Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

there will be no Su-57 navalized

I know, just used it for the sake of the argument.

Anyway what Chinese/Indian programmes for ACs have to to with Russia?

Russia needs $ from Indian orders for her own yards to build CVNs, hence the offer to build them a CV; if India-PRC relations improve, there'll be even less need for India to have it.
There's a "love triangle" of RF-India-PRC.

"Today the engine has been launched [research on its creation has been launched], and today we are working on this topic and in the near future some kind of concept will be approved.

They already have reactors for them:

The vessel's two RITM-200 reactors have been completed and are being installed this year prior to the setting of the accommodation block. With an output of 80,000 HP (60 megawatts) they will give Arktika the capacity to break through floating ice almost ten feet (3 meters) thick using a triple shaft arrangement and ice-strengthened propellers.
http://www.pacmar.com/story/2017/02/01/features/russias-new-icebreakers/492.html

These may not be ready yet: "RITM-400 reactors with a total 120 MW capacity" for the new Leader icebreakers:
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/2018/07/monster-icebreaker-might-reshape-arctic-shipping
http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/nuclear-russia/2018-08-putin-slated-to-announce-construction-of-enormous-sci-fi-nuclear-icebreaker
http://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2018-03-russian-nuclear-icebreaker-reactor-sets-troubling-run-time-record http://mil.today/2017/Science28/

Tsavo Lion wrote:

kumbor wrote:Best sea speed of Nimitz was 31,5kts.
Kuz`s best 23 knots is below any operational need, because ship sails into wind when operating aircraft, and ship speed adds also! That's why carriers are fast ships.

The USN CVN top speed is classified; it's declared as "in excess of 30 kts". Years ago I heard from sailors that they can do as high as ~45 kts, if not more. The conventional CV-63 did a high speed run in 1998 doing ~35-38 kts for > an hour. Later it sailed from Singapore to the Arabian Gulf in < than 4 days. https://www.searoutes.com/portdistance?fromName=Fujairah&fromLocode=AEFJR&toName=Singapore&toLocode=SGSIN

3,316nm/4=828.9nm per day/24hr=34.54 kts.

Many people on this Forum show elementary ignorance of the matter!!! 45 knots for USN CVN carrier? It`s not funny. USN CVNs has turbines developing some 260.000 SHP on four shafts nominal, or some 290.000 with 10% overload. For such ship to attain 45 knots they would need not 600.000 SHP, but probably some 1.000.000SHP for any speed close to 45 knots. Such turbines don`t exist and they are impossible to build on four shafts. maybe on, say, also impossible eight shaft arrangement! Please, turn on your brain, think! Not to say that there is no need for such speed!

Speed record of french destroyer Le Terrible of 45,02knots, dating from 1936, still stands for a displacement type hull of a major warship! USN LCS1 type are somewhere near that speed. I find such speed unnecessary, needless, useless and plainly, impossible for a fleet carrier! What do you want carrier to do - escape from an aircraft, or what!? BEST SEASPEED EVER recorded OF USN NIMITZ CLASS CARRIERS IS ABOUT 31-32 KNOTS, and now even less, due to overload after numerous refits.

There is some video of the model in this but its mostly guy talking to camera

Pics via Balancer




Planes are 2-seat, could it be navalised Su-30SM?



Spec sheet definitively ties the model to the specs




I was going to say it looked like a huge stern overhang but ommitted because angle wasn't clear but this pic shows it  

Thats quite ludicrous

I think the 20386 wedge type hull shape is confirmed, additionally with tunnel stern which will help with the stability.

IMO a finalised version is likely to be heavier more like K weight, or will at least have that stern overhang cut back.

It looks like the guys working only their arms at the gym but forget the legs

Anyway, is there an engineer who could analyse the design. Will it be able to sail good enough with such a small body and big "airport" on it. The gravity center should be high? No ? If they build one and figure out it has the same issue as german frigates, it will launch the fighters into the water.

Isos wrote:It looks like the guys working only their arms at the gym but forget the legs

Anyway, is there an engineer who could analyse the design. Will it be able to sail good enough with such a small body and big "airport" on it. The gravity center should be high? No ? If they build one and figure out it has the same issue as german frigates, it will launch the fighters into the water.

By my opinion, it is clearly impossible to build useful carrier with main dimensions identical to Kuz and 37/44.000 tons ship displacement! Such a carrier with such a displacement can be built only of marine grade aluminium and composites, and it isn`t serious!. Carrier needs extensive constructive protection, especially underwater. I am deeply convinced that it is impossible to build such a huge ship within such limited displacement! Obviously we are dealing with Krylow institute joke to riddle the West that Russians are capable of defying laws of physics, mechanics and shipbuilding! Krylow NII guys are serious scientists and naval engineers. 110.000SHP on two shafts can give this ship 25 knots at best!

kumbor wrote:

Isos wrote:It looks like the guys working only their arms at the gym but forget the legs

Anyway, is there an engineer who could analyse the design. Will it be able to sail good enough with such a small body and big "airport" on it. The gravity center should be high? No ? If they build one and figure out it has the same issue as german frigates, it will launch the fighters into the water.

By my opinion, it is clearly impossible to build useful carrier with main dimensions identical to Kuz and 37/44.000 tons ship displacement! Such a carrier with such a displacement can be built only of marine grade aluminium and composites, and it isn`t serious!. Carrier needs extensive constructive protection, especially underwater. I am deeply convinced that it is impossible to build such a huge ship within such limited displacement! Obviously we are dealing with Krylow institute joke to riddle the West that Russians are capable of defying laws of physics, mechanics and shipbuilding! Krylow NII guys are serious scientists and naval engineers. 110.000SHP on two shafts can give this ship 25 knots at best!

I think they proposed a very simple carrierthat is probably empty and not armoured. In this way 44kT is possible but it is hard to imagine how it could be effective.

Isos wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:They don't even mention the SU-57! To me, it means that the SU-57 isn't being considered for navalization or they don't believe it's possible.
Also, the 2 forward launch positions indicated by raised JBDs looks too short from the edge of the bow.

The new small Shtorm does not include the Su-57, but neither reachs 70000 tons. Half of aircrafts for half cost, but with aircrafts of lower quality.

The Su-57 was present even in the Presentation of the export variant of the Project 23000 Shtorm in 2015. This is enough to see the close relation between both projects since many years. And to assume strong technical feedback between them.

Shipyards don't decide if su-57 is navalized or not.

The small shtorm is meant for export. Su-57 is still not proposed for export. Maybe that's why they didn't put it on the maket.

Only the amount and range of permissions needed by a Russian design bureau in order to be able to present a project of aircraft carrier in a exhibition, make not possible that the presence of the Su-57 in the presentation of the Project 23000 Shtorm in 2015 be casual.

Neither the absence of the Su-57 in the light Shtorm presented now is casual. Obviously this aircraft carrier does not fit the requirement of 70000+ tons stabished recently by the Russian Navy, and is unlikely to be approbed and ordered by Russia.

The big Shtorm with the Su-57 only will be offered to China, India and maybe Pakistan, it depends of the regional ballance. Russia will have not problem exporting Su-57 to them, at the time.

If countries like Iran, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Thailand, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, Venezuela or others like them want some aircraft carrier, they can have access to the small Shtorm.

Using new propulsion technology they can reduce a lot of weight.... for instance with a nuclear propulsion system with electric pods at the front and rear means no bit centralised propulsion system with enormous heavy shafts to deliver power to the propellers.

The pods can be placed front and rear so it should be able to manouver itself into and out of port or in narrow confines.

GarryB wrote:Using new propulsion technology they can reduce a lot of weight.... for instance with a nuclear propulsion system with electric pods at the front and rear means no bit centralised propulsion system with enormous heavy shafts to deliver power to the propellers.

The pods can be placed front and rear so it should be able to manouver itself into and out of port or in narrow confines.

Please, do not mistake azipods and bow/stern thrusters. Retractable/fixed thrusters are mechanisms to help manoeuvrability in narrows, or "get me home" propulsion in case of damage. Azipods are impossible to put anywhere except in stern position. Only icebreakers or maybe some other highly specialised vessels can have complicated and strange propulsion arrangements with bow propellers/waterjets or azipods, but no major warship.

Please, if you know something specific and more precise about main propulsors placed in bow in modern major warship, tell me! I am curious and waiting to know about revolutionary inventions!

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

kumbor wrote:

Please, do not mistake azipods and bow/stern thrusters. Retractable/fixed thrusters are mechanisms to help manoeuvrability in narrows, or "get me home" propulsion in case of damage. Azipods are impossible to put anywhere except in stern position. Only icebreakers or maybe some other highly specialised vessels can have complicated and strange propulsion arrangements with bow propellers/waterjets or azipods, but no major warship.

Please, if you know something specific and more precise about main propulsors placed in bow in modern major warship, tell me! I am curious and waiting to know about revolutionary inventions!

Im not shipbuilding expert but making  reactor with electric generation and electrical engines make sense to me.

I am engineer neither, but have in mind that the Americans have tried to integrate nuclear reactor with steam turbine electric generation and electric motors in submarines.The same is with French. Such powerplants are bulkier, heavier, less efficient and more expensive. The Americans gave up!

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

kumbor wrote:

I am engineer neither, but have in mind that the Americans have tried to integrate nuclear reactor with steam turbine electric generation and electric motors in submarines.The same  is with French. Such powerplants are bulkier, heavier, less efficient and more expensive. The Americans gave up!

so far Russians applied this in 33ktons ship so far, lets wait as tech progresses. It is simply - you got one huge power plant and easiness to transferrign power to propulsion, radars, lasers , EW EMALS and so  on...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arktika_(2016_icebreaker)

Turboelectric drive in big surface ships is not so new. It was used in some WWI US BBs, as well as Lexington and Saratoga battlecruisers, later finished as carriers. It has some virtues, as well as minuses. E motors can be placed in optimal place within hull, shortening shafts, offers possibility of fine subdivision, essential for a battleship, there is no need for bulky reduction gear, and it saves fuel. But turboelectric drive is heavier, somewhat less energy efficient and needs very fine watertightness, as seawater and electricity are incompatible. Nevertheless, it was never adopted as standard powerplant, and was discarded from early 20s on in new ships.

Icebreakers, as a kind of very important, if not capital ships for Russia`s Sevmorput (Northern sea route) are special vessels, where turboelectric drive has its preferencies. If russian shipbuilders can overcome deficiencies inherent to turboelectric drive it can be the solution even for a carrier, but we can only wait and see the outcome sometime in the future.

mnztr wrote:

kumbor wrote:

Isos wrote:It looks like the guys working only their arms at the gym but forget the legs

Anyway, is there an engineer who could analyse the design. Will it be able to sail good enough with such a small body and big "airport" on it. The gravity center should be high? No ? If they build one and figure out it has the same issue as german frigates, it will launch the fighters into the water.

By my opinion, it is clearly impossible to build useful carrier with main dimensions identical to Kuz and 37/44.000 tons ship displacement! Such a carrier with such a displacement can be built only of marine grade aluminium and composites, and it isn`t serious!. Carrier needs extensive constructive protection, especially underwater. I am deeply convinced that it is impossible to build such a huge ship within such limited displacement! Obviously we are dealing with Krylow institute joke to riddle the West that Russians are capable of defying laws of physics, mechanics and shipbuilding! Krylow NII guys are serious scientists and naval engineers. 110.000SHP on two shafts can give this ship 25 knots at best!

It could be a recognition or re-evaluation that carriers are only a peactime weapons in moderate threat environments. Can an armoured Nimitz class take a torpedo hit or a Kinzal hit or even an x32 hit and still be operational? I doubt it. Any of those scenarios would be several years in drydock if they manage to save the ship.

Nimitz class CVNs are huge ships with very strong and advanced constructive protection, including armour steel belt, armoured decks, liquid and void spaces and, in newer ships - kevlar lining. They can survive 5-6 Mk.48 torpedoes or 1-2 kinzhal hits, but not both torpedoes and missiles combined.

mnztr wrote:

kumbor wrote:

mnztr wrote:

kumbor wrote:

Isos wrote:It looks like the guys working only their arms at the gym but forget the legs

Anyway, is there an engineer who could analyse the design. Will it be able to sail good enough with such a small body and big "airport" on it. The gravity center should be high? No ? If they build one and figure out it has the same issue as german frigates, it will launch the fighters into the water.

By my opinion, it is clearly impossible to build useful carrier with main dimensions identical to Kuz and 37/44.000 tons ship displacement! Such a carrier with such a displacement can be built only of marine grade aluminium and composites, and it isn`t serious!. Carrier needs extensive constructive protection, especially underwater. I am deeply convinced that it is impossible to build such a huge ship within such limited displacement! Obviously we are dealing with Krylow institute joke to riddle the West that Russians are capable of defying laws of physics, mechanics and shipbuilding! Krylow NII guys are serious scientists and naval engineers. 110.000SHP on two shafts can give this ship 25 knots at best!

It could be a recognition or re-evaluation that carriers are only a peactime weapons in moderate threat environments. Can an armoured Nimitz class take a torpedo hit or a Kinzal hit or even an x32 hit and still be operational? I doubt it. Any of those scenarios would be several years in drydock if they manage to save the ship.

Nimitz class CVNs are huge ships with very strong and advanced constructive protection, including armour steel belt, armoured decks, liquid and void spaces and, in newer ships - kevlar lining. They can survive 5-6 Mk.48 torpedoes or 1-2 kinzhal hits, but not both torpedoes and missiles combined.

I think the caveat to those is "it depends" where is the hit, Perhaps they can stay afloat with some torpedo hits but I doubt they can carry out air ops, especially if the props are targeted. They will be dead in the water and shortly after dead. As for a hit by hypersonics.. I doubt they were tested for that and I doubt they will be anything but a liability after one Kinzhal hit

Of course it depends on where is the hit. One lucky hit with explosion in hangar full of aircraft can be fatal. Calculating the vitality of major warships Americans usually use their own weapons. Mk.48 torpedo is one of the deadliest existing, so calculation is based on withstanding such hits. Bismarck and Scharnhorst absorbed numerous heavy shelling as well as 9-12 torpedo hits of 21in surfrace ship torpedoes, apart from 18in aerial torpedoes, and both went down with their props still revving. CVN is not a battleship, but experience of combat damages in USN carriers proved their excellent construction especially later Essex class CVs, as well as superb damage control and servicing teams. Nimitz class CVNs have multi-layered underwater defence, at least 4 special bulkheads on either beam, of which one is made of 3 in. armour steel. This UDS is at least 6m wide on either beam. Waterline has at least 3 in.steel belt and there are two armoured decks. Numerous watetight compartments are throughout the hull and she is huge sonofabitch of 100.000t displacement. This protection is nothing to compare with battleships of the past, but it is efficient and very elastic in order to absorb heavy battle damage.
Hypersonic Kinzhal is still in an experimental phase. Due to high speed and long range HE warhead cannot be heavy. It can pin through the ship, and if reactor, powerplant, jet fuel and loaded aircraft are missed, Nimitz can survive even a few HE Kinzhals.