Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Adm. K can be viewed as future CV/TAKR as it will be mostly a different ship:

"Admiral Kuznetsov" will receive a long-range air defense system "Polimen-Redut"
13:32 04/30/2018 Source: Russian Information Agency "TASS"

The only Russian aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, will modernize the Polymet-Redut anti-aircraft long-range anti-aircraft missile system, a source in the shipbuilding industry told TASS.
"In addition to Pansir on the ship, it is planned to install long-range anti-aircraft defense systems - the newest complex," Polymet-Redut ", a source said.Today, Kuznetsov has only short-range air defense complexes Dagger and Dirk, Almaz-Antey "(the company-developer of" Polymment-Reduta ") did not comment on the information provided by the source.
As reported earlier by the deputy head of the Russian Navy Viktor Bursuk, work on the "Kuznetsov" will begin in May, the ship will receive new missile and artillery systems short-range "Pantsir-M." According to Bursuk, the ship will also install new boilers and new systems that provide flights, in particular, landing systems, surveillance, and control. The fleet expects to receive an aircraft carrier in combat composition in 2021.
As another source in the shipbuilding industry specified by TASS, airborne equipment, a radio beacon group and signal equipment will replace the take-off and landing equipment on the ship, and the entire communication system will also be changed at Kuznetsov. At the same time, the source said, "the Granite rocket complex on the aircraft carrier will not change."
http://www.ng.ru/news/615175.html?print=Y

As I wrote, retaining Granits (recently modified to LACMs) will save them time & $. I hope they'll never have to use them in anger!

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:..........
A prospective aircraft carrier of the Navy will receive a displacement of not less than 70 thousand tons

The Navy considers it inexpedient to build lightweight aircraft carriers, the deputy head of the Russian Navy for armament, Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk.........

They should really put some new frigates in the water before mouthing off about aircraft carriers, they are just making themselves look like idiots.

So no more Shtorm class. They can't decide a tonnage class for it, let alone build it. They practicaly killed the concept of carrier with kh-32 and Kinzhal missiles. Unless they make it more survivable against missiles it would be spending money on nothing but crap.

Time will tell, but IMO it's doable with enough CV/N speed to have sufficient wind over deck+plane's forward motion/thrust+deck fans to create lift for STOVL. STOBAR systems could be retained.

Tactically it might not be very useful to have to turn into the wind and sail at full speed just to get some aircraft airborne reliably and safely.

Much better and safer and in the long run cheaper to have proper cats.

No need for AN-12s to stay on CV/Ns for too long & go to hangars. If they break down, stop some/all flight ops & fix it; if that's not an option, dich it! The only time it may be pressed to fly to CV/Ns is if some critical parts/gear/ammo/people must be delivered/evacuated while it's too far from any avail. land base &/ out of range for other aircraft. In any case, they may also build a quad tilt rotor aircraft of similar size.

How often do C-130s land on Nimitz class carriers?

Reality is that the Russians already have a C-130 that can already land perfectly safely on a carrier... it is called Mi-26 and could shift cargo from one transport ship to a carrier very rapidly... but at the end of the day simply putting a really big crane on a ship and they could do it even quicker and safer...

Adm. K can be viewed as future CV/TAKR as it will be mostly a different ship:

Not really hugely different... Pantsir-S would be a direct replacement for Kashtan-M, and likely upgraded TOR will replace old model TOR systems and Redut is a relatively compact vertical launch system that would not take up a lot of space.

Regarding the Granit... they probably have a few missiles in stocks... when it comes time to replace them a couple of UKSK launchers will likely fit in there nicely anyway.

Will be interesting to see if they add any 57mm CIWS guns or just keep 30mm calibre guns.

MiG-35. Se time ago in Russian press was info that landing gear and hooks for MiG-35 are designed. It probably have role of Advanced Super Hornet in Russian Navy

The MiG-29M2 and MiG-29KR and MiG-35 pretty much use the same airframe... only real difference is lack of tail hook and folding wings for the two land based models.

2) PAK-FA : great fighter but with 70ktons Russian CVN is unlikely to take many of them. Look at size it's taking 1,5 as much place as F-35...

PAK FA is a Sukhoi design... the Su-33 has a wing that folds in two places and because of this double fold actually takes up the same space in the hangar as a MiG-29K, so space should not really be an issue.

of course unless till 2030 LMFS with V/STOL wont appear

Would prefer a STOBAR design myself, but a PAK FA naval model makes sense too.

Bursuk added that "the technical specifications and the design of [such a ship] have not yet been developed, during the creation of the technical design it will be determined what is needed," but "it is already clear that its displacement will be about 70 thousand tons."

Which is what I have been suggesting... too small is useless, but too big is worse... something bigger than Kuznetsov but not as big as the US elephants...


EMCATS mean Vertical takeoff is unnecessary and an expensive luxury/complication.

They should really put some new frigates in the water before mouthing off about aircraft carriers, they are just making themselves look like idiots.

It will take 15 years from laying down to getting this vessel operational... there is plenty of time to make frigates and destroyers and cruisers.

They practicaly killed the concept of carrier with kh-32 and Kinzhal missiles. Unless they make it more survivable against missiles it would be spending money on nothing but crap.

Missiles like Kh-32 and Kinzhal actually make AWACS support and aircraft support even more critical...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:..........
A prospective aircraft carrier of the Navy will receive a displacement of not less than 70 thousand tons

The Navy considers it inexpedient to build lightweight aircraft carriers, the deputy head of the Russian Navy for armament, Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk.........

Hhahaha

I knew it, there was no way in hell the Navy actually wanted a 30kT mini-carrier, once again we see the Russian Naval command and the Russian MoD at complete odds with each other.

Weird that designs for such a carrier weren't already laid out, they must have really been pushing for a super-carrier in the negotiations.

Anyway, because of this eternal conflict between Naval command  and the MoD, there will be no carrier by 2030 or ever, i just don't see the MoD allowing it.
Besides there are more pressing issues for the Navy, like getting enough Frigate and future Destroyers in the lower double digits.

Missiles like Kh-32 and Kinzhal actually make AWACS support and aircraft support even more critical...

What for ? Buy them 300 million dollars to watch them destroy your 10 billion carrier ?

Or maybe you mean to have the awacs on your side to help the missile find their targets ? You can use il-38 and A-100 for that.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:@all of you Lads
Well you know that I believe  V/STOL fighter is better solution for Russian Navy than "navalized version" but life is about time and money too. It is unlikely that Russia will not invest in special new fighter. Thus there be simple 2 contenders:

1) MiG-35. Se time ago in Russian press was info that landing gear and hooks for MiG-35 are designed. It probably have role of Advanced Super Hornet in Russian Navy

2) PAK-FA : great fighter but with 70ktons Russian CVN is unlikely to take many of them.  Look at size it's taking 1,5 as much place as  F-35...

of course unless till 2030 LMFS with V/STOL wont appear :D:D




A prospective aircraft carrier of the Navy will receive a displacement of not less than 70 thousand tons

The Navy considers it inexpedient to build lightweight aircraft carriers, the deputy head of the Russian Navy for armament, Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk

ST.PETERSBURG, April 25. / TASS /. A prospective aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy will have a displacement of at least 70 thousand tons, its technical project is not yet ready. Vice-Admiral Viktor Bursuk told journalists about this from the deputy naval commander of the Russian Navy on armament.
"The fleet believes that lightweight aircraft carriers should not be built for the Russian Federation from the point of view of the economic" price-quality ratio. "It is preferable to build aircraft carriers with a displacement of about 70 thousand tons, which allow carrying more aircraft on board," he said.

Bursuk added that "the technical specifications and the design of [such a ship] have not yet been developed, during the creation of the technical design it will be determined what is needed," but "it is already clear that its displacement will be about 70 thousand tons."

Before the Russian Navy stated that the Russian fleet expected to receive a promising aircraft carrier with an atomic power plant by the end of 2030. Earlier, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov reported that the contract for the construction of an aircraft carrier could be signed by the end of 2025. The Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation Denis Manturov informed that the sketch design of the aircraft carrying ship has already been created and submitted to the Ministry of Defense of Russia.

At the same time, the Krylov State Research Center, part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, developed a new project for a new aircraft carrier, which was also offered for the Russian fleet. Project 23000 was named "Storm". The sketch assumes that the ship will have a displacement of 80-90 thousand tons, it will be equipped with a combined power plant (both an atomic reactor and a gas turbine engine), the air group of the ship must number up to 60 units.

Подробнее на ТАСС:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5157561

The reality is coming.

Sorry, but the reality here more resembles Krylov's fable about 3 animals pulling a load in different directions resulting in no net movement: https://russianuniverse.org/2014/04/06/ivan-krylovs-fable-swan-pike-and-crawfish/

Give them some time, it's better to wait a lot for excellent CVN than getting a Queen Elizabeth which leaks water overnight.

Agreeing on a size is a big step.

Big things take some time. After the First Karađorđe's uprising, it took Serbs 11 years to establish a duchy. What new ship/submarine did Russia have 11 years ago? One Buyan corvette.

Henceforth, Russian navy is going to get at least one Borei, one Yasen AND one Gorshkov each year.

PapaDragon wrote:
Getting a nation off the ground from scratch is lot harder than building a warship with shipbuilding industry up and running. And Russia is so much larger than Serbia.

As for new Gorshkov each year they have been waiting for first one for decade already.

And even if they do get one per year (which they won't) they will stop getting them after 4 years because they have stopped building them.

It's been so long that what was once advanced design has become old enough to require upgrade, have you seen Gorshkov lately? It's definitely showing age. Once next generation​ but now just generic.

True, it's different with nations, but Russians had to build their shipyards from scratch, too. In 2000, they weren't exactly up and running. It's the part of MIC that suffered the most. It took them 10 years just to modernize an Indian CVN.

And I'm not sure if they'll stop the program. There was some pessimism during the Ukrainian engines problems, but that's over now with domestic production fully operational. Don't forget that they wanted 20-30 Gorshkovs at the beginning of the program. It was meant to be a pillar of RuN.

This photos from last month are more beautiful than Lepa Brena
So the engines are completely new Russian design and cruise missiles and AA defense is supposedly the best in the world so hey

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:..........
A prospective aircraft carrier of the Navy will receive a displacement of not less than 70 thousand tons

They should really put some new frigates in the water before mouthing off about aircraft carriers, they are just making themselves look like idiots.

No, is not the Russian Ministry of Defense nor the Russian Navy who are making themselves look like idiots. is the people that here have not other argument than to insult.

The last article about the future Russian aircraft carrier is just Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 from a high level official.

The reality is coming, unfortunately for you.

You did hear about the engine troubles, Papa, didn´t you?
Why build ship after ship when the new engine is not ready? Just to please you?

After 2020 they will start the production of the successor of the Gorshkov. The difference in the production rate will be the same as with the Buyan-M (slow) and it´s successor, the Karakurt (quite fast).

U r still in ur repertoire, how sad! U may be an actor of a "burned out" theater. I thought u would get a clue from my post with a link to TASS from 2015 about Lavina that u seem to wrote won't be built-correct me if I'm wrong: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2015-news/december-2015-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/3335-russia-to-go-ahead-with-lavina-amphibious-assault-ship-project-preliminary-design-completed.html

Russia could develop a true amphibious assault ship in the coming years, but it is not clear if Moscow’s new State Armament Plan 2027 will support such a vessel. “For the future, they have a project for a helicopter carrier amphibious assault ship which they call Прибой (Priboy),” Kashin said. “But it is not clear if the procurement is actually included in the State Armaments Program-2027. I think it will depend on the general economic situation in 2020s.”
Michael Kofman, a research scientist specializing in Russian military forces at the Center for Naval Analyses, told The National Interest that Priboy and another competing design are both the products of the fertile imagination of Moscow’s defense industry. “I don't think Priboy is anything other than a model ship, same goes for the Lavina,” Kofman said. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-new-helicopters-are-preparing-war-should-the-baltics-24357

So, if u believe other TASS announcements about Storm & its competing project, then u contradict urself. In any case, there r many interest groups in the RF that their own agenda. Such news leaks r often fake news & u present them as the 100% reality. The USSR lost the race to the Moon even though it launched Sputnik & the 1st man & later, a 1st woman into space. As in stocks & bonds,
"past performances don't guarantee future results"!

eehnie wrote:

No, is not the Russian Ministry of Defense nor the Russian Navy who are making themselves look like idiots. is the people that here have not other argument than to insult.

The last article about the future Russian aircraft carrier is just Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 from a high level official.

The reality is coming, unfortunately for you.

Wait, arent Shtorm and first Lider almost finished

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:
Hhahaha
I knew it, there was no way in hell the Navy actually wanted a 30kT mini-carrier, once again we see the Russian Naval command and the Russian MoD at complete odds with each other.

dont flatter yourself it was just a lucky guess        and more seriously well 100kts its not either.  

Guess?.... no way, anyone remotely familiar with the history of aircraft carriers in the Soviet Union, knows that the Navy always wanted to go big, but was always kept from doing so.
Until Perestroika.

Weird that designs for such a carrier weren't already laid out, they must have really been pushing for a super-carrier in the negotiations.

Anyway, because of this eternal conflict between Naval command  and the MoD, there will be no carrier by 2030 or ever, i just don't see the MoD allowing it.
Besides there are more pressing issues for the Navy, like getting enough Frigate and future Destroyers in the lower double digits.

Form another perspective: you know why CVN comes in early 2030s? this is still 12 years to build dock yards, train people build auxiliary fleet, replenish budget (vide: Putin about GDP growth).  Not to mention new engines/ turbines or reactors.  And suddenly it starts to make sense isnt it?

Yes, Garry mentioned that as well, but i just don't believe the MoD will ever see it that way.

"Not if Russia decides to take over New Zealand to save private Garry B. :-) or Falklands. then you need own AWACS to direct your Kinzhals"
Nope. MiG-31s carrying them & their MiG-31/Su-30/33/35/57 escorts can act as mini AWACS by themselves. Using onboard radars, 4 of them can sweep 800km area. Future long endurance/range tiltrotors & drones may be designed to do the same.
To be fair, if access to Nikolaev shipyard is granted, they may build new CV/Ns sooner. I bet that by 2025, if not sooner, there'll be a regime change in Kiev & Russia will seize to be treated as an enemy state there. Then that shipyard will be put to good use again.

What for ? Buy them 300 million dollars to watch them destroy your 10 billion carrier ?

Just like a large cruise missile attack, being able to see the threat early enough means you are better able to defend yourself.

without AWACS you are limited to the horizon, which means you wont know what hit you...

Or maybe you mean to have the awacs on your side to help the missile find their targets ? You can use il-38 and A-100 for that.

What makes you think aircraft will be safe if carriers are not?

Why do you think Carriers have ever been safe?

AWACS.... A for Airborne... W for warning... C for control... in other words... being in the air... detecting threats and targets, and controlling forces in defence and attack.

Why do you think you don't need that?

KORNET... are you demanding everyone stop making tanks and armoured vehicles?

I mean what is the point... a Kornet can destroy an IFV from 8.5km... IFVs wont even know they are being attacked until it is too late... so don't bother making IFVs right?

The new swarm method is cool at the moment so use a swarm attack where all your infantry soldiers walk towards the enemy positions... they will run out of Kornets before you run out of infantrymen...

Carriers are vulnerable to attack, but they are less vulnerable than a surface group without a carrier operating with it.

The USSR lost the race to the Moon even though it launched Sputnik & the 1st man & later, a 1st woman into space.

The USSR beat the US in every race to space except for putting a man on the moon... but after getting someone into space and into orbit getting to the moon just took money to solve. They landed on the moon first... they got to the moon first, they took the first picture of the far side of the moon which had never been seen before by man... the only step the US won was getting a human being there.

I am not really impressed by the US achievement of getting people to the moon... especially using Nazis to do so...

It takes a decade at least for Russia to build a frigate sized ship. They should have engine ready by then. Sitting idle is idiotic.

If they can't solve engine problems in another decade then why bother?

Well they are 50 years behind the west in technology don't you know...  

But please explain why US rockets to space use Russian engines... what is that all about?

Can't they build their own?

Do they not know how to build rocket motors any more?

Maybe, despite their enormous economic power they don't think making their own rockets is important... they could always spend the money if they wanted, so why don't they?

Perhaps when Soviet destroyers and other vessels need to be withdrawn they might start building larger ships, but for the moment it is the smaller ships that need replacing first... smaller ships have shorter life spans and need replacement more often.

Nope. MiG-31s carrying them & their MiG-31/Su-30/33/35/57 escorts can act as mini AWACS by themselves. Using onboard radars, 4 of them can sweep 800km area. Future long endurance/range tiltrotors & drones may be designed to do the same.

A Mig-31 would not have the range to fly to New Zealand... you would need an aircraft carrier to get here at the bottom of the Pacific...

To be fair, if access to Nikolaev shipyard is granted, they may build new CV/Ns sooner. I bet that by 2025, if not sooner, there'll be a regime change in Kiev & Russia will seize to be treated as an enemy state there. Then that shipyard will be put to good use again.

Wake up my friend... Russia already has a shipyard in the far east that has been upgraded to build large ships (up to 350 thousand ton tankers if needed), why on earth would they ever consider building a carrier in the Ukraine?

It would cost 20 billion dollars just to upgrade the shipyard let alone build anything... the best use Russia could put that shipyard to is target practise.

Regarding carriers... they take 15 years to develop from scratch so talking about them now makes sense, but complaining there are no support ships makes no sense either because generally they don't take 15 years to develop.... Russia already has two Kirov based ships to operate with carriers, so they just need 4-6 destroyers... and they have 15 years to build them...