Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

GunshipDemocracy wrote:unlikely, aew cannot see really more than 400 km. This is dangerously close to AAM range.  So either drones will accompany in role of "mini kamikaze" AEW or sat intel + star navigation system will be used

What range, in direct line or limited by horizon? Why do you say the range is not longer than 400 km? What AEW are you talking about? And what AAM??

overkill against whole CVN orwhole CSG ? What maneuvers can CVN do when she even doesn't not see it coming?
BTW Dong Feng 21hs CEP 10m they say. Even if Avangard hs 100 m with 1MT warhed dont  really.

It is too advanced for a relatively easy conventional target... by now at least.

As long as  US bloggers dont understated it it is OK, but when admirals  start buying such crap then is baaad.  Thye might believe they c an win.

I think they know better than that, but in a given situation their orders can be overruled by any neomoron, those ones are one special kind of idiot equipped with an indestructible breed of stupidity.

well, true with 1 CSG.  With 11 it looks different tho. USN operates ~1000 fighters, how many USMC? Whole RuAF is not even 700.

True, it will take 11 MiGs and 11 Kinzhals... that's not going to be cheap  

Not necessarily,  in 30 mins  Avangard(s)   is coming, you dont need to wait until  US CSG is gonna send waves of attack.  Of course only if your Poseidons were not first there.

It will be interesting to see how escalation will evolve once global reach weapons like this are deployed. In principle this would be an undesirable escalation towards use of strategic-kind weapons, but maybe one isolated launch with conventional warhead, even with warning to the opposing side to avoid confusions, could be used. The other side would consider legit to disrupt your guidance, maybe shooting down some satellites and then the real fun would start. I am not quite convinced this would be the preferred way of action, in order to avoid a disastrous outcome.

I read about a US navy exercise they were going to have in the far north but they cancelled it because their two icebreakers are not in very good condition and they were afraid of having to ask Russia for icebreaker assistance...

For the time being I really don't see them as a huge threat in the Arctic... certainly not one the Russians could not deal with using already deployed forces... not to mention new forces on the way...

GarryB wrote:I read about a US navy exercise they were going to have in the far north but they cancelled it because their two icebreakers are not in very good condition and they were afraid of having to ask Russia for icebreaker assistance...

For the time being I really don't see them as a huge threat in the Arctic... certainly not one the Russians could not deal with using already deployed forces... not to mention new forces on the way...

Seems Congress approved funds for a new icebreaker few weeks ago.

History of soviet/russian carriers. US navy intel thought they would have 15 carriers of Ulyanovsk type by 2010 (not soviet propaganda source).


https://books.google.fr/books?id=CP6F4b7RT4oC&pg=PT499&lpg=PT499&dq=krylov+shipbuilding+research+institute+carrier&source=bl&ots=X1tvcHWRjT&sig=ACfU3U2yXXaOsbjhKxnBDTlCXwf3VhenAA&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWvfv2u_DgAhUJuRoKHZI8CE0Q6AEwEnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=krylov%20shipbuilding%20research%20institute%20carrier&f=false

Isos wrote:History of soviet/russian carriers. US navy intel thought they would have 15 carriers of Ulyanovsk type by 2010 (not soviet propaganda source).


https://books.google.fr/books?id=CP6F4b7RT4oC&pg=PT499&lpg=PT499&dq=krylov+shipbuilding+research+institute+carrier&source=bl&ots=X1tvcHWRjT&sig=ACfU3U2yXXaOsbjhKxnBDTlCXwf3VhenAA&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWvfv2u_DgAhUJuRoKHZI8CE0Q6AEwEnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=krylov%20shipbuilding%20research%20institute%20carrier&f=false

I remember reading somewhere they actually planned to build 4 Ulyanovsk hulls in total. Inteligence on both sides was always making stupid conclusions and mistakes.

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:History of soviet/russian carriers. US navy intel thought they would have 15 carriers of Ulyanovsk type by 2010 (not soviet propaganda source).


https://books.google.fr/books?id=CP6F4b7RT4oC&pg=PT499&lpg=PT499&dq=krylov+shipbuilding+research+institute+carrier&source=bl&ots=X1tvcHWRjT&sig=ACfU3U2yXXaOsbjhKxnBDTlCXwf3VhenAA&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWvfv2u_DgAhUJuRoKHZI8CE0Q6AEwEnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=krylov%20shipbuilding%20research%20institute%20carrier&f=false

I remember reading somewhere they actually planned to build 4 Ulyanovsk hulls in total. Inteligence on both sides was always making stupid conclusions and mistakes.

Agree. But it is interesting to see that US thought they had the capacity yo build 1 every two years and that the wish to switch to a fleet of carriers instead of relying on missile ships was there. They would have had those vtol carrier, kuz type class and ulyanovsk in pretty big numbers.

Fall of soviet union destroyed that "switch" and now it is coming back in the russian navy. They again plan to make carriers.

Militarov wrote:
I remember reading somewhere they actually planned to build 4 Ulyanovsk hulls in total. Inteligence on both sides was always making stupid conclusions and mistakes.

5 Orlans , 4 Ulyanovsks looks like  4 CSGs.

Isos wrote: Fall of soviet union destroyed that "switch" and now it is coming back in the russian navy. They again plan to make carriers.

meeeeh, TAKRs with VSTOL fighters

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:unlikely, aew cannot see really more than 400 km. This is dangerously close to AAM range.  So either drones will accompany in role of "mini kamikaze" AEW or sat intel + star navigation system will be used

What range, in direct line or limited by horizon? Why do you say the range is not longer than 400 km? What AEW are you talking about? And what AAM??

1) Radar horizon flying radar on 9000m  to ground target  is ~  390kms
http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm


2) Ks-172 or R-37 both re in 400km class

3) so either you send forward "kamikaze drones"  which likely will be destroyed but until then can provide AShMs with data or use another means to provide  target  data (OTH with missile homing?)

LMFS wrote:

overkill against whole CVN orwhole CSG ? What maneuvers can CVN do when she even doesn't not see it coming?
BTW Dong Feng 21hs CEP 10m they say. Even if Avangard hs 100 m with 1MT warhed dont  really.

It is too advanced for a relatively easy conventional target... by now at least.

if you call 100 airwing nuclear powered CVN with "defensive bubble" 2000km , likely with nuclear missiles/bombs on board an easy traget then I dotn know what the enough good target is?

BTW so risking Russian whole CSG group is better then using 1-4 Avangards? OK lets agree to disagree. Simple financial side.
1 ICBM+Avangard vs. CSG ($13B CVN lone)  

LMFS wrote:

As long as  US bloggers dont understated it it is OK, but when admirals  start buying such crap then is baaad.  Thye might believe they c an win.

I think they know better than that, but in a given situation their orders can be overruled by any neomoron, those ones are one special kind of idiot equipped with an indestructible breed of stupidity.

I wish you were wrong      

LMFS wrote:

well, true with 1 CSG.  With 11 it looks different tho. USN operates ~1000 fighters, how many USMC? Whole RuAF is not even 700.

True, it will take 11 MiGs and 11 Kinzhals... that's not going to be cheap  

     of course with time USN develops tech to defend against Kinzhals but Im sure Russians re working n new solutions for some time already.

LMFS wrote:

Not necessarily,  in 30 mins  Avangard(s)   is coming, you dont need to wait until  US CSG is gonna send waves of attack.  Of course only if your Poseidons were not first there.

It will be interesting to see how escalation will evolve once global reach weapons like this are deployed. In principle this would be an undesirable escalation towards use of strategic-kind weapons, but maybe one isolated launch with conventional warhead, even with warning to the opposing side to avoid confusions, could be used. The other side would consider legit to disrupt your guidance, maybe shooting down some satellites and then the real fun would start. I am not quite convinced this would be the preferred way of action, in order to avoid a disastrous outcome.

This is a very good question, mate. Tech allows now globalization. Missiles reaching withing 30-40mins any point of globe. This makes life easier to project power. However same time mucho less secure, since any incident triggers automatic global escalation.

Add AI controlled systems and we are close to Skynet

GunshipDemocracy wrote:1) Radar horizon flying radar on 9000m  to ground target  is ~  390kms
http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm


2) Ks-172 or R-37 both re in 400km class

3) so either you send forward "kamikaze drones"  which likely will be destroyed but until then can provide AShMs with data or use another means to provide  target  data (OTH with missile homing?)

AEW is there mainly to detect airborne targets so radar horizon as you say does not apply. Otherwise there would be no AWACS...

LMFS wrote:

Not necessarily,  in 30 mins  Avangard(s)   is coming, you dont need to wait until  US CSG is gonna send waves of attack.  Of course only if your Poseidons were not first there.

It will be interesting to see how escalation will evolve once global reach weapons like this are deployed. In principle this would be an undesirable escalation towards use of strategic-kind weapons, but maybe one isolated launch with conventional warhead, even with warning to the opposing side to avoid confusions, could be used. The other side would consider legit to disrupt your guidance, maybe shooting down some satellites and then the real fun would start. I am not quite convinced this would be the preferred way of action, in order to avoid a disastrous outcome.

This is a very good question, mate. Tech allows now globalization. Missiles reaching withing 30-40mins any point of globe. This makes  life easier to project power. However same time mucho less secure, since any incident triggers automatic global escalation.

Add AI controlled systems and we are close to Skynet

The safest way is to keep escalation in theatre. Otherwise sides start to extrapolate in order to get asymmetrical retaliation methods and things get out of control. But of course the resource of a "prompt global strike" is there. US side was ready to use it, but with the tranquillity that nobody would retaliate. Would Russia do the same when psychos are in control of the US red button?

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:I read about a US navy exercise they were going to have in the far north but they cancelled it because their two icebreakers are not in very good condition and they were afraid of having to ask Russia for icebreaker assistance...

For the time being I really don't see them as a huge threat in the Arctic... certainly not one the Russians could not deal with using already deployed forces... not to mention new forces on the way...

Seems Congress approved funds for a new icebreaker few weeks ago.

Even so they would be a very easy target for russian air force. Specially the icebreakers that would be lead ship. Attack from the front would kill it. Ships behind would be stuck in the ice.

BTW so risking Russian whole CSG group is better then using 1-4 Avangards? OK lets agree to disagree. Simple financial side.
1 ICBM+Avangard vs. CSG ($13B CVN lone)  

Who will care about money or carriers when WW3 starts ? Avangard means WW3 even if you use it against a carrier in middle of pacific. It's suppose to be manoeuvrable so US can't predict its path so they will answer with ICBM and russia will use its own icbm then money will have no value.

Isos wrote:
Who will care about money or carriers when WW3 starts ? Avangard means WW3 even if you use it against a carrier in middle of pacific. It's suppose to be manoeuvrable so US can't predict its path so they will answer with ICBM and russia will use its own icbm then money will have no value.

on the contrary money counts. Otherwise why Russia wont build 20 CSGs? Because it is not financially CV viable.

LMFS wrote:
AEW is there mainly to detect airborne targets so radar horizon as you say does not apply. Otherwise there would be no AWACS...

I was replying to that  

LMFS wrote:The safest way is to keep escalation in theatre. Otherwise sides start to extrapolate in order to get asymmetrical retaliation methods and things get out of control. But of course the resource of a "prompt global strike" is there. US side was ready to use it, but with the tranquillity that nobody would retaliate. Would Russia do the same when psychos are in control of the US red button?  

when CSG is supposed to control bubble with 3,000km radius + PGS 30mins of global reach + c4I   what is theatre?[/quote]
[/quote]

LMFS wrote:

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...

MoD should take the best of both proposals and get them incorporated to whatever the ideas of the actual design bureaus are. Krylov is responsible for looking into the future so ignoring their advice would be like telling they are useless. I therefore expect some of the ideas of the models we saw being present in the final designs, in case RuN decide they want to develop carriers.

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

Advice is ok, but in order to achieve in the most effective way the requierements of the customer, in this case the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian Navy.

Advice to convince your customer about to change his/her requierements is habitually unsuccessfull, and not well regarded by custormers.

The time to present new projects is finished. If Krylov thinks the best option is multihull, very likely also their proposal of the big aircraft carrier multirole will be multihull. Unknown at this point.

The project has been many time in the phase of preliminary design. Maybe too much. Is time for Russia to decide and move forward with the best option.

It would be good to see the first unit of the project approved (very likely the first option) under construction by the end of 2019.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
I was replying to that  

LMFS in previous post wrote:...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.

I referred specifically to the ones launched from aircraft, since those are the ones capable of being carried further and further due to inflight refuelling entering carrier operations in the short term. The carrier will stay far and the fighters will carry the AShM to its launching point, which will be itself as far as possible from the attacked carrier in order to complicate interception before missile launch. This generates a huge are to be covered that demands in turn many more AEW assets in order to cover properly the defensive perimeter of the fleet. For instance, if you have to defend against a Kinzhal with 2000 km range and in the worst case where you can't define the vector of attack, you have a perimeter of 12500 km... good luck with that!    

when CSG is supposed to control bubble with 3,000km radius + PGS 30mins of global reach + c4I   what is theatre?

Yeah, good question...  

Advice is ok, but in order to achieve in the most effective way the requierements of the customer, in this case the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian Navy.

Advice to convince your customer about to change his/her requierements is habitually unsuccessfull, and not well regarded by custormers.

Not sure if you are getting what I mean or if maybe I am not getting you. Krylov is not designing ships. Their job is, as far as I understood it:
> Determine technological strategies and roadmaps for the development of navy
> Make theoretical proposals to the RuN to ensure the right questions are debated
> Discuss and evaluate the proposals of the actual design bureaus from a technological point of view.

So, their job as a "scientific consultant" to the MoD is precisely to think outside the box and challenge existing paradigms, to ensure the decisions taken are technologically sound now and in the future. It is a massively important job and they must be capable of developing with full freedom, despite coming up with ideas that are not 100% what RuN had in mind. There are few things as dangerous as commonly accepted "truths" that are no such, and these are specially abundant in complex technological environments.

Agree that in some moment in time a decision must be taken, for good or for bad, and I expect Putin's MoD going ahead with their planned dates and steps, despite the difficulties of the decision and the internal debate. It is not the best moment since the discourse against the carriers is now more convincing than probably ever. But if in some years time effective means against hypersonic weapons are developed, they will recover their relevance again and Russia could have lost decades due to inaction. So I guess MoD will hedge against such possible developments and carry on with some type of carrier, at least in a basic form to deploy with expeditionary forces and protect SLOCs. There are, in function of the philosophy used, different ways, all of which are compelling in some way, to tackle the issue:
> Small carrier for STOVL should be cheaper and should be more resilient in that such planes could land or take off in case of emergency with damaged decks (for instance after a leaker impacts, which could disable a conventional carrier despite not sending it to the bottom). It is a possibility but:
- How much cheaper will the carrier be? Comparisons with USN are misleading since in US those vessels are auxiliary ones (always under CVN umbrella). In RuN they would be capital ships and armed / equipped accordingly
- How much would be spent in the air wing, if it had to be developed from scratch? Many billions would be needed and costs per unit could be astronomic.
- Could this ship be unified with LHDs, since carriers are normally way bigger? Or would Russia compromise with smallish air wings on board?
> Big CATOBAR CVN would have the maximum capability but would be very expensive and not specially survivable, at least they would be easy to be disabled in case an impact reaches the deck, rendering a huge investment vulnerable in a war. In what respects the capability they and their air wing are clearly the best but it all depends in what Russia wants exactly to do with them and if they see use in spending so big on them.
> STOBAR carrier along the lines of K but in a modern version should be cheaper than a CATOBAR and not necessarily much more expensive than the STOVL carrier as far as I see it (almost same systems in the end), while potentially very capable. If the design allows for inclusion of EMALS in the moment the technology is mature it would be a future-proof solution too. Personally I would see a double landing deck (using newly gained deck width from multihull layout) to gain in survivability, but I admit this may be far fetched

Russia has a tendency to go for a balanced solution so I would say the third option is the strongest one, but first one could have defenders in the current circumstances, and if for instance the STOVL fighters were co-developed with China there would be a strong enabling effect. Why not a mixed STOBAR/STOVL air wing as there was already in past Soviet carriers? It all depends in Russia's naval posture in the end.

eehnie wrote:It would be good to see the first unit of the project approved (very likely the first option) under construction by the end of 2019.

the concept is not even approved till half of year (assuming planning wont change) and you want to lunch ship long before it is even designed? wow

LMFS wrote:
I referred specifically to the ones launched from aircraft, since those are the ones capable of being carried further and further due to inflight refuelling entering carrier operations in the short term. The carrier will stay far and the fighters will carry the AShM to its launching point, which will be itself as far as possible from the attacked carrier in order to complicate interception before missile launch. This generates a huge are to be covered that demands in turn many more AEW assets in order to cover properly the defensive perimeter of the fleet. For instance, if you have to defend against a Kinzhal with 2000 km range and in the worst case where you can't define the vector of attack, you have a perimeter of 12500 km... good luck with that!    

In case of Kinzhal you actually know disinfection of  attack. Of course it still will leave you huge perimeter but IMHO in sch case either you use global weapon (Avangard) or  with Zircons (1000+ range).  Protecting 6,000km perimeter from silent subs is even more fun...


BTW Kinzhal has ~1300km rnge (missile)  less then GZUR (~1500km) and is more cumbersome. So I dont think it will tasty next 20 years.  

LMFS wrote:Agree that in some moment in time a decision must be taken, for good or for bad, and I expect Putin's MoD going ahead with their planned dates and steps, despite the difficulties of the decision and the internal debate. It is not the best moment since the discourse against the carriers is now more convincing than probably ever. But if in some years time effective means against hypersonic weapons are developed, they will recover their relevance again and Russia could have lost decades due to inaction.

why would you assume  after hypersonic missiles technology stops developing? there will be new ways to deal with CVNs

LMFS wrote:- How much cheaper will the carrier be? Comparisons with USN are misleading since in US those vessels are auxiliary ones (always under CVN umbrella). In RuN they would be capital ships and armed / equipped accordingly
- How much would be spent in the air wing, if it had to be developed from scratch? Many billions would be needed and costs per unit could be astronomic.
- Could this ship be unified with LHDs, since carriers are normally way bigger? Or would Russia compromise with smallish air wings on board?

Smaller is always cheaper. 2-3--5 times is disputable but due to accepted by Russia doctrine building large CVNs makes little sense. They dont solve  tasks any better then smaller ones only cost couple of times more.

Cost of airwing ? if you assume creating  fighter ONLY for 1-2-3 CVNs that makes no sense. Regardless it will be big or small. Thus Id
say PAK KA will have more applications then only deck fighter

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

I've saved it immediately after having read the first few pages.

It is the most perfect example of what i was meaning saying that the level of professionalism among......... supposed...........western military analysts is today at literally Neanderthal level.
This is the funny side.

What instead i find potentially worrisome is that the typical ignorant but hyper-egoic hot-head western elite representative could come to the point to believe to those truly ridiculous misrepresentation of the military strategic and sub-strategic situation (situation that in the REALITY see ,at the moment, them horribly "outgunned" and technologically on the backfoot in almost any cardinal sector) and on this basis plan moves that would lead very quickly to terrible military disasters ,for not say cost the lives of potentially several thousands of young inculpable military operatives with the consequence that them would feel compelled to avenge their mistake rising furtherly the stake with results that could degrade to the point to put in danger the same Mankind's existence.


Similar openly incompetent analysts are not simply inefficients them are terribly dangerous for theirs nations and indirectly also for the Others.

There is nothing more difficult to abandon than the privilege one has got accustomed to, so I entirely share your concern that US will continue doubling down until the bitter end. It will fall mostly on Russia's shoulders to dismantle that ticking bomb without making it explode in the process.

The research for instance starts from false premises (US being forced to intervene abroad due to Russian or Chinese hordes returning to their "habit" of invading neighbouring countries as soon as they have the opportunity), continues with a false analysis of the threats (not counting for instance modern Russian weapons that make the whole notion of a CSG participation simply pointless) and prescribe a solution which is in the end more of the same, this time with UCAVs and other modern planes and some DEW capability, but failing to address the key aspects that make the whole approach destined to fail.

I guess this is an analysis largely intended for PR and lobbying purposes, so it will exploit the narratives that are easier to be accepted by the US political class. To say that US CSGs would be capable of leading an attack against continental Russia or China anytime in the short or mid term is nothing but a pipe dream.

LMFS wrote:There is nothing more difficult to abandon than the privilege one has got accustomed to, so I entirely share your concern that US will continue doubling down until the bitter end. It will fall mostly on Russia's shoulders to dismantle that ticking bomb without making it explode in the process.

Both, on military (Russia/China) and economical plane (China/Russia) I would add

LMFS wrote: The research for instance starts from false premises {}
continues with a false analysis of the threats (not counting for instance modern Russian weapons that make the whole notion of a CSG participation simply pointless) and prescribe a solution which is in the end more of the same, this time with UCAVs and other modern planes and some DEW capability, but failing to address the key aspects that make the whole approach destined to fail.

Very true, but Russian analysts (non-MOD like Sivkov, Muhakovsky, Korotchenko & Co) also are mking flsessumptions like
1) one new weapon system is the only change on battlefield (Zicon or Kinzhal or super-duper stealth )

2) enemy is not working or new weapons or countermeasures to our latest ones (US doesn't work on own EW/ microwave weapons right?


BTW My favorite assumption is our fighters have DEW (and opponents dont) so our missiles will kill them but our fighters are immune due to our DEW.

With DEW the whole approach of AA fight will get to qualitatively new level. Same as anti-ship warfare in the wake of of hypersonic CMs did.

The biggest fun will be when plasma/geo weapons will come into use. What will be after-them?!

LMFS wrote:

eehnie wrote:
Advice is ok, but in order to achieve in the most effective way the requierements of the customer, in this case the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian Navy.

Advice to convince your customer about to change his/her requierements is habitually unsuccessfull, and not well regarded by custormers.

Not sure if you are getting what I mean or if maybe I am not getting you. Krylov is not designing ships. Their job is, as far as I understood it:
> Determine technological strategies and roadmaps for the development of navy [in order to meet the requierements of the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian Navy].
> Make theoretical proposals to the RuN to ensure the right questions are debated [in order to meet the requierements of the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian Navy]
> Discuss and evaluate the proposals of the actual design bureaus from a technological point of view [in order to meet the requierements of the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian Navy].

So, their job as a "scientific consultant" to the MoD is precisely to think outside the box and challenge existing paradigms, to ensure the decisions taken are technologically sound now and in the future  [in order to meet the requierements of the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian Navy]. It is a massively important job and they must be capable of developing with full freedom  [in order to meet the requierements of the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian Navy], despite coming up with ideas that are not 100% what RuN had in mind. There are few things as dangerous as commonly accepted "truths" that are no such, and these are specially abundant in complex technological environments.

Agree that in some moment in time a decision must be taken, for good or for bad, and I expect Putin's MoD going ahead with their planned dates and steps

...

Russia has a tendency to go for a balanced solution so I would say the third option is the strongest one, but first one could have defenders in the current circumstances, and if for instance the STOVL fighters were co-developed with China there would be a strong enabling effect. Why not a mixed STOBAR/STOVL air wing as there was already in past Soviet carriers? It all depends in Russia's naval posture in the end.

In the first part of your comment, I included a key part (green) that was not present.

In adition to it the Krylov center does not only what you described. They do a more concrete work preparing preliminary projects that are fairly concrete, like we see in the models presented in the stage of preliminary project.

I avoided the part of your comment where you continue trying to modify the requierements exposed by the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian Navy in documents like the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 and other statements. This phase is completed, finished.

I only keep your last paragraph to say that there is an important problem that makes impossible your third "proposal". The problem is that the Krylov center presented only 2 options, not 3. Or your third option is inside the first, or your third option is out of the options between which the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian Navy will decide.

Mindstorm wrote:
I've saved it immediately after having read the first few pages.

It is the most perfect example of what i was meaning saying that the level of professionalism among......... supposed...........western military analysts is today at literally Neanderthal level.
This is the funny side.

What instead i find potentially worrisome is that the typical ignorant but hyper-egoic  hot-head western elite representative could come to the point to believe to those truly ridiculous misrepresentation of the military strategic and sub-strategic situation (situation that in the REALITY see ,at the moment, them horribly "outgunned" and technologically on the backfoot in almost any cardinal sector) and on this basis plan moves that would lead very quickly to terrible military disasters ,for not say cost the lives of potentially several thousands of young inculpable military operatives with the consequence that them would feel compelled to avenge their mistake rising furtherly the stake with results that could degrade to the point to put in danger the same Mankind's existence.


Similar openly incompetent analysts are not simply inefficients them are terribly dangerous for theirs nations and indirectly also for the Others.      

Uh

I really don't think this is supposed to be a realistic analysis or a battle plan against Russia over the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka.

It's just an example that was used in a concept sketch of prospective US Naval capabilities so to speak.

flamming_python wrote:
I really don't think this is supposed to be a realistic analysis or a battle plan against Russia over the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka.

It's just an example that was used in a concept sketch of prospective US Naval capabilities so to speak.

No?

BTW imagine those enormous cost savings - from Gibraltar to Syrin coast is like 2000nm one CSG cn control it

flamming_python wrote:Uh

I really don't think this is supposed to be a realistic analysis or a battle plan against Russia over the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka.

It's just an example that was used in a concept sketch of prospective US Naval capabilities so to speak.

flamming the picture with Kuril Islands and Kamchatka and the scenario on it conceived can surely generate some laughters ,but i was not refering mostly to it; i am much more concerned by the fact that those supposed professional analysts are very likely uncapable to even only merely compute the circumference of a circle with a 1200 nm radius (probably to reach what they think is the effective engagement range of "Кинжал") so to realize how totally absurd can appear to any reader that the DCA task for that 2040 version of the "outher battle" doctrine ,which would supposedly allow CVBGs to retain in the future any relevance against an advanced opponent, would be entrusted to 3 subsonic UCAV.....three UCAV !!!....at 1200/1500 nm from the carrier formation that should cover an arc of at least 2327 km for the 60 degrees, therefore an arc to cover for each of those UCAV of over 775 km !!!  

A single subsonic UCAV, in the opinion of those demented, should be tasked to repel an attack ,coming in its 775 km arc of coverage (today not in 2040) by part of several high-supersonic МиГ-31К with theirs entire OCA coverage of high supersonic МиГ-31БМ armed with Р-37М and on this basis should be assured the relevance of CVBG in the 2040 tome window.

This one is only an example among the several dozen of comical idiocies composing this piece: from combat radius computed as half of ferry range, totally inconsistence of disposable fuel mass for refueling task at different range, to the notion that modern air defenses systems are static targets (probably theirs mindset have been frozen in middle of '60 years or by wars against enemies equiped with specimens of that era) to be attacked by long range subsonic cruise missiles -that instead them themselves admit to be ineffcient against mobile or quickly relocatable units as ground vehicles  


As said those kind of falsely professional works are truly and terribly dangerous because within few months and in the nexts years those 128 pages will become a reference work for others similarly phantasious analysis works and this literature reach fatally the critic mass necessary to influence the formulation of western -US particularly - military doctrine and concepts of operation amaong Admirals and Generals.

Short time ago Adm. Richardson, a very big name in the US Naval Doctrine and its Force composition planning and the same guy that had said that aircraft-carriers thanks to new Surface Ship Torpedo Defense (SSTD) would have become immeasurably more survivable against submarine attacks (for the chronicle this system, terribly badly conceived and lacking the technological basis to be realized has been discontinued and the carriers on it mounted reported at theirs basis configuration  http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/           pag 163-164) get the face to declare that today aircraft carriers are more survivable than anytime from theirs first employment !!!! Just in the years of introduction of "Циркон" Кинжал"  "Авангард" and "Посейдон"            

Those lunatic with bad cases of cognitive dissonance, but that very often and unfortunately hold also great responsibility posistions, that happily circulate in western military institutions and structures parroting and mixing entropically, like midless zombies, coded words/concepts by now totally disconnected from physical reality such as "joint", "superiority/dominance", "situational awareness", "active/agility thinking" "low observable" etc.... represent a true danger for the global security.

I´m really afraid of this "drone and robot" age. This morons in Washington don´t bother in killing thousands of their own citizens (soldiers/mercenaries) in unneccessary wars. Can you imagine how many wars they will start when they can mostly send unmanned war machines into battle?

Hey, they even have the gall of simulating war games where they take on, simultaneously, on China and Russia at their borders. In a rare glimpse of honesty, they just reported that in the last ones they got their assess thoroughly handed to them

https://taskandpurpose.com/russia-china-war-games
https://www.cnas.org/events/panel-discussion-a-new-american-way-of-war

Funnily enough, this causes stupor and grief in the West, as if it could be any different and implying they are legitimated to deploy to the borders of Russia and China to school those countries. None of the right lessons are learned, only that they need more budget to keep imperialism going.