Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

Based on impressions from this forum I thought that Russia did not have the shipyards to build carriers after the breakup of
the USSR. Interesting that Sevmash has had this ability. Or are they going to upgrade their facilities?

LMFS wrote:USC expects to build a new aircraft carrier at Sevmash



As for the cost of building a new aircraft carrier, he explained that it will be several times lower than the cost of building aircraft carriers of the naval forces of other countries. I am absolutely convinced that we will cope with the aircraft carrier.
According to Rakhmanov, domestic ships outperform foreign ones in terms of cost.

https://tass.ru/ekonomika/10327911

Cost shouldn't be a big deal. Just treat it like its one more submarine. As if those are cheap and easy to build.

kvs wrote:Based on impressions from this forum I thought that Russia did not have the shipyards to build carriers after the breakup of
the USSR.   Interesting that Sevmash has had this ability.   Or are they going to upgrade their facilities?

They could be, but the issue here is the enclosed construction yard itself. Those two buildings are fucking MASSIVE, as well as all of it's supporting workshops that bring in the constructed pieces to be assembled in the final product(submarine). The yard themselves are huge and could theoretically build a ship 400m in length, but the floating drydock that the submarines are transferred into from the yard itself, and then pulled outside of the enclosed bay. It would not be able to take a aircraft carrier. Not to mention that Sevmash is literally bloated from submarine orders, they are at near full capacity in terms of what could be build with the current yards.

BUT, what is likely the construction method envisioned here is following the Queen Elizabeth British carrier system, where you build huge floating 6k ton modules and assemble them together, Sevmash could easily build these blocks very easily and very quickly, without delaying the construction times of the submarines that have to be built entirely inside the yards. These blocks can then be transferred to the floating drydock, then the floating drydock would lower the module into the water, and the module would then be towed into the drydock bay where the Indian carrier and Nakhimov were refurbished and welded together there. Then once all the modules have been welded together, simply tow the ship outside the enclosed bay and transfer it to the outfitting quay, where all the finishing touches can be put onto it, tower, antenna's, interior fittings, etc.

Here are some pictures and videos that give an idea of what I am talking about.



These modules can also be constructed at other yards, in order to increase the pace of construction. This is important as this construction method blocks off the smaller construction yard, maybe you are right and they will do some remodeling in order to make this area into a proper drydock area instead of near bare ground. I actually think they have done some work since Nakhimov was put in.

The Zvezda shipyard in the far east was built specifically for making large ships up to 350K ton... if there was an order for a carrier they could build it.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

dino00 wrote:MOSCOW, December 30 - RIA Novosti. The displacement of the universal amphibious assault ships - helicopter carriers, being built in Kerch , will amount to 40 thousand tons, twice as much as previously reported, said Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko .

"Under the leadership of the President of the Russian Federation, two universal amphibious assault ships of a new project with a displacement of 40 thousand tons each were laid down," he said in an interview with the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper.

https://ria.ru/20201230/vertoletonostsy-1591490559.html

These two ships would take China about 1 year to build. While it's true Russian shipyards aren't as modern as Chinese shipyards, it should take Russia about 2 to 4 years to build.

the way you talk id figure Chinese are faithless friends and allies. id say that your behavior is a one off but sadly there is a track record.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

dino00 wrote:MOSCOW, December 30 - RIA Novosti. The displacement of the universal amphibious assault ships - helicopter carriers, being built in Kerch , will amount to 40 thousand tons, twice as much as previously reported, said Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko .

"Under the leadership of the President of the Russian Federation, two universal amphibious assault ships of a new project with a displacement of 40 thousand tons each were laid down," he said in an interview with the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper.

https://ria.ru/20201230/vertoletonostsy-1591490559.html

These two ships would take China about 1 year to build. While it's true Russian shipyards aren't as modern as Chinese shipyards, it should take Russia about 2 to 4 years to build.

That was your last warning. It's about time to take Old Yeller out to pasture!

Is there a photo of the construction?

This makes a LOT of sense, I look forward to hearing what the propulsion choice is. These make the ships about the size of the de Gaulle which is pretty darn efffective IMHO. If they can deploy EMALS it would be great of they are CATOBAR ships and if they can use the propulsion from the Arktika class that would be SWEET!!!

Maybe not with the Ships No. 1 and 2.

mnztr wrote:This makes a LOT of sense, I look forward to hearing what the propulsion choice is. These make the ships about the size of the de Gaulle which is pretty darn efffective IMHO. If they can deploy EMALS it would be great of they are CATOBAR ships and if they can use the propulsion from the Arktika class that would be SWEET!!!

They are UDKs not CVNs

LMFS wrote:

They are UDKs not CVNs

Who says anything needs to be in a fixed catagory. Some of the US ships were built without a dock, word is the Chinese will put a catapult on theirs. (and they are not as big as the Russian ones.)

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
If i am not mistaken Charles de Gaulle carrier needs to be almost constantly replenished,  much more often than their American counterparts... furthermore 40 rafales is stretching their capabilities as well. Even the american super carriers do not operate at full aircraft load because they will have other issues.

Never confuse the max capacity with what they typically do. Planes can easily be flown out to the carrier to enable surge operations.

mnztr wrote:
Who says anything needs to be in a fixed catagory. Some of the US ships were built without a dock, word is the Chinese will put a catapult on theirs. (and they are not as big as the Russian ones.)

The UDK typically is a vessel where internal space is maximized because it needs to carry a substantial amount of forces for a landing, its sea-keeping capacities and specially navigation speed are secondary. The carrier is an oceanic ship that needs high speed and endurance, has no need for a dock and that is optimized for he operation of fixed wing aircraft. There are substantial differences created by those requirements in the propulsion, hull and onboard systems. What US does needs to be strongly filtered for meaningfulness before replicating it, they demand to have 15 CSGs to be capable of attending all the hot-spots they could see themselves involved simultaneously, so of course they want some of their LHA and LHD to be as close as possible to a carrier as possible. If that makes any sense is questionable. Meanwhile, VMF has no UDK at all, and they would need ships capable of fulfilling their main role first and foremost. They are not going to built 20 UDK, so the likelihood of them making frivolous experiments with them is low IMHO. What has been said until now is clear: they will carry helicopters and land forces for an amphibious operation and will have conventional propulsion, other options would be us simply speculating.

LMFS wrote:

The UDK typically is a vessel where internal space is maximized because it needs to carry a substantial amount of forces for a landing, its sea-keeping capacities and specially navigation speed are secondary. The carrier is an oceanic ship that needs high speed and endurance, has no need for a dock and that is optimized for he operation of fixed wing aircraft. There are substantial differences created by those requirements in the propulsion, hull and onboard systems. What US does needs to be strongly filtered for meaningfulness before replicating it, they demand to have 15 CSGs to be capable of attending all the hot-spots they could see themselves involved simultaneously, so of course they want some of their LHA and LHD to be as close as possible to a carrier as possible. If that makes any sense is questionable. Meanwhile, VMF has no UDK at all, and they would need ships capable of fulfilling their main role first and foremost. They are not going to built 20 UDK, so the likelihood of them making frivolous experiments with them is low IMHO. What has been said until now is clear: they will carry helicopters and land forces for an amphibious operation and will have conventional propulsion, other options would be us simply speculating.

Yes I know that but the possibility is that the larger version of the Ivan Gren class will fullfill this while the new ships are more focused on the essential aviation component of a successful landing of troops.

Certainly the 23900 having a catamaran i.e.double hull would open IMHO a series of new possibilities into developing something that could bridge the gap btw CV and UDK.

"Wet" part of the twin hull could be designed to get higher speeds that the ones possible with a conventional one, loading space would instead sit over the waves.
Another advantage of such a configuration could possibly be the possibility of having a larger flying deck that the one on a single hull ship.
I would however try to keep them as simpl as possible i.e. no EMALS or CATOBAR.
STOVL or STOBAR would be more than enough.

marcellogo wrote:Certainly the 23900 having a catamaran i.e.double hull would open IMHO a series of new possibilities into developing something that could bridge the gap btw CV and UDK.

"Wet" part of the twin hull could be designed to get higher speeds that the ones possible with a conventional one, loading space would instead sit over the waves.
Another advantage of such a configuration could possibly be the possibility of having a larger flying deck that the one on a single hull ship.
I would however try to keep them as simpl as possible i.e. no EMALS or CATOBAR.
STOVL or STOBAR would be more than enough.

I agree. The eventual use of VSTOL planes will be an added functionality of this class of ships..I see it as a sort of cherry on the top. A (very) useful addition (and it can also facilitate sales of the aircraft and the vessel to foreign countries) but it will not replace a full carrier (and it is probably not very wise to try and add to the ship too many new functionalities and untested technologies.


And yeah the upgraded and enlarged 11711M will solve some of the needs for amphibious ships especially if they produce several of them.

By the way, it is also possible that if they cannot build them in a good number some smaller ships would be useful too, as an example some cheaper landing transport docks with a full displacement around 4000 tons, like the old project 775 (Ropucha class) and the 1171 (Alligator class).

The ones existing are quite long in the teeth and have been used extensively. I see the enlarged Ivan Gren more as a replacement for the old Ivan Rogov class (even if with different functionalities) as a replacement for ropucha and Alligator.

I would also be curious to hear more news about the VSTOL combat planes, whether they are actually working on them and at what stage of development are they.

Concerning the proper aircraft wing and the catapult, eventually Russia will build a full carrier with both an angled ramp and a catapult.

The most promising project that I have seen was a sort of modernised Ulyanovsk, called Lamantin, but that is totally another story.
https://www.ruaviation.com/docs/4/2020/2/10/273/

marcellogo wrote:Certainly the 23900 having a catamaran i.e.double hull would open IMHO a series of new possibilities into developing something that could bridge the gap btw CV and UDK.

"Wet" part of the twin hull could be designed to get higher speeds that the ones possible with a conventional one, loading space would instead sit over the waves.
Another advantage of such a configuration could possibly be the possibility of having a larger flying deck that the one on a single hull ship.
I would however try to keep them as simpl as possible i.e. no EMALS or CATOBAR.
STOVL or STOBAR would be more than enough.

SOTVL requires an aircraft be developed which is super high risk and expensive. STOBAR is somewhat logical, but the point is EMALS is not necessarily super complex and lends itself to a whole range of important tech the Russians need anyway.

marcellogo wrote:Certainly the 23900 having a catamaran i.e.double hull would open IMHO a series of new possibilities into developing something that could bridge the gap btw CV and UDK.

"Wet" part of the twin hull could be designed to get higher speeds that the ones possible with a conventional one, loading space would instead sit over the waves.
Another advantage of such a configuration could possibly be the possibility of having a larger flying deck that the one on a single hull ship.
I would however try to keep them as simpl as possible i.e. no EMALS or CATOBAR.
STOVL or STOBAR would be more than enough.

The proposal by Krylov (Priboi) was a semicatamaran, I was holding still some tiny hope they would go that way since I had proposed something similar (trimaran hull) time ago. They are very fast, they have good sea-keeping and of course they have the logical advantages you have mentioned, together with way smaller propulsive needs if the speed is kept low as other UDKs do. But the model shown has nothing to do with that, so the hope they use the breakthrough design proposed by Krylov with its huge advantages is essentially gone. They should know what is best and what is possible right now. We will see, but at least from what we read, the project is not even close to being finished.

Considering its primary fighter aircraft is an expensive dog I would say it is a dumb idea...

GarryB wrote:Considering its primary fighter aircraft is an expensive dog I would say it is a dumb idea...

Its more of a delivery truck ...lol

If your truck is breaking down continuously it´s time to change the model/supplier.

South korea could buy yak 141 doc and build its own vtol. Russia already helped them with s-350 technology and it was already sold to US for the f-35 program so there is nothing secret anymore.

Avionics, radar and body can be homemade and buy the engines from Russia.