Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
BTW do you see how much V gen MiG with canards is similar to Yak VSTOL?  

Yeah, both have wings, wheels, engine and all those things right?   Actually is a shitty model of mine but I appreciate you calling it MiG  

you dont know where to stop ont you?      

IMHO it has not been done until now because the technologies were not ripe. But now FCSs are very sophisticated, could couple the control of the plane to the control of the UAV attached to it and use the additional thrust just for take off.

like rocked assisted take off?!

Would make a small carrier a very serious adversary since planes with big range and payload could be launched with them. A carrier with two squadrons worth of multirole fighters is already bigger than many air force bases... don't see no need for 90 planes. And Russia has no money to pay for them, so better to innovate and try to keep things as small as possible

VSTOL carrier?!  now we're talking!      

Isos wrote:

don't see no need for 90 planes. And Russia has no money to pay for them, so better to innovate and try to keep things as small as possible

If they buy navalized Mig's instead of the Mig-35's they want, it could be in the budget.

MiG-35 for carrier entering service in 2030s and to be afloat till 2070-80s? unlikely IMHO

Isos wrote:
If they buy navalized Mig's instead of the Mig-35's they want, it could be in the budget.

You mean, they are buying the -35s to keep MiG afloat and could spare that by buying aircraft for the navy? Could be an option, but how does the -29K compare to the -35? I think the range is clearly better in the newer version, not sure regarding the avionics. The small footprint of the aircraft would be an advantage in any case, if only the range and BVR performance was acceptable to protect a carrier

GunshipDemocracy wrote:like rocked assisted take off?!

Sort of, could be rocket, turbojet or even maybe electrical in some years. A  big, flat UAV attached to the undercarriage with a couple of small turbojets + lifting fans could make up for the lack of catapults. If the Russians don't make it I'm going to make one myself  

If you somehow even manage to catch the plane and land it vertically then you can call it STOVL if you want!!    

AlfaT8 wrote:.....

Still, it's lighter than the Shtorm.

But i very much doubt the MoD will let it pass.

MoD maybe, maybe not but I can guarantee you that MoF will be putting kibosh on this thing before we even get concept art

GarryB wrote:

Therefore the defensive capabilities of such a ship, even when they would constitute an advantage, would only come at a huge cost so that it would not be an optimal solution, as far as the RF maintains its lead in missile technology.

I disagree... a carrier for a surface action group would be like an A-50U and four or five squadrons of MiG-31s defending against cruise missile attack in Syria.

It would make an enormous difference in terms of the number of ships you come home with... and how much is that worth?

Yes, in case of operating very far from Russia and without proper basing carrying AWACS aircraft would be needed, I agree on that. But for most cases I am supposing and hoping a deterrence-oriented posture from Russia. In that case, smaller ships with long range weapons and support from ground assets can keep a carrier group at bay and far from Russian coast. Think of Kalibr, Tu-22M3, Kinzhals... simply no way to stay safe less than 3 or 4 thousand km from Russia. That would do protecting Russia and its maritime routes.

In case of very well justified cases that demand power projection, we enter the scenario you are illustrating, I am not against say 3-4 small groups, but was rather arguing in favour of a newer class of ship, a bit smaller and versatile, based (just as a tentative idea) on a multi-hull design. This would combine the LHD and carrier function due to increased internal volume and deck surface. The improved deck characteristics and take-off assistance explained below intended to offset the obvious advantages in fleet size and specialization of the ships of US Navy. Again, what is best is obvious. The idea is to reach deterrence with a contained cost.

GarryB wrote:

> Regarding air-wing: why is it that among so many UAV solutions like are being currently developed, no "take-off assistant" for fixed-wing aircraft has been suggested? Is it not possible even with current technologies? Essentially a big, flat UAV with very high thrust to weight ratio that would push (vertically and/or horizontally) the aircraft by its undercarriage until it reaches required speed to fly alone and then detaches and lands automatically on the ship. Range needs would be minimal so weight would be essentially devoted to propulsion.

Would have all the same issues as solid rocket booster assistance for takeoffs... to get a useful amount of thrust the jet engines would need to be enormous because they will only have a few seconds to further accelerate the aircraft they are getting airborne... even if you made the flat they would add several tons in weight to each aircraft you are trying to get airborne... and even the most simple design would need to be able to land back on the carrier, which means ability to fly/autopilot and all sorts of extra crap.

EMALS cat is simpler and probably cheaper...

Now that they can produce plasma in their rail guns I would say their EMALs cats are getting better and better all the time.

Yeah of course IF catapults were cheap and reliable you are right. It simply seems they aren't. I cannot critically comment on the reasons but fact is the reported reliability is very low, technology does not seem to be mature and steam catapults are also very cumbersome and complex. They seem restricted (until now) to very big and expensive carriers, otherwise all small carriers would have them. I think a sky jump makes complete sense, but you need to give a little help so the plane can get airborne fully loaded. Maybe you have numbers, but I was thinking in generating like 5-10 ton lift to help raise a light or medium fighter, the horizontal thrust would eventually help accelerate or at least not affect the planes own acceleration. This UAV would be essentially all propulsion, without need for having big tanks for range or any other systems the size and weight would be proportionately much smaller than that of a fighter of similar power.

Since the planes can already take off with a sky jump, this would only be used for some of them, in case full load is needed. Say 5 UAVs would be enough for a ship. The autopilot and related control technology is already there, they would land vertically on an appropriate spot of the deck after the take off procedure with minimum disruption of other operations.

GarryB wrote:

The small footprint of the aircraft would be an advantage in any case, if only the range and BVR performance was acceptable to protect a carrier

Actually BVR performance should be pretty good, but smaller footprint does not exist... the Su-33 has a double folding main wing and can fit just as many as the MiG on the carrier...

Smaller fighter is logically handicapped by smaller power aperture of its radar, I am not very well informed about the 35s, it seems it is not even clear if they have their AESAS already operating, do you know about this?. With AWACs support things change of course.
The Sukhois are longer and bigger in every sense, but they can be packed quite tightly that is true!

GarryB wrote:I would think an enormous crane would be better... attach your plane to the crane via three or four hook points on the top of the aircraft... start the aircrafts engines and swing the crane arm around... as you swing let the chains down so the circle gets bigger and bigger around the carrier and eventually it will be moving fast enough to get enough lift to fly away.

Normal cable arrested landings.

Once released, retract the chains and slow the crane spin and then pick up the next aircraft....

The pilot inside would have some fun indeed

LMFS wrote:

GarryB wrote:

The small footprint of the aircraft would be an advantage in any case, if only the range and BVR performance was acceptable to protect a carrier

Actually BVR performance should be pretty good, but smaller footprint does not exist... the Su-33 has a double folding main wing and can fit just as many as the MiG on the carrier...

Smaller fighter is logically handicapped by smaller power aperture of its radar, I am not very well informed about the 35s, it seems it is not even clear if they have their AESAS already operating, do you know about this?. With AWACs support things change of course.
The Sukhois are longer and bigger in every sense, but they can be packed quite tightly that is true!

GarryB wrote:I would think an enormous crane would be better... attach your plane to the crane via three or four hook points on the top of the aircraft... start the aircrafts engines and swing the crane arm around... as you swing let the chains down so the circle gets bigger and bigger around the carrier and eventually it will be moving fast enough to get enough lift to fly away.

Normal cable arrested landings.

Once released, retract the chains and slow the crane spin and then pick up the next aircraft....  

The pilot inside would have some fun indeed

He would be dead.... Sometimes I wonder if Gary is serious about these suggestions or just trolling.

Isn't it ironic someone who hates it whenever I suggest that more armor on a tank is a good idea posts suggestions like this.

There is a direct correlation between the size of the economy of a given country & her naval shipbuilding. In China, 5 FFGs are made per year, while in the RF only 1/10th of a frigate:

We have commissioned only three frigates in this century - Project 11356. Admiral Grigorovich, Admiral Essen and Admiral Makarov. ..
From the frigates of the project 22350, built since 2006, only two pass the test - Admiral Gorshkov and Admiral Kasatonov. ..
In connection with the current sad situation, the Russian Navy is considering the purchase of eight[!] frigates of Project 054A from China. https://svpressa.ru/war21/article/200297/?aft=1

Economically & politically, Russia has it's plate full in the post-Soviet space & E. Europe to worry about SLOCs to SE Asia, Africa & L. America. Natural disaster relief there can be dealt with by the PRC, Japan, Australia, India, the UK, France, Brazil & the USA. Enemy CVNs can be kept at bay/interdicted by existing & future AD/AD means, & for a lot le$$ than building & deploying its own CBGs.

Extrapolating, if

Displacement: Standard: 4,500 tons                                                              
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Gorshkov-class_frigate

But the new CVN the RuN wants standard displacement is 80,000T, or 17.77 times more. So, if it took on average 10 years to get 1 such FFG, how long will take to get a CVN? Assuming that later ships take only 2 years to build, 17.77x2y= 35.55y., or at least 15-20 years. The shipyards will be different but the budget & production capabilities underwriting them r the same. Simple math! So, buying Chinese built FFGs (w/o using $) will free up all those shipyards to build other ships/subs that they really need.

LMFS wrote:

Russian shipbuilders to present designs of new aircraft carrier by year end

If one of the designs is approved, the experimental design work on the new aircraft carrier may begin in 2019, the source said
Share

MOSCOW, May 16. /TASS/. The United Ship-Building Corporation will present several finalized preliminary designs of a new domestic aircraft carrier to the Defense Ministry by the end of this year, a source in the defense sector told TASS on Wednesday.

If one of the designs is approved, the experimental design work on the new aircraft carrier may begin in 2019, the source said.

"The United Ship-Building Corporation has been instructed to submit its finalized proposals [on the new aircraft carrier] to the Defense Ministry for examination by the end of the year. One of the versions envisage, in particular, building an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 75,000 tonnes," the source said.

If one of the designs is approved, "the ship’s technical designing and the preparation of the design documentation may begin from 2019 and the aircraft carrier may be laid down in 2021-2022 and its construction will last about 10 years, according to preliminary estimates," the source explained.

Russia’s state armament program for 2018-2027 stipulates "initial financing" under the new carrier’s program.

The United Ship-Building Corporation did not comment for TASS on the information provided by the source.

The Russian Navy currently operates the sole medium-size oil-fueled aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov (the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser according to the domestic classification). As the Russian Navy stated before, the fleet expects to get a cutting-edge nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with a displacement of no less than 70,000 tonnes by late 2030.

The Krylov State Research Center earlier designed and unveiled a preliminary design of an aircraft carrier for foreign customers, which was also offered for the domestic Navy. Project 23000 was named Storm. Its sketch design suggests the aircraft carrier will displace 80,000-90,000 tonnes and feature a combined powerplant (both the nuclear reactor and the gas turbine engine). The carrier’s air group is expected to comprise up to 60 aircraft.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/1004641

Pope Dragon always wrong Pontifex Maximus
Militarov
SeigSoloyvov
Isos
Kimppis
Tsavo Lion
Gunship Democracy

The reality begins to provide you what you deserve after months of baseless and shameless insults. The reality begins to provide you what you worked for...

GarryB wrote:

But for most cases I am supposing and hoping a deterrence-oriented posture from Russia.

I am too, but if Russia can't defend her international interests then she will be in trouble... western economic pressure and sanctions will limit here growth and her relations with the countries of the world.

I suspect a lot of countries in the world want to trade and grow their economies and to expand and develop as countries... western trade does not encourage that... it makes a few people in power rich and tends to use the poor population as cheap labour to make products for enormous international companies.... cheap labour, don't pay proper taxes, no worker rights... you know... the stuff accountants love because workers are numbers not people and it is great for profit, which is all they care for.

Russia does not need to invade countries to trade with them, but needs strong naval assets to prevent blockades and intimidation to prevent western countries trying to scare Russia away from their "sphere of influence".

first Russia has long way to grow on internal market to be able to build and maintain CSGs. Secondly to task you mentioned you dont need any mega carrier. Small one does its job as good. You down one ship is like you attack Russia. why in Syria nobody dared to attack Russian troops?

GarryB wrote:

Isos wrote:Again bullshit.

Why?

Do you think the Shipyard does not have any idea of what is happening?

The armament programme for the next 10 years says a lot of things that are planned to happen, now you hear from a shipyard involved that things might be different and all of a sudden that is bullshit...

I seem to remember people calling Eehnie out because he referred to previous ten year plans which showed money for carriers and he was ridiculed because one plan or another did not eventually happen.

Of course such people must be pretty fucking stupid and not understand what a plan actually is, but then claiming it is the word of god and must be obeyed isn't very sensible either.... it is a fucking plan... you don't just have a one step plan where you own your own house... you need a multistep plan to get you there... and sometimes you don't get a choice and have to change steps, perhaps even remove them or change direction or even goal for the plan.

Ivan Gren is an excellent example of steps as well as goals being changed during development, but to the fanboi it is just a broken promise right...

Everyone plans, and no one is perfect... plans need to be changed all the time, but no one has said we don't need carriers any more have they?

I was attacked, I was insulted, but not ridiculized, because the reality always was in my side.

Plans change, here we agree. But not everthing. A minimum knowledge about the nature of every plan helps to preview what parts can change and what parts not. And this is what the fanboys lack. And this is why their argumets are ridiculized by end by the reality.

Here I was insulted by defending that the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 was and is in force. Well, who said in 2017 and at the begin of 2018 the contrary, has a problem with the reality, and their arguments and insults will be ridiculized by the reality mercylessly.

Other thing that changes not easily is the procedure for addopting a ship:
- Preliminary Design and its nature.
- Examination by the Ministry of Defense and approbation.
- Technical Design and begin of construction.
- Laid Down is not exactly the point when the construction begins.
Here Isos have a strong problem with the reality. A problem that we will analyze carefully.

Fanboys can insult, can attack, but lack any taste, any knowledge to know what part of the plans is of higher or lower range, and as consequence they know not what can be changed or not.

And not all was lack of knowledge. The list of fanboys is plagued of zionists that only want low armed small ships for Russia.

The reality takes revenge. Hard time for agressive fanboys.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:like rocked assisted take off?!

Sort of, could be rocket, turbojet or even maybe electrical in some years. A  big, flat UAV attached to the undercarriage with a couple of small turbojets + lifting fans could make up for the lack of catapults. If the Russians don't make it I'm going to make one myself  

If you somehow even manage to catch the plane and land it vertically then you can call it STOVL if you want!!    

You see when you got more time you can get to good conclusions - VSTOL (technically same a s STVOL) LMFS could be perfect fit for new AC

GarryB wrote:

But for most cases I am supposing and hoping a deterrence-oriented posture from Russia.

I am too, but if Russia can't defend her international interests then she will be in trouble...

Yes, this is what I am saying. Below and in some posts before. But the size of the fleet can be kept contained at the same time if:
> Main goal remains defence of the own territory
> Defence of allies is commensurate and exerted with great restrain. Intervention in Syria is a political success, apart from a military one, because it was effective and proportionate. Afghanistan was a failure because it was not. Restrictions make virtue...

GarryB wrote:

In that case, smaller ships with long range weapons and support from ground assets can keep a carrier group at bay...

Half right... these small ships and coastal missiles and aircraft delivered missiles and ship launched missiles are ideal for blunting any attack on Russia, but how will they deal with a naval blockade of Venezuela...

We are saying the same here

GarryB wrote:

This would combine the LHD and carrier function... The idea is to reach deterrence with a contained cost.

Doing it half arsed and on the cheap is not a good idea....

xD Yes indeed, it must be fully arsed please!
Whatever you want to see it, cost is THE essential issue. More even with the navy due to the sheer costs of the equipment. What I say is nothing more than following the long-standing Russian approach of using the advantages of new technologies and a defensive stance to make deterrence very cost effective. Defending is cheap, attacking with impunity is expensive, it is a matter of life. And innovation is the key. Known standards need to be constantly reviewed in light of new technical possibilities.

Cost reduction in this proposal would come from the following:
> Smaller size of vessel, since deck surface can be proportionally bigger and take-off and landing spaces do not interfere with each other. Say 250 m long. Take off from the stern on one side of the ship (no take-off assistance most of the time), landing on the other side of the ship. Due to independent areas, deck can be configured for different missions
> Derived from the independence of take-of and landing and in fact possibility of two parallel take-offs or landings, higher operational tempo. So less planes can do more. Two squadrons is essentially the size of Russian fighter/bomber force in Syria so this is a significant force if effectively operated.
> No need to build and operate LHD and carrier in parallel. Those are the biggest and most expensive ships in a fleet, so it is obvious that if they can be unified you get a huge economy. Multi-hull would have bigger internal volume together with greater stability and small hull drag, may be a good option.
> Increased internal volume allows to dedicate more space to ASW, AD, land attack, ordnance, fuel etc., reducing the need for support of additional ships and increasing endurance.

GarryB wrote:

Yeah of course IF catapults were cheap...

They are still new and need development and progress.... who better to perfect them than the Russians?...

Nothing against EMALS, I find the concept great, since it allows reducing stress to the airframe and needs no plumbing. Just thinking of an alternative, since I only read about the costs and problems of existing systems. Going further into the future though, the take-off assistant could also develop into landing assistant and that would be also very cool and have further advantages xD

GarryB wrote:

They seem restricted (until now) to very big and expensive carriers, otherwise all small carriers would have them

Small carriers are not as much use.

Why? They can be made effective IMHO, that is exactly what I mean.

GarryB wrote:They have stated a cat system and a ski jump... the fighters they put on this carrier should be able to get airborne on the ski jump alone it will only be AWACS and tanker and cargo aircraft (hopefully based on the same airframe) that need the cat to get airborne.

Yes, those planes have typically much less powerful propulsion than fighters. But since Russia has essentially no operating fixed wing AWACS etc, no loss in designing the appropriate airframes. You have many possible designs to cover those missions. Not going in detail now but consider the Hawkeye has 2700 km range and 6 hour endurance, even a fighter can achieve that.

GarryB wrote:

I think a sky jump makes complete sense, but you need to give a little help so the plane can get airborne fully loaded.

The fighter planes will carry air to air loads and therefore almost never take off at full weight anyway...

Agree, air to air missions are not the most demanding in that regard. A mission like Syria can be different, even when the Russians do not massively load the planes with ordnance normally and the Kuznetsov managed to operate on such missions without catapults. Maybe the extended take-off run proposed above would allow doing away with assistance, cannot now without doing intensive research.

GarryB wrote:Landing and takeoff cycles on a carrier deck can look chaotic... adding extra landings... even vertical ones is just a pain in the ass.

I do not know enough about deck operations to discuss this but I understand that operating the catapult is also a complex task that needs to be taken care of.

GarryB wrote:Making this flat super engined UAV sounds bloody complicated and tricky... for a decent take off force you are probably looking at 4-8 tons of engines and fuel alone and that is without balancing the design to make it VL.

Even if you replaced all a fighters external weapons with solid fuelled rockets I don't think it would be enough... modern fighters are more than twice the weight of the old zero take off experiments with Mig-17/19s and things...

The F-135 is capable of 180 kN for hover if I am not wrong, weight of the engine (without lifting fan) is 1700 kg. We would be talking about less than half of the lift so I think weight would be significantly less. I will try to make a estimation of fuel consumption, that is an important point.

Would be no doubt an expensive design but one with lots of potential in many areas.

GarryB wrote:With AWACS support the range of the aircrafts' radar is not so critical as its ability to work in a network... which I suspect the MIG-35 will have no problem with... the Su-33 is a more primitive much less multi role aircraft than the MiG-29KR let alone the MiG-35.

Yes this is also what I think. In any case it seems the PAK-FA has also been designed compatible, at least apparently, with carrier operations. Another option should the need come.

[quote="GarryB"]

There is a direct correlation between the size of the economy of a given country & her naval shipbuilding. In China, 5 FFGs are made per year, while in the RF only 1/10th of a frigate:

So Germany must have an enormous navy then right because the german economy is bigger than Russias...

Economically & politically, Russia has it's plate full in the post-Soviet space & E. Europe to worry about SLOCs to SE Asia, Africa & L. America.

Economically Russia has little to no relations with eastern europe... sanctions and NATO encroachment not to mention coloured revolutions in places like the Ukraine makes it a don't bother region for Russia...

Natural disaster relief there can be dealt with by the PRC, Japan, Australia, India, the UK, France, Brazil & the USA.

Do you think they do that for everyone who needs it.... where is the help for Yemen?

So, buying Chinese built FFGs (w/o using $) will free up all those shipyards to build other ships/subs that they really need.

Fuck off. the last time Russia bought major ships from abroad it was the Mistrals...
The time it would take to redesign the Type-054A with modern Russian components and systems and equipment it would not be worth the effort.

Don't u curse at me again, so called moderator! With foul language u give a bad example to others & allow Eehnie use red colored text & insult all of us who disagree with him!
"Direct correlation" isn't automatic, & every rule has exceptions: Germany has no need for a big blue water navy, she is allied with France & UK with larger navies, & she lost any taste for more wars. Even the as the #2 economy, “China doesn’t have to throw around its naval weight like the US does, we don’t need to wage a war in far-flung littoral waters on the other side of the world and thus we don’t need so many carriers as far as our ability goes, and we have no intention to police the world,” the Global Times quoted a retired naval admiral as saying. http://www.atimes.com/article/beijing-wants-six-carriers-but-wont-compete-with-the-us/
Much less Russia that has neither the comparable economy nor as vulnerable & long SLOCs to import raw materials & export its goods.
But, the RF is still Ukraine's biggest trading/investment partner:
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russia-becomes-ukraines-biggest-trading-partner-2017-60573
In 2015, the Czech president said that "commercial ties to Russia are vital for the Czech economy". https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-czech/on-kremlin-visit-czech-president-is-among-friends-idUSKBN0NU0NM20150509
For the rest:
http://www.transport-exhibitions.com/Market-Insights/Russia/Russia-the-Baltics-transport-logistics
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/exports-to-hungary
https://tradingeconomics.com/hungary/exports/russia
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201708281056864428-putin-russia-hungary-trade/
https://tradingeconomics.com/romania/exports/russia
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/exports-to-romania
https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/bgr/

But even more important, there's large # of ethnic Russians/mixed Russians/Russified Ukrainians with ties to Russia in all the former Soviet republics & E. European states.  Don't assume they'll let it become a bigger problem for them later with NATO/EU next door sticking its noses/already there. Events in Crimea & Donbass r just a prelude.
Disaster relief is less important than saving its own citizens; such missions r secondary to them & don't justify spending $Bs on CVNs.
Also, Yasen' &/Oscar SSGNs, escorted by SSNs can get to remote areas faster & make any naval blockade very costly, & from 400-500 km away.
Planes don't have such strong points for being swung by chains & launched before they fall apart, or some1 would already done it! Finally, they could outfit the Type-054A hulls with their existing armaments & systems a lot faster than building them from scratch, even if modified. India, PRC, Taiwan & Israel bought many Russian, French,US & German ships & subs before because they were available or ordered new while it would take too long to build them domestically in need #s. Do they all still have only Soviet/Russian/French/US/German armaments & systems? If so, pl. show me!

GarryB wrote:

first Russia has long way to grow on internal market to be able to build and maintain CSGs.

She wont grow by importing Chinese ships... even if they are cheap.

I didnt say anything about buying CVNs or any ships from China        My point as: there is the whole asia and Europe reachable via land. This is enough big market to grow. Not tomention growing Russian level of life to say Germany makes Russia GDP like  8trillions nominative.

So you had mines and steel mills on NZ? I've found a documentary about it

GarryB wrote:

Secondly to task you mentioned you dont need any mega carrier. Small one does its job as good. You down one ship is like you attack Russia. why in Syria nobody dared to attack Russian troops?

A bigger carrier can carry more planes and larger AWACS types and better support the Russian fleet... they will need two... whether they are 70K ton or 35K ton, so while 70K ton will cost more you get a better product for the money.

Most normal countries would not try to sink any Russian vessel, but some are fucked up and will even attack allies ships... look at the attack on the USS Liberty...
If the carrier that finally came to help was closer there might not have been a torpedo attack that killed so many Americans...

Very true, times changed though.  In vital places Husky/Yasen or Belgorods/Poseidon will be around not ot mention PAK-DA or Avangards from Russia.  Time of mega carriers is gone I believe. Small one with 20-30 airwing is as good fo colonial war or and costs 1/4 of mega  . Her fighters still can use GZUR rockets with 1500kms range to keep enemy ships at bay.

A ship of the size of the old Gorshkov (Baku), which they sold to India. With nuclear propulsion. Smaller island. Silos for missiles around the flight deck. 2 or 3 catapults plus sky jump. Should be able to carry 12 x Su-57K + 3 x Yak-44 AEW&C aircraft and a few helicopters. Or 24 MiG-29K + 3 Yak-44 + a few helicopters. Or 40 - 50 helicopters (Ka-27/-29/-31/-52). Or a lot of combat and rec drones.

Five questions about the new aircraft carrier

  Recently (16.05), after a long break, specific information appeared on the design of a new aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy. An anonymous source in the defense industry said that before the end of 2018 USC (read - Nevskoye Design Bureau) should present to the customer several variants of the finalized technical proposal (the term according to GOST, synonyms - a preliminary design, pre-design project), one of which has a (total) displacement of 75,000 tons. The information about the initial funding of the aircraft carrier and the estimated duration of the construction of "about 10 years", which were laid in the GPO 2018-2027, do not deserve - the beginning of the development of the technical project in 2019 and the laying of the main ship in 2021-2022. (ref. 1). After choosing a variant of the preliminary design, sketch design should begin and only then the technical one, which will move the mentioned terms to the right for several years (to the second half of the GPO).

   Below is the author's version of the article published in "Vzglyad" on March 23, 2013 (ref. 2). Much of the above is already mentioned in the blog, but the topic of creating new system-forming ships for the Russian Navy is so important that it is not a sin to repeat what has been said over and over again - in order to remind against the background of a dreary news line, full of messages about the construction of intercontinental and anti-sabotage boats, and the main thing we need to strive for (even if the aspirations exceed what is achievable at the moment).


Perspective aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy (based on the image - a model with a screenshot from the news release of the TV channel "Russia-1" on 10.11.2012 with militaryrussia.ru)


   No matter how bitterly it is to lose 10 years to build a "coastal defense fleet" (ref. 3), a pause in the development of the ocean component of the Russian Navy, taken for the period of the GPO 2018-2027, still promises to be of use to the cause. Even for the scant information that is brought to the public, it can be judged that the Supreme High Command, the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and the Navy's commander-in-chief are not going to abandon the ocean fleet - the implementation of the program of its creation is planned to begin already in the second half of the recently adopted LG.

   A key element of the ocean fleet is to become an aircraft carrier of a new project, which is soon to be launched by a variety of people - Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov (ref. 4), Deputy Navy Commissar for Armament V. Bursuk (Ref. 5), Chief of the Institute of Shipbuilding and Armament of the VUNTS Navy Maximov (reference 6) and others. There is practically no information on the real appearance of the new AB in the media, so let's try to form it in a logical way, answering the five main questions: why, what, how much, where to build and at what price?


What for?

The question "why" land "(continental) aircraft carriers?" belongs to the category of entrenched misunderstandings. There are well-founded fears that those fellow citizens who ask it are unlikely to be converted into the right faith. Nevertheless, we will try to do this.

Scenarios with carrier-based battles with the AUAG of the US Navy during the Third World War are best left to the authors of anti-utopias, since there will primarily be used other forces and means (although the Russian CAG, which has survived somewhere in the Arctic, may well become a weighty argument in the post-war world order). Therefore, consider not apocalyptic, but more ordinary variants of the development of events.

First, let's imagine that Iran and Iraq would not provide Russia with an air corridor for the delivery of military cargo to Syria, and Turkey would block the Bosporus and Dardanelles for transports with weapons. Next, imagine a situation similar to the Syrian one, with some peculiarities making the deployment on the foreign territory of the airbase impossible or temporarily impossible (before the maritime amphibious operation). At the same time, Russia would be bound by international obligations, the renunciation of which would have catastrophic consequences for the country's prestige in the world arena. How in this situation to do without a ship carrier group, reinforced by an amphibious group led by the UDC?

Who can guarantee that the Americans and their NATO partners will not once again, in circumvention of the UN Security Council, free from the oppression of the "totalitarian" regime any third world state with which we are linked by close partnership relations? Would not it be better, instead of useless note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to send our nearest CAG to the shores of this state and prevent armed intervention, as was the case during the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 (with the difference that there was not a CAG but an IBM)?

Suppose that the Russian business has invested very large money in the creation of industrial production on some islands, and the CIA has begun there one of the special operations to change the power and drive out competitors from the zone of their national interests. Another option: at the request of the US Justice Department, the authorities of a certain seaside state detained a Russian citizen (as it was already countless times) and are going to extradite him to American justice. More: a commercial or fishing vessel belonging to Russia (remember the story of the trawler "Oleg Naidyonov") was detained near the banks of the banana republic, disrespect for the Russian flag was shown. Do you want to give this case to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or, after all, to the CAG? I think there are enough examples.

Which one?

Since today there is not even a tactical technical task (TTZ), but only an unfinished "perspective study of an aircraft carrier for the needs of the Russian Navy" (from the NPCB report for 2016 - reference , it will be necessary, as mentioned above, to call for help logic.

The little-aesthetic (two-edged) giant concept-project of the Krylov Scientific Center (23,000 "Storm"), widely known for publications of the media, should not be taken seriously because of wide popularity (the development approved by the military would be kept strictly confidential) and conceptual (the design of aircraft carriers is a specialization not of KGNC, but exclusively of the NPKB).

The new aircraft carrier can not be smaller than Kuznetsov and more than Nimitz. It can not be less for a number of reasons: 1) we will not be able to surpass the potential enemy by the number - only by quality (TTX); therefore, there must be a competitive air group on AB, which requires a lot of space to accommodate; 2) the Kuznetsov hangar is already small - no more than 70% of the air group is located in it, and the new AB will have to operate in the Arctic; 3) the school of Russian carrier pilots was formed on the "Kuznetsov" (there were simply no other options), the dimensions of its flight deck (305x70 m) - a kind of standard (like the size of a football field); 4) from considerations of prestige, we can not afford to yield to the Chinese or the British. To build AB more than American would be diligence not on reason and not afford, therefore, most likely, the full displacement of the aircraft carrier of the new project will fit into the range of 60,000-100,000 tons. and will be located closer to its middle (80,000 tons) - almost like 11437 (75,000 tons).

As for the air group, we must definitely "put" on the deck of the Su-57. Taking into account the disastrous state of the Super Hornet Park (reference 9), the plans for their updating (reference 11), partial replacement on the F-35C and the full one for the new generation F / A-XX (not earlier than 2020) -2030-ies), the Russian Navy has every chance to beat competitors in a bend. At the same time, information (if we consider it as disinformation) about the planned development of flawed VCVP (vertical / shortened takeoff and landing aircraft) is at least meaningful (reference 12) - so that competitors are not too rushed to implement the F / A-XX program.

The projected number of the air group of TAVKR av. 11437 was 68-70 aircraft, which roughly corresponded to the conventional norm of 1000 tons of [normal?] Displacement per aircraft (Ref. 13). It seems reasonable to leave the same number of vehicles on the new aircraft carrier as on 11437, but to distribute them by analogy with the proven structure of the aircraft wing of the Nimitz type aircraft, which has been tested for years and combat experience. In this case, we would have 4 three-link (4x12) Su-57 squadrons (three with self-tracking and one for the long-range aviation cover of the CAG), four AWACS aircraft, four specialized EW aircraft and one mixed squadron of helicopters from 12 different vehicles. A total of 68 aircraft.

On the battlefield in the Arctic latitudes (on the Northern Sea Route), the size of the air group will be determined by the size of the hangar, which certainly should be more roomy than on the Kuznetsov (according to various estimates, 32-36 cars out of 46-50) - say: 1x12 and 2x8 Su-57 , 4 AWACS, 2 EW, 8 helicopters, totaling 42 aircraft.

Taking into account the fact that the decision to use the nuclear power plant on new destroyers has already been adopted (ref. 14), the aircraft carrier will undoubtedly also be an atomic carrier. The springboard will be mandatory, electromagnetic catapults, most likely, too (their development, according to the former director general of the Nevsky PCB, S. Vlasov, has already begun - reference 15). Displaced in the stern is a compact "island", at least three aircraft lifts (on Kuznetsov two), of weapons, apparently, only ZRK and ZRPK near and near the border will remain - that's all you can judge by reading Vlasov's interview and looking on the model, from time to time falling into the newscasts and information-cognitive television programs. Other details are not so important.

How many?

It is clear that we can not afford the same large (huge) military fleet as the US, which is the foundation of the security of the richest country in the world. Accordingly, 10-12 super-aircraft carriers with wings, escort ships and infrastructure for us: a) un-affordable, b) are redundant.

In order to assess the number of AC necessary and sufficient for the Russian Navy, we will be guided by a simple and understandable quantity - the number of aircraft carrier groups providing the projection of force on any area of ​​the World Ocean permanently on combat duty. Obviously, there must be two such groups (operational squadrons) - from the North and Pacific fleets, the first of which controls the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, the second - the Indian and Pacific Oceans (the Arabian Sea with the Persian Gulf, the Arctic Ocean and the newfound Southern Oceans can be considered zone of responsibility of both ACGs).

In order for one aircraft carrier, which is a system-forming element of the ACG, to be permanently in the sea (say, on a semi-annual BS), it is necessary that the other, when the time comes, be ready to replace it, and before that it would restore technical readiness, and his crew was resting and practicing combat training before another BS. The third aircraft carrier, in turn, must undergo a lengthy medium repair with modernization. Thus, in order to react promptly to the challenge thrown to us by someone in distant waters, it is necessary to have six aircraft carriers in the fleet's combat staff.

Theoretically, with a well-planned schedule of medium repairs, you can manage with five aircraft carriers, but one of them will have to wander from one fleet to another. With four AXs (and even less with fewer of them), continuous BSs in two regions of the World Ocean far from each other are no longer possible, and in which case we will have to mobilize all our naval forces in an emergency mode, as was the case with the English during the Falklands War.

Where to build?

When looking at the panorama of the Northern Machine Building Enterprise (Sevmash, Severodvinsk), the first thing that strikes us is the fact that one of its ellings (shop 55) is twice as high as the other (shop 50). For what, it would seem, in the first half of the 1970s it was necessary to erect a cyclopean structure, which, according to the Military Acceptance, is larger than the Red Square (330x75 m) and above the Cathedral of St. Basil the Blessed (65 m), if the overall height of the Borea RPLSN prospect 955 and 955A) with retractable devices does not exceed 30 m?

The thing is that they built "on growth". The modernization of the enterprise allowed in the long term to use a wide dock of a new workshop for the construction of large aircraft carriers. Before the collapse of the USSR, this need did not arise (the aircraft carriers built in Nikolaev), but now the Soviet legacy will be very useful for us, although for its use it will be necessary to reconstruct the launching complex (the pool) and, possibly, the gate of the boat, 17). As for the main (boat) products of Sevmash, after the completion of the series "Boreev-A" and "Yaseney-M" (approximately in 2023-2025 - just before the start of production preparation for the construction of a new AB) for "Boreyev-B" and "Husky" should be enough for eight (?) plant sites in the shop 50.

In favor of Sevmash, the fact that it is the only Russian shipyard that has practical experience of realignment (and in fact, built from scratch) of a ship of this class for the Indian Navy, speaks. However, one SMP will be small. Ships should be built serially and in parallel - for the sake of economy of means and acceleration of updating of ship structure. The second real contractor, the Baltic Plant (who knows how to build large ships with nuclear power plants), is in doubt, since it is densely occupied by the icebreakers of Pr. 22220, whose construction is, moreover, delayed (not through the fault of the BZ), and in the future even more powerful "Leaders "(item 10510). The Northern Shipyard is clearly out of the game, because its main products (after "warming up" in the form of two UDCs) should be other "Leaders" (destroyers pr. 23560).

If nothing happens with the Baltic plant (it would be very unfortunate, since this is an ideal option), the second carrier shipyard may become the shipbuilding complex Zvezda in Primorye, which is not yet available, but the voiced potential is impressive (ref. 18). I would like to believe that in the near future we will be able to build warships and civil vessels of all classes and types, not only in the west, but also in the east.

At what price?

In 2014, in two of his interviews, Vlasov outlined the upper limit of the cost of a prospective aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy at 250-300 billion rubles. (ref. 13, ref. 15), recalculation by the inflation factor for April of this year. There are reports that of the 19 trillion rubles planned for rearmament in the GPO 2018-2027, "each type and type of troops [SV, VKS, Navy, Strategic Missile Forces, Airborne Forces] will receive approximately the same number of means" (ref. 20 ). In this case, the share of the fleet will be about 3.8 trillion - less than the GPV 2011-2020 (4.7 trillion), but also a lot.

If in the next LGP the bar is kept at the same level (by itself, taking into account inflation, which promises to be much lower), and the first two aircraft carriers will be built simultaneously and the construction will take 10 years, the carrier share of the naval part of the GPV will be about 20% quite acceptable.

The Russian aircraft carrier will be approximately twice as cheap as Ford ($ 12.9 billion), even at the official dollar exchange rate (not to mention the PPP), but it should be borne in mind that in both cases the cost of the air group (wing) is not taken into account, which increases the cost of AB a minimum of one and a half times. If we take into account the minimum, the share of the aircraft carrier part of the GPU (30%) can still be considered acceptable, if this value is exceeded (which is very likely taking into account the large number of expensive cars of the 5th generation), either the SPV funds will be redistributed in favor of the Navy, or " dilute "the air group with cheaper aircraft, for example, the MiG-35K.

Note. * With the promised annual inflation rate in Russia 4%, by 2025 (the year of the bookmark) our aircraft carrier will cost about 470 billion rubles. "Ford" by that time will rise in price to $ 14.7 billion (annual inflation of 2% - reference 21) or 910 billion rubles. at the rate of 62. 910/470 = 1.94.

Taking into account the possible "fluctuations of the party line", which we have seen enough already, a variety of external and internal force majeures, full of confidence that the construction of the aircraft carrier will not be postponed for another 10 or even 20 years, of course, be can not. However, there is a vague (almost irrational) feeling that the point of no return on the way to the ocean carrier fleet has already been passed, and the military and political leadership of the country has achieved a clear understanding of the need to have such an effective instrument of foreign policy (geopolitics), as operational in both hemispheres of the operational The squadrons, consisting of shipborne aircraft carrier and landing groups, completed on the principle of reasonable sufficiency. All that is required of us in the foreseeable future - not turning and not looping, go to the intended goal. It's worth it.

https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/191636.html

Let me rephrase it: there is a direct correlation between the size of the economy of a given country & her ability in naval shipbuilding.
Russia/USSR (land lease, war prizes) been buying & using foreign built ships since the Peter I, while also building her own. For decades & until recently, China, India, Iran, Vietnam, both Koreas, Australia, & S. Americans did the same. As a stopgap measure, getting 8 FFGs from the PRC won't decimate Russian economy, but will buy them time & extra units that would be ready to deploy sooner. France can go to hell as far as Russia is concerned, just like the UK- most of the time, they were their adversaries & outright enemies. But, if the Mongols had to use Chinese engineers, crossbowmen & gunpowder in sieges & silk underwear (for protection against arrows) to conquer Russia, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria & the ME, why can't Russia buy Chinese ships now if it would benefit them?
Go ahead, send ur sling shot proposal & patent it in Russia!
Bad comparison: the blacks in USA don't have much clout even internally, much less in foreign policy- otherwise S. Africa wouldn't have imprisoned N. Mandela for 27 years! Ethnic Russians travel to/from Russia all the time ever since USSR breakup & have close family & business ties with it; Putin said that Russia won't allow a bloodbath in Donbass- watch what'll happen soon when Ukraine tries to retake it again. The same with other areas anywhere close to the RF borders with large Russian speaking population- be it in the Baltics, Moldova, & Central Asia.
SSGNs can sink/disable surface ships, just like ARA G. Belgrano was in 1982: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano
A warning may be given to avoid it, but if it's not heeded they'll have only themselves to blame.
Better translation: "it's not certain that the construction of the aircraft carrier will not be postponed for another 10 or even 20 years". Even if it does start on time, most likely it'll take a few years longer than planned to complete & get accepted. By that time, the world will be unrecognizable & there may be space based systems capable of tracking CB/SGs in real time & hypersonic weapons to destroy them in minutes.

Isos wrote: They bought only 48 su-35 because it was too expensive and went for su-30 instead,

only the first contract was 48 second 50 units for RuAF

don't expect them to buy 70 su-57 for naval aviation while even the air force will have hard time to get that much.

Lot of people forget that a carrier is not only a ship but tens of modern fighters jets that need to be bought.

True but Russia has a choice : either navalize Su-57 what is not necessarily the best idea (by sheer surface is like more 1,5 of F-35) or use new light fighter worked by  MiG now.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
Better translation: "it's not certain that the construction of the aircraft carrier will not be postponed for another 10 or even 20 years". Even if it does start on time, most likely it'll take a few years longer than planned to complete & get accepted. By that time, the world will be unrecognizable & there may be space based systems capable of tracking CB/SGs in real time & hypersonic weapons to destroy them in minutes.

They surely will be. But B-52 and An-2 still will rule the skies As for CVNs true but their role will change. They dont need to disappear , just change roles? more diversity in applications, more drones. IMHO will go to mix of LHD/light CVN and ASW ships