Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

GB wrote: hey operated the Kiev class and the Kuznetsov class and decided what they decided in the 1980s that they want something slightly bigger than a Kuznetsov class with catapults and bigger fighters.

ie They want Ulyanovsk carriers with Su-57s.

Perhaps they want it even more than you do but so far nothing indicates that it is gonna happen. Ulyanovsk displacement was 80kts BTW


We obviously disagree about facts interpretation but we have to agree on facts.  Facts relvant to thread I've listed below:

A) Kremlin, WWW, signed by Putin: Strategy 2030, points 44-46: there is shipborne aircraft carrying complex planned in 2030 strategy, no aircraft carrier mentioned.

B) Chief-In-Commander (CiC) of RuN aviation said:  aval AR expects to receive  new Perspective Aviation Complex of Shipborne Aviation (so no word about MiG-29k nor Su-57k)

C)  Chief-In-Commander (CiC) of RuN  said: basis of Russian be in far sea zone will be frigates and amphibious ships with "big punch"
+ and we will keep working on destroyers and universal landing ships
+ all new ships will be modular and universal

{here I'd love to see timeline - I presume he was talking about nearest time horizon - till 2030s nut this is jut my guess }

D) Chief of USC Rakhmanov: one of our design bureaus make a design of universal "expeditionary" ship which includes LHS/Helo carrier/ aircraft Carrier. She' ll be modular.

E) Dept MoD Borisov: since 2017 there i project VSTOL running to replace Su-33 and  MiG-29k

F)  Dept MoD Borisov: spring 2019 there will be finalized competition of aircraft carrying ships design

G  
Well, chief in comander of RuN said that they expect "amphibious ships with good attacks and defense abilities"  + Ulyanovsk was to be armed as cruiser - 12(16) Granits (depending on surce), 192 kinzhals,  8 CIWS + RGB, so nothing alike US CVs.

This is your composition, but not the reality. In fact your list ignores the most important facts:

- The Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 is the most important strategic document vigent about the future of the Russian Navy. Everything else, including the document you mention in the point A are theoric developments of lower level, they are partial developments of the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015. In fact recently the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 has been recited to describe the plans for the Russian Naval Aviation.

- The Russian Navy said they want aircraft carriers over 70000 tons. Clearly. The low limit has been stablished. There are not news about the high limit.

- The Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 said the future Russian aircraft carriers must be multirole, and excludes explicitly the heavy cruiser aircraft carriers, like the project 11435 of the current generation and the Project 11437 (Ulyanovsk).

- The Russian Navy announced that they will not purchase helicopter carriers.

- The Russian Navy said they want amphibious ships without reference to the size.

- There is a limit for the reception of projects of aircraft carriers, that expires with the end of 2018. It means 3 days to go.

- By the spring of 2015 has been announced the final decission about the future aircraft carrier. One of the preliminary projects will be approved.

- The necessary reform of the Russian Zvezda shipyard will be ready in agreement with the timeline necessary for a fast begin of the construction of the first ship of the project of aircraft carrier approved.

- The reference to the future shipborne fighter of Russia, called later "Perspective Aviation Complex of Shipborne Aviation", and its timeline of 2030, were introduced in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015.

- The Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 said the new shipborne fighter must be of a new generation. Said in 2015 it means 5th Generation. It excludes developments from previous generations like the (like the Yak-41/141, and every other STOVL development of Sovietic origin.


Plus:

- The alone Russian project of aircraft carrier over 70000 tons publicly known until now is the Project 23000 Shtorm. It was presented its export variant, the variant for the Russian Armed Forces will include changes, like nuclear propulsion and more.

- There is a real projection about the use of the Su-57 as shipborne fighter, in the presence of the Su-57 in the presentation of the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carrier.

- There is real evidence about mutual feedback in the development of the Project 23000 Shtorm and the Su-57. They are compatible.


Instead:

- The public references to a STOVL aircraft are very weak and very recent. If there is something, the work would be very recent. In doubt if can compatible with the timeline stablished until 2030.

- The first unit of the Project 11437, Ulyanovsk, was in production in Ukraine at the end of the Soviet Union, and was scrapped in 1992. Full load 73400 tons.

@eehne,

mate, you can believe in whatever you want.  I believe only in things either  published in Rusan media as as an interview with top brass and/or MoD and official texts on MoD/Kremlin sites. I dont read blogs unless recognized ones (Bastion, BMPD). Not translations of translations but Russian sources.

BTW "hard evidence" for you are plastic Su-57k from 2015 but official statement of deputy PM is weak and Kremlin strategy from 2018 is irrelevant  
ok for me, but this doesn't affect reality. I'm a nice guy and wont remind you about those Liders that were already being build last years according to your "hard evidence".



Chronologically in February they said there is already  draft. Then in May that several "refined" projects will be submitted to MoD by end of 2018. If any of them will be chosen in 2019 R&D phase can start.  Some of them are ships of large displacements.  In December Rakmanov - we designed an universal "expeditionary ship" combining 4 functions: aircraft carrier, helo carrier and LHD + command ship.

So what is written in stone? nothing, absolutely nothing. We need to wait.

you weren't a big fanboi of emals and Shtorm?

Emals are necessary for AWACS platforms.

Storm is too big.

Perhaps they want it even more than you do but so far nothing indicates that it is gonna happen. Ulyanovsk displacement was 80kts BTW

Yes, they were looking at the 70-90KT range in terms of weight.

A) Kremlin, WWW, signed by Putin: Strategy 2030, points 44-46: there is shipborne aircraft carrying complex planned in 2030 strategy, no aircraft carrier mentioned.

Yeah, and for the last 70 years you wont find designated marksman rifle or assault rifle mentioned by their army, yet you will find SVDs and AKs were developed... you just need to recognise that they use different terms from the west.

B) Chief-In-Commander (CiC) of RuN aviation said:  aval AR expects to receive new Perspective Aviation Complex of Shipborne Aviation (so no word about MiG-29k nor Su-57k)

And here we have the bending of the truth again.... you claim it is VSTOL, yet the actual quotes V is a mere possibility because he is not ruling it out, while you claim it is evidence and fact and therefore proof.

+ all new ships will be modular and universal

So no aircraft only ships... hence no mention of aircraft carriers... they will be aircraft carrying armed cruisers...

D) Chief of USC Rakhmanov: one of our design bureaus make a design of universal "expeditionary" ship which includes LHS/Helo carrier/ aircraft Carrier. She' ll be modular.

And can we both accept that the chances of EMALS are not that much different from the chances of STOVL fighters so these modular ships might not be aircraft carriers in the western accepted sense... they might just be helicopter carriers and landing ships, while bigger vessels will be needed for fixed wing carrier aircraft.

Thing is that if EMALs fails, they can still operate fighters from a large carrier it will just mean plans for AWACS need to be revised.

With small carriers the STOVL aircraft goes ahead whether it is any good or if it is shit.

They preferred the Su-33 over the MiG when given a choice.... they took the MiG when it was available because production was already paid for, but you think they will spend billions making a STOVL aircraft especially for 3-4 little carriers?

Yeah, right...

E) Dept MoD Borisov: since 2017 there i project VSTOL running to replace Su-33 and  MiG-29k

No.

There is a project to develop a light 5th gen fighter that will have STOL performance to allow its use on carriers... Borisov said it may have V meaning it may not... I rather suspect there will be competition where both or one might be a V fighter, but in practise it will be a STOVL fighter and never actually take off vertically except for airshows...

Whether it makes it anywhere near service is another matter.

F)  Dept MoD Borisov: spring 2019 there will be finalized competition of aircraft carrying ships design

Which is no where near enough time to determine if it will have STOVL or STOL capabilities... which means it will need to be big, and a naval Su-57 will be needed too.

Well, chief in comander of RuN said that they expect "amphibious ships with good attacks and defense abilities"  + Ulyanovsk was to be armed as cruiser - 12(16) Granits (depending on surce), 192 kinzhals, 8 CIWS + RGB, so nothing alike US CVs.

The difference is that America has always relied on its air power to do everything... it is why they have little in the way of SAMs in their Army... their army expects to operate under a protective umbrella provided by its air force.

The US Navy does not expect support from the USAF... it expects to operate under an umbrella of its own aircraft.

The Russian Navy has no such history of being able to operate under its own air power, and the purpose of its carriers is to provide air cover for its ships.

Attacking land targets was previously not of interest and only today with land attack missiles it is even less interested in using aircraft for that.

No worries, leave to professionals - Borisov, Chermezov, Rakhmanov & Co - kid

In the quotes you misrepresent as proving the new aircraft will be VSTOL clearly show the V is speculation even from the professionals you have such confidence in.

The makers of the Yak-41 were professionals too...

Big displacement is needed for LG tankers

Throughout its construction it has said it is for large civilian ships and large military vessels too.

ekhm,  nothing here is supported  by real world evidence.

F-35s do not dare operate near the IADS in Syria with S-300 missiles... the IADS around a Russian carrier will be at least as formidible and consist of a much wider range of much more potent SAMs and aircraft...

F-35 is not meaningless and so far 29k has virtually  chance against it. . MiG is adequate as long as there are no 5gen fighters around.  No modernization will make it 5gen fighter.

5th gen is stealth, and with new radar technologies... including the already in use integration of radars operating in different bands (ie NEBO) that can be used with L band wing mounted AESA types, and a future of even more exotic photon based radars... do you really think the extremely expensive stealth performance of the F-35 will hold up?

Opinion of Gen Bondaryev

He has to be cautious... when Russia ends up with much better fighters than the US the money will be well spent... it is not like they are spending what the US is spending on defence or anything.

well, how would you describe a person, who claims that he knows Russian military, financial and technological situation better then Russian MoD and OAK ? in short person climing that Russians kick started  the whole program without any risk, tech or cost/benefit assessment?

You mean a person who bold face lies and claims they are developing VSTOL fighters, when the quote clearly only mentions V as a possibility...

yeah, you can't really trust such a person...

- The first unit of the Project 11437, Ulianovsk, was in production in Ukraine and was scrapped in 1992.

They scrapped it because they would never need it and wanted to make sure Russia never got it...

The value of scrapping it would get them peanuts compared with what Russia might have paid them... but screw them... Russia is better off starting a new design from scratch that takes into account the UKSK launchers and Redut etc etc and other new systems and sensors... and nuke propulsion.

I'm a nice guy and wont remind you about those Liders that were already being build last years according to your "hard evidence".

So no on the nice guy thing right?

So what is written in stone? nothing, absolutely nothing. We need to wait.

Hahahahahaha... you funny guy... we don't know and have to wait... but everyone else is wrong and you are right... you really know how to discuss...

It has just upgraded its far east shipyard to handle ships up to 350KTs... why do you think they can't build large carriers?

Because you need more than only a big shipyard. They theorically could but in practice it would costs them just as much as for US xarrier and more since they should do everything from the begining. It would involve hundreds of companies that would need investment to do something new and then they would need to pay for construction and then they would need to buy the planes.

The light shtorm with pantsirs and why not some buk launcher and a catapult is possible but a big one is in my opinion not scheduled.

Because you need more than only a big shipyard.

Well the Soviet Union managed to build one Kuznetsov carrier plus a second was being built and a single Ulyanovsk larger carrier was also started at Nikelayev in the Ukraine... which other big shipyard did they have at the time?

And you can bet your ass that the Zvezda shipyard in the Far East will be much better equipped to build big ships...

The light shtorm with pantsirs and why not some buk launcher and a catapult is possible but a big one is in my opinion not scheduled.

Because they are not building western carriers... they are building Russian aircraft carrying cruisers that will have UKSK launchers and the full range of Redut missiles and S-500 missiles as well...

GarryB wrote:

Because you need more than only a big shipyard.

Well the Soviet Union managed to build one Kuznetsov carrier plus a second was being built and a single Ulyanovsk larger carrier was also started at Nikelayev in the Ukraine... which other big shipyard did they have at the time?

And you can bet your ass that the Zvezda shipyard in the Far East will be much better equipped to build big ships...

The light shtorm with pantsirs and why not some buk launcher and a catapult is possible but a big one is in my opinion not scheduled.

Because they are not building western carriers... they are building Russian aircraft carrying cruisers that will have UKSK launchers and the full range of Redut missiles and S-500 missiles as well...

Why then none of the proposed carriers have UKSK. Finally they thought up that carrier should be a carrier, not a variant of through-deck cruiser.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:@eehne,

mate, you can believe in whatever you want.  I believe only in things either  published in Rusan media as as an interview with top brass and/or MoD and official texts on MoD/Kremlin sites. I dont read blogs unless recognized ones (Bastion, BMPD). Not translations of translations but Russian sources.

BTW "hard evidence" for you are plastic Su-57k from 2015 but official statement of deputy PM is weak and Kremlin strategy from 2018  is irrelevant  
ok for me, but this doesn't affect reality. I'm a nice guy and wont remind you about those Liders that were already being build last years according to your "hard evidence".



Chronologically in February they said there is already  draft. Then in May that several "refined" projects will be submitted to MoD by end of 2018. If any of them will be chosen in 2019 R&D phase can start.  Some of them are ships of large displacements.  In December Rakmanov - we designed an universal "expeditionary ship" combining 4 functions: aircraft carrier, helo carrier and LHD + command ship.

So what is written in stone? nothing, absolutely nothing. We need to wait.

You are distorting the reality in a form that is not right. You rarely use sources, very rarely, and when you use them the result is a composition that has nothing to with the reality. I have been giving you the same Kremlin source about the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015. And when you see the head of the Russian Naval Aviation reciting almost literally the text of the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 only a few weeks ago in order to clarify the future of the Russian Naval Aviation, there is not doubt that the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 remains vigent.

eehnie wrote:This is your composition, but not the reality. In fact your list ignores the most important facts:

- The Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 is the most important strategic document vigent about the future of the Russian Navy. Everything else, including the document you mention in the point A are theoric developments of lower level, they are partial developments of the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015. In fact recently the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 has been recited to describe the plans for the Russian Naval Aviation.

- The Russian Navy said they want aircraft carriers over 70000 tons. Clearly. The low limit has been stablished. There are not news about the high limit.

- The Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 said the future Russian aircraft carriers must be multirole, and excludes explicitly the heavy cruiser aircraft carriers, like the project 11435 of the current generation and the Project 11437 (Ulyanovsk).

- The Russian Navy announced that they will not purchase helicopter carriers.

- The Russian Navy said they want amphibious ships without reference to the size.

- There is a limit for the reception of projects of aircraft carriers, that expires with the end of 2018. It means 3 days to go.

- By the spring of 2015 has been announced the final decission about the future aircraft carrier. One of the preliminary projects will be approved.

- The necessary reform of the Russian Zvezda shipyard will be ready in agreement with the timeline necessary for a fast begin of the construction of the first ship of the project of aircraft carrier approved.

- The reference to the future shipborne fighter of Russia, called later "Perspective Aviation Complex of Shipborne Aviation", and its timeline of 2030, were introduced in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015.

- The Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 said the new shipborne fighter must be of a new generation. Said in 2015 it means 5th Generation. It excludes developments from previous generations like the (like the Yak-41/141, and every other STOVL development of Sovietic origin.


Plus:

- The alone Russian project of aircraft carrier over 70000 tons publicly known until now is the Project 23000 Shtorm. It was presented its export variant, the variant for the Russian Armed Forces will include changes, like nuclear propulsion and more.

- There is a real projection about the use of the Su-57 as shipborne fighter, in the presence of the Su-57 in the presentation of the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carrier.

- There is real evidence about mutual feedback in the development of the Project 23000 Shtorm and the Su-57. They are compatible.


Instead:

- The public references to a STOVL aircraft are very weak and very recent. If there is something, the work would be very recent. In doubt if can compatible with the timeline stablished until 2030.

- The first unit of the Project 11437, Ulyanovsk, was in production in Ukraine at the end of the Soviet Union, and was scrapped in 1992. Full load 73400 tons.

All your comments about heavy cruiser aircraft carriers are out of the Doctrine. There is nothing about the the Ulyanovsk aircraft carrier.

All your comments about STOVL fighter based on the Yak-41/141 and other old developments are out of the doctrine.

And we have 3 days to go. Only the projects of aircraft carrier that can be submitted to the Russian Ministry of Defense before the end of the year will be in the competition.

GarryB wrote:

you weren't a big fanboi of emals and Shtorm?

Emals are necessary for AWACS platforms. Storm is too big.

so 40kt is too small and 80-90 is too big now?!

emals are only needed if AEW will be based on conventional platforms not tilt rotors, what we donk know yet. With "expeditionary ship" IMHO unlikely will be implemented.

GB wrote:

A) Kremlin, WWW, signed by Putin: Strategy 2030, points 44-46: there is shipborne aircraft carrying complex planned in 2030 strategy, no aircraft carrier mentioned.

Yeah, and for the last 70 years you wont find designated marksman rifle or assault rifle mentioned by their army, yet you will find SVDs and AKs were developed... you just need to recognize that they use different terms from the west.

SVD - S stands form sniper, V from rifle, in Russian there is term aircraft carrier - avianosec BTW

GB wrote:

B) Chief-In-Commander (CiC) of RuN aviation said:  aval AR expects to receive new Perspective Aviation Complex of Shipborne Aviation (so no word about MiG-29k nor Su-57k)

And here we have the bending of the truth again.... you claim it is VSTOL, yet the actual quotes V is a mere possibility because he is not ruling it out, while you claim it is evidence and fact and therefore proof.

Im not the one who is beginning here. It is so gay form your side. He said what he said. Nothing more nothing less. Check this interview before you start bending facts over

GB wrote:

+ all new ships will be modular and universal

So no aircraft only ships... hence no mention of aircraft carriers... they will be aircraft carrying armed cruisers...

looks like...

GB wrote:

D) Chief of USC Rakhmanov: one of our design bureaus make a design of universal "expeditionary" ship which includes LHS/Helo carrier/ aircraft Carrier. She' ll be modular

(1) And can we both accept that the chances of EMALS are not that much different from the chances of STOVL fighters so these modular ships might not be aircraft carriers in the western accepted sense... they might just be helicopter carriers and landing ships, while bigger vessels will be needed for fixed wing carrier aircraft.

(2) Thing is that if EMALs fails, they can still operate fighters from a large carrier it will just mean plans for AWACS need to be revised.

(3) With small carriers the STOVL aircraft goes ahead whether it is any good or if it is shit.

(4) They preferred the Su-33 over the MiG when given a choice.... they took the MiG when it was available because production was already paid for, but you think they will spend billions making a STOVL aircraft especially for 3-4 little carriers? [/quote]


(1) - emals make sense only if AEW will be classic approach not stol drone/tiltrotor. Only sure thing is that AEW are planned. Nothing sure about EMALS only about VSTOL so far.

I believe that if they decide to build large CVNs then they will be equipped with emals.


(2) however it be AEW will be there. Some time ago Russians considered MiG-29k UB with powerful radar as "mini AWACS" , connecting with data links to other fighters.


(3) true, but it is good


(4) if you extrapolate 90s now I'd say you might be right. But both tech now is 30 years ahead, moeny is in supply. Same with Su-30MKI - now Russians stopped new contracts, same with MiG-31 they atarted MiG-41 instead.

Frankly speaking now in Russia there is only Su-57 perspective fighter available now. MiG-41 and VSTOL will follow - not as alternatives but IMHO complimentary niches.

E) Dept MoD Borisov: since 2017 there i project VSTOL running to replace Su-33 and  MiG-29k

There is a project to develop a light 5th gen fighter that will have STOL performance to allow its use on carriers... Borisov said it may have V meaning it may not... I rather suspect there will be competition where both or one might be a V fighter, but in practise it will be a STOVL fighter and never actually take off vertically except for airshows...
Whether it makes it anywhere near service is another matter. [/quote]

Well, he clearly stated V , of course without knowing from what vertical stands from. VSTOL with rolling starts anyway has ~00% shorter runaway due to lift engines and TVC. Landing is also shorter than arrested one.

If it makes it way? it does of course, otherwise Russia remains without any deck fighter. They will make as many iterations as it takes to make it happen. Same as with PAK FA.

GB wrote:

F)  Dept MoD Borisov: spring 2019 there will be finalized competition of aircraft carrying ships design

Which is no where near enough time to determine if it will have STOVL or STOL capabilities... which means it will need to be big, and a naval Su-57 will be needed too.

if Su-57 would be an option the why to start a new programme? you dont need 10 years to add arresting hook. Especially that from start PAK FA till first flight it took 7 years.




[quote=GB"]The Russian Navy has no such history of being able to operate under its own air power, and the purpose of its carriers is to provide air cover for its ships.

Attacking land targets was previously not of interest and only today with land attack missiles it is even less interested in using aircraft for that. [/quote]


approach is strongly influenced by resources and then doctrine. Russians are better off fighting with CSGs then with hundreds of fighters. US deck aviation is ~1000 fighters, Russian whole AF is good when reaches 700 ones... confronting fighter to fighter you never win. That's why all those GZURs/Kizhals/Zircons.

IMHO this in this or another way this would be a revival of TAKR concept tome.


BTW Similarly that's why Russians build Su-57 which is worse in stealth characteristics than US counterparts? but much better in STOL, range an agility. Because it to defend area at first not to sneak-attack.

GB wrote:

No worries, leave to professionals - Borisov, Chermezov, Rakhmanov & Co - kid

In the quotes you misrepresent as proving the new aircraft will be VSTOL clearly show the V is speculation even from the professionals you have such confidence in.

kudos, its must be sooo hard to be a one multidimesional prodigy in land of flat money counting people
Russian MoD wants to know your location

GB wrote:

Big displacement is needed for LG tankers

Throughout its construction it has said it is for large civilian ships and large military vessels too.

sure, they can even build soy sauce LG tankers with emals, if there is money and need

GB wrote:

ekhm,  nothing here is supported  by real world evidence.

F-35s do not dare operate near the IADS in Syria with S-300 missiles... the IADS around a Russian carrier will be at least as formidible and consist of a much wider range of much more potent SAMs and aircraft..

.

same true as Su-57 dodnt dare to operate because of F-18 and Iron dome. You mix direct bombing with stealth application to me. Newest Us ideas is to have 1,600km range stealth missiles. You dont need to be stealth carrier to launch them. It will be beyond any S-500 range.

GB wrote:

F-35 is not meaningless and so far 29k has virtually  chance against it. . MiG is adequate as long as there are no 5gen fighters around.  No modernization will make it 5gen fighter.

5th gen is stealth, and with new radar technologies... including the already in use integration of radars operating in different bands (ie NEBO) that can be used with L band wing mounted AESA types, and a future of even more exotic photon based radars... do you really think the extremely expensive stealth performance of the F-35 will hold up?

either you mix reality with sci-fi or you are talkinhg about Su-57 then in the future not about MiG-29k. MiG has no AESA, no L bank radar too. nothing is planned so far. Existing zhuk can it can detect 3m2 RCS from 120-130km.

RCS of F-35 is more less 0,01m2. There is no NEBO mounted on RuN.

Su-57 is how many 12 net yes till 2023? F-35 is already more than 300.

Opinion of Gen Bondaryev

He has to be cautious... when Russia ends up with much better fighters than the US the money will be well spent... it is not like they are spending what the US is spending on defence or anything.

GB wrote:

well, how would you describe a person, who claims that he knows Russian military, financial and technological situation better then Russian MoD and OAK ? in short person climing that Russians kick started  the whole program without any risk, tech or cost/benefit assessment?

You mean a person who bold face lies and claims they are developing VSTOL fighters, when the quote clearly only mentions V as a possibility...

if you cannot discuss things but instead of argument start to make personal rants then I am talking to 6yo fanboi with judge dread complex.
Everybody has heard what Borisov said. in 2017 and 2018

And you can believe whatever you want , even in plastic model shtorm with plastic su-57k as definitive proof . Clearly this gives you same credibility as burned runways and flying concrete slabs.

GB wrote:

So what is written in stone? nothing, absolutely nothing. We need to wait.

Hahahahahaha... you funny guy... we don't know and have to wait... but everyone else is wrong and you are right... you really know how to discuss...

[/quote]

fo course I am, because I listen to Russian MoD not to plastic models. VSTOL, universal carriers are happening in reality not in pastic so far. its enough to listne to M?oD and look at numbers.

eehnie wrote:

You are distorting the reality in a form that is not right. You rarely use sources, very rarely, and when you use them the result is a composition that has nothing to with the reality. I have been giving you the same Kremlin source about the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015. And when you see the head of the Russian Naval Aviation reciting almost literally the text of the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 only a few weeks ago in order to clarify the future of the Russian Naval Aviation, there is not doubt that the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 remains vigent.

meh,better just you send me your only reliable sources-not-distorting-reality


So far I saw only docs I've mentioned. Links to you doctrine where is written shtorm. Original please . No rainbow needed

No reiterating about tens of Liders in shipyards this time either.

kumbor wrote:

Why then none of the proposed carriers have UKSK. Finally they thought up that carrier should be a carrier, not a variant of through-deck cruiser.

That we dont know, we saw only 2 shtorm (actually slightly modernized Ulyanovsk) and this small ship with big deck . Nobody even said that this controversial small CV form Krylov is even in competition. There are more according to MoD. Otherwise they said 2 not several.

I saw at paralay.com the info about the Sukhoi S-56. They apparently planned to make it ultra-compact for carrier operations by making two folds on the wings and besides, making the landing gear capable of lowering the airframe so that hangars would be lower. I don't know if that approach with the undercarriage was the case really, but based in what I know it could be possible.

In case it was adapted to the Su-57, wouldn't it allow to pack more planes in the same carrier, without even needing to develop wing folds in the plane? One plane would be stored next to the other, but lower by using the special landing gear, so the wings would be at different heights and planes could be parked much closer together.

It may sound crazy and it may not be feasible in the end, but IMHO it would be better to modify the landing gear in that way than affecting the weight and the overload capabilities of a 5G plane which is intended to have extreme agility and dynamic performance for many decades to come as the Su-57

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:

You are distorting the reality in a form that is not right. You rarely use sources, very rarely, and when you use them the result is a composition that has nothing to with the reality. I have been giving you the same Kremlin source about the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015. And when you see the head of the Russian Naval Aviation reciting almost literally the text of the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 only a few weeks ago in order to clarify the future of the Russian Naval Aviation, there is not doubt that the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 remains vigent.

meh,better just  you send me your only reliable sources-not-distorting-reality      


So far I saw only docs I've mentioned. Links to you doctrine where is written shtorm. Original please . No rainbow needed

No reiterating about tens of Liders in shipyards this time either.

Seriously you want I post them again?

Less posturing because your use of the sources is perfectly clear for all at this point.

Kremlin link saying the new aircraft carrier will be Ulyanovsk?

Kremlin link saying the new PAK-KA will be STOVL from Yak-41/141?

2 days to go, and all the projects of aircraft carrier over 70000 tons will be in

eehnie wrote:

Seriously you want I post them again?

only strategy , without rainbow, no Liders just link and which potns.

Kremlin link saying the new aircraft carrier will be Ulyanovsk?

Kremlin doesn say about aircraft carrier at all, didnt you know ? again

Kremlin link saying the new PAK-KA will be STOVL from Yak-41/141?

perhaps is you can read with understanding next time then you'd cope with new info. So no Liders. Not yet yet, strategy says nothing about PAK KA.
Nobody ever mentioned about Yak.

Read slowly thi stime because then you can understand. OR not.

.

2 days to go, and all the projects of aircraft carrier over 70000 tons will be in

sure, 1st of jan right after launching al l Liders. After your version of strategy form Belgina blogs

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.

Russia happens to be in process of building 24 UKSK armed Corvettes...
And no Cruisers.

Its a question of tactical/strategic requirements & realities of shipbuilding capabilities.
If you're not in a position to be able to practically build modern cruisers you build what you can.
If your posture is primarily defending small shallow & widely separated bodies of water lots of little boats gives you numbers in different places.


The difference with carrier size ships is there is not gonna be any gear that a 100Kton carrier can carry that a 40-45Kton Air-LHD can't, the difference is in numbers of planes.
If we concede that Russia is developing a VSTOL fighter its not going to be simultaneously developing EMALS & a cat launched AEW plane, so the 100Kton carrier is still going to be stuck with a VSTOL type AEW plane.
2* 40-45Kton Air-LHDs with 25 planes each will then have all the same gear as a 100Kton carrier with 50 planes but with the advantage of providing redundancies of other gear as well as being cheaper & easier to actually build/maintain eg drydocks.

as for "large amphibious ships with increased level of attack and defensive potential" doesnt look like LHD to me.

Sounds exactly like an Air-optimised LHD to me.

hoom wrote:If we concede that Russia is developing a VSTOL fighter its not going to be simultaneously developing EMALS & a cat launched AEW plane, so the 100Kton carrier is still going to be stuck with a VSTOL type AEW plane.

But they said they are developing EMALS, whatever the status of these works are. At the moment they seem to be exploring all possibilities, which makes most sense since they have to make a decision about what kind of carriers, assault ships and naval aviation will be developed.

If you want long range and economical AWACS/AEW and high persistence/payload UCAV/tankers you are better off with catapults, it will reduce the price/complexity of the aircraft and increase their performance in the air. It would be a very bold decision for long term to renounce to such capabilities but we have to see.

Sounds exactly like an Air-optimised LHD to me.

Agree. In the end STOVL could operate from them without major modifications, maybe adding a springboard and protect the deck against jet blast.

hoom wrote:
+++

The difference with carrier size ships is there is not gonna be any gear that a 100Kton carrier can carry that a 40-45Kton Air-LHD can't, the difference is in numbers of planes.
If we concede that Russia is developing a VSTOL fighter its not going to be simultaneously developing EMALS & a cat launched AEW plane, so the 100Kton carrier is still going to be stuck with a VSTOL type AEW plane.
2* 40-45Kton Air-LHDs with 25 planes each will then have all the same gear as a 100Kton carrier with 50 planes but with the advantage of providing redundancies of other gear as well as being cheaper & easier to actually build/maintain eg drydocks.

hard to disagree, what will be chosen by MoD we'll see soon.

as for "large amphibious ships with increased level of attack and defensive potential" doesnt look like LHD to me.  

Sounds exactly like an Air-optimised LHD to me.[/quote]

not in classical meaning thoi. None of US LHDs have a big punch. BTW french mistral has igla type missiles and 12,7 guns AFAIR.






[quote="LMFS"]But they said they are developing EMALS, whatever the status of these works are. At the moment they seem to be exploring all possibilities, which makes most sense since they have to make a decision about what kind of carriers, assault ships and naval aviation will be developed.

Last info about Russian emals I saw in press in 2014-2015. Since in 2017 when VSTOL was announced no more info I 've heard in statements. Perhaps I ve missed something tho.

LMFS wrote:If you want long range and economical AWACS/AEW and high persistence/payload UCAV/tankers you are better off with catapults, it will reduce the price/complexity of the aircraft and increase their performance in the air. It would be a very bold decision for long term to renounce to such capabilities but we have to see.

Fpor me it would be also bold decision to invest enormous money emlas and big carrier only to have marginal difference in AEW performance. But of course we need to wait until MoD make up ts mind and say something.

Then you asked this:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Links to you doctrine where is written shtorm. Original please . No rainbow needed

Knowing this:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Kremlin link saying the new aircraft carrier will be Ulyanovsk?

Kremlin doesn say about aircraft carrier at all, didnt you know ? again      

Pure posturing

Quite ridiculous attitude.

1.5 days to go, and all the works on preliminary designs for the new Russian aircraft carrier will be finished.

eehnie wrote:Then you asked this:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Links to you doctrine where is written shtorm. Original please . No rainbow needed

Knowing this:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Kremlin link saying the new aircraft carrier will be Ulyanovsk?

Kremlin doesn say about aircraft carrier at all, didnt you know ? again      

Pure posturing

Quite ridiculous attitude.

1.5 days to go, and all the works on preliminary designs for the new Russian aircraft carrier will be finished.

Ulyanovsk is 11437 project carrier started building in Nikolayev in 1987. The ship has never been launched. Scrapped on slip by 1994. That project is now 35 years old, morally and physically outdated!

not in classical meaning thoi. None of US LHDs have a big punch. BTW french mistral has igla type missiles and 12,7 guns AFAIR.

Well the air-wing part would provide significant 'increased level of attack and defensive potential' compared to 'normal' amphibious ships but I don't see a problem with giving it a healthy poliment-redut, UKSK & Pantsir-M armament, maybe even sufficient to genuinely claim the TAKR designation.

Last day to go!!! All the preliminary projects will be finished today and in the hands of the Russian Ministry of Defense!!

All the naval geniouses of the forum are working hard without sleepping, to submit to the Russian Ministry of Defense all their awesome projects that would solve everything.

Isos
Popedragon
SeigSoloyvov
GunshipDemocracy
...

Will be able all them to finish and submit their preliminary projects before the timeline expires? Reports say most of them are panicking!!!

The media will have hard time covering all the public presentations scheduled for today December 31, 2018!!

The day will bring us their awesome preliminary projects!!! They promised models!!! Can not wait to see all them!!!

hoom wrote:

not in classical meaning thoi. None of US LHDs have a big punch. BTW french mistral has igla type missiles and 12,7 guns AFAIR.

Well the air-wing part would provide significant 'increased level of attack and defensive potential' compared to 'normal' amphibious ships but I don't see a problem with giving it a healthy poliment-redut, UKSK & Pantsir-M armament, maybe even sufficient to genuinely claim the TAKR designation.

that's to me is irony, that after so many claims Soviets made bad decision history tends to return to the same point.  IMHO rationale behind this is simply  less resources take TAKR where airwintg is not the only "punch" but can both attack and defend herself.



Last couple of interviews carried a similar message to today's MoD news:


The head of the shipbuilding Main command of the Navy rear Admiral Rear Admiral V. Tryapichnikov.

According to him, already now, in parallel with the serial construction of ships of the near zone, design offices are developing projects for ships of the far sea, ships for existing projects are being modernized.

It is planned that in the near future, the basis of the groupings of ships in the ocean zone will consist of multifunctional ships of the new generation, which have increased combat capabilities for the impact and defensive potential.

Ii lookd like TAKRS might be back indeed

kumbor wrote: Ulyanovsk is 11437 project carrier started building in Nikolayev in 1987. The ship has never been launched. Scrapped on slip by 1994. That project is now 35 years old, morally and physically outdated!

and why MoD requested to "finaization" of original designs?


model of Ulyanovsk for more pics follow the link



http://bastion-opk.ru/11437-npkb-foto/



BTW old pic I've found about defense/attack zones of Ulyanovsk (veriosn 1 with Granits) - MiG- here has 700km radius. Su-33 2x longer

Technology and design and materials have moved on since the Ulyanovsk was designed and started building.

The previously mentioned multi hull design offers some promise in making larger capacity ships that are lighter than more conventional designs.

New propulsion options could also effect the design as could potential alternative solutions to various problems.

An Airship based AWACS platform could radically alter the needs of a fixed wing carrier by reducing requirements dramatically in terms of size and length.

UAVs and UCAVs could also effect the design of the hangar and other decks.

Even the presence or absence of STOVL aircraft will effect the design considerations...

Equally the idea of modular design where you might build 12 CVNs, but 2 of them are CVNs and the other 10 are built as cruisers or even arsenal ships...

What have you done to Garry? The Real Garry would not say such blasphemous things about tech advancements? and such balanced opinion?! no way, never, ever!

Let Garry go you bastard!      


@GB
As for airships - not sure about enormous space savings. OK  folded airship can be smaller, but inflated one? My other consideration is Arctic and Kamchatka storms - thye have to be "on line" I  mean strong cable or fly very very high.

In case of a stratospheric airship it would be rather ore feasible to build a large, unmanned one, which can fly couple of  years and follow fleet grouping. From 20km your radar horizon 600+ km optical one 500+km . No need to use shipa for landing, with 100-150km/h speed n ship is going to be faster anyway.  

Power supply either solar panels or nuclear reactor (might be too heavy tho)

As for airships - not sure about enormous space savings. OK folded airship can be smaller, but inflated one? My other consideration is Arctic and Kamchatka storms - thye have to be "on line" I mean strong cable or fly very very high.

To be of any use it would need to be relatively big so it will be an airship, not a balloon... no deflating this and putting it in the cupboard.

I would expect its normal operational altitude would be well above 20km so weather wont be an issue at all.

Power supply either solar panels or nuclear reactor (might be too heavy tho)

Solar is not reliable enough, Nuclear would be needed but it wont need enormous amounts of power... with electric motors for station keeping and moving, and fuel cells to convert hydrogen lifting gas into water ballast and back it would be ideal...