Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

If it doesn't go straight where does it go ? IA is not perfection. Missiles don't have all the detector a fighter has. It will be told where the ship is and when approx. it should turn on its radar to detect it. Most of them turn it on at 30 to 40 km from the ship and they will be detected. From the lunch to the activation of radar it will go straight with some turns to evade some obstacles but don't expect it to dog fight anti air missile and detect L band surveillance radars.

I don't know what strategy you are talking about but missiles are not so smart.

Swarm attack is good with even soviet era missiles. It has nothing to do with technology. Any missile used on big numbers will destroy a lonely ship. 50 exocet will destroy a sovromeny just as 50 moskit will destroy a tico. But if you use just 8 missiles as most of ships carry sovs will have more chance to survive against 8 harpoons than the tico against 8 moskit.[/quote]

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Fine, you know what? I will stop but only because YOU asked me to. I am ready to bury the hatchet for the time being.

Thanks, I appreciate  it.  Now let's focus on  bashing GarryB for disrespect for V/STOL fighters

You're welcome dude. As for V/STOL bashing I am all for it but I'll wait until someone else cracks open the topic again...  


As for this new concept art, I'll just pretend to think that carriers are not redundant obsolete concept and ask a question:

Raw tonnage aside, how much would it simplify design, construction, maintenance and operation of a carrier vessel if they were to drop catapults entirely and rely solely on ski-ramp plus very long take off run like one in the photo to launch an aircraft without payload or fuel compromises?

Hypothetically, could Su-57 with full internal weapons bay and full tank of gas do it with this much room to gain speed and without afterburners that waste fuel?

Isos wrote:If it doesn't go straight where does it go ? IA is not perfection. Missiles don't have all the detector a fighter has. It will be told where the ship is and when approx. it should turn on its radar to detect it. Most of them turn it on at 30 to 40 km from the ship and they will be detected. From the lunch to the activation of radar it will go straight with some turns to evade some obstacles but don't expect it to dog fight anti air missile and detect L band surveillance radars.

What about ihey got inertial navigation (based on laser gyroscopes) + data links to get information so they doesn't have to fly with radars on?  AI can be used for anything human can do but will do it faster and better
-ship selection again some criteria (who is sending orders, where are radars based and so on)
- direction form which there is highest probability to break defenses
- flight profile that makes highest chance of pack survivability in for this specific ship grouping composition



Low visibility :
- shape and paints (very low  signature - they claim IR too)
- optical and passive guidance
-data links

Isos wrote:
Swarm attack is good with even soviet era missiles. It has nothing to do with technology. Any missile used on big numbers will destroy a lonely ship. 50 exocet will destroy a sovromeny just as 50 moskit will destroy a tico. But if you use just 8 missiles as most of ships carry sovs will have more chance to survive against 8 harpoons than the tico against 8 moskit.

[/quote]

Well radars were too but if you can see there was a bit of technological progress True but here we talk about US CVBG  vs Russian one.  US has and will have more ships and missiles. One extra Burke destroyer has   96 VLS tubes. some can be used for AAD missiles true but in case of ship grouping can be loaded with LRASM or after 2024 with OASuW)/Increment 2.  If shooting subsonic cruise missiles was so easy Russian govt wont be concerned with US ABM sites near its borders and NATO fleet too.

PapaDragon wrote:
You're welcome dude. As for V/STOL bashing I am all for it but I'll wait until someone else cracks open the topic again...  

no worries after Russian admiralty goes to MoF and MoF tells about real budget capabilities project will be revised in favor of small ACs We need to wait till July earliest though

PapaDragon wrote:
Raw tonnage aside, how much would it simplify design, construction, maintenance and operation of a carrier vessel if they were to drop catapults entirely and rely solely on ski-ramp plus very long take off run like one in the photo to launch an aircraft without payload or fuel compromises?

they wont resign from catapults if PAK FA is to be navalized. As for costs US CVN Ford costs per day 3milions US AFAIK. Alone and what about CVBG ? even if in Russia everything is damn cheap it still willbe the whole group about half billion USD maintenance alone.

I believe this wont pass because of costs. Not in my life time.

I'm not saying it is easy to shot down subsonic missile but that supersonic ones offers better performances in lot of area.

Everything you said is implemented in oniks and kalibr family. Their range is classified however.

What about ihey got inertial navigation (based on laser gyroscopes) + data links to get information so they doesn't have to fly with radars on? AI can be used for anything human can do but will do it faster and better Smile
-ship selection again some criteria (who is sending orders, where are radars based and so on)
- direction form which there is highest probability to break defenses
- flight profile that makes highest chance of pack survivability in for this specific ship grouping composition



Low visibility :
- shape and paints (very low signature - they claim IR too)
- optical and passive guidance
-data links

And you think supersonic missiles are dumb without electronics flying random direction with radar constantly being turbed on in case they meet a ship ?

All new missile have what you are discribing.

And if you look France, GB, Japan, south korea, Taiwan are all going from subsonic to supersonic similar to what was the moskit while Russian and china are going for mach 8 missiles.

The only country going for subsonic is USA because they need to make believe their people stealth is the best thing and so take their money.

Your statements are not wrong but against the reality. All those countries wouldn't go for supersonic missiles if subsonic were good enough. And the range of 1500 km is useless if you don't have a budget of 600 billion dollars to buy 10 carrier, hundreds of awacs and satelites and thousands of f-35 for deection.

I would go personnaly for bigger diesel subs and some nuclear each with 40-50 VLS for oniks and Tsirkon missiles instead all of this above. Having 15 of such subs would keep all the navy far away.

One extra Burke destroyer has 96 VLS tubes. some can be used for AAD missiles true but in case of ship grouping can be loaded with LRASM or after 2024 with OASuW)/Increment 2. If shooting subsonic cruise missiles was so easy Russian govt wont be concerned with US ABM sites near its borders and NATO fleet too.

It doesn't mean it will intercept 96 missiles. Actually even 10 oniks should go through that. An attack of 100 oniks will destroy the carrier for sure. The escort will be destroyed after.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:........
no worries after Russian admiralty goes to MoF and MoF tells about real budget capabilities project will be revised in favor of small ACs  We need to wait till July earliest though
.......

Agreed, Ministry of Finances has uncanny ability to turn even most fanatical idealists into hardcore realists.

PapaDragon wrote: Agreed, Ministry of Finances has uncanny ability to turn even most fanatical idealists into hardcore realists.

All we have to do now is to wait till July for next V/STOL announcement

Isos wrote:
It doesn't mean it will intercept 96 missiles. Actually even 10 oniks should go through that. An attack of 100 oniks will destroy the carrier for sure. The escort will be destroyed after.

US doesnt have Onixes. But one SGSN Ohio can carry 154 LRSAM for example. Enough thet one will be added to US CVSG.

Isos wrote: The only country going for subsonic is USA because they need to make believe their people stealth is the best thing and so take their money.

No, because LRSAM-B (supersonic variant) was too risky for Navy and variant A was chosen. I am sure they considered all pros and cons. Next missile in US Navy is schedules in 2024 lets wait till then. Even if Us has no supersonic missiles it will have prompt global strike. I am sure this can hit CVN size moving ship. Or X37 orbital bomber.

Isos wrote: And the range of 1500 km is useless if you don't have a budget of 600 billion dollars to buy 10 carrier, hundreds of awacs and satelites and thousands of f-35 for deection.

Not sure what are you referring to. But original discussion was about US vs Russian CVSG. BTW US budget now is (official one without hidden parts) 700 billions for 2018. And yes US can afford for large salvos to defeat Russian uber carrier groups.

US doesn't field supersonic. So their entire hope is saturation attack. Judging by Tomahawks performance in Syria, gives indication that the system for even anti ship mode may not be adequate enough. But of course, saturated attack would work.

In this regard, that's why Russia aims for saturation attacks
It was even mentioned by one general how the US could not sustain dozen or so cruise missiles headed towards them.

The US air defense system is in heavy question and it's obvious not a 1:1 ratio in being able to defend against 1 CM.

But whatever.

I was thinking of a captive sled that would be towed back into position and refueld.

So you want this sled to work the same as a catapult, but be external and externally powered... will it adapt to different aircraft types?

It sounds rather awkward... rather better to develop and produce an EM cat system offering better control and performance.

Just how long do you think it will take to hoist an aircraft up to the hight required would be?

The airship could fly down to the carrier and hover 30m above the flight deck while the rear of the aircraft is attached and hauled up... once it has 20 aircraft on board it can then drop water ballast and climb to 5,000m or higher... with three or four aircraft spaced apart on the deck it could raise three or four aircraft at a time, then move more aircraft into position and raise those too...

How about vertical launch fighters? Could you elevate the fighter 75-90 degrees and then launch it like that?

Because the force needed would be about 5-6 times the weight of the aircraft, so the only option would be solid fuelled rockets which would be enormously expensive.

[quote]But wait if you really just want a simple and reliable way to launch aircraft from a ship you could just make the ship longer and launch them like you would from an airfield I like this option it allows for more hangars and air deffence missiles.[/qutoe]

Making a ship long enough for a conventional take off for a light transport plane (for AWACS and fuel tanker) would mean you would need it to be about 1.2km long... where would it dock? It would cost more than a small island... would be cheaper to build small islands around the world in international waters like the Chinese are doing...

Already done

And already dropped as expensive and useless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SabWGCETDN0

The article included by George would add a picture of a model from the office of Y Borisov, obtained from the same program. It would make sanse if the model is from the new iteration, like is said in the article, together with a model of the Mistral ships, to send a message of improvement despite sanctions. If this is the case, the model would be the variant (iteration) of the Project 23000 for the Russian Armed Forces.

I rather suspect what has happened is that every company that could possibly design a new carrier (and a few that can't) have submitted designs, plus the navy itself has had a look at what it thinks it will or will not need in 15-20 years time and what they have released (ie figures and specs) are for a brand new from scratch design to broadly meet their needs and goals for the future.

I rather suspect that no one existing design is what has been shown and is exactly what they are after and now that they have given a better definition of their wants and needs the designing companies will go back and formulate a design that they might eventually use.

that exactly proves my opinion that to 1-2 uber-ACs make little sense with country of economy, population like Russia.

I don't understand. They don't need 10 medium carriers to fight the 10-13 carrier groups of the US... for a start they would not have anywhere near enough support ships to keep them operational.

What they need is a carrier for the Pacific Fleet and a carrier for the Northern Fleet... either of which might be in dock for upgrades and overhauls so having two means it is more likely that at least one of them will be available in an emergency. Also having the Kuznetsov means having a ship to test upgrades on and having another option for supporting operations.

If they need to send ships to deal with problems in Yemen it would be handy to have an offshore airbase they are guaranteed to be able to be used. A western sub trying to sink them is rather unlikely.

In peacetime the global projection air power offers makes them worth the money... during war time... well the war at sea is of no practical value for Russia anyway at the moment... in 20 years time they might have booming trade with central or south america or africa or asia and a carrier group can help keep those trade links open.

They certainly wont have booming trade links around the world if they just have corvettes and subs.

This is a growth thing for Russia.

Well the problem is that they HAVe those ships already. And can procure new ones faster then Russia. Now I am just speculating but what about 1 extra SSGN Ohio per US AC with 150 missiles alone. Or one full US CSG following Russian one? they can afford.

Can't you hear me?

Who gives a fuck what the US has? If the US is the problem then nuclear missiles will do all the talking and corvettes and carriers and every ship in between will mean nothing. If you want to go back to the cold war and demand that the Russians build only SSGNs for use against US surface ships go right ahead, but why would they listen to you? Having 50 SSGNs with hypersonic anti ship missiles able to take out the entire US fleet... fantastic if WWIII breaks out but fucking useless and expensive to operate and maintain in peace time.

A carrier group on the other hand is about power projection... getting a say in other places because you can move a significant military presence there relatively quickly.

Who would listen to the US bleating about the poor bloody oppressed Albanians in Kosovo if they didn't have a carrier there to bomb the place?

Would Argentina have invaded the falklands if the UK still had the Ark Royal operational?

Besides in 2030-2035 when Russian ACs go eventually on line Prompt Global Strike and orbital bombers (kinda X37) can be online too

So what?

These Russian ACs are about expanding Russias presence globally... it has nothing to do with "defeating the great satan america", and certainly has nothing to do with WWIII.

As for AWACS no need to convince me. But what would you propose? re-stars 50 years old Yak-44 concept? Or play with convertiplanes. Regardless it will cost a lot.

I would suggest they use the Yak-44 design when I suggest they also revive the naval MiG-23 design they were working on at the time... and the design of the carrier that was going to carry them both.... technology has moved on in all areas... new designs all round.

The cost can be offset by selling the mini AEW aircraft to allies... I am sure Iraq and Iran and Syria could use them and I would expect India and China would likely want some too... that is an AWACS aircraft for a fraction of the cost of an A-100 that can operate from smaller airfields, yet still offers an air view of the airspace that is not effected by hills and mountains... it would be especially useful in places like Chechnia and Afghanistan where terrain blocks radar on the ground.

With the new photonic radar they might get away with a largely conventional looking aircraft with skin surface antenna covering all directions at once.

Besides if Russia needed small AWACS for land forces they already would have worked on this dont you think?

Actually they have, but they did not spend much money on it.. currently they have the Ka-31 in the Russian Army, and were experimenting with the M-17 high altitude spy plane for C4IR support.

A fixed wing model offers better altitude performance, better flight speed, lower transit times, and much better range and endurance...

For visiting country under blockade something much much smaller has similar effect. Nobody dares to shoot to Russian Navy as long as Smarts can bring response to Washington DC in 25 minutes. Again against Uber-carrier are costs. This is like 20-25% of yearly MoD !!! budget for ships alone not to mention the whole groups.

I never said it would be cheap and have warned against going the cheap route... like I said... the UK and the US didn't become global powers and then build powerful global navies... it happened the other way around.

Until the Russian navy has global reach Russia will remain restricted to the will of the west...

This was in 80s true. Now we have 2018 and in USAF is already accepted and in US Navy will be from 2019 LARSM.

So in the 1980s ir was true and now it is true... maybe in 2019 it might stop being true for one weapon the US Navy is introducing...

low observability both radar and IR, passive sensors, AI algorithms for attack and decide strategies on swarm attack. They prioritize not only on size but also as they say "electronic order of battle" .

So a tiny ship with IR flares and corner reflectors will look a huge and juicy target... good.

Underestimating your opponent is not really the best option. I am not saying that LARSM is indestructible but definitely something every admiral has to recon with.

That strengthens my case... a swarm attack of low flying subsonic cruise missiles requires detection at maximum range and you don't get detection at max range with your sensors 20m above the sea surface on a ships mast... you get it with a radar and IR and optical sensors at 10km altitude... and you can start engaging the threats earlier with aircraft able to fly to where the enemy threat is coming from and sink those ships after they start launching missiles, and then clean up the missiles they launched.

Raw tonnage aside, how much would it simplify design, construction, maintenance and operation of a carrier vessel if they were to drop catapults entirely and rely solely on ski-ramp plus very long take off run like one in the photo to launch an aircraft without payload or fuel compromises?

Despite what you may have read catapults are not evil and not bad... for the Kusnetsov they were simply not needed because it is intended to operate fighters and not heavy strike aircraft or AEW support aircraft.

An EM cat has enormous advantages over a steam cat... for instance the power can be varied during a launch.

For different aircraft with different payloads and different fuel levels you need different amounts of push to help them get airborne... a big heavy AWACS full of fuel needs rather more push than a light trainer (Su-25) with no weapons and half fuel.

For a steam cat you punch in the numbers and launch... if you make a mistake the undercarriage of the aircraft might get ripped off because the power was too high or the aircraft might roll into the water because it was set too low.

With an EM cat, while the aircraft is rolling on its takeoff the system can sense whether it is going too fast or too slow and adjust so the aircraft still gets airborne.

The main use for a cat is for heavy aircraft... AWACS or AEW, Tanker aircraft, and strike aircraft with heavy air to ground and air to air payloads.

Most fighters can carry a full air to air payload and still be rather light... especially the Flanker family which generally can't carry external fuel tanks... the heaviest ordinance a fighter normally carries on a weapon pylon is a fuel tank.

Hypothetically, could Su-57 with full internal weapons bay and full tank of gas do it with this much room to gain speed and without afterburners that waste fuel?

Operating AB for takeoff is standard practise at sea and on land simply because it improves your safety margins of something goes wrong or if near max weights.

Using AB for takeoff wont seriously reduce max range by very much.

Having to take off vertically however seriously limits performance because all the lift comes from the engines rather than wings, so you need to reduce fuel and weapons to improve take off performance, which seriously reduces flight performance.

The Su-57K with its new more powerful engines will have a thrust to weight ratio of something like 1.6 or more, so even with a full fuel load and max load of AAMs it would probably already be able to take off from the Kuznetsov... the Su-33 is bigger and heavier and rather less powerful in comparison... in fact with a 330m carrier if you only had Su-57K fighters you would not really need a catapult.

AWACS aircraft would make a cat useful on its own while an inflight refuelling tanker based on the same design as the AWACS aircraft would extend performance even further.

AI can be used for anything human can do but will do it faster and better

AI is a black box system... you really don't know what it might do if it comes to a situation it is not ready or prepared for.

If shooting subsonic cruise missiles was so easy Russian govt wont be concerned with US ABM sites near its borders and NATO fleet too.

Cruise missiles against ABM sites are useless if those ABM sites are used for a first strike... by the time even supersonic cruise missiles got to their targets they would be empty.

All we have to do now is to wait till July for next V/STOL announcement

VSTOL aircraft have no value beyond making frigates less capable by using up their helicopter hangar with a sub standard fighter.

Even if Us has no supersonic missiles it will have prompt global strike. I am sure this can hit CVN size moving ship. Or X37 orbital bomber.

I hope so... firing upon a Russian carrier with global strike would be an act of war with a complete nuclear response so all ships in the Russian navy suddenly become irrelevant... and global strike is just an ICBM delivered munition... something the S-500 was designed to deal with... they wont be launching 50 at Russian carriers because they will want to use them against more important targets like ICBM silos and the command and control structure of Russia and probably China.

But original discussion was about US vs Russian CVSG.

As I have said several times... it is not about making Russia able to take on the US navy in WWIII without the nukes.

It is about Russia becoming a global economic force by becoming a truly global military power... that means a global naval force... not a big one... but a more mobile one.

The irony is that the US fixation on swarm attacks where the weapons cooperate in a pack to attack and overwhelm the enemy was invented in the late 1970s and implemented in the Soviet Navy in the 1980s... the only real problem was that the missiles in question were enormous 7 ton beasts that required enormous expensive super ships, that could not carry missiles in their promised hundreds... merely dozens... with Oscar and Kirov carrying about two dozen each roughly.

Well they have solved that problem... Corvettes they build today can carry just over half a dozen, while frigates can carry just over a dozen and destroyers will be carrying just under three dozen and their upgraded old cruisers will be carrying more than 6 dozen each... and the missiles are getting faster...

Just as a note: ABM's are high altitude shots. In other words, they are not effective against low altitude missiles like Kh-35U as an example. Much like S-400, by time the ABM site would be able to detect the cruise missile, it would be within ~20km of the ABM site. And in this case, it would have to rely on point defense systems, which isn't really the key factor of US defense.

So actually, a salvo of subsonic cruise missiles do solve the issue. Supersonic is better cause it will reach a target much faster. But ideally, the Kh-101 is perfect for striking ABM sites from long ranges.

GarryB wrote:I rather suspect what has happened is that every company that could possibly design a new carrier (and a few that can't) have submitted designs, plus the navy itself has had a look at what it thinks it will or will not need in 15-20 years time and what they have released (ie figures and specs) are for a brand new from scratch design to broadly meet their needs and goals for the future.

I rather suspect that no one existing design is what has been shown and is exactly what they are after and now that they have given a better definition of their wants and needs the designing companies will go back and formulate a design that they might eventually use.

This would make snse if the igures reeased would not be coincident with the figures and specifications previously released for some project. But in this case are coincident (according to sputnik) and are coincident with the figures and specifications previously released for the Project 23000 Shtorm.

In case of having more than one project until now, this would be more like a selection of the Project 23000. It would not be necessary a return back to work around the cited specifications. In fact Sputnik says that there is a design completed based on these specifications.

In case of being working the last years basically in a variant of the Project 23000 for the Russian Armed Forces, the new would be only a confirmation that the design of the Project 23000 for the Russian Armed Forces has been completed, and is pending of approval by the Ministry of defense.

In addition to the two news included previusly in this topic:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.sputniknews.com%2Ftechnik%2F20180225319701993-russland-marine-flugzeugtraeger%2F&edit-text=

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnavy-korabel.livejournal.com%2F184035.html

There is a third new where we can even see the video, that was the original source of all them:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=es&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201802250940-tffd.htm&xid=17259,15700002,15700021,15700105,15700124,15700149,15700168,15700173,15700201&usg=ALkJrhhHBkwuqeYndqoEYaEYICKG9lAQTA

General Directorate for Development: how the new Russian weapons find their way into the army

Dmitry Sergeev
09:48 25.02.2018

...
The head of the Research Institute Admiral Nikolay Maximov emphasizes that in the life cycle of any ship it is necessary to provide for its modernization potential.
...
As for the larger-scale prospective combat vehicles of the fleet, Admiral Maksimov speaks of strategic missile submarine cruisers with new ballistic missiles, and the construction of a new aircraft-carrying complex.

Picture

The project of such a ship has already been developed, it is known that the flight deck here will be twice as large as the TAKR "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov", and in addition, the starting system will consist of a springboard and a booster.  By the way, the new aircraft carrier will be able to receive long-range radar surveillance aircraft, the basis of the combat composition of the ship's air group can be made up of multi-purpose multi-role fighters based on the T-50, but "adapted" for the deck.

Another novelty for the Navy, developed under the auspices of the General Directorate of Armaments, is a new assault ship, a kind of our response to Mistral.  This ship of Russian design will be able to land and landing, and receive helicopters, and provide fire support.  As for improving the combat capabilities of the submarine fleet, now, for example, work is under way to create promising means of navigation and management.  "Today, the most accurate characteristics are issued by fiber optic gyroscopes, " said Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov.  - And all this is nothing more than a phased development of various kinds of technologies.  At each stage, accuracy is improved.  If earlier it was dozens of angular minutes, today it's hundreds, and in the future thousands. "

US doesnt have Onixes. But one SGSN Ohio can carry 154 LRSAM for example. Enough thet one will be added to US CVSG.

And in the future oscar will carty 72 VLS cells . Enough for one US carrier too.

Not sure what are you referring to. But original discussion was about US vs Russian CVSG. BTW US budget now is (official one without hidden parts) 700 billions for 2018. And yes US can afford for large salvos to defeat Russian uber carrier groups.

I was just mentioning the fact that russian supersonic missiles are better than subsonic ones to hit a carrier.

Most navy can't afford a sub that can lunch 152 tomahawk but a lot of navies can buy 2 or 3 russian destroyer with 32 oniks on them and lunch a massive attack against a carrier. Of course US can destroy a russian carrier they are spending 700 billion like you said it would be weired that they can't.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:no worries after Russian admiralty goes to MoF and MoF tells about real budget capabilities project will be revised in favor of small ACs  We need to wait till July earliest though

Oh great the LHD obsessed fools return somone get me the anti retard spray... oh and get my nuke ray incase things get hairy.

If the ministry of finances tells the navy to waste its money on VTOL then they will be arrested as forign backed sabatures.

A big carrier works a small one does not.

There is clearly no convincing you that you are wrong... It would actually require an IQ that is not bellow minus one million something I am sure is well beyond you.

Lets not forget that VTOL figters cannot even carry a single RDS-220.

GarryB wrote:

that exactly proves my opinion that to 1- 2 uber-ACs make little sense with country of economy, population like Russia.

I don't understand. They don't need 10 medium carriers to fight the 10-13 carrier groups of the US...
{} +

In peacetime the global projection air power offers makes them worth the money... during war time... well the war at sea is of no practical value for Russia anyway att the moment... in 20 years time they might have booming trade with central or south america or africa or asia and a carrier group can help keep those trade links open.

+

As I have said several times... it is not about making Russia able to take on the US navy in WWIII without the nukes.

I am not sure what  you dont understand. You mentioned that CVs have neither value in confronting US  CSGs nor  in case of  war at seas Russia now.
Then you dont really need uber-Ford type CV costing 13 billions USD ( not counting airwing, AWACS etc). It is wiser to build something for 2-3 billions and 30% of maintenance costs. This will do the same job perfectly. So what is the reason to justify 300% cost increase?

You need uber-fords only in one case=  full conventional war. Which never happens for Russia.  

You need power projection? fine, 4 Su-35s and 4 Su-30SM in Syria. Third year there were not more than 8 fighters,  And they have done their job havent  they?  If 70 fighters would be needed why they were not sent there?

fantastic if WWIII breaks out but fucking useless and expensive to operate and maintain in peace time.
+
A carrier group on the other hand is about power projection... getting a say in other places because you can move a significant military presence there relatively quickly.

and who says it must be a monster? if subs are fucking expensive, such a monster is like 5 yasens.  Why Russians are to listne to you then I am sure MoF will give military a cold shower.

The cost can be offset by selling the mini AEW aircraft to allies... I am sure Iraq and Iran and Syria could use them and I would expect India and China would likely want some too... that is an AWACS aircraft for a fraction of the cost of an A-100 that can operate from smaller airfields, yet still offers an air view of the airspace that is not effected by hills and mountains... it would be especially useful in places like Chechnia and Afghanistan where terrain blocks radar on the ground.

Very vague prospects. What is sure is  billions invested.

Actually they have, but they did not spend much money on it.. currently they have the Ka-31 in the Russian Army, and were experimenting with the M-17 high altitude spy plane for C4IR support. A fixed wing model offers better altitude performance, better flight speed, lower transit times, and much better range and endurance...

M-55 is dead, M-17 is even deader besides I am curious how you want to fit 40m wingspan plane  on CV ?!

I believe drones will do the job. In order to have good look on the horizon you need altitude. There are such drones in testing. V/STOL :D:D

I never said it would be cheap and have warned against going the cheap route... like I said... the UK and the US didn't become global powers and then build powerful global navies... it happened the other way around.
Until the Russian navy has global reach Russia will remain restricted to the will of the west...

It  still doesn't answer the question if this is NOT for war then WHY so big and expensive? Bombing big or small is an act of war. Then why to overpay?

low observability both radar and IR, passive sensors, AI algorithms for attack and decide strategies on swarm attack. They prioritize not only on size but also as they say "electronic order of battle" .

So a tiny ship with IR flares and corner reflectors will look a huge and juicy target... good.

That's a good one, for 80's 90's but now surely they didnt think abut it having multi-sensor data fusion and cameras with image recognition  :-)

AI can be used for anything human can do but will do it faster and better

AI is a black box system... you really don't know what it might do if it comes to a situation it isnot ready or prepared for.

Sure and people are prepared for everything right? AFAIK They build solutions on Boyd's loop principle. Strategies are trained off line or in batches and operational parameters adjusted in real time.

Cruise missiles against ABM sites are useless if those ABM sites are used for a first strike... by the time even supersonic cruise missiles got to their targets they would be empty.

This was actually about reverse situation. That those sites shoot massive cruise missiles' volley. If it was so easy to shoot them why concerns?

All we have to do now is to wait till July for next V/STOL announcement

VSTOL aircraft have no value beyond making frigates less capable by using up their helicopter hangar with a sub standard fighter.

You have full right to express your opinion! but it doesn't : mean you're right though.  Borisov opinion was different and he is Russian top bass not you AFAIK. Almost 400 ordered F-35Bs also doesn't confirm your thesis.

Lets wait half year or so. Otherwise we have the same arguments with no new data.
   

GarryB wrote:

I was thinking of a captive sled that would be towed back into position and refueld.

So you want this sled to work the same as a catapult, but be external and externally powered... will it adapt to different aircraft types?

It sounds rather awkward... rather better to develop and produce an EM cat system offering better control and performance.

I never said it was a good idea I only said it was a possilility and I am competely against its implamentation.

Also if you look at the darwing it attaches to the underside of the aircraft and would be designed to fit the same aircraft as an EM or steam equivilant.

Just how long do you think it will take to hoist an aircraft up to the hight required would be?

The airship could fly down to the carrier and hover 30m above the flight deck while the rear of the aircraft is attached and hauled up... once it has 20 aircraft on board it can then drop water ballast and climb to 5,000m or higher... with three or four aircraft spaced apart on the deck it could raise three or four aircraft at a time, then move more aircraft into position and raise those too...

It will still take for ever.

And what might I ask will it do when there are strong winds?

For emergencies that can occur any time, 2 isn't enough, u need 3 CV/Ns with adequate # of aircraft, escorts, subs, & supply ships.
The USSR had a few TAKRs & other large warships but didn't have $ for all the needed base support & had them ride on anchors when in port. What makes u think that the RF will have enough $ to have 2-3 TAKRs/CV/Ns with needed aircraft, escorts, subs, & supply ships + port infrastructure (piers, etc.)?
The strong Turkish Navy came only after the Ottoman Empire subjugated/colonized N. Africa & parts of Europe, closing the Med. & Black Seas for trade to the East, kick starting the Age of Exploration. Before the mighty Spanish & Portuguese Navies were built, a few ships established colonies overseas, looted gold, traded spices, ivory, slaves & sugar which created the wealth necessary for the blue water navies of the day. Later, before the mighty RN could appear, the East India Company doing the same filled the British Crown's coffers to the brink. At the same time, Russia expanded to the East overland; before colonizing all of Siberia, she couldn't afford to have a navy large enough to defend her interests in the White, Baltic, Asov, Black, & Caspian Seas + send expeditions around Africa & S. America to the Pacific like the Portuguese & Dutch had done. Although the Pomors sailed east from the White Sea along the Arctic Ocean coast but certainly didn't get farther than north-eastern Yakutia, until 1648 when the Bering Strait, 80 years before Vitus Bering, was reached: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semyon_Dezhnev

My point is: a strong economy is needed 1st, before any naval buildup is to be sustained. Most natural resources needed for heavy/light production in Russia, the former Soviet republics & the next door China already have plenty of; tropical products like palm oil, coffee, cacao, & esp. fruits won't generate the demand & profits big enough to need a strong navy to ensure their supply:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/MEETING/004/Y2127e.HTM

So, until there's a new socio-economic reality with a strong middle class, not the present oil/gas/wheat/lumber/titanium/vodka/crafts/women export centered oligarchy, it's too early to talk about big maritime trade with Africa, Asia & Latin America & the long SLOCs needing protection.
 
As for future CVNs, why not build cata/trimarans?

Sources say a 180,000-ton double hull aircraft carrier has exceptional advantages over a monohull aircraft carrier. A double-hull carrier:
may have two identical runways for simultaneous taking off and landing.
will avoid the risk of crash by eschewing he diagonal runway on existing Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.
will have a huge capacity, capable of carrying 125 J-20 fighter jets — enough to destroy any existing aircraft carrier in the world.
Qianzhan boasts that if successful, the behemoth aircraft carrier will be “a movable Chinese territory with maritime hegemony.”..
If the Qianzhan report can be believed, China’s planned double-hull aircraft carrier will weigh 79,000 tons more than the Nimitz.
Snopes says that “We could find no documentation that China is currently engaged in building a craft like the one shown here, or has any plans to do so. The origin of these images is unknown to us and may have no connection to the Chinese military.”
https://cofda.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/china-said-to-be-planning-worlds-first-180000-ton-double-hull-aircraft-carrier/

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/338966309432451291

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/ddbb63d2b73436f98f6810e1a2b6aa04/CVN-97-USS-Supremacy

https://2img.net/i/fa/pbucket.gif?t=1281232436

If & when Russia economically = Japan's, such CVNs will give her "more bang for the buck"!

But ideally, the Kh-101 is perfect for striking ABM sites from long ranges.

But what are you striking the ABM sites for?

If it is so you can launch a preemptive nuclear strike then that does not work because it will take more than an hour for your missiles to fly the 2,000km to the target, which is plenty of time for them to detect the attack and launch a full ICBM strike and also use their ABMs against any weapons you launch in return.

If it is because the US has used those forward deployed ABM missiles with nuclear warheads as a first strike system then your missiles will strike an empty ABM base a hour after everything is dead.

If you detect US ICBMs on the way and you launch your cruise missiles to defeat the ABM system so it cannot interfere with your return launch of your ICBMs... by the time the ABMs are taken out the American ICBMs will have already landed half an hour before... so you either launch your ICBM reply and accept the ABMs will be used against them and any not launched will be destroyed half a hour later or more by your cruise missiles...

Do you see that it is pointless?

The only useful way would be to use something like a 2,500km range Iskander that can get to the ABM sites in a useful time period... but even then it is simpler and cheaper to make a whole lot of extra ICBMs with decoys and jammers that you launch in the first wave that the ABM system engages and uses up all its missiles against... then fire the real missiles with actual warheads and more decoys and jammers and that is based on the fact that Russia is not interested in a first strike so a minor delay in launching the ICBMs with actual warheads wont matter too much... ie US launches first and hopes its ABM screen will make the Russian reply tolerable. Russians launch fake first response that uses up all the ABM missiles... then launches the real attack with ABM evading warheads and decoys and jammers etc which should all make it through...

This would make snse if the igures reeased would not be coincident with the figures and specifications previously released for some project. But in this case are coincident (according to sputnik) and are coincident with the figures and specifications previously released for the Project 23000 Shtorm.

They probably made a lot of studies regarding operational costs and building costs and potential capability.

For example you see a lot of single engine jet fighters and twin engine jet fighters but not many three or four engine jet fighters... it just works out better to have bigger engines than more engines in some cases.

That will be why all the projects are about the same size... they will have worked out a Kiev sized ship is not big enough and that the Kuznetsov itself is also not big enough, but how much bigger do they need?

Some organisation has obviously worked out the size they have published so all the companies wanting to make these ships will build their model to that size...

Oh great the LHD obsessed fools return somone get me the anti retard spray... oh and get my nuke ray incase things get hairy.

If the ministry of finances tells the navy to waste its money on VTOL then they will be arrested as forign backed sabatures.

A big carrier works a small one does not.

It is OK... the Russian Navy aren't fools.... they have made bigger carriers and they have made smaller carriers (Kuznetsov and Kiev respectively) and they clearly want the bigger carriers.

A carrier group is going to be expensive to operate whether it has big carriers at its core or one or two smaller carriers... neither option is going to be cheap, but the bigger carrier is going to be more effective and useful.

There is clearly no convincing you that you are wrong...

No one knows who will be right in this regard...

It just depends whose lobby win... but the fact is that if they have to develop a catapult system to get AWACS platforms airborne then it makes little sense to waste time and money on VSTOL... having a cat means even the heaviest fixed wing fighter can get airborne at full load safely.

Most of their fighters will be operating at no where near max weight as they will be armed for Air to air...

I am not sure what  you dont understand. You mentioned that CVs have neither value in confronting US  CSGs nor  in case of  war at seas Russia now.
Then you dont really need uber-Ford type CV costing 13 billions USD ( not counting airwing, AWACS etc). It is wiser to build something for 2-3 billions and 30% of maintenance costs. This will do the same job perfectly. So what is the reason to justify 300% cost increase?

Having two large carriers wont be that much more expensive than having 4-6 mini carriers, and the carrier groups will cost the same, so having 3-4 carrier groups worth of support ships and support infrastructure will make the smaller carriers more expensive than the bigger carriers, while at the same time rather less capable.

You need uber-fords only in one case=  full conventional war. Which never happens for Russia.

Who is talking about Ford class ships?

The future Russian navy needs to be a compact relatively low number force... which means quality and capability per unit... currently their corvettes have the fire power of Soviet era destroyers, their new frigates have twice the fire power of Soviet Era destroyers, and their new destroyers will have four times the fire power of their SE destroyers.

Their upgraded cruisers with 80 launch tubes has ten times the fire power of Soviet era destroyers... (soviet era destroyers had 8 main weapons... Moskit for Sovremmeny, and SS-N-14 for Udaloy etc etc).

Why shouldn't their new carrier have 4-10 times the number of aircraft?

You need power projection? fine, 4 Su-35s and 4 Su-30SM in Syria. Third year there were not more than 8 fighters,  And they have done their job havent  they?  If 70 fighters would be needed why they were not sent there?

It is a bit expensive using cruise missiles to hit every target... if you are using carrier aircraft it is because it is too far away for aircraft to operate from Russia... which means not just fighters but also AEW and AWACS and light strike and also surveillance would be needed... if not from land then from sea.

Obviously a lot of the observation and light strike could be drones operated from the carrier... but you need a lot of space for extra stuff like that.

The other change from the cold war (other than in raw fire power) is that the new vessels are multi role and that would include the carrier...

and who says it must be a monster? if subs are fucking expensive, such a monster is like 5 yasens.

When you go to the Chemist do you buy extra small condoms because they are cheaper and you can fit more in your pocket, or do you buy the super large condom because you like it nice and tight around your dick?

The Russian Navy has decided it needs a boat slightly bigger than the K... and they know because they tried the tiny size with the kiev class and they tried a medium with the K, so now when they are asking for a large you think the missus is going to say no... they are too expensive... get a little one.

Little ones break on big dicks... and you don't get your money back.

Very vague prospects. What is sure is  billions invested.

It is not about how much it will cost, but how well they design it so that it can be useful for other purposes to defray that cost by making more than 6 of them.

If you spend 10 billion dollars making a big carrier... and you spend over 50 billion on all the infrastructure and support vessels that help it operate around the world then you would be a pretty dumb fuck to then balk at spending another billion to give it decent eyes so it is better protected... especially when that same platform can be used by your own army and other navies and armies around the world belonging to your allies...

M-55 is dead, M-17 is even deader Smile besides I am curious how you want to fit 40m wingspan plane  on CV ?!

Probably make two folds in each wing... but the M-55 and M-17 were never considered for naval use... just army and air force for recon and comms relay etc etc... oh and obviously originally shooting down balloons.

I believe drones will do the job. In order to have good look on the horizon you need altitude. There are such drones in testing. V/STOL

The vertical landing component means they will be weight limited... there is a reason the Boeing Sentury is based on a very very large aircraft... even the Ka-31 is a 12 ton helo... not really a light weight.

It  still doesn't answer the question if this is NOT for war then WHY so big and expensive? Bombing big or small is an act of war. Then why to overpay?

Persistence, and it is for war... but like previous wars not including WWI or WWII... it is a way of showing smaller countries that in a local event that Russia can turn up and help and no other power could impose and enforce a blockade.

It is a sabre rattling thing... but not to bully little countries... to protect them from bullies.

And no, I am not talking about becoming the world police part two... it will only be for trading allies that the US is trying to bully to stop being trading partners.

That's a good one, for 80's 90's but now surely they didnt think abut it having multi-sensor data fusion and cameras with image recognition  :-)

Smoke and DIRCMS will deal with cameras... and IR flares will give it volume in the IR spectrum...

Sure and people are prepared for everything right? AFAIK They build solutions on Boyd's loop principle. Strategies are trained off line or in batches and operational parameters adjusted in real time.

The problem is shown with opposing forces training... they don't think like you do all the time... their experience and training can lead them to different thoughts and conclusions and different actions... but lets be honest at the top level the US clearly does not understand Russia... why would it be any different further down the chain?

Plus Russia has had 30 years experience with this sort of shit... or are uber smart westerners immune from being behind in experience?

Garbage in Garbage out.

This was actually about reverse situation. That those sites shoot massive cruise missiles' volley. If it was so easy to shoot them why concerns?

If those ABM sites launch cruise missiles that is a direct violation of the INF treaty... so it is a concern.

Almost 400 ordered F-35Bs also doesn't confirm your thesis.

These orders are politically motivated... which alternative option did they have to replace Harriers on carriers too small for fixed wing fighters?

You have full right to express your opinion! but it doesn't : mean you're right though.

Perfectly correct, but they have already been down the road of VSTOL aircraft and they have been serious failures... before they had no choice because their carriers were rather small and they had no catapults. They clearly are building bigger carriers and they are going to have catapults.

Also if you look at the darwing it attaches to the underside of the aircraft and would be designed to fit the same aircraft as an EM or steam equivilant.

The point is that with an internal system you set the power level according to the weight and load out of the aircraft. With an external system... a solid rocket you have no control... once it starts burning it will keep burning until it has burned out and you have no throttle control. With a liquid rocket engine you have more control but liquid rocket fuels are dangerous and toxic. With another jet engine it would have to be bloody enormous and would work for very very short periods which would not be very good for it.

All things considered it makes more sense to just look at catapults... and seeing as how EM cats offer many benefits over steam cats it makes sense to focus on EM cats.

It will still take for ever.

There is no reason why aircraft could not take off conventionally from the carrier as well, and more importantly while airborne the airship itself has enormous radar arrays and heavy long range AAMs so for many threats like a mass anti ship missile attack against the carrier it could deal with a lot of the threats on its own using high altitude launched very high speed missiles... perhaps S-400 and S-500 based.

Equally with 20 aircraft on the airship that is rather more than any other carrier can launch in 5 minutes anyway... with a few more taking off from the carrier itself you could fill the sky rapidly with interceptors.

In fact you could have two or three dozen fighter drones carrying loads of AAMs that could fly out with your fighters and operate at very high altitudes and launch missiles on targets and then return and land on the carrier and get boxed up and lifted back onto the airship the next time it comes down.

And what might I ask will it do when there are strong winds?

in open ocean the carrier could sail with the wind at the wind speed so the wind speed over the deck is zero... or just safe.

When weather conditions are no suitable the aircraft can simply take off and land on the carrier conventionally.

For emergencies that can occur any time, 2 isn't enough, u need 3 CV/Ns with adequate # of aircraft, escorts, subs, & supply ships.

They already have the K which they could modify over time to improve its performance and capabilities... unifying the electronics etc would also be good.

With two and a half ships they should be OK as most ships go through a three phase cycle... operational, training, overhaul/refit.

If one got damaged and the other was in the middle of a refit they would still have something they could use... they would never schedule two vessels to be in refit at one time, so most of the time they would have two carriers available.

And they have a good economy base and it continues to grow... but what will limit its growth is the actions of the west... naval power will make her more immune to such actions.

Regarding multi hull vessels... have you been on one at sea?

I have been on a multi hull vessel and it rolled like a bitch in not very heavy sea.

When the sea was flat it moved like a rocket, but the second things got a bit wobbly one hull goes up while the other hull is going down so you get the normal up and down of the sea but with a side to side rocking motion added... not pleasant... and not good for naval operations.

GarryB wrote:

Regarding multi hull vessels... have you been on one at sea?

I have been on a multi hull vessel and it rolled like a bitch in not very heavy sea.

When the sea was flat it moved like a rocket, but the second things got a bit wobbly one hull goes up while the other hull is going down so you get the normal up and down of the sea but with a side to side rocking motion added... not pleasant... and not good for naval operations.

Take in count that Multihulls are mostly quite light vessels, or at least were up to now, so those effects you described are being offset quite alot when you upscale them.

I personally like trimaran designs like lets say Benchijigua Express/Independence class.

Guys, if haven't been watching TV or checking internet today you should know that Imperator just disclosed that Russian MIC pretty much made whole concept of aircraft carriers (and better part of surface ship classes) obsolete and redundant

So in light of that info, I doubt that Russia will be wasting better part for it's total defence budget on building USS White Elephant

Like I mentioned elsewhere today, this would explain severely lax attitude towards construction and acquisition of anything but tiniest surface ships lately

Also, it would explain where surface navy budget has been disappearing off to...

PapaDragon wrote:
Guys, if haven't been watching TV or checking internet today you should know that Imperator just disclosed that Russian MIC pretty much made whole concept of aircraft carriers (and better part of surface ship classes) obsolete and redundant

So in light of that info, I doubt that Russia will be wasting better part for it's total defence budget on building USS White Elephant

Like I mentioned elsewhere today, this would explain severely lax attitude towards construction and acquisition of anything but tiniest surface ships lately

Also, it would explain where surface navy budget has been disappearing off to...

Carriers/Amphibious assault vessels are still very effective for power projection, its not like every single country in the world has this type of hypersonic tech, especially the countries/groups that carriers and the like are used against.

Can guarantee you that having more and newer carriers would have helped out in Syria big time. And who knows what lies in the future? What future conflicts will Russia be involved next? I would wager with the resurgent Russian economy and military, that these anti-insurgent activities will become a lot more common for the Russian military. Carriers help with that.

Hell, they don't need some 100k ton carrier, something smaller in 60-70k range that is less expensive and can be produced in reasonable quantities(3+), it's not like they need the whole package of fighter, AWACS, ASW aircraft, just maybe entirely drones(navalized Hunter-B or such) with a few naval Su-57s sprinkled in.

Give it a well deck for carrying naval infantry and their vehicles and you'll have a aircraft carrier + amphibious assault ship. Call it universal force projection vessel, powerpoint makers will have a field day.

x_54_u43 wrote:

Can guarantee you that having more and newer carriers would have helped out in Syria big time. And who knows what lies in the future? What future conflicts will Russia be involved next? I would wager with the resurgent Russian economy and military, that these anti-insurgent activities will become a lot more common for the Russian military. Carriers help with that.

The whole airwing in Syria was like 4 Su-35s + 4Su-30SM  fighters + 8 Su-34+12Su-24 ? And for 2 years?

PapaDragon wrote:
Guys, if haven't been watching TV or checking internet today you should know that Imperator just disclosed that Russian MIC pretty much made whole concept of aircraft carriers (and better part of surface ship classes) obsolete and redundant

They underestimated the power of the Dark Side!

x_54_u43 wrote:....
Hell, they don't need some 100k ton carrier, something smaller in 60-70k range that is less expensive and can be produced in reasonable quantities(3+), it's not like they need the whole package of fighter, AWACS, ASW aircraft, just maybe entirely drones(navalized Hunter-B or such) with a few naval Su-57s sprinkled in.

Give it a well deck for carrying naval infantry and their vehicles and you'll have a aircraft carrier + amphibious assault ship. Call it universal force projection vessel, powerpoint makers will have a field day.

Situation you describe is called post-industrial neo-colonial warfare and yes small carriers would be very useful (30-50k would be my estimate)

And yes making it a combination of LHD and carrier is a way to go, saves time, money and serves actual purpose 90% of time with troop/cargo and anti-sub functionality

Basically Avalanche-class with some tweaks

But good luck explaining that to local "experts"

PapaDragon wrote:Situation you describe is called post-industrial neo-colonial warfare and yes small carriers would be very useful (30-50k would be my estimate)

And yes making it a combination of LHD and carrier is a way to go, saves time, money and serves actual purpose 90% of time with troop/cargo and anti-sub functionality

Basically Avalanche-class with some tweaks

But good luck explaining that to local "experts"

, you have not idea about how do a decent estimation, in technical terms.

This is not a thing of local experts. You have to convice to Russian gouvernment:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=es&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3475950&xid=17259,15700002,15700021,15700105,15700124,15700149,15700168,15700173,15700201&usg=ALkJrhhW5fyiLpAVwfnu1eBTnkiYjWjRJA

The Ministry of Defense approved the volume of the new state armament program

As assumed by Kommersant, the approved volume of the new state armament program (SPG) for 2018-2027 is 19 trillion rubles. The Defense Ministry considers this amount sufficient.  "The LG is balanced, planned.  The most important thing is that in the current SPG, 19 trillion is the supply of arms and military equipment and 1 trillion for the synchronization system, "Tass quoted Tatyana Shevtsova, Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia.

He noted that the previous LGP did not include the costs of synchronization.  "We need a storage system, a system of basing and equipping the troops, this was not taken into account in the previous LG," Ms. Shevtsova said.

Another deputy defense minister - Yuri Borisov - said that the main priority of the new state arms program will be the development of nuclear deterrence systems.  "The first priority, of course, is given to the development of nuclear deterrence systems, as the main type of armed forces, which guarantees the security of our country in any kind of conflicts," he said.  Also, according to him, special attention will be paid to high-precision weapons in the LG, because "this is a modern trend in the development of all military conflicts."  "If we are talking about high-precision weapons, then this is certainly a system of information support, because without information high-precision weapons do not work," added Mr. Borisov.  In addition, he spoke about developments in the direction of hypersonic technology, also noting that "nothing special" in the possible appearance of such weapons in the next decade.

Yuri Borisov mentioned the development of aircraft carriers in the context of the LG.  "Speaking specifically about aircraft-carrying cruisers, this is the end of the program, we plan to develop and lay down modern aircraft carriers," he said.  This summer, the deputy commander-in-chief of the navy, Viktor Bursuk, said that Russia provided for the design and construction of helicopter carriers.  According to him, until 2025 it is planned to put into operation two such ships.

The draft LG will be submitted to Russian President Vladimir Putin no later than December 15.  "Today it is at the final stage of elaboration, in the government already.  I think that no later than December 15 it will be submitted to the administration.  I can not say the exact date when the president will approve it, "Yuri Borisov said.

And this is exactly the same said in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7032p50-state-armament-program-2018-2027#211908

The marine rapid-response force is intended to be capable of conducting missions in the maritime, aerial and land domains in any part of the world. For this, new aircraft carriers will be the core of its capability, ... Work to design a new class of Russian aircraft carrier is to be completed before 2020, with construction and entry into service planned for the second phase of the doctrine (2021-2030).

Unlike the heavy aircraft cruisers of the previous generation of Russian aircraft carriers, the new carrier design will be multirole. It is envisaged to be equipped with manned and unmanned combat systems operating in the air, at sea, underwater and possibly in space. The carrier's air groups will include radar surveillance and C2 aircraft, alongside reconnaissance and strike UAVs.

it is envisaged that during this final phase the following will be undertaken: ... ongoing series production of the new aircraft carrier class

x_54_u43 wrote:

Carriers/Amphibious assault vessels are still very effective for power projection, its not like every single country in the world has this type of hypersonic tech, especially the countries/groups that carriers and the like are used against.

Can guarantee you that having more and newer carriers would have helped out in Syria big time. And who knows what lies in the future? What future conflicts will Russia be involved next? I would wager with the resurgent Russian economy and military, that these anti-insurgent activities will become a lot more common for the Russian military. Carriers help with that.

Hell, they don't need some 100k ton carrier, something smaller in 60-70k range that is less expensive and can be produced in reasonable quantities(3+), it's not like they need the whole package of fighter, AWACS, ASW aircraft, just maybe entirely drones(navalized Hunter-B or such) with a few naval Su-57s sprinkled in.

Give it a well deck for carrying naval infantry and their vehicles and you'll have a aircraft carrier + amphibious assault ship. Call it universal force projection vessel, powerpoint makers will have a field day.

Mixing the roles of an aircraft carrier and an amphibious assault one is counterproductive at best, impossible at worst.

Or it could be better to say at the reverse: it would be impossible in the best case scenario, counterproductive in the worst (when somebody could actually try to do so).

Amphibious facilities require huge spaces inside a ship hull: it is beyond human possibilities to get inside an hull of any practical size (let's say between 40.000 to 70.000 tons displacement, both a flooding dock, a huge ramp/park area for dozens of armored vehicles, berthing facilities for several hundreds of infantry plus related galleys, a landing's command post and on top of that dozens of workshops, an big hangar, several heavy armored weapon depots with all the ancillary security equipments, armored elevators to bring weapons on the flight bridge, berthing for hundreds of service personnel related to the embarked air wing and so on.

It is simply too much.

Not to mention that an amphibious ship will end almost sitting dead on the water to flood the dock and launch its landing crafts.

The only thing vaguely coming close to such concept are the new british aircraft carriers.

But first they displace around 70.000 tons full load, second they have no flooding dock nor have they any landing craft at all: they are designed to be compatible with vertical assault large scale operations, up to the point to be able to operate the CH-47, but in doing so they would leave back most of its fixed wing aircrafts and they will have the royal marines partially camping inside of the hangar itself (the so called in the british parlance "short period overload") and partially resuming to the old habit's hot beds sharing the available berthing facilities.

Still, the main and foremost mission behind their project is pure fixed wing aircrafts' operations, with everything from the flight bridge down to the deepest fuel tank or weapons depot designed to maximize high tempo fixed wing aircrafts' operations efficiency.

I agree something around 70.000 tons could be the right size for the russian navy, the actual size and displacement depending both on required air wing's numbers and tempo and duration of air combat operations to be performed.

But it will have to be a purpose built air superiority aircraft carrier, designed to maximize the air cover it could provide and maintain, with only very secondary capabilities in terms of rotary wing's operations, being those ASW or amphibious assault.

Anyway, such a vessel would become multirole by the capabilities of its embarked aircrafts, but the first and foremost requirement would be to fight successfully to get local air superiority in order to create a safety bubble where enemy could not exercise its air power.