Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

TAKR only means the carrier is denominated "cruiser" so it fits Montreaux terminology and has some weapons accordingly, it does not mean it is small or multipurpose.

The new multifunctional expeditionary vessel, it sounds to me as a LHD. Fits with what we have heard until now. Was always mentioned as additional to the carriers from what I recall and I interpret it still like that.

This is not very clear to me, probably due to translation:
"...an identical ship at the bow and below the waterline with specialized superstructures that are provided for various tasks"
So the same hull that can configured for different missions ("modular" vessel) or will it have just one configuration??

This is not very clear to me, probably due to translation:
"...an identical ship at the bow and below the waterline with specialized superstructures that are provided for various tasks"
So the same hull that can configured for different missions ("modular" vessel) or will it have just one configuration??

In the original Russian it means "the same TAKR layout but with specific permanent superstructures for those extra functions", i.e. for helo carrier & ampib. assault.
The QE of the RN combines a CV & LHD in 1 ship.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

This is not very clear to me, probably due to translation:
"...an identical ship at the bow and below the waterline with specialized superstructures that are provided for various tasks"
So the same hull that can configured for different missions ("modular" vessel) or will it have just one configuration??

In the original Russian it means "the same TAKR layout but with specific permanent superstructures for those extra functions", i.e. for helo carrier & ampib. assault.
The QE of the RN combines a CV & LHD in 1 ship.  

I am tempted to think it has the worst of both: slow and only capable for STOVL like the LHD, without well deck and capacity for land vehicles like a carrier... or am I wrong?

Thanks for the translation BTW!

It may have a small/medium well deck, but in any case they will have UDKs/LHDs sooner. Combining all those elements will reduce the # of ships needed & their escorts. Will it be successful? I'm not a prophet with a crystal ball!

I like it I think

Once you have a STOVL fighter a relatively small 'universal' ship like Spanish Juan Carlos I capable of performing LHD, Helicopter Carrier or light CV duties is pretty attractive but compromised in each function compared to dedicated designs.

This idea with a shared basic hull design finished as specialised ships allows for partial advantages of serial production with the fitout optimised for the dedicated roles.
So you might build say 8* hulls: 4* light CVs, 2* LHDs & 2* helicopter carriers.

But I can't help wondering if 8* universal type of the same size would be more useful at any given time due to having some of the needed capability always available.

The Russian Navy ruled out aircraft carriers under 70000 tons and helicopter carriers.

They want aircraft carriers over 70000 tons and Amphibious ships. And is the right decission.

It would be interesting to know more about this new project, about the 4th potential role, about the size,... This type of design has important advantages oriented to export. In the refered to the Russian Navy the most interesting role is the Amphibious ship role, with doubt about the 4th role and the aircraft carrier role.

So what they are talking about is pretty much what the Russian Army did with its armoured vehicles...

The BMP chassis was used on an enormous range of vehicles as the basis... including but not limited to IFV, APC, engineer, ambulance, recon, and a lot of other uses.

What they are basically saying is the the ship part of the ship will be standardised, so they could make a dozen of those, and then the filling will be defined by what they want the ship for... ie fixed wing carrier, helicopter carrier, landing ship, arsenal ship, whatever.

They actually made 5 Orlan class ships... four of them we know as Kirov class cruisers, while the other is a huge intel ship.

Imagine if they had used the same hull to create the Kiev class vessels... it is the same thing.

They wont change between roles once built.... which is what Papa was thinking I suspect... a Mistral type vessel but much larger that could be used as a landing ship or a helo carrier or a VSTOL carrier...

Personally I would like to see a larger fixed wing carrier in the 70-80K ton range... they could unify the hull design with the escort cruiser that will operate with it.

I would also like to see a helo carrier/landing ship like a seriously scaled up Mistral but better armed that could carry helos or STOVL aircraft.

They could make 10 of the big vessels... 2 x CVN, and 8 of the big cruisers, and four super mistrals...

GarryB wrote:So what they are talking about is pretty much what the Russian Army did with its armoured vehicles...

The BMP chassis was used on an enormous range of vehicles as the basis... including but not limited to IFV, APC, engineer, ambulance, recon, and a lot of other uses.

What they are basically saying is the the ship part of the ship will be standardised, so they could make a dozen of those, and then the filling will be defined by what they want the ship for... ie fixed wing carrier, helicopter carrier, landing ship, arsenal ship, whatever.

They actually made 5 Orlan class ships... four of them we know as Kirov class cruisers, while the other is a huge intel ship.

Imagine if they had used the same hull to create the Kiev class vessels... it is the same thing.

They wont change between roles once built.... which is what Papa was thinking I suspect... a Mistral type vessel but much larger that could be used as a landing ship or a helo carrier or a VSTOL carrier...

Personally I would like to see a larger fixed wing carrier in the 70-80K ton range... they could unify the hull design with the escort cruiser that will operate with it.

I would also like to see a helo carrier/landing ship like a seriously scaled up Mistral but better armed that could carry helos or STOVL aircraft.

They could make 10 of the big vessels... 2 x CVN, and 8 of the big cruisers, and four super mistrals...

Maybe, but cruiser hull must have very different hydrodynamic properties, different L/B ratio, different seaspeed in range of 28-30 knots, not less. LHD/LPD/LHA are different ships, requiring much more hull space than cruiser, they must be broader, fatter, they are slower by definition and have a well deck on the stern. Japanese have built and are building a kind of multipurpose ships - big destroyer with assault ship capabilities, but they are a hell of a cost, that Russia cannot afford!

Wow a 70k ton cruiser? Has anybody ever created anything like this after ww2?

Of course thai is only a project, nothing ordered yet. But shows well current trend: universality, mission dependent ship equipment. Frankly I've never seen anything like with in such size tho.

Not sure lads if you check what actually Rakhmanov said:

«В одном из наших КБ мы сделали универсальный проект судна, которое может служить четырем целям,
то есть идентичный корабль в носовой части и ниже ватерлинии со специализированными надстройками, которые
предусматриваются при выполнении различных задач», - сказал Рахманов.

"in one of our design bureaus we designed a design of an universal ship, which can serve four purposes, that is, an identical ship at the bow and below the waterline with specialized superstructures that are provided for various tasks,” said Rakhmanov.



4 missions. Let's count '
1) Aircraft Carrier
2) helo carrier
3) LHD

4) ???? what is 4th? a cruiser?

LMFS wrote:I am tempted to think it has the worst of both: slow and only capable for STOVL like the LHD, without well deck and capacity for land vehicles like a carrier... or am I wrong?

meh you're not wrong, you're consciously trolling

Wow a 70k ton cruiser? Has anybody ever created anything like this after ww2?

Sure, the big K.
Kuznetsov is afterall a Heavy Aircraft-Carrying Missile Cruiser  
Kievs too at 45Kton.

Kirovs are the biggest post-WWII era pure surface combatant.
But the Kirovs are less than half the size of K and I really think Gary just made a bit of a brain-fart there.

hoom wrote:

Wow a 70k ton cruiser? Has anybody ever created anything like this after ww2?

Sure, the big K.
Kuznetsov is afterall a Heavy Aircraft-Carrying Missile Cruiser  
Kievs too at 45Kton.

simply TAKR is a ship carrying ships which main strike force is not an air wing... however with theater hypersonci missiles ~ 1,500km range situation might change with this respect.

hoom wrote:
Kirovs are the biggest post-WWII era pure surface combatant.
But the Kirovs are less than half the size of K and I really think Gary just made a bit of a brain-fart there.

LMFS wrote:TAKR only means the carrier is denominated "cruiser" so it fits Montreaux terminology and has some weapons accordingly, it does not mean it is small or multipurpose.

actually IMHO there is misunderstanding wrt TAKRS naming and roles. Thsi wants name just to cheat monreaux convention.

TAKRS  had 5 purposes (after Russian wiki) The tasks of the new ships were to include:

a) air defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships, accompanied by it;

b) ensuring the safety of strategic submarines in combat patrol areas;

c) search and destruction of enemy submarines in the antisubmarine group;

d) detection, targeting and destruction of enemy surface forces;

e) assault landing

so no this is well beyond any LHD now. Soviets even having fighters knew in  Midway style 10:1 confrontation they had small chances thus TAKRS main strike weapon were  AShMs. Perhaps what we see now is not only VSTOL comeback but also TAKR comeback (i.e. also UKSK with Zircons, rocket torpedoes, Poliment-Redut abroad) .


This  IMHO would be logical move for Russia but it is only one project so far.

kumbor wrote:
Maybe, but cruiser hull must have very different hydrodynamic properties, different L/B ratio, different seaspeed in range of 28-30 knots, not less. LHD/LPD/LHA are different ships, requiring much more hull space than cruiser, they must be broader, fatter, they are slower by definition and have a well deck on the stern. Japanese have built and are building a kind of multipurpose ships - big destroyer with assault ship capabilities, but they are a hell of a cost, that Russia cannot afford!

Kuz is TAKR with removed missiles though still VLS tubes are still there AFAIK.

GarryB wrote:Personally I would like to see a larger fixed wing carrier in the 70-80K ton range... they could unify the hull design with the escort cruiser that will operate with it.

same as for Kumbor ;-) Kuz is almost 70k tons and is a cruiser. Displacement IMHO will be dependent on budget * navy needs. So more ships less displacement. Classical CVNs are cute but helluva expensive.

kumbor wrote:Maybe, but cruiser hull must have very different hydrodynamic properties, different L/B ratio, different seaspeed in range of 28-30 knots, not less. LHD/LPD/LHA are different ships, requiring much more hull space than cruiser, they must be broader, fatter, they are slower by definition and have a well deck on the stern. Japanese have built and are building a kind of multipurpose ships - big destroyer with assault ship capabilities, but they are a hell of a cost, that Russia cannot afford!

Exactly. Unification of LHDs and carriers is something only the multi-keel design would allow, otherwise the LHD would not have internal volume and well deck or the carrier would have no speed. I still think they will make LHDs with roles of transport, amphibious assault, helicopter carrier and STOVL carrier, with well decks and a flight deck. So multi-purpose according to their understanding. Maybe between 20 and 30 kT. Can only imagine destroyers and carriers will be kept differentiated, it does not really make sense to me to unify hulls for them.

LMFS wrote:

kumbor wrote:Maybe, but cruiser hull must have very different hydrodynamic properties, different L/B ratio, different seaspeed in range of 28-30 knots, not less. LHD/LPD/LHA are different ships, requiring much more hull space than cruiser, they must be broader, fatter, they are slower by definition and have a well deck on the stern. Japanese have built and are building a kind of multipurpose ships - big destroyer with assault ship capabilities, but they are a hell of a cost, that Russia cannot afford!

Exactly. Unification of LHDs and carriers is something only the multi-keel design would allow, otherwise the LHD would not have internal volume and well deck or the carrier would have no speed. I still think they will make LHDs with roles of transport, amphibious assault, helicopter carrier and STOVL carrier, with well decks and a flight deck. So multi-purpose according to their understanding. Maybe between 20 and 30 kT. Can only imagine destroyers and carriers will be kept differentiated, it does not really make sense to me to unify hulls for them.

I love to read posts of seasoned ship designers with constructive critics of less experiences Russian colleagues.

QE2 can carry up to 900 Marines
De Gaulle can carry up to 800

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

LMFS wrote:

kumbor wrote:Maybe, but cruiser hull must have very different hydrodynamic properties, different L/B ratio, different seaspeed in range of 28-30 knots, not less. LHD/LPD/LHA are different ships, requiring much more hull space than cruiser, they must be broader, fatter, they are slower by definition and have a well deck on the stern. Japanese have built and are building a kind of multipurpose ships - big destroyer with assault ship capabilities, but they are a hell of a cost, that Russia cannot afford!

Exactly. Unification of LHDs and carriers is something only the multi-keel design would allow, otherwise the LHD would not have internal volume and well deck or the carrier would have no speed. I still think they will make LHDs with roles of transport, amphibious assault, helicopter carrier and STOVL carrier, with well decks and a flight deck. So multi-purpose according to their understanding. Maybe between 20 and 30 kT. Can only imagine destroyers and carriers will be kept differentiated, it does not really make sense to me to unify hulls for them.

I love to read posts of seasoned ship designers with constructive critics of less experiences Russian colleagues.        

QE2 can carry up to 900 Marines
De Gaulle can carry up to 800

Fact that Kuz. is registered as "aircraft carrying cruiser" dates from the times when shipbuilding department was hardly opposed to "aircraft carriers" as the "Nests of american aggression". Now these days are over, marshall Ustinov died long time ago, and there are no principal opponents to the idea of aircraft carrier as such. In every way except political idiocy, Kuz. is an aircraft carrier.

4 missions. Let's count '
1) Aircraft Carrier
2) helo carrier
3) LHD
4) ???? what is 4th? a cruiser?

The 4th mission of the new ship is anti-surface, BMD & land attack, i.e. what cruisers r for.

Kuz is TAKR with removed missiles though still VLS tubes are still there AFAIK.

In keeping with its designation, it will have Ash/LACMs after the refit.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:I love to read posts of seasoned ship designers with constructive critics of less experiences Russian colleagues.        

Don't be a moron, I was talking about STOBAR /CATOBAR type carriers, almost all of which have streamlined hulls and speeds close to 30 kt, while LHDs have big fat hulls with as much internal space as possible and speeds hardly above 20 kt. The type Russia has announced is compatible with carrying STOVL to support an expeditionary force but to my knowledge is not meaning a sudden alteration of naval strategy which clearly indicates the development of new carriers, detailed in further statements as vessels similar or bigger than the K.

QE2 can carry up to 900 Marines
De Gaulle can carry up to 800

Do they have well decks? Space for land vehicles and ramps to load them into the ship? They can transport as many marines as you want but they are not amphibious assault vessels, a cruise ship could do that too.

kumbor wrote:Fact that Kuz. is registered as "aircraft carrying cruiser" dates from the times when shipbuilding department was hardly opposed to "aircraft carriers" as the "Nests of american aggression". Now these days are over, marshall Ustinov died long time ago, and there are no principal opponents to the idea of aircraft carrier as such. In every way except political idiocy, Kuz. is an aircraft carrier.

Nevskoye has said that they don't think a carrier needs to be armed to the teeth, since that will only make it more expensive. While I think Russia will not want a defenceless carrier, I have to agree that if you are lacking hangar space it does not make sense to load huge amounts of big ASMs for instance.

Do they have well decks? Space for land vehicles and ramps to load them into the ship? They can transport as many marines as you want but they are not be amphibious assault vessels, a cruise ship could do that too.

LHDs can do it better, while this new ship can also put dozens of marines & some of their gear ashore with Mi-38s, Ka-29/-52s, & future tilt-rotors.
http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/kamov_ka29_helix_b.htm
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2016/december-2016-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/4737-russia-s-navy-receives-first-batch-of-overhauled-ka-29-helicopters.html

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Do they have well decks? Space for land vehicles and ramps to load them into the ship? They can transport as many marines as you want but they are not be amphibious assault vessels, a cruise ship could do that too.

LHDs can do it better, while this new ship can also put dozens of marines & some of their gear ashore with Mi-38s, Ka-29/-52s, & future tilt-rotors.

Of course, LHDs are the tool for the amphibious assault mission.
BTW, Russia is developing also the Minoga, if it turns to be a high-speed design of enough size it would be extremely useful as transport helicopter. Maybe even Mi-26 could be used in certain cases too, but deck would need to be specially strong.

I am thinking that this new vessel class could be something like the America class but with built-in multifunctionality. For instance, two first ships of the America class have no well deck and are meant rather as light carriers, while the subsequent units will have well decks again. A modular ship that could be configured according to the mission would allow to minimize the number of hulls to be built:
1) Light carrier: internal space configured for hangars and magazines
2) Transport ship: land vehicles, marines and supplies.
3) Landing ship: well dock + landing craft

Other potential configurations could be thought like floating hospital etc.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:I love to read posts of seasoned ship designers with constructive critics of less experiences Russian colleagues.        

Don't be a moron, I was talking about STOBAR /CATOBAR type carriers, almost all of which have streamlined hulls and speeds close to 30 kt, while LHDs have big fat hulls with as much internal space as possible and speeds hardly above 20 kt. The type Russia has announced is compatible with carrying STOVL to support an expeditionary force but to my knowledge is not meaning a sudden alteration of naval strategy which clearly indicates the development of new carriers, detailed in further statements as vessels similar or bigger than the K.

Dont be a moron. Russia has announced absolutely nothing so far. The on announcement from Rkahmanov is no official statement. Perhaps only one of proposals for spring competition.
Only MoD or Boriosv can name official statements. We like them or not. The only official so far was replacement of MiG-29k and Su-33 with better VSTOL fighter.

Will this ship be chosen one ? only MoD can give an answer. None of us.

LMFS wrote:detailed in further statements as vessels similar or bigger than the K.

so who precisely of MoD said it and when ? a quote perhaps? Better wait till spring 2019. No need to make up stories now      

kumbor wrote:
Fact that Kuz. is registered as "aircraft carrying cruiser" dates from the times when shipbuilding department was hardly opposed to "aircraft carriers" as the "Nests of american aggression".

really no differences in design?

Kuz 58,600tonnes - 24 fighters
6 × AK-630 AA guns (6×30 mm, 6,000 round/min/mount, 24,000 rounds)
8 × CADS-N-1 Kashtan CIWS (each 2 × 30 mm Gatling AA plus 32 3K87 Kortik SAM)
12 × P-700 Granit SSM
24 × 8-cell 3K95 Kinzhal SAM VLS (192 missiles; 1 missile per 3 seconds)
RBU-12000 UDAV-1 ASW rocket launchers (60 rockets)


Carrier QE2 - up to 50 fighters (65,000tonnes)
At least 3 × Phalanx CIWS[11]
30-mm DS30M Mk2 guns
Miniguns

Tsavo Lion wrote:

4 missions. Let's count '
1) Aircraft Carrier
2) helo carrier
3) LHD
4) ???? what is 4th? a cruiser?

The 4th mission of the new ship is anti-surface, BMD & land attack, i.e. what cruisers r for.

Looks like, say hybride of ASW carrier/carrier/LHD + cruiser so actual TAKR. But will it materialize? that's more question of doctrine, AShMs or airwing. Since there wont be really parity on high seas AShMs IMHO are better solution but lets wait till decision is made.

Tsavo wrote:

Kuz is TAKR with removed missiles though still VLS tubes are still there AFAIK.

In keeping with its designation, it will have Ash/LACMs after the refit.

Unlikely unless you've heard something. Have you from MoD?

OK, Lads you wanted official statements of MoD? here it comes.:
the Chief of Naval Aviation of the Navy, Hero of Russia, Major General Igor KOZHIN , talks about upgrading and modernizing the fleet, improving the infrastructure and the development prospects in general  

Krasnya Zvezda is an official MoD paper.

generally the whole interview is interesting but I quoted only part related to this thread:

1) new deck fighter before 2030...
2) new aircraft AEW/AWACS le's see what platform it will be based on
3) new deck helo - also used as assault one.


in third stage a long-range amphibious helicopter!!!!




http://redstar.ru/po-puti-obnovleniya/

- Igor Sergeyevich, if possible, indicate, please, the prospects for the development of naval aviation for a long period of time, for example, until 2050.
- As I have already mentioned, in naval aviation it is planned to modernize the existing fleet of aircraft and their phased replacement with promising aviation complexes.


At the first stage (until 2020), an active modernization of the existing aircraft fleet is carried out. We are also talking about the replacement of special aircraft with new types of aircraft, the inclusion of assault and transport-assault ship-based helicopters (Ka-52K), naval unmanned aerial vehicles into the combat strength of the naval fighter aircraft units (MiG-29K / KUB). In total, up to 2020 it is planned to supply more than 100 aircraft to the naval aviation of the Navy.


At the second stage (2021-2030 years) will continue to upgrade the entire fleet of aircraft and helicopters of naval aviation and re-equipment of fighter-assault aircraft coastal-based, there will begin mass production of advanced aviation patrol complex, a promising multi-purpose helicopter complex coastal and ship-based combat helicopter ship-based.
The naval aviation, should receive:
shipborne radar patrol aircraft
shipborne unmanned aerial vehicles,
promising aviation complex of naval aviation.



In the third stage (2031-2050 years) in naval aviation is expected to move to a new generation of multi-functional aircraft and adopt a new generation of high-precision air-based weapon systems, the combat capabilities of anti-submarine and multi-purpose patrol aircraft will be increased due to the re-equipment of anti-submarine regiments to a multi-purpose ship helicopter and a patrol aircraft of the far zone.

Search and rescue helicopters of amphibious class of the far zone will be created, including for operations in the Arctic and Arctic sea shelves.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p700-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#242436

I checked the original; among other things, they plan to have the MiG-29K/UB & develop AEWAC plane for ship-borne ops.
The Mig-29UB Fulcrum-B is a two-seat version of the proven Mig-29 fighter aircraft developed to provide training on the Mig-29 platform. Despite Mig-29UB lack of radar, it can be employed in combat missions engaging targets at short ranges employing the IRST system and the R-73 missile. Mig-29 operators also purchased the Mig-29UB trainer. These aircraft can be upgraded to the radar-equipped Mig-29UMT configuration to get advanced air-to-air and air-to-surface capabilities.
http://www.deagel.com/Combat-Aircraft/Mig-29UB_a000357002.aspx

GunshipDemocracy wrote:OK, Lads you wanted official statements of MoD? here it comes.:
the Chief of Naval Aviation of the Navy, Hero of Russia, Major General Igor KOZHIN , talks about upgrading and modernizing the fleet, improving the infrastructure and the development prospects in general  

Krasnya Zvezda is an official MoD paper.

generally the whole interview is interesting but I quoted only part related to this thread:

1) new deck fighter before 2030...
2) new aircraft AEW/AWACS le's see what  platform it will be based on
3) new deck helo - also used as assault one.


in third stage a long-range amphibious helicopter!!!!      




http://redstar.ru/po-puti-obnovleniya/

- Igor Sergeyevich, if possible, indicate, please, the prospects for the development of naval aviation for a long period of time, for example, until 2050.
- As I have already mentioned, in naval aviation it is planned to modernize the existing fleet of aircraft and their phased replacement with promising aviation complexes.


At the first stage (until 2020), an active modernization of the existing aircraft fleet is carried out. We are also talking about the replacement of special aircraft with new types of aircraft, the inclusion of assault and transport-assault ship-based helicopters (Ka-52K), naval unmanned aerial vehicles into the combat strength of the naval fighter aircraft units (MiG-29K / KUB). In total, up to 2020 it is planned to supply more than 100 aircraft to the naval aviation of the Navy.


At the second stage (2021-2030 years) will continue to upgrade the entire fleet of aircraft and helicopters of naval aviation and re-equipment of fighter-assault aircraft coastal-based, there will begin mass production of advanced aviation patrol complex, a promising multi-purpose helicopter complex coastal and ship-based combat helicopter ship-based.
The naval aviation, should receive:
shipborne radar patrol aircraft
shipborne unmanned aerial vehicles,
promising aviation complex of naval aviation.



In the third stage (2031-2050 years) in naval aviation is expected to move to a new generation of multi-functional aircraft and adopt a new generation of high-precision air-based weapon systems, the combat capabilities of anti-submarine and multi-purpose patrol aircraft will be increased due to the re-equipment of anti-submarine regiments to a multi-purpose ship helicopter and a patrol aircraft of the far zone.

Search and rescue helicopters of amphibious class of the far zone will be created, including for operations in the Arctic and Arctic sea shelves.

The reality coming again over those saying that the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 is not working. The words of the official fit very well the published about the doctrine, like you can see:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7032p50-state-armament-program-2018-2027#211908

Naval Aviation

For the Russian Naval Aviation the focus in the first phase will be the development and serial production of an advanced maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) by 2020.

Additionally, Russia will look to develop and produce a new shore/ship-based multirole helicopter (to replace the Ka-27) and acquire a ship-based combat helicopter (the Ka-52K). Russia will also seek to develop advanced airborne strike systems.

The second phase will see the deployment of the new Russian ship-based radar surveillance aircraft, ship-based UAVs, and ship-based strike aircraft. The 2021-2030 period will see the Russian Naval Aviation transition to optionally piloted aircraft, including those derived from existing manned aircraft. Obsolete aircraft are to be replaced by modern, multirole manned and unmanned aircraft. During the 2031-2050 phase naval aviation focus will switch to a new generation of multirole aircraft and UAVs and field a new generation of airborne precision weapon systems.

For the Russian Naval Aviation is very important to work in the development of unmanned platforms. I expect to be unmanned:

- The future Maritime Patrol / Airborne Early Warning and Control platforms (most of them shipborne, adapted to the different ship weight categories, to achieve maximum range for every ship size category).

Very likely both roles can be unified, with more powerful features in the bigger platforms.