Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

Light carrier from Krylov.

Hole wrote:Light carrier from Krylov.

This "light carrier" reminds me of soviet "light" battleship projects preceding and just after WWII - displacement 50.000 tons!? Very light. The size of Kuz and nuclear powered.

The lift are only for fighter size plane. You can't use them for awacs. It's a mistake they should correct.

The size of Kuz and nuclear powered.

The deck is bigger than K, approaching Nimitz size but supposedly on 44k ton.
Whether thats actually a realistic plan is the question.

As suggested elsewhere we will know they're serious about it when the concept gets forwarded to one of the actual ship design groups with a proper design contract.

Edit: ooh wow its not just a tunnel hull like some of the recent frigates, that stern is actually catamaran http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/september-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6509-russia-s-krylov-light-aircraft-carrier-project-features-semi-catamaran-hull-design.html

See the middle of the stern is actually above the waterline.

hoom wrote:

The size of Kuz and nuclear powered.

The deck is bigger than K, approaching Nimitz size but supposedly on 44k ton.
Whether thats actually a realistic plan is the question.

As suggested elsewhere we will know they're serious about it when the concept gets forwarded to one of the actual ship design groups with a proper design contract.

I can only say again that displacement of such a ship as 44K ton is underestimated!

Edit: ooh wow its not just a tunnel hull like some of the recent frigates, that stern is actually catamaran http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/september-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6509-russia-s-krylov-light-aircraft-carrier-project-features-semi-catamaran-hull-design.html

Nice !!

It makes it better and more realistic. They really should order 2 of those with some improvements like longer take off positions, nuclear power taken from other projecr like borei, place for 1 or 2 awacs and some uksk.

It would carry 4 AWACS according to the data given on the website.

Hole wrote:It would carry 4 AWACS according to the data given on the website.

And how do you send them in the hangar ? The lifts are small.

The website isn't a reliable source unless they have the picture of the data sheet from krylov exposition that probably was in front iof the maket.

The pictures are really bad btw.

I've posted the brochure previously...

Edit: back on pg 5 at the end of August https://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p100-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#232905 heck you even made the next post


Edit2: though I've presumed the 4* AEW referenced to be Ka-31s

The US has never been Russias or the Soviet Unions SLOCs policeman... and China wont be either.

Yes, they were Western SLOCs policeman.

Soon 1.4 billion Indians, but Russia will be competing with the west here and you still can't send goods via rail or aircraft to India efficiently... most major international trade is by sea. So africa and central and south america are potential growth areas of trade for Russia...

North-South rail & sea corridor via Pakistan, Iran, Azerbaijan, the Caspian & Arabian Seas can handle trade with India & E. Africa. China will have railroads in Tibet & Yunnan very close to India & connecting to Indochina, so the W.Siberia & the RFE can get goods directly via them as well.
What exactly can they buy in L. America in bulk that they can't buy in Asia & Africa? Coffee, cacao, tea, pineapples, bananas, coconuts, palm oil, rice, rubber, & the like r all produced South of the Russian border, no need to cross the Atlantic or Pacific. Unless they'll have a large Russian overseas colony or dependency, I don't see a need for vital transoceanic SLOCs to be protected. 

..Russia's future is more than just being the footpath between China and Europe.

I hope so! But it's an uphill battle. An oligarchy isn't easy to dislodge!

The Su-57 is not cheap, but any made for the next 10 years wont be carrier aircraft.

And probably never. By then, the geopolitical situation will be different & new naval CTOL a/c may be developed, if STOVL isn't good enough.

its not just a tunnel hull like some of the recent frigates, that stern is actually catamaran

No, it's a well deck.

hoom wrote:I've posted the brochure previously...

Edit: back on pg 5 at the end of August https://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p100-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#232905 heck you even made the next post


Edit2: though I've presumed the 4* AEW referenced to be Ka-31s

I didn't remember of the brochure. Anyway a yak 44 size awacs can't use those lifts. It is probably ka 31.

No, it's a well deck.

the Krylov guy is directly quoted saying its a catamaran stern

The project is distinguished by the underwater part of a semi-catamaran form. Catamaran actually means two hulls united by a platform. It has a wide deck which is important for an aircraft carrier. The design adds flight deck space on which the number of aircraft depends. As a result, a medium-displacement ship can carry a full-fledged air wing

If it was a well-deck there would be some mention of a well-deck in some of the coverage but there is none.

The whole point of this design is to maximise the flight-deck & air-wing, sacrificing nearly every other aspect to enable it.

Fine, regarding AWACS planes & small lifts, they'll keep them on the flight deck or make bigger lifts. In the USN, they r seldom found in a hangar bay:





US F-35s poised to make first combat mission

Defense officials say [STOVL] fighter jets will be in position to conduct airstrikes in Afghanistan in coming days

Yes, they r the F-35Bs flown by the Marines. Another vindication for their utility!

regarding AWACS planes & small lifts, they'll keep them on the flight deck

Salt and constant salted water exposure is not really good.

the Krylov guy is directly quoted saying its a catamaran stern

If it wasn't a catamaran it could touch the water with the deck. You can see videos of high evasive turns of ships, they roll by almost 45°. The catamaran makes it impossible and the turns can be achieved by turning faster one engine than the other in addition to the rudder.

Isos wrote:

regarding AWACS planes & small lifts, they'll keep them on the flight deck

Salt and constant salted water exposure is not really good.

the Krylov guy is directly quoted saying its a catamaran stern

If it wasn't a catamaran it could touch the water with the deck. You can see videos of high evasive turns of ships, they roll by almost 45°. The catamaran makes it impossible and the turns can be achieved by turning faster one engine than the other in addition to the rudder.

Every multi-shaft ship can in emergency steer with allowing different power on either shaft, such practice is more than 100 years old. Broad stern also decreases list in sharp turn, but it also depends on metacentric height.

On an ami carrier only half of the aircraft fit inside the hangar. In Russia all carriers in the past could accommodate all planes/helicopters in the hangar. That´s why they always carried less planes than western carriers (with comparable size).

You could clean the aircraft from time to time. But nobody said something of the Yak-44. Could be something like this:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Unless they'll have a large Russian overseas colony or dependency, I don't see a need for vital transoceanic SLOCs to be protected.

Yes, Russia needs to trade and integrate with its partners. Beeing lonely when West tries to crush you with "coincidentially" simultanious sanctions, financial attack on ruble and surge of oil production driving oil price down, has almost brough Russia to its knees and dried their reserve found entirely. That was the time they started to value their partnership with China.

This is the reason for their diplomatic offensive on Africa in 2017-18. They offered Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Sudan and CAR weapons and military instructors in exchange for diplomatic support in the UN, resources and military bases. But of course you need to be able to defend these SLOCs with blue water navy when Libyan scenario repeats. Same with Venezuela - largest oil reserves in the world. Russia needs it on its side to coordinate oil production and thus price. The difference between 60 $ and 40 $ is the difference between life and death for Russia. It's about this, not cocoa and coffee.

Even with continental Asian countries like India it's more secure and cheap to trade via sea, rather than be dependable on countries in between like China, that have conflicting interests.

Back to the topic: my point is that Russian need for a real, 70k ton or Shturm size CVN is growing. And I see some potential for getting a new CVN before Lider, since they will be temporarily substituted by Super Gorshkovs. By most optimistic scenario, a contract could be signed in 2025, as sources suggest, and production started in late 2020s.

They have the Tartus base in Syria & the Med. Sea is close to the Black Sea, large blue water navy isn't needed there.
Unless they have a forward deployed CV/N with escorts on a base in L. America, like the US has in Japan, Venezuela can be overrun by her neighbors &/ the US from the sea & air. It may happen soon:
Colombia says world must act to end Venezuelan 'dictatorship'
President Trump Says Venezuela Could Be 'Quickly Toppled' as U.S. Imposes Fresh Sanctions
Russian economy will need to get off the oil needle, the sooner the better!

Tsavo Lion wrote:Unless they have a forward deployed CV/N with escorts on a base in L. America, like the US has in Japan, Venezuela can be overrun by her neighbors &/ the US from the sea & air.

No, they can simply establish a naval base in Venezuela. Then an US attack on the country gives Russia right to do anything to defend their interest. Actually getting closer to US borders would be a great answer to NATO's appetites for Georgia and Ukraine.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Russian economy will need to get off the oil needle, the sooner the better!

What? 49 % of their exports are oil and gas. I guess they should just ignore their strategic natural resources endowment.

It's about taking control of what's important for them, not giving hands up.

Defending unstable Venezuela with American troops in Colombia is risky & isn't that important, as Cuba is even closer to the US & already hosted USSR & Russian presence that can be increased. Jungle warfare is a trap, as the US has learned in Vietnam. The Russians have no experience in such land campaigns in the tropics; they were miserable just manning AD in N. Vietnam.
Russia should diversify her economy to not be so dependent on oil exports.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Russia should diversify her economy to not be so dependent on oil exports.    

Russia should stick to exporting energents. It could export 100 different products in Germany and have them all rejected after sanctions start, but they decided to be their no. 1 provider of natural gas, structural backbone of entire economy and thus create a mutual dependency. Energy is very important. Now Germany is not being so hard on Russia when it comes to Ukraine and other focal points.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Defending unstable Venezuela with American troops in Colombia is risky & isn't that important, as Cuba is even closer to the US & already hosted USSR & Russian presence that can be increased. Jungle warfare is a trap, as the US has learned in Vietnam. The Russians have no experience in such land campaigns in the tropics; they were miserable just manning AD in N. Vietnam.    

Except that N. Vietnam has won that war.

And what has US learnt in Bay of Pigs? Defending S-400 controlled jungle will be easy, besides Venezuelans know the territory. Jungle-unexperienced US soldiers won't have any luck there. Cuba may be strategically important, but Venezuela is tactically better entry point to the region, because of oil, economy size, current vulnerability, vicinity to Brazil and lower conflict of interest with distant US.

They r very territorial & the Monroe Doctrine hasn't collected any dust!
Rest assured: the US & their L. American allies will preempt Russia in Venezuela, like they did after WWII with military juntas, interventions & coups/regime changes in the Caribbean, C. & South America "to keep them out of Communist hands". Their economy is dependent on the US economy; the region is under the US thumb.

GarryB wrote:You can pretty much ignore Europe
+++
That means 1.5 billion Chinese... but they also generally have locally made alternatives that will also be cheaper.
1.4 billion Indians, but Russia will be competing with the west here and you still can't send goods via rail or aircraft to India efficiently... most major international trade is by sea

1) Europe. Still 400 billions of trade yearly.
no you cannot ignore Europe.  I didnt see it Germany, Austria, Italy, Nederlands, Hungary or Finland  are trading with Russia. Poland too       .  True that energy products are topping now but it is in all directions.

Because there were no money to invest in competitive products yet. If you spend on blue water navy you wont have them either for next couple of years. Everybody protects its market and Russia does it too.  But where product's competitive (titanium carriages for Airbus,  nuclear power plants Finland or Hungary). Will Russia have competitive products  they will be on EU markets too. If  they block Russia cuts but billions import from EU  and grow due to market (still machine building / aerospace or 30 blns € alone  on pharma...)

http://www.worldstopexports.com/russias-top-10-exports/
Check opportunities tab


Ergo: economy first with client base with lowest access cost. Dont stretch outside your means and power. Romans once did.






2) Asia
Russian export to China will grow and including Hi-tech with India there are many projects due to made in India. Ka-226
You cannot send good via rail? Damn you should tell this to Chinese, Japanese or Koreans who want to use Russian railways for new Silk Road. BTW China wants to build rail to Africa BTW with branches to India/Myanmar/Vietnam/Malaysia/Thailand


3) Africa and South America

So Africa and central and south america are potential growth areas of trade for Russia... for which a blue water Navy would be useful to support...

Perhaps in 50 years is true. But Russian export  needs to develop export NOW. I can see a brilliant strategist  thinking here changing more populated and much richer clients for "prospective" in  50 years. So you were the one talking about retardation?      

Below numbers for 2018 after wiki
.................................population.............................................% of wolds one
South America: ............422,535,000......................................... 5.68%
Africa.........................1,216,130,000 .......................................16.36%
Asia...........................4,436,224,000........................................59.69%
Europe.........................738,849,000......................................... 9.94%

GDP PPP of only couple of richest now countries of Asia....................................................40,6 trillios $, (all is about 50trillions)
(was quoted yesterday China/India/Japan/Korea/Taiwan
South America (I added almost all countries except Guyana + dutch colony)........................6,9 trillions $
Africa (I searched till below 100billions )..........................................................................4,6 trillions $

France cannot afford 2. Has one: 42kts displacement, 30 fighters + 800 Marines

France has "territories" around the world that act as unsinkable carriers.. as does the UK.

Syria, Tartus. Resupply station in Camp-Rham Vietnam. Russia could have worked on bases in Iran/Eritrea or Cuba but why? there is NO MONEY now. It is better to spent couple of billions on investing in competitive civilian products then CV. Especially large one  

UK: has built 2.  with  36 +14 helos VSTOL fighters, AWACS  Sea King based and no catobar , with ability to support  amphibious operations (marines onboard)  lol1  lol1  lol1  Kuz size (65ktons). Nowhere near US Ford/Nimitz.  

Are you retarded?
Why do you keep bringing up fucking stupid American white elephants... this is nothing to do with them.

did you read your what you wrote?! with understanding        
1) I agreed that small universal carriers like France or medium as UK built is OK (IMHO  is  definitely the road)
2)  You say : no this is not the way Russia should go and sam time you're   that US is not an example.

Now focus. I know it might be hard for you but you need to try harder this time.  Kuz size bad,  Nimitz size bad, de Gaulle? crap.
Then what precisely you need?

What sort of thing are you thinking... Russian cargo ship being threatened by ships from Uraguay, and so it calls a nearby Chinese ship to help... really?
China is International Rescue?

     Uruguay only if you are raider of the arc or German raider battleship        Then CSG with small universal carrier is more than enough. If you need carriers here at all.

China is an ally in SCO and cooperation gets closer every year.  I dont think  Chinese would say no if Russia calls them for help. Especially that Chinese goodies go vie Northern Route...So if Chinese CSG is near what is the problem?

The west accuses everyone else of doing what they are doing or what they intend to do.

just plain Boolean logic: just negate all their statement and you got true meaning      

No, not the same. But avionics and element base was from 2000s.  And we talk about status in 2030s.

No it isn't... MiG have been developing new avionics all the time... the AESA they put in their MiG-35s will not be from 2000s... the DAS is not from the 2000s, the engines are the most recent models, the avionics are their most recent models... and in 2030 they will likely have had 3-4 upgrade cycles since then too

MiG-29k doesnt have MiG-35 avionics. It has old avionics, perhaps there will be some updates but none has been announced yet.

Right now they have Su-33s and MiG-29KRs... by 2030 they will likely have put photonic radars and the latest in IIR sensors and other systems in their existing aircraft as upgrades.

no they wont. 50 years air frames are not going to be used anymore. Same as  MiG-23 is not used today.

They don't need to spend 20 billion and have two new CVNs in 2030... they already have one carrier so one CVN over the next 15 years and another 8-10 years after that means they wont have three carriers (CV + CVNx2) till the mid 2030s at the earliest.

I would say the squadrons of stealthy STOVL 5th gen fighters (doubled so there are spare aircraft on the ground practising) are going to cost more than the carriers they are operating from.
+++
So it is a naval only carrier only aircraft of very limited use.

Price of  Su-33 was 1,7 price of Su-27 I take per analogy Su-57.  LEts use low price so ~75mln$ unit.  24x1.7x75= 3 billions $.
If you take an estimate for 100mln per unit you have 4 billions per Kuz only.

IMHO Your misconception is that VSTOL is only for fleet. Not this is deck light fighter with VSTOL that can be used on land as well. Same as F-18 was. Vide  Canada, Finland or  Australia.
The whole Rafale ordered by French Navy + AF is 180 pieces for 30 years...

and?

It might be worth it if it could do things other planes can't do... but an Su-57 can take off from a 300m strip of motorway at max weight... a VSTOL can destroy a 300m strip of runway and crash...

300m  with MTOW? where's the source?        Then why do Russians build special airbases for Su-57 then?        As for destroying airstrips by STOL I am afraid that personal phobias dont count in real world        

They considered your option for sure it turned out VSTOL is much better and cost efficient option

No. Actually the opposite. They said the Yak-38 could replace the Su-25 and it was tested in Afghanistan and was total shit in the CAS role... what were the US Marines intending to use the AV-8 for? Ohh... that is right... CAS.To be fair, the AV-8 is a much better aircraft in every way to the Yak-38, but it is still crap as CAS.

in your world tech time stands still since  80's ?         Yak-141 was way better then AV8 and in fighter role not really worse then contemporaries. New VSTOL will have top notch tech and perhaps add much to fighter drone development.

If you have Moscow point defense you need 300km radius at least. But ok call it group area defense. What doestn change meaning.

S-400 has a 300km radius with AWACS support...

[/qute]

And you will use guns to shoot CMs or fighters not missiles?      
BTW light fighters have  700-900 heavy 1200 but anyway it is too short to stop carriers of 1,600km US stealth CMs.

The MiG-35 has nothing to do with this new STOVL fighter... this new design wont even be test flying prototypes for 10 years, and you think it is a MiG-35 replacement?
I would suspect this new STOVL will be a joint project between Yak and MiG... Yak will be useful for the VL aspect, but they know nothing about designing and making a 5th gen light fighter...

If it has nothing to do thats's why MiG-35 is on-hold? To me focusing resources for perspective tech and equipment. VSTOL is not MiG-35 replacement. That MiG-35  is the one to be a stopgap if VSTOL project delays. Who will design?  Borisov  said: "There will be "virtual teams" from all OAK (i.e. Sukhoi, MiG, Yak, Tu, Saturn and co) to make best design"

No MiG-35 wont be cheaper but less effective and obsolete. Basically new design will take into account drone mode unlike 50 years old MiG-35 frame design.

Look at what you are saying... (note: drone mode is secret code for easy to shoot down).
The F-35 and Rafale and F-18 were never designed with drones in mind so there wont be any up to date designs in 2030... they can all be obsolete together...

Yes they will be upgraded (Rafale F3R, USA  F-18 Block  III).  Drone mode is the future of fighter, faster decisions, ability to use microwave weapons and more much tighter turns.  This is just matter of AI and computing node processing power. With current level and billions spend yearly on AI by 2030 i am sure this will be possible.

Also speaking at the briefing, United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) president Yuri Slyusar said that judging by their price-performance ratios, the Su-57 and MiG-35 represent the best solution in their classes...

Yeah.... already obsolete you say...

Nope this was stated by Supreme Commander + deputy PM for MIC and MOD by signing new programe.  But Sluysar wants to sell MiG-35 of course. India perhaps? Egypt? Iran?
For  Iran: this readily available, quantum leap in tech for them. Perhaps can build it locally... Oh man this would piss USrael.

Precisely! 10 years MiG-29k still will be  in service. At least on Kuz.

The F-18 and F-35 and Rafale will also still be in service... so why are your panties in such a bunch... when they modify the Su-57 into a carrier based model it will rule supreme... because everything else will be obsolete

F-18 had started retiring last year (legacy hornet) and is supposed to be retiring till 2030 (optimistically but this is the plan) . Rafale stays longer but only because new fighter will be in end of 2030s, beginning of 2040s.

If you do Su-57 on kuz they will be like 24 and very expensive (2xprice is like 150 mln each x24 is cost of a 42ktons nuclear powered carrier).

BTW French AF ordered only 180 Rafale ever...

If population is so damn important why isn't India an economic or military power house?

Labor was cheaper in China,  Japan? but in Sudan, Egypt or Cambodia had even cheaper than China and?  Look at population China 1,3bln  Japan 130mln (byt they had industrial traditions and had no army expenses)

As for India Their GDP growth is for next 1o-15 years 8-9% i.e. more than Chinese. Their GDP makes then already 3rd worlds economy... Google says : $10.385 trillion (PPP; 2018 est)

Or how about Indonesia?

GDP PPP - 3,5 trillions $ 7th in the world anc catching with Germany/Russia

Russia needs to be able to show it has muscle, so that it is seen as a real alternative to the west...

yes, it is doing now. But this is unrelated with size of  air wing whatsoever.

Thus unlikely next 15-20 years Russia will build one. Second number of ships and size of CVNs wont ever match US fleet.

Why the fuck do you keep bringing this up?

Who gives a flying fuck about the US fleet... the Russian navy can easily match the US fleet... it is called Zircon and Kinzhal... and in a few years time an IRBM design if fired from a land based platform would have a 2,000km range, but because it is air launched and has a scramjet sustainer engine can reach targets 6,000km away at mach 12...

Hmm do you have double personality?       just before you argue that only big CVN has meaning. Then you say no meaning but Zircons and Kinzhals. Then you write Su-57 wont cost then you say it will be expensive.

In general with your second personality i agree.        With first one no, because numbers say otherwise.

The cost of 3 small carriers will exceed the cost of 2 big ones when you include the cost of the escorts and port support requirements... and you also have to allow the fact that smaller carriers will be less well defended and not able to operate away from Russian waters as long as a larger vessel could.

Ford class = 12,5 billions piece (3 units)
de Gaulle  =  3 billions € a piece (one unit )

Not sure what was your math grade at school but to me it looks like 1:4 ratio. 2 big is 8 small.

Autonomy?
De Gaulle: Food is indeed for 45days but it is nuclear powered.
Resupply ships UK: Tide-class tanker 40ktn displacement global reach. ~ 200mlns $ Damn still 4:1


No smaller CSG is not more expensive and has less supply. Weaker defense in what Midway?  in WW3? in all other has more than enough costing fraction of price. Show me only 1 scenario w/o IIIWW where 30-40 fighters is not enough now? so you buy 3 small instead of 2 big. The difference is 16 billions $. Those 25- 9 billions you  can better spend on microelectronic or machine building investments. You have better chance to compete with western goodies.

A Syria like support intervention from Russia is not too hard, but one in Africa or central or south america where the west could simply get in the queue for the Suez canal and then abandon the ship to block it for a month would stop Russian support options...

Syria is best proof for proxy war. And the real not Uruguay one.  - it lasts 4 years now with air wing like 8 fighters in peak and 30 fighter/bombers in total.      


CIA covert ops are not gonna to be fought  with CSGs. Ukraine is perfect example. The whole Russian military might and? all other is misconception about color revolutions to me.

BTW Were any time Russian/Soviet ships blocked when and how long ?

my 2 eurocents about brochure from Krylov:

1) sShe can sail up to 7 in Beaufort scale.

2) Airwing : 12-14 heavy fighters (Su-33 given as an example) + 12-14 light fighters (MiG-29K an an example) 12-14 choppers (Ka family)

3) AEW - this is explicitly stated 4 airplanes. (ДРЛО = AEW and not ДРЛОиУ = AEW&C)

4) food supplies - 60 days

5) range 8 thousand miles

6) Gas turbines



My critics:

1) The hull is narrow I seriously doubt that air-wing and lots of supplies will fit there

2) Parking air-wing on deck in Arctic, Im not sure if this is the best option. especially during storms

3) IMHO bullshit with supplies and range. You can fit in 37 ktons standard displacement all?!!

4) AEW - platforms. Not AWACS. What airplane? size of an elevator? only 1 ?! RN on QE2 decided to use Sea King AEW since no catobar.

5) Lack of nuclear propulsion is bad for Russian blu seas navy. Even 15ktosn liders will have nuclear propulsion.

BUT good side is they evolve in the right direction. Small 28 fighters CV (better 36 IMHO and less 4 planes, use choppers) is better fitted t Russian tasks and budget then 100kts shtorm.

Maybe this project is aimed mostly at export customers? For the VMF, they plan to have a larger CVN.
Adm. K had a/c parked outside in the Barents Sea, & they won't be sailing the Arctic to the East & North of it.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-su-33-multi-role-carrier-based-fighters-on-board-the-admiral-kuznetsov-22839993.html