Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

GarryB wrote:

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.

GB wrote:

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...

Worst part to me is the truly HUGE size (and cost!) it would need to be as per your idea, in order to have a NPP onboard, the huge antennae / power capability you suggest and something similar to the electronic equipment of an AWACS (20 ton electronics in case of A-100).

Myself I had though previously on some kind of flat, smaller airship of something like 20 m diameter (maybe more, depending on payload needs), unmanned, tethered that could be lowered and carried onboard in case of very bad weather / repair or enemy attack. But yours has strong points too...

I see it as a downsized radar station which is floating on air... in the same manner as US aircraft carrier is a downsized airbase floating on water. Which means we have a mobile radar base flying together with the naval fleet or closely following the ground forces near the battlefield.

But the largest disadvantage of airship is speed. In comparison with aircraft, airship are tortoise. Nowadays, slow flying thing is highly vulnerable. Hopefully a strong power generator like nuclear engine may solve this problem ? But then again which kind of design allows the airship to handle the risky nuclear reactor and all its heat.

higurashihougi wrote:But the largest disadvantage of airship is speed. In comparison with aircraft, airship are tortoise. Nowadays, slow flying thing is highly vulnerable. Hopefully a strong power generator like nuclear engine may solve this problem ? But then again which kind of design allows the airship to handle the risky nuclear reactor and all its heat.

LMFS wrote:Worst part to me is the truly HUGE size (and cost!) it would need to be as per your idea, in order to have a NPP onboard, the huge antennae / power capability you suggest and something similar to the electronic equipment of an AWACS (20 ton electronics in case of A-100). Myself I had though previously on some kind of flat, smaller airship of something like 20 m diameter (maybe more, depending on payload needs), unmanned, tethered that could be lowered and carried onboard in case of very bad weather / repair or enemy attack.

GB wrote:This blimp could be a full AWACS platform with processing and command and control... it could even have self defence missiles... an airborne TOR and Pantsir system with 9M100 there too to defend it from attack... its best defence would be dumping all ballast and climbing to 25km altitude where no enemy fighter could reach it...

- Lately a lot of talk about a certain expedition ship. How I see it in the Krylov center?

- The idea of creating a hybrid, or the expedition ship for the Navy is currently particularly relevant. The essence of such a ship to ensure that ship built on a single platform, different features, various combat tasks. In this unified platform, can be reconstructed in the desired configuration to perform certain tasks. For example, as such a ship may be a ship that combines the functions of aircraft carrier, helicopter carrier and amphibious assault ship. In more detail this problem, usually discussing the military.

Indeed, the expedition ship is a promising ship, the shape of which is determined by the specific combat tasks of the Navy, its connections and associations. If the state has national interests at any point of the World ocean and can do something to influence the conduct of its foreign policy, or to protect someone, such a state necessarily need to ship the forwarding class. The events in Syria are a clear indication of the need for such ships.

Of course, in KGNC developed conceptual designs for such ships. And we believe that their efficiency was very decent – I don't compare them with the "Mistral" and similar ships as "Mistral" is a civilian ship converted for military purposes. We offer ships with a balanced weapon system and weapons.

Such projects we have developed and demonstrated the military. The value of these developments KGNZ that we offer options of blocks, at maximum payload, for example, of capacity have optimal contours from the point of view of hydrodynamics, with respect to their seaworthiness and propulsion. This is the most important thing that the Institute should be engaged and involved.


- Did the military proposed Krylov centre concept design of an aircraft carrier "Storm" project 23000?

- We will have a long time I studied various options for the layout of an aircraft carrier with different armament and air group, as well as different types of main propulsion.

This is just one option when KGNC involved in the justification of the balanced fleet aircraft, weapons promising carrier, its tactical and technical elements. Of course, only the Navy sets the requirements for ships of the future, determines their tactical and technical elements. And we say, how these requirements can be fulfill in the best way, what hull form should have the ship to solve the tasks with the greatest efficiency, for example, by reducing the resistance to movement of the ship.

How to make a ship stealth? What does it mean? When you solve the problem of selecting, for example, cases from the point of view of hydrodynamics, you want to reduce its resistance to movement. This can be achieved by not only optimizing traditional monohull solutions, but also as a result of research Multihull options. In turn, the achieved reduction in resistance causes a decrease of a required power of the propulsion system, allowing, for example, to increase the supply of fuel, primarily aviation. And this is the number of sorties.

Therefore, we set ourselves two tasks. The first is to become a major carrier of classical type, with a nuclear power plant (NPP), but with optimized hull. In the selection of the energy of such a ship there is no alternative – this ship should have nuclear power, based on the tasks that now decide the carriers. Indeed, KGNC first proposed a version of the ship, but with its hull lines that have passed the model test. Their result – the resistance to movement decreased by approximately 20%. From here you can either increase the supply capacity by 20 per cent or increase by 20% fuel reserve.

Concept design of the ship was demonstrated, including at exhibitions, and it has caused a mixed assessment. But the purpose was just to arouse interest, to provoke a debate, lively discussion.

The second ship, which we have proposed, we called it a light aircraft carrier that has caused issues in both the press and the military. We are talking about the fact that it is a ship of limited tonnage, but he would be on Board balanced fleet of aircraft. We do not quite understand why the term "light aircraft carriers" caused such a violent reaction. Light aircraft carriers – independent subclass of ships that is different from the multi-purpose aircraft carriers, the reduced size and limited combat capabilities.

There are such ships in the Second world war as a result of the desire of the warring States quickly to Commission the maximum number of aircraft carrier ships with moderate costs. This new class was supposed to do in the strike of joints of the fleet and therefore have a high speed and a solid defense system that is different from the light aircraft carriers from appearing at the same time escort carriers. It is important that the aircraft carrier with a limited displacement had a well-balanced parks aircraft.

Why we do not confuse the carriers of the "Queen Elizabeth" (Queen Elizabeth class carriers) — British aircraft carriers, also known under the code name of the Future Aircraft Carrier ("Future aircraft carrier"), which are being built to replace the now excluded light carriers such as "invincible". The ship has a full displacement

70600 printer tons and non-nuclear energy. However, his fleet of aircraft looks very convincing: a standard air group will consist of 40 machines, including aircraft F-35C, helicopters EH101 Merlin helicopters and long-range radar detection (AWACS).

According to the decision of the Ministry of defence of the United Kingdom on the carrier decided not to use nuclear propulsion because of its significant cost. As the main engine uses integrated electric propulsion system (Integrated Electric Propulsion, IEP) of Rolls-Royce. The installation will consist of two gas turbines Rolls-Royce Marine MT30 36 MW each and four diesel engines with a total capacity of 40 MW. Engines run on generators, which provide electricity to a common low voltage network of the vehicle and feed two electric motors which rotate the two propeller shafts with fixed pitch propellers.

KGNC offered his, a fundamentally new solution to housing light aircraft carrier – polyutherane or catamaran type which allows a limited displacement of about 40 – 50 thousand tons have quite a serious fleet of aircraft by increasing the area of deck and other design decisions. And we really believe that the statement of the military task, which can solve the limited carrier capacity, such an option has the right to life.

The demonstration of this project at the exhibition "Army – 2018" has caused some excitement. Like KGNC doesn't understand that the carrier must be a carrier. And we began to accuse, what kind of light aircraft carrier, which does not solve the main problems. But the main and only weapon is the aircraft carrier fleet of aircraft. It needs to be balanced. There must be reconnaissance planes, and planes of radar-tracking patrol and attack aircraft, and fighter aircraft. If you have the opportunity with limited displacement to ensure the deployment of a balanced fleet aircraft, that decision has the right to life.

We all understand what is the cost of operation and maintenance of nuclear ships. This is quite serious and expensive. As for the ship with gas-turbine power at full electric propulsion – why not? So once again I say that the purpose KGNC – excite the thoughts of designers, to help them in decision making, offer alternatives. Vapornation combat effectiveness, technical and economic efficiency of promising ships.

LMFS wrote:Excerpt from here, relevant to carriers:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7158p750-russian-navy-status-news-4#248947

- Lately a lot of talk about a certain expedition ship. How I see it in the Krylov center?

- The idea of creating a hybrid, or the expedition ship for the Navy is currently particularly relevant. The essence of such a ship to ensure that ship built on a single platform, different features, various combat tasks. In this unified platform, can be reconstructed in the desired configuration to perform certain tasks. For example, as such a ship may be a ship that combines the functions of aircraft carrier, helicopter carrier and amphibious assault ship. In more detail this problem, usually discussing the military.

Indeed, the expedition ship is a promising ship, the shape of which is determined by the specific combat tasks of the Navy, its connections and associations. If the state has national interests at any point of the World ocean and can do something to influence the conduct of its foreign policy, or to protect someone, such a state necessarily need to ship the forwarding class. The events in Syria are a clear indication of the need for such ships.

Of course, in KGNC developed conceptual designs for such ships. And we believe that their efficiency was very decent – I don't compare them with the "Mistral" and similar ships as "Mistral" is a civilian ship converted for military purposes. We offer ships with a balanced weapon system and weapons.

Such projects we have developed and demonstrated the military. The value of these developments KGNZ that we offer options of blocks, at maximum payload, for example, of capacity have optimal contours from the point of view of hydrodynamics, with respect to their seaworthiness and propulsion. This is the most important thing that the Institute should be engaged and involved.


- Did the military proposed Krylov centre concept design of an aircraft carrier "Storm" project 23000?

- We will have a long time I studied various options for the layout of an aircraft carrier with different armament and air group, as well as different types of main propulsion.

This is just one option when KGNC involved in the justification of the balanced fleet aircraft, weapons promising carrier, its tactical and technical elements. Of course, only the Navy sets the requirements for ships of the future, determines their tactical and technical elements. And we say, how these requirements can be fulfill in the best way, what hull form should have the ship to solve the tasks with the greatest efficiency, for example, by reducing the resistance to movement of the ship.

How to make a ship stealth? What does it mean? When you solve the problem of selecting, for example, cases from the point of view of hydrodynamics, you want to reduce its resistance to movement. This can be achieved by not only optimizing traditional monohull solutions, but also as a result of research Multihull options. In turn, the achieved reduction in resistance causes a decrease of a required power of the propulsion system, allowing, for example, to increase the supply of fuel, primarily aviation. And this is the number of sorties.

Therefore, we set ourselves two tasks. The first is to become a major carrier of classical type, with a nuclear power plant (NPP), but with optimized hull. In the selection of the energy of such a ship there is no alternative – this ship should have nuclear power, based on the tasks that now decide the carriers. Indeed, KGNC first proposed a version of the ship, but with its hull lines that have passed the model test. Their result – the resistance to movement decreased by approximately 20%. From here you can either increase the supply capacity by 20 per cent or increase by 20% fuel reserve.

Concept design of the ship was demonstrated, including at exhibitions, and it has caused a mixed assessment. But the purpose was just to arouse interest, to provoke a debate, lively discussion.

The second ship, which we have proposed, we called it a light aircraft carrier that has caused issues in both the press and the military. We are talking about the fact that it is a ship of limited tonnage, but he would be on Board balanced fleet of aircraft. We do not quite understand why the term "light aircraft carriers" caused such a violent reaction. Light aircraft carriers – independent subclass of ships that is different from the multi-purpose aircraft carriers, the reduced size and limited combat capabilities.

There are such ships in the Second world war as a result of the desire of the warring States quickly to Commission the maximum number of aircraft carrier ships with moderate costs. This new class was supposed to do in the strike of joints of the fleet and therefore have a high speed and a solid defense system that is different from the light aircraft carriers from appearing at the same time escort carriers. It is important that the aircraft carrier with a limited displacement had a well-balanced parks aircraft.

Why we do not confuse the carriers of the "Queen Elizabeth" (Queen Elizabeth class carriers) — British aircraft carriers, also known under the code name of the Future Aircraft Carrier ("Future aircraft carrier"), which are being built to replace the now excluded light carriers such as "invincible". The ship has a full displacement

70600 printer tons and non-nuclear energy. However, his fleet of aircraft looks very convincing: a standard air group will consist of 40 machines, including aircraft F-35C, helicopters EH101 Merlin helicopters and long-range radar detection (AWACS).

According to the decision of the Ministry of defence of the United Kingdom on the carrier decided not to use nuclear propulsion because of its significant cost. As the main engine uses integrated electric propulsion system (Integrated Electric Propulsion, IEP) of Rolls-Royce. The installation will consist of two gas turbines Rolls-Royce Marine MT30 36 MW each and four diesel engines with a total capacity of 40 MW. Engines run on generators, which provide electricity to a common low voltage network of the vehicle and feed two electric motors which rotate the two propeller shafts with fixed pitch propellers.

KGNC offered his, a fundamentally new solution to housing light aircraft carrier – polyutherane or catamaran type which allows a limited displacement of about 40 – 50 thousand tons have quite a serious fleet of aircraft by increasing the area of deck and other design decisions. And we really believe that the statement of the military task, which can solve the limited carrier capacity, such an option has the right to life.

The demonstration of this project at the exhibition "Army – 2018" has caused some excitement. Like KGNC doesn't understand that the carrier must be a carrier. And we began to accuse, what kind of light aircraft carrier, which does not solve the main problems. But the main and only weapon is the aircraft carrier fleet of aircraft. It needs to be balanced. There must be reconnaissance planes, and planes of radar-tracking patrol and attack aircraft, and fighter aircraft. If you have the opportunity with limited displacement to ensure the deployment of a balanced fleet aircraft, that decision has the right to life.

We all understand what is the cost of operation and maintenance of nuclear ships. This is quite serious and expensive. As for the ship with gas-turbine power at full electric propulsion – why not? So once again I say that the purpose KGNC – excite the thoughts of designers, to help them in decision making, offer alternatives. Vapornation combat effectiveness, technical and economic efficiency of promising ships.

We all understand what is the cost of operation and maintenance of nuclear ships. This is quite serious and expensive. As for the ship with gas-turbine power at full electric propulsion – why not? So once again I say that the purpose KGNC – excite the thoughts of designers, to help them in decision making, offer alternatives. Vapornation combat effectiveness, technical and economic efficiency of promising ships.

eehnie wrote:Then, we have confirmed two options of aircraft carrier proposed to the Ministry of Defense, and both seems to be part of the Project 23000:

1.- Big Shtorm multirole aircraft carrier with nuclear propulsion that fits well the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 and the requirements of 70000+ tons of the Russian Navy.

2.- Small Shtorm multihull light aircraft carrier with conventional propulsion that fits not well the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 and neither fits the requirements of 70000+ tons of the Russian Navy.

These are junst the two options presented publicly in the last years.

Nothing about the Project 11437, which pictures of a model from a museum are included above in this page, and which technological origin is in the Project 1143 designed in the late 1960s early 1970s. Neither about other awesome theories (helicopter carriers, cruiser aircraft carriers, amphibious ships...) that we have been reading here from the pro-US and pro-Israel group of the forum...

But still for George1 the troll is me...

The spring of 2019 is coming soon. The reality is coming like a truck...

LMFS wrote: IMO a 50-60 kT ship based in the multihull design and with NPP would be a very robust option for the future.

SeigSoloyvov wrote: they navy wanted 12 but they wuld have never gotten 12 even if russia had the money for it.
They will get at most six.

Isos wrote:Weired. They want 12 nuclear Liders but 1 nuclear carrier is too costly to maintain. The reactors should be the same.

So we can deduce that once they need to make a choice btw nuk and normal propulsion for lider they will go for normal one because they will face similar reality of cost.

LMFS wrote:Relevant to discussions here, thoughts coming from US about carriers in the future:

https://csbaonline.org/research/publications/regaining-the-high-ground-at-sea-transforming-the-u.s.-navys-carrier-air-wi/publication

Relevant to discussions here, thoughts coming from US about carriers in the future

China and Russia are likely to exacerbate these Navy ASW shortfalls by fielding submarine-launched ASCMs with ranges on par with their submarine-launched LACMs, some of which can strike targets approximately 1,000 nm away

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

LMFS wrote: IMO a 50-60 kT ship based in the multihull design and with NPP would be a very robust option for the future.

+100 %

And now I'm waiting when GB will call you  a dick  

Im not sure why US analysts are drawing Tu-22M3M if in Russian case they got

1) Poseidon

2) Avangard

3) GZUR with longer range then 1,500km

verkhoturye51 wrote:
AShM with 1000 nm range seems to be some next gen stuff Shocked

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:And now I'm waiting when GB will call you  a dick  

I don't expect him to call me names since we have roughly the same opinion about the issue, b{}

LMFS wrote: 50-60 kT with that design can be equivalent to >70 kT in conventional design, as some Russian sources were demanding. It would have a bigger deck and internal volume than the K, so I am not seeing a size reduction from it but rather the contrary. 2 sqdn. naval fighters (Su-57 ideally), 1 sqdn. strike / tanker UCAV, 4-6 AEW/AWACS + 8-10 high-speed helicopters would be up to almost any task now and in the foreseeable future.

LMFS wrote:Well, now Russia will be capable of deploying relatively cheap IRBM for the purpose. 5000 km range + 15 min flight time? No problem! Yesterday Scaparroti was already being grilled by US politicians for the country not having a plan to avoid Russia producing the weapons that had been prohibited by INF  

verkhoturye51 wrote:
AShM with 1000 nm range seems to be some next gen stuff Shocked

verkhoturye51 wrote:

AShM with 1000 nm range seems to be some next gen stuff

verkhoturye51 wrote: {}

GunshipDemocracy wrote:4-6 aew?!   104ktons Nimitz has 4-6 AEW.

Rubezh + Avangard already exists.

1500nm?  Murmansk - Nova Scotia is ~3000nm. So one CVN can block the whole  Northern Atlantic?  LA - Petropvlovsk Kamtchtsky 4000nm. SO 2 CVNs can block 2 oceans? This means glob range weapons now re needed.

OK so on second thoughts, the point of the paper is that the USN should return to its Cold war era anti-bastion strategy to counter RuN in the Barents sea and PLAN in the SCS. So this means less focus on second tier threats, like Iran, and more focus on dealing with both great adversaries. They suggest more forward deployments to enhance surivability, and more long range strike capability.

verkhoturye51 wrote:If USN actually adopts this, this means that Russia should also step one step back from their last Naval doctrine and go more towards bastion defence.

+ another interesting point from the paper: there's no defence against missile salvos, so the best way to prevent them is to take the missile carrier down before launch. In this sense, new CVN should stick to TAKR idea and provide extra layer of defence for smaller ships...and make an Improved Kuznetsov...perhaps with NPP, but definitely having some Zircon, Redut and possibly S-500? This probably wouldn't allow for larger air wing as on the K though.

By 2045 we have still a quarter of century many new technologies  will appear...

To me this is a fake discussion. Carriers are not capable against near-peer nations, they are there for neo-colonial wars.

IRuN can dedicate itself to ensure strategic deterrence and power projection

Lider and 22350M will take care of the anti-ship and air-defence roles.

verkhoturye51 wrote:I don't expect USN to go in the Arctic with Ticonderoga...the whole concept of their navy is built around CVNs. I'm not sure if a conventional RF-US war scenario without navy even exists. I think also Russians know the danger of CVNs...they put Granits everywhere or Moskit on corvettes.

IRuN can dedicate itself to ensure strategic deterrence and power projection

Sounds nice. Anyway your paper says the US is not sleeping, as they are staying on Russian borders and since they know there's no defence against Zircon, they'll put more fighters and drones up to take Tu-22M down. I think Russia still has a lot of work to do when it comes to CMs to replace bombers with PAK DA, Anteys with Huskies.

CVN can be defensive, too. 21st century air defence against F-35 will need fighter's eyes over the horizont. Having a mix of off/deff capabilities offers a lot of flexibility that a navy with few CVNs needs. If you want to scare USN CVN, you send a Lider out there. An extra CVN is there to offer few fighters for early warning for the Lider.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:4-6 aew?!   104ktons Nimitz has 4-6 AEW.

...not counting AEW capabilities of fighters and UAVs, which wont be small. This role needs to be expanded in the future due to extended range of AShM.

LMFS wrote:

Rubezh + Avangard already exists.

Avangard in anti-ship role is an overkill by now, ABMs are not good enough yet against manoeuvrable targets. But having it is a insurance against future developments.

LMFS wrote:To me this is a fake discussion. Carriers are not capable against near-peer nations, they are there for neo-colonial wars.