Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

This video is not accurate on many details...

The analysis is wrong.

Just stating that won't do it for me. Can u refute it with some worthy substantiation?
Otherwise, it would be too good to be true in the current Russian context for them to be able to accomplish everything spelled out in their program.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Just stating that won't do it for me. Can u refute it with some worthy substantiation?
Otherwise, it would be too good to be true in the current Russian context for them to be able to accomplish everything spelled out in their program.

Many ships are not counted.

And when you preted to make conclussions about the future fleet, ships that are under modernization must be counted because obviously will be in at the time.

Plus many other details.

The counted all the major & relevant classes of ships.
What is the ratio of those surface ships now & planned to be under modernization to those planned to be built by 2030?
Besides, some of those slated for modernization may never be modernized, as was pointed out before. Time to take off ur rosy glasses!

Tsavo Lion wrote:The counted all the major & relevant classes of ships.
What is the ratio of those surface ships now & planned to be under modernization to those planned to be built by 2030?
Besides, some of those slated for modernization may never be modernized, as was pointed out before. Time to take off ur rosy glasses!

No and you know it. Only of the second biggest and most powerfull class, the Project 1144, they count 1 of 3.

The video has nothing to save.

You can see here the combat fleet more complete, only with some few details to take into account:

http://russianships.info/eng/today/

You can see here the combat fleet more complete, only with some few details to take into account:
http://russianships.info/eng/today/

Written and managed by a group of enthusiasts, the RussianShips.info site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Soviet NAVY and Russian Federation NAVY, past and present. http://russianships.info/eng/
It may be inaccurate & biased.

If the the Adm. Nakhimov is modernized, only 2 will remain for years to come, as the Adm. Lazarev's fate is uncertian.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0_1144#%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB_%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2_(%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80)#%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B1%D0%B0
https://lenta.ru/news/2015/01/27/1144

Only 5 ships of the PacF can go on long cruises to the far zone:
https://ria.ru/20170421/1492683612.html

The Northern Fleet has 9: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82_%D0%92%D0%9C%D0%A4_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8#%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8

The Baltic Fleet had 2:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82_%D0%92%D0%9C%D0%A4_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8#%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2

The BSF has 7: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82_%D0%92%D0%9C%D0%A4_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8#%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2_%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0

5+9+7+2=23 ships, or 7 avail. 24/7 as CVN/UDK escorts & other tasks. Even after a few more ships r built by the 2030, it won't be enough for 2-4 UDKs/TAKRs/CVNs as some of the older ships will be in refit.

Tsavo Lion wrote:If the the Adm. Nakhimov is modernized, only 2 will remain for years to come, as the Adm. Lazarev's fate is uncertian.

If it is uncertain, why you say "only 2 will remain for years"?

This is not accurate, and is biased in a direction that is not positive for Russia. At this point the ship is in, and can be modernized like the other 2.

The video counted only 1 of the 3, between many other "mistakes", and then make drama...

Not serious, not accurate, and biased in a negative way.

Someone is really thinking the Russian Navy does not know the amount of ships they have, and their situation, to think they can have some real influence over the Russian Navy with this kind of fake drama?

If it is uncertain, why you say "only 2 will remain for years"?

Because its modernization will take a few years once it starts.
That date also may be delayed as there is now 1 less big dry dock.
Also, Peter the Great will go for a refit after the Adm. Nakhimov is modernized. So actually only 1 can be counted on for the foreseeable future.

..think they can have some real influence over the Russian Navy..

No1 is trying to influence them that way, stop seeing enemies under every bush!

Amusing... it talks about the ships and subs available today and then talks about how the current for is inadequate for the plans projected for 2030... do they not realise that between now and 2030 they might actually build some new ships and subs?

Did they mention the fact that the focus so far on rearmament has been on the Army and Air Force as well as the strategic nuclear forces and that now the emphasis will shift to expand Russian potential for global reach and capability.

The Atlantic will be an important region as it gives Russia access to central and south american states as well as african states, while the pacific ocean gives them access to the indian ocean and the other side of africa as well as central and south america too.

A new canal through central america is being planned and paid for by China AFAIK which will further improve access...

5+9+7+2=23 ships, or 7 avail. 24/7 as CVN/UDK escorts & other tasks. Even after a few more ships r built by the 2030, it won't be enough for 2-4 UDKs/TAKRs/CVNs as some of the older ships will be in refit.

You are confusing Russian ships for American ships... Russian carriers don't need a dozen ships to escort it to protect it... it will have its own self defence screen of missiles like any other cruiser.

Not suggesting it could operate on its own but it wont need a large escort most of the time...

They need at least 1 new true carrier be it with skijump or catapult with su-57K or the new mig they are talking about.

They seem to want two different types of carriers... as shown by their money spending... they wanted a small Mistral like helicopter carrier to support landing forces, and they have the Kuznetsov and want something slightly bigger with a slightly bigger air wing... they want that to provide air cover for their surface ships... which is totally understandable... most military forces want to operate with air control... it simply makes things easier and safer being able to spot enemy threats from greater distances and to be able to deal with things further away from your surface vessels.

Agree harrier carrier would be useless but it would be good that their future helicopter carrier could carry 3 or 4 VTOL jets to use them for patrol around the fleet with a new radar and data link with redut to allow air defence missiles to hit above radar horizon.

Ka-31/35 and Ka-52K could already do that without needing to develop a whole new 5th gen fighter.

Maybe they could upgrade 10 or so old yak-38. A new jet will be expensive since they won't have 60 fighter per carrier and certainly not 10 carriers like US.

The Yak-38 was worse than useless... at best it could carry four R-60 short range AAMs and had no radar and crashed an awful lot.

Mig29K shares a lot with mig-35/29M so its production is cheaper.

I agree... if they are going to build helicopter carriers... whether they are based on the Mistral design or something else if they were ever going to use it in a real landing they would have the Kuznetsov operating there too in support, so it makes more sense using MiG-35s to support the landing than to take 3-4 helicopters off your helicopter carrier to put next to useless VTOL fighters on their that don't currently exist.

If it is yak that make the plane it will be even more expensive since they have build like 0 jets last 30 years.

Well they have been making Yak-130s, but no front line fighters that need modern self defence avionics suites or combat radars etc etc.

Well there is a clear desire for a LHD capability to the point of constructing 2* Mistrals.

Seems you equate a harrier carrier to a helicopter carrier...

They wanted a vessel to land Russian Naval Infantry forces... they did not want a half arsed little piece of shit shoe box with crap VTOL targets on it.

IMO if planned at the start a significant air capability is possible in a 40-45Kton LHD (Wasp/Vikramaditya size).
US claims 20 F-35s can operate off a Wasp in carrier mode so at least that should be possible & is significantly useful.

Russia hasn't got any F-35s, and even if they did WTF would they want that many fixed wing aircraft supporting a landing?

Helicopters and landing craft are vastly more valuable than some show pony piece of crap carrying 6 AAMs... expecially for the 200 million dollar a pop you would be paying for them because you would only be making about 60 planes tops.

There is significant flexibility benefit since each ship can always provide carrier, helicopter carrier or landing capability vs specialist ships where the relevant specialist may be in maintenance when needed, especially when talking about numbers as low as 4 or 6 max, split between 2 fleets.

Flexibility is nice, but usefulness is rather more important.

Just because a new carrier could carry useless VTOL fighters doesn't mean you would ever want it to.

Now they can sell COMPLETE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION FOR the YAK-41 to China & build the next generation STOVL follow on together.

According to western media the Chinese already have the complete documentation on the F-35, so why bother with the Yak-41 docs?

Russians have told they will build multifunctional assault ships. They have also said they discuss the STOVL plane and one of the functions of their proposed assault ships would be carriers. In line with many other navies and with the own doctrine of creating combatants that are an asset and not a liability constantly needing external support, I can understand from a theoretical point of view that having maybe half squadron STOVL on board a LHD can be considered useful. It can help an assault group to operate effectively and autonomously in lower risk environments, and Russia will probably not build LHDs and CVs in big numbers, so it would make sense that one does not need from the other every time, the same way that not every deployment calls for the same type of assets. Of course the economic viability issue puts a big question mark on the project, to the point that I don't see this really going anywhere unless in cooperation with China. Other solutions like the proposed high speed Kamov could also weaken the case for the STOVL plane

Well they have been making Yak-130s, but no front line fighters that need modern self defence avionics suites or combat radars etc etc.

They r now organizationally "under the same roof" with MiG & Sukhoi which can help in design.

Not suggesting it could operate on its own but it wont need a large escort most of the time...

We discussed it already.. They'll need at least 2-3 medium/large surface escorts per UDK/CVN.

They r now organizationally "under the same roof" with MiG & Sukhoi which can help in design.

Competition was and is huge between them. Even during communist time. Let alone now that contract are smaller and fewer.

Yak and mig can be happy to have yak-130 and mig-29k/35. Sukhoi is is the best choice for any future 5th generation fighter since they have already done huge work on su-57.

LMFS wrote:Russians have told they will build multifunctional assault ships. They have also said they discuss the STOVL plane and one of the functions of their proposed assault ships would be carriers. In line with many other navies and with the own doctrine of creating combatants that are an asset and not a liability constantly needing external support, I can understand from a theoretical point of view that having maybe half squadron STOVL on board a LHD can be considered useful. It can help an assault group to operate effectively and autonomously in lower risk environments, and Russia will probably not build LHDs and CVs in big numbers, so it would make sense that one does not need from the other every time, the same way that not every deployment calls for the same type of assets. Of course the economic viability issue puts a big question mark on the project, to the point that I don't see this really going anywhere unless in cooperation with China. Other solutions like the proposed high speed Kamov could also weaken the case for the STOVL plane

Helicopter, even a fast one is completely different aircraft from classical airplane. They cannot support each other in any way. Helicopters have one scope of missions, and airplanes different one!

We discussed it already.. They'll need at least 2-3 medium/large surface escorts per UDK/CVN.

You are confusing Russia with the US.

In the US the aircraft is the focus... the large carriers are all about the aircraft with pathetic weapons comparable to corvettes otherwise.

The purpose of the US navy ships is to protect the aircraft carriers and the purpose of the aircraft carriers is to carry aircraft that do everything.

For the Russians the aircraft carrier is to protect the ships the carrier is operating with.

It uses aircraft to extend the vision and reach of the weapons of the ships and to add a layer of defences against air and sea threats.

A group of small speed boats or incoming low flying missiles can be detected well over the horizon and intercepted by aircraft... without aircraft those threats would be detected and identified much later and have to be dealt with much closer to the ships... which is dangerous.

Carriers make surface ships safer in Russian forces.

Carriers are the weapon in US carrier groups.

The sum doesn't change if #s changed places. UDKs will still need escorts while all CBG combatants & AWs will support each other. Also, their future UDK/TAKR/CVN hybrids may be pressed to strike land targets & that's why they practiced for it in Syria.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

If it is uncertain, why you say "only 2 will remain for years"?

Because its modernization will take a few years once it starts.

Not finished by 2030?  

kumbor wrote:Helicopter, even a fast one is completely different aircraft from classical airplane. They cannot support each other in any way. Helicopters have one scope of missions, and airplanes different one!

This is correct... for existing helicopters. One that flies at 700 km/h propelled by turbofan engines and lifted by fixed wings like the model "leaked" by Kamov would make the frontier between capabilities and roles much less defined than today (STOVL is a fixed wing aircraft trying to emulate one of the helicopter's main advantages to start with). Probability is that it could cover most of needed strike roles and still be way cheaper to procure and operate than a STOLV fighter, and having a really effective hovering capability. This would apply especially to COIN and low intensity conflicts where countering enemy fighters is not a real issue, even when I read some references about the very short detection ranges of stationary helicopters at low altitude vs. current fighter radars and how this could actually allow the helos to act effectively also in AD role... this is just a theory but it may hold water, have not searched much about it yet.

Well, future tilt-rotor gunships, worth 2-3 Mi-24/-35s & Ka-52s in firepower each, could act like the OV-10 Broncos. https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/bell-pushes-v-280-gunship-shipboard-variants-recon-in-works/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_V-280_Valor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco#Specifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24#Specifications_(Mi-24)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-28#Specifications_(Mi-28N)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50#Specifications_(Ka-50)

Seems you equate a harrier carrier to a helicopter carrier...

They wanted a vessel to land Russian Naval Infantry forces... they did not want a half arsed little piece of shit shoe box with crap VTOL targets on it.

Russia hasn't got any F-35s, and even if they did WTF would they want that many fixed wing aircraft supporting a landing?

Helicopters and landing craft are vastly more valuable than some show pony piece of crap carrying 6 AAMs... expecially for the 200 million dollar a pop you would be paying for them because you would only be making about 60 planes tops.

Flexibility is nice, but usefulness is rather more important.

Just because a new carrier could carry useless VTOL fighters doesn't mean you would ever want it to.

You seem to be assuming I'm talking about 25-30Kton Invincible size ships, I'm talking 40-45Kton Wasp/Vikramaditya size which provides significantly more useful air complements.

I specifically include Vikramaditya since its STOBAR.
I'm thinking basically an optimised Vikramaditya type/size STOBAR carrier with a well deck & vehicle access to the hangar.

My opposition to the idea of spending limited $$$/engineering effort developing an F-35 style VSTOL fighter is already stated & I'm still not entirely sold that they are actually doing so but if they are, does it make sense they build an 80-100Kton dedicated carrier for it?

Usefulness of a smaller type comes from being able to build more of them for the same amount of $$$ -> have some capability always available & the possibility of bringing multiple ships to stack capability when needed.

Do you think it is possible that Russia buys back chinese Kuznetsov once they got their domestical carriers ? The ships looks very good, better than Russian K. They did a very good job but looks like they keep it only for training.

Two kuznetsov with 24-30 mig 29k is what they need right now and it could be a quick and cheap solution.

Isos wrote:Do you think it is possible that Russia buys back chinese Kuznetsov once they got their domestical carriers ? The ships looks very good, better than Russian K. They did a very good job but looks like they keep it only for training.

Two kuznetsov with 24-30 mig 29k is what they need right now and it could be a quick and cheap solution.

Maybe it looks to you as a quick and cheap solution, but otherwise, politically and militarily it would be a complete idiocy!

kumbor wrote:

Isos wrote:Do you think it is possible that Russia buys back chinese Kuznetsov once they got their domestical carriers ? The ships looks very good, better than Russian K. They did a very good job but looks like they keep it only for training.

Two kuznetsov with 24-30 mig 29k is what they need right now and it could be a quick and cheap solution.

Maybe it looks to you as a quick and cheap solution, but otherwise, politically and militarily it would be a complete idiocy!

Why ?  They can make an agreement like the carrier for ToT of su-33 plus some money.

Politicaly there is no probleme. Neither military since the carrier was made for su-33 and mig-29k. Chinese are getting their own carriers designed for their own jets so unlikely that they use lioning for other task than training. And then training can be done on their own carriers.

Every country is happy to get ride of a big carrier that is useless for them.

The sum doesn't change if #s changed places. UDKs will still need escorts while all CBG combatants & AWs will support each other. Also, their future UDK/TAKR/CVN hybrids may be pressed to strike land targets & that's why they practiced for it in Syria.

The difference is that the carrier is not there to attack or invade the enemy, it is there to carry the aircraft to see threats early and to assist in the defence of the other ships.

A Russian carrier should be well able to defend itself from attack, and the ships operating with it even more so... the aircraft just add an outer ring of detection and identification and interception that makes the surface ships safer.

One that flies at 700 km/h propelled by turbofan engines and lifted by fixed wings like the model "leaked" by Kamov would make the frontier between capabilities and roles much less defined than today (STOVL is a fixed wing aircraft trying to emulate one of the helicopter's main advantages to start with).

But what sort of payload are these high speed helos going to be able to manage... to achieve those speeds they will be sleek low drag designs... so likely no external rocket pods or large missile packs like current attack helos... and likely not heavily armoured either.

Probability is that it could cover most of needed strike roles and still be way cheaper to procure and operate than a STOLV fighter, and having a really effective hovering capability.

Helicopters tend to be rather fragile... in terms of attack however... I would think a Hermes missile from 20km range wont care if it is launched from a Ka-52K or Su-25 replacement...

Personally I think cruise missiles for deep strike for navy vessels, and a few gun vessels with 152mm and 203mm naval guns to offer NGS.

EMALS could be adapted to angle launch standard aircraft bombs... for instance...

Well, future tilt-rotor gunships, worth 2-3 Mi-24/-35s & Ka-52s in firepower each, could act like the OV-10 Broncos.

Hinds can already carry 500kg bombs... twice the weight of the weapons the Broncos carry... Broncos are more recon forward NGS support type aircraft than pure attack types...

My opposition to the idea of spending limited $$$/engineering effort developing an F-35 style VSTOL fighter is already stated & I'm still not entirely sold that they are actually doing so but if they are, does it make sense they build an 80-100Kton dedicated carrier for it?

It makes sense to build a 80-90KT carrier, because you could operate Su-57Ks from it as well as anything that comes from the VSTOL programme.

The simple fact is that even Hind helicopters that are designed to take off vertically normally use a rolling take off at heavy payload/fuel weights... it simply makes things easier and improves performance.

Usefulness of a smaller type comes from being able to build more of them for the same amount of $$$ -> have some capability always available & the possibility of bringing multiple ships to stack capability when needed.

But that does not work.

It is like saying having 20 Corvettes each with one uksk launch system is better and cheaper than having 1 cruiser with 10 UKSK launchers... you get twice as many missiles for a start and 20 corvettes around the place can be rather useful.

The problem comes when you try to operate on the other side of the planet with them... 20 corvettes are not the same as one cruiser... the cruisers radar and sensors and systems will be much better than any fitted to a corvette.

Smaller carriers means smaller radars and less room for stuff... and it means more than one ship to maintain and service and man.

Do you think it is possible that Russia buys back chinese Kuznetsov once they got their domestical carriers ? The ships looks very good, better than Russian K. They did a very good job but looks like they keep it only for training.

The problems they are having with the Kirovs.... upgrading and replacing all the systems and wiring... it is just not worth having to do that again with a carrier...

They need to work out exactly what they want and then build them.

Two kuznetsov with 24-30 mig 29k is what they need right now and it could be a quick and cheap solution.

There will be an enormous number of changes they will want to make to the design of the Kuznetsov based on operational experience with that carrier... buying another one would not be very useful and would not bring any of the benefits their experience has created.

Why ? They can make an agreement like the carrier for ToT of su-33 plus some money.

Because it is an old design and they can probably do much better...

Politicaly there is no probleme. Neither military since the carrier was made for su-33 and mig-29k. Chinese are getting their own carriers designed for their own jets so unlikely that they use lioning for other task than training. And then training can be done on their own carriers.

I doubt Russia will be happy operating Su-33s and MiG-33s on new carriers... remember they have committed themselves to replace Soviet era equipment and the Su-33s and MiG-35 are based on Soviet era technology... when they get new carriers they will carry new STOVL fighters or, more likely Su-57Ks...

Every country is happy to get ride of a big carrier that is useless for them.

Why would Russia be happy having to completely overhaul another carrier with their new technology?

China can use the carrier for decades, learning how to operate at sea with aircraft... the experience would be useful.

Sure a new carrier with su-57 would be thousand times better but unlikely they got it any time soon.

Plus K class can carry big su-33 which means any new smaller and lighter VTOL mig could be used without big changes neither on the deck neither in the hangar neither on the lift.

Wires and engines are already new, chinese build but new.

Kuznetsov was in a very bad situation that's why it needed an upgrade.

Weapons system can be removed and install only pantsirs and paket nk. It will have escort anyway to protect it from missiles. Radar and russian computers could be installed easily.