Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

A modern torpedo will hit the ship from beneath and break the backbone (keel) of it. After that the ship is finished. No repair possible.

A damaged ship will be even better then a destroyed one. Imagine a carrier with large holes in its sides and deck, burned interior, damages from explosions. To bring it back to a harbor they would have to guard it, which means less ships for an attack. One good hit on a carrier would brake up a whole battle group.

Hole wrote:A modern torpedo will hit the ship from beneath and break the backbone (keel) of it. After that the ship is finished. No repair possible.

A damaged ship will be even better then a destroyed one. Imagine a carrier with large holes in its sides and deck, burned interior, damages from explosions. To bring it back to a harbor they would have to guard it, which means less ships for an attack. One good hit on a carrier would brake up a whole battle group.

If the sub can go attack a carrier protected by destroyer and its own ASW aviation, then it can attack easily a less protected task group with only destroyers and no carrier.

If you have noticed russian K has more ka-27 ASW helicopters than jets on board. A carrier that is well protected can be a very hard targets to hit. Russian have since the cold war put more trust in long range missiles and torpedos against them than going with ssk and small torpedos.

Anyway a carrier should be kept far from coasts, in open ocean and it should have its own weapons against any threat be it ASW or air defence or anti ship.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Hole wrote:A modern torpedo will hit the ship from beneath and break the backbone (keel) of it. After that the ship is finished. No repair possible.

A damaged ship will be even better then a destroyed one. Imagine a carrier with large holes in its sides and deck, burned interior, damages from explosions. To bring it back to a harbor they would have to guard it, which means less ships for an attack. One good hit on a carrier would brake up a whole battle group.

It would take more then one direct torpedo hit to sink a carrier, you realize the keels and layout are designed to stay afloat even if part of it destroy or underwater.

Not saying you cannot sink a carrier with torps but one torp isn't going to do it alone will take a good amount of em.

Depend. It is all random and no one can really know what will happen when the torpedo explodes. It can start a fire that can make the steel very week and destroy the ship, it can make other equipment inside the carrier explode and blow up everything inside, just like it can miss and make a very small hole that would be repaired in 20 minutes ...

Anyway, a captain of a sub that fires at a carrier will fire all its torpedo at once on it to have multiple hits. Not just one torpedo.

Just to start some fires or damage the deck (i.e. one big hole in the middle of the landing strip) is enough to disable the ship. A carrier from which no planes can operate is nearly useless.

LMFS wrote:Just to start some fires or damage the deck (i.e. one big hole in the middle of the landing strip) is enough to disable the ship. A carrier from which no planes can operate is nearly useless.

and that can be done bu missiles fired form VSTOL fighter too

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

LMFS wrote:Just to start some fires or damage the deck (i.e. one big hole in the middle of the landing strip) is enough to disable the ship. A carrier from which no planes can operate is nearly useless.

and that can be done bu missiles fired form VSTOL fighter too

Correction: I meant, nearly as useless as the half-arsed LHD STOVL carrier

The keel of ships is not armored. If a torpedo with 200kg warhead explodes after impacting the keel the ship is done, no matter how big it is.

Hole wrote:The keel of ships is not armored. If a torpedo with 200kg warhead explodes after impacting the keel the ship is done, no matter how big it is.

Soviet "Kit" 650mm had a warhead with equivalent of 750 kg TNT just because 533 didnt guarantee one-hit-one-kill.

LMFS wrote:

and that can be done bu missiles fired form VSTOL fighter too

Correction: I meant, nearly as useless as the half-arsed LHD STOVL carrier [/quote]


LHA is bad true for Midway for anything else many times better

@Gunship: don't convince me, I am in favour of multifunctional carriers! Ideally ones that could adapt for bigger and smaller air wings and even have well docks together with heavy defensive missile loads to reduce escort needs, but this is apparently not possible yet or not desired for some reason I am not aware of. Nevertheless, the discussion about bigger CVs gets distorted if the real price estimations are not mentioned. Prices as stated by the design bureau are not 16 billion but rather between 1,5 and 3,75 billion dollar. Amphibious assault ships were estimated at 300 million:

tass.ru/opinions/interviews/1599621
https/ria.ru/interview/20140203/992456922.html


Those above are VERY interesting interviews with Sergey Vlasov from Nevskoye Design Bureau, they are among the references of cost estimations for the future Russian Navy posted by George1 few days ago. They address many of the issues discussed here (EMALS, AWACS, costs etc.), though they are a bit old

Hole wrote:The keel of ships is not armored. If a torpedo with 200kg warhead explodes after impacting the keel the ship is done, no matter how big it is.

Theoretically, every ship is a hollow beam, made in sections. Nowadays the keel damage is nowhere near irreparable damage. Damaged section can be cut off and built again or repaired. It depends on size of damaged area. British WWII carriers with heavy hull protection were prone to hull constructions twisting in case of damage, causing lengthy and expensive refits. HMS Illustrious and HMS Indomitable were so distorted that were paid off rather soon after the war, as thorough reconstruction and modernisation were merely impossible. Warships that were paid off and used as targets are lacking their complement, they are dead in the water, without pumps and mechanisms working, without damage control and repair teams, so they are not good example what happens after torpedo hit. "Broken keel" can be fatal, but it is rarely so in active warship during mission at sea. USN carriers have proven themselves are "repair friendly" as upper decks over hangar deck and hangar sides in some way weren`t integral vital parts of hull construction, so they could have been repaired.

LMFS wrote:@Gunship: don't convince me, I am in favour of multifunctional carriers! 

good, now we're bargain. Acceptance will follow

Nevertheless, the discussion about bigger CVs gets distorted if the real price estimations are not mentioned. Prices as stated by the design bureau are not 16 billion but rather between

14 blns for Us including R&D

1,5 and 3,75 billion dollar. Amphibious assault ships were estimated at 300 million:

different ships can be understood by people saying this. IMHO best ration is in US case ~ 1/4

Those above are VERY interesting interviews with Sergey Vlasov from Nevskoye Design Bureau, they are among the references of cost estimations for the future Russian Navy posted by George1 few days ago. They address many of the issues discussed here (EMALS, AWACS, costs etc.), though they are a bit old

indeed with time of netcentric techs, air/sea and udnerwater drones unlilely we re-enter in old world. But if large CVNs will not have priorities before 2040s to me

What is the point of an aircraft carrier let alone a nuclear aircraft carrier without an AWACS plane?!
The mission of the navy would define the aircraft carrier. A VTOL plane would probably mean a beefed up MISTRAL type ship for a SYRIA like operation.
Unfortunately a modern VTOL with some aspects of stealth development and production would most likely cost around a catapult equipped carrier. It would also have reduced capabilities compared to normal aircraft, limited export potential and...you will not have a proper carrier nor a carrier building dock.

william.boutros wrote:
What is the point of an aircraft carrier let alone a nuclear aircraft carrier without an AWACS plane?!

and who says AWACS has to be in one big plane and not many small drones for example?

The mission of the navy would define the aircraft carrier. A VTOL plane would probably mean a beefed up MISTRAL type ship for a SYRIA like operation.

There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Check LHA America. And yes does Russia need anything else for now?

Unfortunately a modern VTOL with some aspects of stealth development and production would most likely cost around a catapult equipped carrier. It would also have reduced capabilities compared to normal aircraft, limited export potential and...you will not have a proper carrier nor a carrier building dock.

Decision is already made by supreme commander. VSTOL will be.


As for costs: and programme for light fighter without VSTOL is for free ?! what is propper carrier? Midway battles are gone for Syria 20-30 fighters is more than enough. And costs ratio 1/4 between "proper" and "improper" CVN

EMALS? Royal Navy gave up because of costs. US navy put 1 billion and still is not ready, Ah yeah RN also have improper CVs - no emlas and with VSTOLs

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

william.boutros wrote:
What is the point of an aircraft carrier let alone a nuclear aircraft carrier without an AWACS plane?!

and who says AWACS has to be in  one big plane and not many small drones for example?

The mission of the navy would define the aircraft carrier. A VTOL plane would probably mean a beefed up MISTRAL type ship for a SYRIA like operation.

There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Check LHA America. And yes does Russia need anything else for now?

Unfortunately a modern VTOL with some aspects of stealth development and production would most likely cost around a catapult equipped carrier. It would also have reduced capabilities compared to normal aircraft, limited export potential and...you will not have a proper carrier nor a carrier building dock.

Decision is already made by supreme commander. VSTOL will be.  


As for costs: and programme for light fighter without VSTOL is for free ?! what is propper carrier? Midway battles are gone for Syria 20-30 fighters is more than enough.  And costs ratio 1/4 between "proper" and "improper" CVN

EMALS? Royal Navy gave up because of costs. US navy put 1 billion and still is not ready, Ah yeah RN also have improper CVs - no emlas and with VSTOLs      

AWACS is much more than a number of UAVs given current technologies.
VSTOL aircraft on an LH America or a Japenese carrier is certainly a way to go but with its limitations compared to a carrier. Generally such ships are built to save on costs or beef up support for carriers. In 1-2 units there may not be much cost difference if you factor in new aircraft development.

william.boutros wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

william.boutros wrote:
What is the point of an aircraft carrier let alone a nuclear aircraft carrier without an AWACS plane?!

and who says AWACS has to be in  one big plane and not many small drones for example?

The mission of the navy would define the aircraft carrier. A VTOL plane would probably mean a beefed up MISTRAL type ship for a SYRIA like operation.

There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Check LHA America. And yes does Russia need anything else for now?

Unfortunately a modern VTOL with some aspects of stealth development and production would most likely cost around a catapult equipped carrier. It would also have reduced capabilities compared to normal aircraft, limited export potential and...you will not have a proper carrier nor a carrier building dock.

Decision is already made by supreme commander. VSTOL will be.  


As for costs: and programme for light fighter without VSTOL is for free ?! what is propper carrier? Midway battles are gone for Syria 20-30 fighters is more than enough.  And costs ratio 1/4 between "proper" and "improper" CVN

EMALS? Royal Navy gave up because of costs. US navy put 1 billion and still is not ready, Ah yeah RN also have improper CVs - no emlas and with VSTOLs      

AWACS is much more then a number of UAVs given current technologies.
VSTOL aircraft on an LH America or a Japenese carrier is certainly a way to go but with its limitations compared to a carrier. Generally such ships are built to save on costs or beef up support for carriers. In 1-2 units there may not be much cost difference if you factor in new aircraft development.

AEW equipment is nowadays still rather bulky, so it can`t be installed in UAV. You need big electronics that need much volume and you need big antenna. Also, you need human complement to edit and evaluate data given by electronic equipment.

Concerning "proper" carriers, USN carriers are offensive ships with complete and full capability to launch and proceed with attack and defensive operations. In russian naval tactics, aerial component was always there to provide aircover for surface battle group and submarines at first place. Their attack capability is limited. It will be so even with hypothetic new carriers in the future.

Theoretically, every ship is a hollow beam, made in sections. Nowadays the keel damage is nowhere near irreparable damage. Damaged section can be cut off and built again or repaired. It depends on size of damaged area. British WWII carriers with heavy hull protection were prone to hull constructions twisting in case of damage, causing lengthy and expensive refits. HMS Illustrious and HMS Indomitable were so distorted that were paid off rather soon after the war, as thorough reconstruction and modernisation were merely impossible. Warships that were paid off and used as targets are lacking their complement, they are dead in the water, without pumps and mechanisms working, without damage control and repair teams, so they are not good example what happens after torpedo hit. "Broken keel" can be fatal, but it is rarely so in active warship during mission at sea. USN carriers have proven themselves are "repair friendly" as upper decks over hangar deck and hangar sides in some way weren`t integral vital parts of hull construction, so they could have been repaired.

In WWII your average torpedo hit the side of a ship and blew a hole in the side... depending on the weapon that hole could be half a dozen metres across, but compartmentalising of vessels meant the ability to actually sink a very large ship was poor.

Modern torpedos don't normally hit ships... they pass under them and detonate underneath generating a huge gas bubble that rises up and lifts the ship.

Now look at any dock and you will see lots of support piles along the length of ships in dry dock because no ship... no matter how heavily armoured could stand to be supported in only one point on their hull... the ship would break in two... which is what they do...

and who says AWACS has to be in one big plane and not many small drones for example?

Indeed... did you hear the Russian Air Force has cancelled the A-100 and is just buying lots of Su-30s for use as "mini AWACS" platforms.... NOT.

Check LHA America. And yes does Russia need anything else for now?

Is gay...

Decision is already made by supreme commander. VSTOL will be.

Wont be supreme commander when it comes time to put ships in the water...

By which time they will have made their pitch and have been rejected as just a silly idea from the start... and cancelled.

As for costs: and programme for light fighter without VSTOL is for free ?! what is propper carrier? Midway battles are gone for Syria 20-30 fighters is more than enough. And costs ratio 1/4 between "proper" and "improper" CVN

The whole point of an aircraft carrier within the navy is to carry aircraft to support the navy and you think the best carrier is the one that carries less aircraft?

I guess the best arsenal ship is the one that only has a couple of cruise missile launchers... because it would make it cheaper...

EMALS? Royal Navy gave up because of costs. US navy put 1 billion and still is not ready, Ah yeah RN also have improper CVs - no emlas and with VSTOLs

Except EMALS are for AWACS platforms... Russia has fighters that don't require VSTOL performance to get airborne from a carrier the size of the K or bigger...

The Royal Navy gave up because it is spending so much on F-35s that it could not afford EMALS... the US Navy is spending less than the price of 10 F-35s to develop EMALs...

If VSTOL is so useful... why are they only going to be deployed on carriers?

Why aren't all F-35 sales of the VTOL type?

VP is giving the green light for development, but they have to do rather better than they have managed so far to make something worth building as a prototype... let alone good enough for serial production.

But even if they manage a miracle and develop an impressive fighter... they still wont build a small carrier... they will likely do what the US has done and develop a VSTOL model and a normal takeoff model for ski jump take on carriers and for land operations from normal airstrips, and the odd couple of VSTOL models... the thing is that even on smaller ships they need a 60m deck at least to get average performance with a rolling takeoff... if they have to take off vertically you are better off using Ka-52Ks.

william.boutros wrote:
AWACS is much more than a number of UAVs given current technologies.

like ? command - who says a drone is commnad enter. It is only flying radad with links to a ship. If not then you doubt netcentric war is possible.

VSTOL aircraft on an LH America or a Japenese carrier is certainly a way to go but with its limitations compared to a carrier. Generally such ships are built to save on costs or beef up support for carriers. In 1-2 units there may not be much cost difference if you factor in new aircraft development.

Still still 1/3-1/4 tho

kumbor wrote:

AEW equipment is nowadays still rather bulky, so it can`t be installed in UAV. You need big electronics that need much volume and you need big antenna. Also, you need human complement to edit and evaluate data given by electronic equipment.

I see rather a problem differently: how about a bunch of drones with small radars. Drones (VSTOL BTW) Fregat can carry 1 tone payload. and fly 8kms high. Yoy can set a network of drones flying around mother ship with 300kmrange radars and links to ship. Commnadcenter is on ship. Netcentric warfare woks thsi way doent is?

Concerning "proper" carriers, USN carriers are offensive ships with complete and full capability to launch and proceed with attack and defensive operations. In russian naval tactics, aerial component was always there to provide aircover for surface battle group and submarines at first place. Their attack capability is limited. It will be so even with hypothetic new carriers in the future.

one of reasons for USSR and now Russia is price tag. 20-3 fighters is enough for task and ship costs 1/4 of lrge CVN.

GarryB wrote:

and who says AWACS has to be in one big plane and not many small drones for example?

Indeed... did you hear the Russian Air Force has cancelled the A-100 and is just buying lots of Su-30s for use as "mini AWACS" platforms.... NOT.

so are you trying to say that E2 Hawkeye in land applications already replaced E3 Sentry? BTW Ka-31 radar had same parameters as Yak-44 one. Just duration and altitude was poorer. With drone hoovering 8-11kms for hours problem is solved.

Check LHA America. And yes does Russia need anything else for now?

Is gay...

ohh you're sooo sweet  

Decision is already made by supreme commander. VSTOL will be.

Wont be supreme commander when it comes time to put ships in the water...
By which time they will have made their pitch and have been rejected as just a silly idea from the start... and cancelled.

ok you're still in denial phase. I need to wait some time yet. For now start accpeting decision is made VSTOL will be created. Regardless on your phobias      

As for costs: and programme for light fighter without VSTOL is for free ?! what is propper carrier? Midway battles are gone for Syria 20-30 fighters is more than enough. And costs ratio 1/4 between "proper" and "improper" CVN

The whole point of an aircraft carrier within the navy is to carry aircraft to support the navy and you think the best carrier is the one that carries less aircraft?

because LHA can perform landing function/ ASW and sea control depending  on mission.  And costs are billions US higher. But you in denial phase are not able to accept that decision was made after checking carefully  all options available. Looks like VSTOL is optimal to what Russians want to do.

EMALS? Royal Navy gave up because of costs. US navy put 1 billion and still is not ready, Ah yeah RN also have improper CVs - no emlas and with VSTOLs

Except EMALS are for AWACS platforms... Russia has fighters that don't require VSTOL performance to get airborne from a carrier the size of the K or bigger...
The Royal Navy gave up because it is spending so much on F-35s that it could not afford EMALS... the US Navy is spending less than the price of 10 F-35s to develop EMALs...

excuses excuses excuses. They moved for better option. You'd go for worse because of emotional approach. Thats why they employ experts not VSTOL haters       Russia wont have Mig-29k/Su-33 fighters anymore when Russian CVNs enters the service.

If VSTOL is so useful... why are they only going to be deployed on carriers?
Why aren't all F-35 sales of the VTOL type?

because they are best for sea operations? why only 500 is made? oops did I say ~520? so why only 165 Rafale or 247  J-39? Why didnt they build more since both are so great seaborne fighters?

But even if they manage a miracle and develop an impressive fighter... they still wont build a small carrier... they will likely do what the US has done and develop a VSTOL model and a normal takeoff model for ski jump take on carriers and for land operations from normal airstrips, and the odd couple of VSTOL models... the thing is that even on smaller ships they need a 60m deck at least to get average performance with a rolling takeoff... if they have to take off vertically you are better off using Ka-52Ks.

Depending hwat you define as small carrier. 40-60ktons? is still 1/3 of large + cost of ASW carrier + cost or Landing dock .

A VTOL aircraft is at least 12-15 years off before you see any serial production of the handicapped aircraft... (if at all)

If Russia delays carrier production and procurement to match such an aircraft and make decisions based solely on the use of such aircraft - ohh boy... but they won't...cause they're not stupid.

But Russian design bureaus do need to keep busy and can not lag behind in the development of such complex engines, and all the engineering that it entails...and that research can be applied to many areas elsewhere. Which is why it was given the go-ahead with some funding to see what they can come up with. That such aircraft can be parked on carriers, small or big is a bonus.

Conventional aircraft will still be the main type of aircraft to take-off from carriers, for now and in the future and it's the very reason the Su-33 exist, as is the modified Mig-29 - in the Mig-29K, not some revived production line for some crappy old VTOL Yak handicapped to hell and back for the Kuz. This is regardless of Russia's decision to go for small or big carriers in the future.

ATLASCUB wrote:

Conventional aircraft will still be the main type of aircraft to take-off from carriers, for now and in the future and it's the very reason the Su-33 exist, as is the modified Mig-29 - in the Mig-29K, not some revived production line for some crappy old VTOL Yak handicapped to hell and back for the Kuz. This is regardless of Russia's decision to go for small or big carriers in the future.

OK so you live in 80s like GarryB dont you? in 2030 Mig-29 and su-33 ill be 50 years of frames. Dunno if there will be Yak or MiG LMFS anyway this is gonna be a new development.
Yup, progress in engines, avionics, materials for last 30-40 years took place. Really you can trust me


There not much  difference in performance between conventional and VSTOL. And VSTOL is a great fighter for point defense + great in ship requirements.

BTW Yak 141 , as a deck fighter. was already by light years ahead from contemporary Harriers or F-4 - advanced avionics, hud, R77/R27.


BTW Russian Staff and aerospace engineers made all analysis and feasibility. Then decision was made. hmm but OK you can believe in whatever you want
like tooth-fairy for example

Big_Gazza wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

A bruised and torn sphincter?.... Pls explain why you are posting porn in this forum?  

GarryB was writing something about "its gay" or so      
look at his post

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

ATLASCUB wrote:

Conventional aircraft will still be the main type of aircraft to take-off from carriers, for now and in the future and it's the very reason the Su-33 exist, as is the modified Mig-29 - in the Mig-29K, not some revived production line for some crappy old VTOL Yak handicapped to hell and back for the Kuz. This is regardless of Russia's decision to go for small or big carriers in the future.

OK so you live in 80s like GarryB dont you? in 2030 Mig-29 and su-33 ill be 50 years of frames. Dunno if there will be Yak or MiG LMFS anyway this is gonna be a new development.
Yup,  progress in engines, avionics, materials for last 30-40 years took place. Really you can trust me


There not much  difference in performance between conventional and VSTOL. And VSTOL is a great fighter for point defense + great in ship requirements.

BTW Yak 141 , as a deck fighter. was already by light years ahead from contemporary Harriers or F-4 - advanced avionics, hud, R77/R27.


BTW Russian Staff and aerospace engineers made all analysis and feasibility. Then decision was made. hmm but OK you can believe in whatever you want  
like tooth-fairy for example

Whatever makes you feel well and cozy. No matter how many times you reply to people here with the same old, trying to tire them to death with replies.....no matter how hard you try...you will not be able to convince them. Obviously by now you've come to realize the many holes in your arguments yet you continue to espouse the same opinion over and over and acting as if these holes don't exist and grasping at straws. Aka you're a waste of time.

As for the Yak 141...well you know, there is a reason it's not on Kuz, but the Mig 29 is. If it was such a great solution to the "problem" offering all these benefits (ehm).... they would be on the Kuz today. But the fact is that navalizing conventional aircraft is still the most common sense approach any way its spun. Whether that is the Mig "35", the Pak-Fa or, the LMFS....another "project". And this has been explained here to death.

And Yes, the higher ups made the decision to get a design bureau to come up with a feasible design - aka a prototype design capable of flying - from that to a proper serialized plane you have a longggggg way to go. What's rather interesting is whether it sees daylight or not...and for that you still have between 12-15 years to continue with the discussion here. God forbid it sees cancellation in between... this section would take quite the impact.