

BTw

Under Article 11, Black Sea states are permitted to transit capital ships of any tonnage through the straits, but Annex II specifically excludes aircraft carriers from the definition of capital ship. In 1936, it was common for battleships to carry observation aircraft. Therefore, aircraft carriers were defined as ships that were "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea." The inclusion of aircraft on any other ship does not classify it as an aircraft carrier.[17]

To take advantage of this exception, the Soviet Union designated its Kiev-class and Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers as "aircraft carrying cruisers." The aircraft carriers were armed with P-500 and P-700 cruise missiles, which were also found on the Slava-class cruiser and the Kirov-class battlecruiser. The result of this is that the Soviet Navy could send its aircraft cruisers through the Straits in compliance with the Convention, while at the same time the Convention denied access to NATO aircraft carriers, which exceeded the 15,000 ton limit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits

Then just slap a few UKSKs and call it an aircraft carrying cruiser, especially if its gonna carry these STOVL fighters. Also I'm not saying zaliv can build a 100kt carrier, I'm talking more like like 75-80kt. Zaliv should be able to build it since unlike zvezda it exists and isn't occupied by civilian orders. BTW the montreaux convention is really hurting Russia and it has outlived its usefulness. In case a US carrier enters the black sea it will be easily destroyed by ground based weapons so there's no need to keep it.

Most of the electronics would have to be replaced with new generation ones, the airframe itself would have to be reengineered to allow a manteinance per condition approach instead of the old school maintenance per schedule.

More to the point they want new aircraft not upgraded old ones... if a Yak-41 is acceptable then the MiG-29KR and Su-33 are already in service... why bother even replacing them?

If they are not going to be good enough in 10-20 years then the Yak-41 wont be good enough either.

And any CVN will need a good escort task force even if loaded with AAW and ASW weapons itself.

All their new designs will be multirole... if you want an AAW destroyer then load up extra SAMs in the UKSK launcher bins.... ASW then just load ASW missiles in the UKSK and don't bother with land attack missiles... etc etc.

The point is that whether you go for a carrier on the cheap with a tiny helicopter carrier or a medium carrier you are going to need big ships to support them like Cruisers and destroyers... which they simply don't have and wont have for some time so there is no rush... and if there is no rush then take the time to develop real carriers that can sail around the world... not carriers that have to stop every three weeks to refuel and rearm because Russia does not have access to friendly ports world wide... look at NATO/EU ports during their short hop to Syria... they need nuke powered carriers and nuke powered destroyers and cruisers...

But for Russia, the Black Sea & the Seas of Japan & Okhotsk (in summer) would be ideal to train in. In the meantime, Russian pilots may be sent to train on the Chinese CV-16; is as well armed, but still need 2 big DDGs to protect it

Why would Russia send navy pilots to train in China?

They have the naval training base in Sevastopol and the one they created in Russia when the Ukrainians said they couldn't use the one in the Crimea... so they have two land based training facilities... WTF would they train in China for?

Can any1 tell me why a Tu-160 engine isn't suitable for Yak-141?
Bomber engines were used by fighters before:

Because it is not even developed for the bombers yet... to use it on a STOVL aircraft it will need to be adapted for vertical flight... which is not something that will take days or even weeks to do.

But, I wouldn't worry about them dumping their ordinance before VLs: those can be disarmed & jettisoned in designated areas ashore/shallow water, to be picked up later by EOD teams, & reused. In any case, attack helos don't have that problem, so most precision weapons won't be wasted, IMO.

What? Are you joking? Seriously?

why not build little speed boats that sail around the place so STOVL planes can drop their unused ordinance on them before they land... WTF are you smoking buddy?

What do you think the cost of sending EOD teams to search the sea floor for ordinance would be?

Do you think NATO forces would like a good look at state of the art operational Russian weapons in disabled form?

The STOVLs will be used by both the Navy & Marines, like in other militaries- so their #s r not going to be determined only by the # of ships that'll carry them. On TAKRs/CVs, they can use the STOBAR.

For fucks sake if you are going to use them as STOBAR what the fuck is the point in spending money making them VTOL in the first place?

Just spend money on EM cats, which they are spending anyway, and use real fighter planes and get heavier aircraft like AWACS as a bonus...

EM cats could also be used to launch UAVs from helo carriers that would not otherwise get airborne...

The shipyard is also old and was neglected by Ukraine, they are restoring it kinda.

There is no reason why it could not be upgraded... they will need shipyards to build larger vessels pretty soon now.

Agreed however now lets wait if ships will have well-deck =. If so then their LHD is pretty much their main one. If not then a light / ASW carrier more probably?

They chose the Mistrals for a reason and likely developed infrastructure and planned unit structures based on their capabilities and performance... I doubt anything they end up building is much different except better armed...

But I seriously doubt that MiG-29/35 will have anything to do with a new fighter. Perhaps scaled down MiG-1.44 or whatever MiG (less likely Yak) proposed to LFMS with new redesign of course.

The next gen light 5th gen fighter from MiG will likely be a MiG-35 with the goal posts moved forward a bit... ie stealthy from core start design but otherwise twin tail twin engine not that much different from the MiG-29 in the same way the PAK FA is not that much different from the Su-35/27 in basic layout.

The MiG-35 is as good as they can get the MiG-29 without major structural design changes.... the same could be said for the Su-35 regarding the Su-27 design.

The PAK FA is a fundamental upgrade of the Su-27 design but the old design layout is still there and it will be the same with the LFS and MiG-35... I really don't think they will go for anything super radical.

The MiG-41 on the other hand might be interesting and a serious design change from the MiG-25/31 design.

And of course I hope VSTOL will be a chosen variant

I understand why you want that... it would be cool to see what clever design solutions they adopt to make it effective and capable... it is just that all the hype behind such craft has been debunked and it just seems to me to be a money hole to get an aircraft inferior to a 5th gen MiG-21.... which is actually what they really need.

Just like the US needed the F-35 to be a 5th gen F-16 but it appears to be a 5th gen F-117/Buccaneer light strike aircraft...

Then just slap a few UKSKs and call it an aircraft carrying cruiser, especially if its gonna carry these STOVL fighters. Also I'm not saying zaliv can build a 100kt carrier, I'm talking more like like 75-80kt. Zaliv should be able to build it since unlike zvezda it exists and isn't occupied by civilian orders. BTW the montreaux convention is really hurting Russia and it has outlived its usefulness. In case a US carrier enters the black sea it will be easily destroyed by ground based weapons so there's no need to keep it.

The Northern Fleet shipyards are being upgraded and the far east Zvezda shipyard can build large ships too... an upgrade to build destroyers and cruisers would be useful but they don't need more than one or two shipyards to build carriers... they don't need more than 2-4 helicopter carriers and 1 or 2 new CVN carriers to support an upgraded Kuznetsov...

Then just slap a few UKSKs and call it an aircraft carrying cruiser, especially if its gonna carry these STOVL fighters

BTW all their major new ships will have UKSK launchers... even for a carrier having 40km range mach 2 rockets that deliver torpedos into the water in a few minutes where the sub gets no warning it is under attack until the torpedo splashes into the water close by and starts up its engines is very useful.

Having land attack cruise missiles and hypersonic anti ship missiles would also be very useful and it is likely that the UKSK tubes could be adapted for very large SAMs intended for anti ICBM or anti satellite use in the future so such systems would also be useful.

How about creating landing destroyers with 1 helipad at the back such vessels will be much more capable of lading things than an over expensive mini carrier.

Scrap the VTOL for more cruise missiles,air defence systems and artillery to help perform a landing maybe some 152mm dual mount turrets and 300mm Smerch rockets in pop up launchers.

WTF is the point of combining a long range stand off attack ship (aircraft carrier) with a very close range ship (landing ship) that is like putting a bayonet on a sniper rifle.

GarryB wrote:

Can any1 tell me why a Tu-160 engine isn't suitable for Yak-141?
Bomber engines were used by fighters before:

Because it is not even developed for the bombers yet... to use it on a STOVL aircraft it will need to be adapted for vertical flight... which is not something that will take days or even weeks to do.

because it is still cheaper and quicker then developing a new engine of this class of thrust form scratch? 

GarryB wrote:
EM cats could also be used to launch UAVs from helo carriers that would not otherwise get airborne...

That's one way to look at it but development of EM catapult in US got to 1 blns USD mark and is not finished yet. And US had vast experience in building and designing both carriers and catapults. Again US will use (if design is completed) EM catapult on many ships Russia on 1? 2? would it justify spending such budget? (30x22800 ships)

GarryB wrote:

But  I seriously doubt that MiG-29/35 will have anything to do with a new fighter. Perhaps scaled down  MiG-1.44  or whatever MiG (less likely  Yak) proposed to LFMS with new redesign of course.

The PAK FA is a fundamental upgrade of the Su-27 design 

PAK FA as upgrade of Su-27? hmm so F-22 is an upgrade of F-14? But anyway if you look as LMFS thsi way then agreed.

And of course I hope VSTOL will be a chosen variant  

I understand why you want that... it would be cool to see what clever design solutions they adopt to make it effective and capable... it is just that all the hype behind such craft has been debunked and it just seems to me to be a money hole to get an aircraft inferior to a 5th gen MiG-21.... which is actually what they really need.

Just like the US needed the F-35 to be a 5th gen F-16 but it appears to be a 5th gen F-117/Buccaneer light strike aircraft...

Hmmm but still this F-35B crap for some reason woks fine in RAF and should be ordered in like 500 units. Why so many countries want to buy it in VSTOL configuration ? Why UK? Why Spain, why Italy? They didnt have to buy this version but still did. Why Japan considers is to its carriers? perhaps not so bad in its role after all?

If -35 is underperforming because  too many requirements to fin in one machine.  If stealth and catobar are removed it could be much better and cheaper plane.

Key feature of vtol is that you don't need catapaults and fact you can fit more jets in tighter spaces. Also as seen before, even transport ships can be repurposed for an AC were such jets can take off from.

It's good Russia is investing in a vtol.

I think russian carrier aircraft should only be designed for air superiority to escort T-22Ms. Land and ship attack can be done by UKSKs and bombers.

Thanks to others for good answers to GarryB, & here r mine to these:

GarryB wrote:
More to the point they want new aircraft not upgraded old ones...
... and if there is no rush then take the time to develop real carriers that can sail around the world... not carriers that have to stop every three weeks to refuel and rearm because Russia does not have access to friendly ports world wide... look at NATO/EU ports during their short hop to Syria... they need nuke powered carriers and nuke powered destroyers and cruisers...Why would Russia send navy pilots to train in China? They have the naval training base in Sevastopol and the one they created in Russia when the Ukrainians said they couldn't use the one in the Crimea... so they have two land based training facilities... WTF would they train in China for?
Because it is not even developed for the bombers yet... to use it on a STOVL aircraft it will need to be adapted for vertical flight...
What do you think the cost of sending EOD teams to search the sea floor for ordinance would be?

The STOVLs will be used by both the Navy & Marines, like in other militaries- so their #s r not going to be determined only by the # of ships that'll carry them. On TAKRs/CVs, they can use the STOBAR.

For fucks sake if you are going to use them as STOBAR what the fuck is the point in spending money making them VTOL in the first place?

CVs can be resupplied with fuel, food & ammo. at sea by specialized ships, NP in the Med. isn't that essential now- like the Kiev class TAKRs had done: http://merelinc.com/images/048-soviet-naval/marine23.jpg https://dxczjjuegupb.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Russian-NAVY-Syria.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-g1citWAAA9NoF.jpg

After NITKA training, they'll still need to go to sea for real world ops, & there's no other TAKR while the Adm. K is laid up for 3 years, if not longer!  
TVC on Yak-141 (it & MiG-1.44 were still in development then, so   not "used", i.e r still new even after upgrading) take ages to adopt to a bomber engine. STOVLs will be primarily used on LHA/LHD ships & may go on STOBARs for added flexibility they offer, &/ if need to recover in emergencies, rearm, repair, etc.
MAD on helos/UAVs can be used to locate bombs on the ground &/ in the water, EODs then drop in & salvage them.
I'm not a smoker, period, & drink only at dinner time, after getting off line!

Tsavo Lion wrote:
Can any1 tell me why a Tu-160 engine isn't suitable for Yak-141?
Bomber engines were used by fighters before:

In many cases, the same basic engine was used in both fighters and bombers. https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/aircraft-engines-world-war-ii/

The STOVLs will be used by both the Navy & Marines, like in other militaries- so their #s r not going to be determined only by the # of ships that'll carry them. On TAKRs/CVs, they can use the STOBAR.
But, I wouldn't worry about them dumping their ordinance before VLs: those can be disarmed & jettisoned in designated areas ashore/shallow water, to be picked up later by EOD teams, & reused. In any case, attack helos don't have that problem, so most precision weapons won't be wasted, IMO.

It's quite easy and simple:
An engine designed for STOVL operations (obviously the qualifying feature is the vertical landing) works in a completely new way in the landing phase.

It should swivel its nozzle downward around 90 degrees, at the very same time it has either to provide thrust for additional vertical jets, or should be coordinated with additional turbojets.

It means both heavy and deep mechanical modifications and a rewritten FADEC.

The whole system should then pass the whole testing and certification procedure, just like any new engine.

Because during a vertical landing a really strict and near real time control of actual thrust is mandatory to provide the required control of the aircraft, deep modifications to the engine's hot section as well could not be discarded.

A little hiccup during spooling up or a little deviation from expected thrust, lastind some tenths of second, are not mortally dangerous during conventional take offs and landings: as long as the aircraft has already (or still) enough speed its aerodynamic controls are effective and the wing still provides the gliding properties to keep it in the air.

In a vertical landing, the engine is both responsible of thrust and controls: any deviation from expected performances results in an alteration of the controls, or in a loss of control.

So adapting any existing engine to STOVL operations will have costs and time, give or take, the same of developing a new engine.