Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

http://www.npkb.ru/html/varan.html

With that many aircraft on baord it's hardly going to carry anything else.

What are the other 2 ships on the picture ?

I kinda dig this Varan concept.

Scaled comparison by Charly015 shows the angled deck is nearly same size as K


Small forward island precludes designing the starboard cat for simultaneous use with landing ops but provides a big unobstructed deck park aft which should make for much more efficient deck handling/prep vs K.
Also extra deck park on port outside the angled deck fed by its own lift.

The lifts seem weirdly small at first but K lifts are actually much bigger than they strictly need to be (designed assuming K would take bigger planes like Yak-44 later?)

So you can save a bunch of weight, deck & hangar area by scaling them down to match the stuff its actually going to fly.

I'm not so keen on being entirely unarmed as here but looking at the family concept

The LHD variant on left has Pantsir-Ms covering each corner in positions that could be matched with minor rework of the Varan

Ideally Russia should operate 4 carriers, 1 for each fleet.

AlexDineley wrote:Ideally Russia should operate 4 carriers, 1 for each fleet.

Yeah, the Caspian sea would definitely need a carrier...

Jokes apart. 4 carriers (2 for each of the large fleets (pacific and northern fleet)) would be the ideal number, but even three in total could be enough to ensure that an any given time one is always available for operations, while another could be used for training (maybe even the same kutznetov) and the last could be in maintenance.

That's the chinese troll again with a new account. No need to answer.

Isos wrote:That's the chinese troll again with a new account. No need to answer.

You mean the Chinese troll that was not Chinese?

Isos wrote:Varan is too small. They put no weapons on it so no radar and FCS.

Adding another 30m wouldn't be bad.


It's too much compact. On the picture it's easy to draw 24 aircraft but in operation I doubt it could have more than 10 on the bridge. Not to mention that high intensity operations would be complicated by the recovery being impossible when plane takes off. Not only do the catapult precent that but they would also oblige sailors and plabes to move around the landing zone.

IMO it's as good as the indian carrier, pretty bad. But the design looks good and the island is small and good looking. Some pantsir on the side should be added.

Todays carriers are just for power projection and bombing failed states. It doesn't have to be tooled right up and ready for WW3.

Peter the Great and some 22160 patrol ships can escort it.

Charly015 realised an interesting detail on the Varan model:

Canards. It has canards

Charly015 realised an interesting detail on the Varan model:



https://charly015.blogspot.com/2019/10/rusia-desarrollara-un-avion-vtol.html?showComment=1614539144369#c994175715083318186

Shipbuilders don't have access to fighter project that are barely started.

This VTOL is just an illustration made on a design software to show that the shop can carry such planes.

Nothing interesting at all.

limb wrote:One consideration against a light carrier like the 45000ton Varan is the power needed to use the electromagnetic catapult. I dont know if power miniaturization and capacitor tech has gone far enough, and capacitors for it will take a lot of space, and on a small carrier space is at a premium. Also the larger the carrier is, the more powerful and rapid charging  the catapult so that would improve loadout capabilities and sortie rate.

The power required for emals is not very much, at most 70 KWh per launch. They do not use electronic capacitors but flywheels to store the energy. It is much, much less energy then a steam catapult.

It's a single engine version of Su-33 designed for Kuznetzov in the late 80s/early 90s

No, that was a trainer light fighter proposed by Sukhoi.... note the two seats...

The fact that the model has planes with canards suggests it predates the Su-57s with more sophisticated control surfaces with the advantages of canards but without their problems.

I remember seeing mockups and models of Soviet carriers in the early 1980s that had MiG-23s on them because at the time the model was made that is the standard fighter that was expected to be on it.

This model perhaps came from the 1990s or early 2000s as the projected LMFS or what they thought it would look like... as mentioned... this carrier is a development of a ship design bureau... they will get models of potential future designs but no secret information that has not been proven and made part of the design yet.

At best they will have dimensions and weights and basic performance figures which they will use to design their ships and deck lifts and hangars...

is there any news if Russian EM catapults are ready?

Many of the new Russian ship designs have this look. According to this video, it is a more efficient design. This favors the Varan concept. Which does look like one of the new nuclear ice breakers.

MAPO MiG 412 project model: https://www.turbosquid.com/ru/3d-models/mig-412-fighter-3d-obj/398384

..Moscow desperately needs more smaller ships and especially icebreakers rather than any single large prestige vessel.
Moscow’s Plans for New Kind of Aircraft Carrier Unlikely to Be Realized

Tsavo Lion wrote:Moscow’s Plans for New Kind of Aircraft Carrier Unlikely to Be Realized

You have to laugh at these US military anal-ysts. So Russia does not have the money to build carriers, yet the UK has two? Give me a break.
Just look at a map.

I do think a carrier like Storm is way, way over spec for what a country like Russia needs, but I could easily see Russia having four carriers, two in the North, and another two in the East quite easily if they wanted to. I think two nuclear powered carriers is the bare minimum they will build.

Russia is already building significant numbers of ice breakers of all types, and the second link Jamestown institute... please...

Sure they can revive the Buran with An-225 for it (1 is unfinished in Ukraine) too, but as with them, CV/Ns r not a priority before the last ship & sub r ready for their CBGs to be formed 1st.
If Russia overspends on her VMF & breaks apart like the USSR 30 years ago, her CV/Ns will end up sold/scrapped like those Kiev/Kuz. class TAVKRs.

Tsavo Lion wrote:MAPO MiG 412 project model: https://www.turbosquid.com/ru/3d-models/mig-412-fighter-3d-obj/398384

..Moscow desperately needs more smaller ships and especially icebreakers rather than any single large prestige vessel.
Moscow’s Plans for New Kind of Aircraft Carrier Unlikely to Be Realized

From your link :
"Russia does not have money even for one aircraft carrier” let alone a new fleet."

This is pure unadulterated propaganda bullshit. Russia has more FX reserves (money) than India and yet India is operating one carrier and building a second. Yet you will NEVER hear these same propaganda rags pout about India "not having the money for even one aircraft carrier, let alone a whole fleet"

Why ? Because most of these outfits are in the anti Russia bullshit business. And not the real geopolitical analysis business.

Edit. There's also France with one carrier and the UK with 2. Both of which have less reserves than Russia does.

She may have the $ for even 5 CVNs, but not with most of the other ships, subs & planes that must be built 1st.
The gov. can't demand sacrifices from its people to catch & overtake the West as during Stalin & Khrushchev eras.

Sure they can revive the Buran with An-225 for it (1 is unfinished in Ukraine) too, but as with them,

Those two are dead projects.

There is no reason to revive either of them except conceptually... there will be a new Russian shuttle but will likely be rather different from Buran, though Buran was the best shuttle design so far from any country. The new shuttle design will benefit from an An-225 like aircraft but that will most likely be Slon based.

CV/Ns r not a priority before the last ship & sub r ready for their CBGs to be formed 1st.

A new CV or CVN will take a minimum of 10 years from laying down to being operational so they will not be waiting for the last ship it will operate with is built first.

They need a lot more experience with new weapons and sensors and aircraft and systems before it is time to start looking at a new CVN design.

If Russia overspends on her VMF & breaks apart like the USSR 30 years ago, her CV/Ns will end up sold/scrapped like those Kiev/Kuz. class TAVKRs.

The Russian military budget will never become big enough to break Russia... a conventional military is useful but it is nukes that keep her safe and they are relatively cheap. certainly very cost effective.

This is pure unadulterated propaganda bullshit. Russia has more FX reserves (money) than India and yet India is operating one carrier and building a second. Yet you will NEVER hear these same propaganda rags pout about India "not having the money for even one aircraft carrier, let alone a whole fleet"

More importantly the US is getting buddy buddy with India to play them off against China, so obviously they are going to way India to buy lots of their old cast off ships to "boost" them to the point where they think they can match China... so we are talking about getting India to buy trillions of dollars of old carriers and ships and aircraft and helicopters from the US...

I would call it grooming really, but India is a country and not a child... can't tell them what to do... but they should look at what the US did for Pakistan against India and they were best buddy allies, but now economics say 1.2 billion Indians buying jeans and fast food... of course they are going to switch sides... they do that all the time.

She may have the $ for even 5 CVNs, but not with most of the other ships, subs & planes that must be built 1st.
The gov. can't demand sacrifices from its people to catch & overtake the West as during Stalin & Khrushchev eras.

The Russian military are working well within their budgets and their budgets are not even nearly damaging the Russian economy, in fact production is probably rather good for the Russian economy as a whole.

PapaDragon wrote:

LMFS wrote:

Isos wrote:UK operated the exocet. They had all the information they needed.

French engineers that were there to maintain french stuff on the other hand helped Argentina to adapt its ship launched exocet on super etandard.

It is known that the French threw Argentina under the bus with the Exocet. I guess they were not interested in a wave of UK-sponsored decolonization efforts on their overseas territories...

Still doesn't change the fact that Argentina was just a couple of faulty bombs away from magnificent victory

And that biggest kill of the war was scored by a UK submarine

Coastal aviation and submarines, magical combo

A couple of properly fused bombs and better maintained torpedos and it would have been carnage for the British.