Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

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. So imagine if you can what Russias capabilities could do out to about 2000 km from the cost of Russia they have (not including nuclear) about 10000x the capabilties of Argentina at the time.

The stillborn "Varan"

He hit the nail on the head!

Tsavo Lion wrote:The stillborn "Varan"

He hit the nail on the head!

Just a garden verity carrier skeptic with a boring wise guy piece.

Lost illusions

All five Russian concept models have one thing in common: they will never be implemented. The design and construction of a full-fledged domestic aircraft carrier, even smaller than the Americans, will require much more financial resources.  

This is just some defense pundit. There was an article in the economy section of a site like this which was saying that the Russian central bank was dumping its gold. When really, he was getting gold exports mixed up with CB sales. And this mistake managed to get past the editor.

So I really don't know if a guy like this is qualified to make an assertion about the financial capabilities of Russia. Russia has more FX reserves than India. India is operating one aircraft carrier and building another. Russia has more gold reserves than China. China is operating 2 carriers and building 2 more. He should make an argument instead of just saying it. Saying it doesn't cut it. Make a real argument with economic data.

Why has there been 5 carrier proposals if there is no way Russia is going to build a carrier ? He says this while Russia is currently cutting its teeth building 2 large helicopter carriers. Russia is in the top 5 in ship building tonnage. Its maybe higher. Plus they are building nuclear powered ships. The only other country doing that recently is Russia.

There is no one in Russia to design such ships today. Specialized Nevsky PCB in the post-Soviet era rapidly collapsed. The staff ran away, retired, died of despair. There are few specialists who rebuilt "Admiral Gorshkov" in indian Vikramaditya. I had to resort to the help of the Nikolayev shipbuilders. But many years have passed since then.

The same thing was said about all Russian industry since the 90's. Rockets and aviation specifically. Yet Russia is still in the rocket business and has the MC-21 coming along.

Next year will be a hundred years since the first aircraft carrier Langley, converted from a coal transport engine, entered service in the United States. Since then, 77 aircraft carriers have been built for the U.S. Navy. And more than a hundred convoy, training and universal amphibious ships capable of carrying planes of shortened takeoff and vertical landing. Still, American designers with tremendous experience face difficulties.

In this regard, it is impossible not to remember the American Gerald R. Ford. Its commissioning was delayed by three years, and the cost increased to 13.3 billion dollars.

All US industry is suffering from F-35itus. This is irrelevant to Russia.

Anyway , I think Putin wants an aircraft carrier. From what he has said , this has already been decided. The Varan is the most realistic option. I also disagree that it won't be nuclear powered. The Varan is basically an oversized helicopter carrier mixed with a nuclear ice breaker. If Russia can build those , it can build the Varan.

Nothing we did not already know.

And the usual can't afford it bullshit excuse.

It seems hypersonic manouvering missiles will never be defeatable, except we know that with a bit of work of course they will be... even if it means a directed energy weapon that fries its guidance equipment and turns it into an unguided rock that will fly till it runs out of fuel and then falls to the sea...

The sort of weapon that would be huge and require a lot of power to use... say on a cruiser... but then if such a cruiser is present then it will need ships to protect it from sneak attack like subs or low flying missiles so a big ship with a flat top that can carry anti sub helicopters and drones as well as an airborne radar aircraft that can see long distances low flying threats and of course some aircraft that can respond to those threats by flying out and checking them and attacking them if needed... hey... lets call my new invention an aircraft carrier.

Long range and endurance dictate nuclear propulsion and decent flight group of fighters and anti sub helicopters and also drones and AWACS aircraft...

so the best solution would probably be in the 70-90K ton weight class... perhaps a catamaran design with a huge wide hull for a big hangar and an even wider flight deck...

Anyway , I think Putin wants an aircraft carrier. From what he has said , this has already been decided. The Varan is the most realistic option. I also disagree that it won't be nuclear powered. The Varan is basically an oversized helicopter carrier mixed with a nuclear ice breaker. If Russia can build those , it can build the Varan.

Smaller carriers are cheaper... the UK and Soviet Union went down that road in the 1980s and it is stupid and a dead end. Spend a bit more and get a much better ship that is actually useful and effective.

Put Su-57s on it. You can't have a lot so have the best.

EM cats will help develop all sorts of new technology in super magnets and plasma and electrics etc etc... it is good for investment because it can be used in a wide variety of areas in aerospace.

Don't think of a carrier as a burden to a Russian surface fleet, think of it as a force multiplier which makes it safer and more powerful and much much harder to defeat.

Right now penetrating Russian air defences is hard, but if you took away all the airfields and airborne radar it doesn't really get that much cheaper but it becomes easier to defeat... and for what... by the time the west gets hypersonic anti ship missiles the Russian Navy will have S-350 and S-400 and S-500 missiles on their ships, and who knows what else EM and other systems to defend themselves.

I think a design like the Varan makes sense as an amphibious assault carrier but not as the main carrier strike fleet for a country like Russia.
It would make more sense, I think, as a UCAV carrier with a small EMALS catapult in it. With smaller UCAVs the more limited space on such a configuration would be less of a problem.

I think Russia needs a main carrier design with a displacement similar to the Admiral Kuznetsov, with nuclear propulsion and EMALS to be competitive.
The carrier should carry a naval strike version of the Su-57. Just look at the proposed design of the next generation French aircraft carrier.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/12/frances-new-aircraft-carrier-will-be-nuclear-powered/

A carrier without a catapult will have a much more limited payload delivery capability so I don't think it makes sense. The UK's carriers are lame designs.

GarryB wrote:Nothing we did not already know.

And the usual can't afford it bullshit excuse.

It seems hypersonic manouvering missiles will never be defeatable, except we know that with a bit of work of course they will be... even if it means a directed energy weapon that fries its guidance equipment and turns it into an unguided rock that will fly till it runs out of fuel and then falls to the sea...

The sort of weapon that would be huge and require a lot of power to use... say on a cruiser... but then if such a cruiser is present then it will need ships to protect it from sneak attack like subs or low flying missiles so a big ship with a flat top that can carry anti sub helicopters and drones as well as an airborne radar aircraft that can see long distances low flying threats and of course some aircraft that can respond to those threats by flying out and checking them and attacking them if needed... hey... lets call my new invention an aircraft carrier.

Long range and endurance dictate nuclear propulsion and decent flight group of fighters and anti sub helicopters and also drones and AWACS aircraft...

so the best solution would probably be in the 70-90K ton weight class... perhaps a catamaran design with a huge wide hull for a big hangar and an even wider flight deck...

Anyway , I think Putin wants an aircraft carrier. From what he has said , this has already been decided. The Varan is the most realistic option. I also disagree that it won't be nuclear powered. The Varan is basically an oversized helicopter carrier mixed with a nuclear ice breaker. If Russia can build those , it can build the Varan.

Smaller carriers are cheaper... the UK and Soviet Union went down that road in the 1980s and it is stupid and a dead end. Spend a bit more and get a much better ship that is actually useful and effective.

Put Su-57s on it. You can't have a lot so have the best.

EM cats will help develop all sorts of new technology in super magnets and plasma and electrics etc etc... it is good for investment because it can be used in a wide variety of areas in aerospace.

Don't think of a carrier as a burden to a Russian surface fleet, think of it as a force multiplier which makes it safer and more powerful and much much harder to defeat.

Right now penetrating Russian air defences is hard, but if you took away all the airfields and airborne radar it doesn't really get that much cheaper but it becomes easier to defeat... and for what... by the time the west gets hypersonic anti ship missiles the Russian Navy will have S-350 and S-400 and S-500 missiles on their ships, and who knows what else EM and other systems to defend themselves.

Yeah I dunno. What does the French aircraft carrier count as in your books ? Is it a small carrier does it count as full size ? I didn't realize how small it actually was. It looks impressive. I don't think Russia needs anything bigger than the French CVN. The French CVN has the character of a full size even if it isn't

lancelot wrote:I think a design like the Varan makes sense as an amphibious assault carrier but not as the main carrier strike fleet for a country like Russia. ..
A carrier without a catapult will have a much more limited payload delivery capability so I don't think it makes sense. The UK's carriers are lame designs.

Russia doesn't need "carrier strike fleet", & she may not need/be able to field any other flat deck carriers, for that matter. Fighters armed with AAMs can take off the rump, while fixed wing AWACSs & CODs will need CATOBAR.

lancelot wrote:I think a design like the Varan makes sense as an amphibious assault carrier but not as the main carrier strike fleet for a country like Russia.
It would make more sense, I think, as a UCAV carrier with a small EMALS catapult in it. With smaller UCAVs the more limited space on such a configuration would be less of a problem.

I think Russia needs a main carrier design with a displacement similar to the Admiral Kuznetsov, with nuclear propulsion and EMALS to be competitive.
The carrier should carry a naval strike version of the Su-57. Just look at the proposed design of the next generation French aircraft carrier.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/12/frances-new-aircraft-carrier-will-be-nuclear-powered/

A carrier without a catapult will have a much more limited payload delivery capability so I don't think it makes sense. The UK's carriers are lame designs.

Which of the 5 proposals matches the Kuznetsov in size/scope ? I basically agree.

But with the su 57 with the new engine plus the fact that it is smaller with better everything , the payload will be superior to su 33 or Mig 29kub. Maybe a ski jump would be acceptable. Make it dual use. Build it so that emals can be installed later.

Basically I want Russia to have a carrier to show off its technology. The su 57 mainly. And nuclear. Every country needs a flagship. It doesn't have to be world war 2 ready. Like all the overkill US carriers that are an obscene waste of money and man power. WW2 isn't going to happen again.

Imagine Russia doing friendly port calls around the world with a carrier decked out with su 57's. Who else is going to have a 5th gen on a deck ? The J-35 is at the 2 prototype stage now. They won't be ready in under 10 years. It hasn't even been officially designated for the role.  

India ? Hell no. France ? Hell no.

I think a design like the Varan makes sense as an amphibious assault carrier but not as the main carrier strike fleet for a country like Russia.

A Russian amphibious assault carrier would be a helicopter carrier, not this.

US Amphibious assault carriers carry Harriers in a ground support role, Russia has no fixed wing aircraft in that role except the Su-25 which is not a naval aircraft.

It does not make sense as anything.

It would make more sense, I think, as a UCAV carrier with a small EMALS catapult in it. With smaller UCAVs the more limited space on such a configuration would be less of a problem.

I would disagree... it would make sense to do what the Russians seem to actually be doing... making a helicopter carrier of about 40K ton weight with a naval infantry landing force with full armour and support helicopters and landing craft... and making another ship the same just carrying helicopters and drones to support it or to operate independently.

Making a one off UAV carrier that is not used for anything else would be a bit of a waste.

If the new helicopter carrier and drone carrier are useful then make one more of each and base each pair at the Northern Fleet and the Pacific fleet respectively and then produce destroyers and then cruisers to operate with them...

I think Russia needs a main carrier design with a displacement similar to the Admiral Kuznetsov, with nuclear propulsion and EMALS to be competitive.

A similar displacement but more internal volume for more aircraft of a larger size... I would go for 80K or there abouts because it is better to have more capacity and not need it than to not have it only to find you need it.

The carrier should carry a naval strike version of the Su-57.

The Su-57 already has strike capabilities...

Yeah I dunno. What does the French aircraft carrier count as in your books ? Is it a small carrier does it count as full size ? I didn't realize how small it actually was. It looks impressive. I don't think Russia needs anything bigger than the French CVN. The French CVN has the character of a full size even if it isn't

Well lets ignore my opinion and look at French experience and their choices and decisions... the CdG is too small... it would struggle to carry 30 operational fighters... some times you might get away with that but a lot of the time it will be a serious problem.

Look at Lancelots post with the proposed new French carrier... nuclear powered EMAL cats 75K ton... look at the British carrier... they have experience with small carriers... the Hermes was tiny and was supposed to be so affordable... they should in theory have 6 of those in service or their derivatives and all the money they would save in not having a big expensive CVN they could spend on lots of support ships and cruisers... but what do they have? Their carriers are about 65K tons.

But surely with all their experience and knowledge the Brits and the French would be leading the way with super helicopter carriers that can also carry VSTOL fighter planes that can do everything the big expensive US super carriers can do but much much cheaper... but it isn't true.

The key to an air defence aircraft carrier is the AWACS and while something is better than nothing.... ie Ka-31, a proper fixed wing long endurance aircraft with a decent sized radar is what it is all about and mini carriers don't do that so even if they are cheaper they are not. It is like saying a bicycle is cheaper than a car... it is but it isn't... if you need to go further than 200km in a day then a bike is not cheaper than a car, but when that bike is titanium and super light 300 gear super sports bike and costs 50K dollars then you are better off buying that cheap Jap import Toyota for 10K.

Yeah I dunno. What does the French aircraft carrier count as in your books ? Is it a small carrier does it count as full size ? I didn't realize how small it actually was. It looks impressive. I don't think Russia needs anything bigger than the French CVN. The French CVN has the character of a full size even if it isn't

The Russians need a ship that can operate anywhere in the world with their other ships and offer air defence and protection for those ships and subs... they don't need a US super carrier... if they want to sink enemy ships or subs or attack targets deep in enemy territory they have plenty of ship and sub based missiles.

The carrier will be there if the enemy or allies of the enemy start attacking the Russian ships... AWACS will detect the attack early and give good situational awareness of what is happening around the ships right down to sea level and enough helicopters to know what is going on under the water too...

They don't need a fixed wing carrier for invasions... helicopter carriers are for landings or other island based operations... the fixed wing carriers... CVNs will be for air defence only.

But with the su 57 with the new engine plus the fact that it is smaller with better everything , the payload will be superior to su 33 or Mig 29kub. Maybe a ski jump would be acceptable. Make it dual use. Build it so that emals can be installed later.

Funny... on the technology page I just read that Russian scientists have developed a laser system that can burn crystals into a lens that will allow that lense to convert invisible IR light into visible light but EMALS are somehow impossible.

Basically I want Russia to have a carrier to show off its technology. The su 57 mainly. And nuclear. Every country needs a flagship. It doesn't have to be world war 2 ready. Like all the overkill US carriers that are an obscene waste of money and man power. WW2 isn't going to happen again.

Even if they were instructed to make it out of Titanium I doubt a new Russian carrier would cost anything like a much bigger US carrier.

Imagine Russia doing friendly port calls around the world with a carrier decked out with su 57's

Pride is certainly important, but being able to sail internationally with no country being able to bar Russian access to trade around the world is what it is all about.

The trade it will generate will pay for the ships several times over.

The big powers didn't become powerful and then build a navy... it happened the other way around... the big powers were big powers because of their navies... UK, France, US, Spain, Portugal...

The trade it will generate will pay for the ships several times over.

if they let Ms of Indians & other Asians settle in Russia, it'll generate more domestic & international trade; then the VMF could get all the ships & planes it wants to trade with L. America & Oceania.

The big powers didn't become powerful and then build a navy... it happened the other way around...

no, it was a gradual process. The Romans, Greeks & Chinese didn't become maritime powers before overtaking Phoenicians, Carthaginians & what is now S. China on land &/ through trading & colonizing.

..the big powers were big powers because of their navies... UK, France, US, Spain, Portugal..

Columbus' 3 ships & contemporary English, Dutch, Portuguese & French ships were dwarfed by the Ming era Chinese sea going junks; bigger ships with better seakeeping were built later as their economies became stronger. Russia too got richer after her international trade increased, enabling her to build a stronger navy.
OTH, there were big native powers in C/SE Asia, Africa, & the Americas that had only coastal navies.

After hearing the rhetoric from the Biden regime on the arctic , I think the anti aircraft carrier people just lost the argument. With the recent issues with the Suez canal blockage, it just shows what an asset Russia has up there.

It would have to be the Lamantin-class carrier. 3600 person crew still sounds like too much for my liking. The 1950 person crew of the Charles De Gaulle is perfect. The new French one has a 2000 person crew.

The LMA Krylov is a light carrier. All the jets stay outside. It just wouldn't be ideal for the arctic. Plus its not nuclear. So its out.

A slightly scaled down Lamantin would be the ticket.

if they let Ms of Indians & other Asians settle in Russia, it'll generate more domestic & international trade; then the VMF could get all the ships & planes it wants to trade with L. America & Oceania.

Most Chinese are moving south not moving north.

A cold climate is not for everyone... you have to be that sort of person.

Having more people there wont change anything at all, what they need is a strong navy so that countries have the confidence to trade with Russia without fear of being regime changed by the US for trading with Russia.

The Romans, Greeks & Chinese didn't become maritime powers before overtaking Phoenicians, Carthaginians & what is now S. China on land &/ through trading & colonizing.

The romans and greeks are hardly global powers.

And most Chinese travellers didn't really leave a mark of death and chaos like the white european travellers did.

Columbus' 3 ships & contemporary English, Dutch, Portuguese & French ships were dwarfed by the Ming era Chinese sea going junks; bigger ships with better seakeeping were built later as their economies became stronger. Russia too got richer after her international trade increased, enabling her to build a stronger navy.
OTH, there were big native powers in C/SE Asia, Africa, & the Americas that had only coastal navies.

The US and UK and France are a challenge to Russia and they don't need to match that challenge ship for ship, but they do need to be able to deal with them in the small scale on equal terms.

They don't need 20 aircraft carriers, but they do need carrier based aircraft.

A CVN with Su-57s on it will not enable them to defeat all of HATO, but will be powerful enough to make attacking them too potentially damaging to want to try.

The amount of forces the west would need to gather for any chance of defeating a Russian surface force with CVNs and Su-57s would make them vulnerable to pre emptive self defence attacks that actually make a successful attack impossible because the Russia C4IR system would see it before they could spring it on them.

In comparison without the CVN and without the airpower the required forces would be substantially less and more likely to be successful... and more likely to be tried in some situations.

It would have to be the Lamantin-class carrier. 3600 person crew still sounds like too much for my liking. The 1950 person crew of the Charles De Gaulle is perfect. The new French one has a 2000 person crew.

Honestly I would love to see them do something clever, thinking outside the box that is ideal for their needs... remember at its heart the US carriers are 100K tons because of the strike aircraft and the strike munitions that need to be carried because the ships operating with their carrier and the subs too don't have 4,500km range conventionally armed land attack cruise missiles.... they need to send a flight of attack aircraft deep into enemy airspace for those sorts of missions.

In comparison the Russians need an air defence carrier that can operate their best fighters (Su-57K) and perhaps some smaller fighters for close in protection of aircraft that don't need to fly great distances (LMFS) and also a decent AWACS platform preferably with very long range very powerful radar technology and IR technology too. What would also be useful will be some S-70 drones which can be sent up during peace time and war time and just patrol autonomously, and of course anti sub helicopters and underwater drones to support operations.

I would also tuck some UKSK launchers in each corner of the ship with PAKET type anti torpedo weapons loaded, and of course some solid air defence missiles... TOR, Pantsir, SOSNA, and Redut (9m96 and 9M100) is significant numbers.

A handling system that allows the S-70s to be stored vertically in large numbers that can be sent up to the main deck and then oriented horizontally for normal operations would be a useful thing as well as EMALs cat launchers for AWACS and drones.

Backman wrote:After hearing the rhetoric from the Biden regime on the arctic , I think the anti aircraft carrier people just lost the argument. With the recent issues with the Suez canal blockage, it just shows what an asset Russia has up there.

It would have to be the Lamantin-class carrier. 3600 person crew still sounds like too much for my liking. The 1950 person crew of the Charles De Gaulle is perfect. The new French one has a 2000 person crew.

The LMA Krylov is a light carrier. All the jets stay outside. It just wouldn't be ideal for the arctic. Plus its not nuclear. So its out.

A slightly scaled down Lamantin would be the ticket.

Krylov was rather coy about their best carrier proposal, the medium sized with semi-catamaran layout, nuclear propulsion and an air wing even better than Lamantin. That is the configuration that matches what VMF said is looking for. As GarryB says, the US CVNs are conditioned by the volume of firepower they need to release on land attack and that means lots and lots of ammo, huge sortie generation capabilities, corresponding fuel and fuel facilities needed, crew, equipment etc etc, that is completely unnecessary for the VMF. Among the thousands of tons of bombs and ammo a USN carrier takes onboard there is no single decent AShM... it is simply ludicrous.

Most Chinese are moving south not moving north.
A cold climate is not for everyone... you have to be that sort of person.

NK & NE China, & the RFE all have similar cold climate; Ms of Han Chinese settled in Manchuria in the 1800s & some Koreans settled in the RFE. The Gypsies came from N. India & many eventually settled in Russia, incl. in Siberia. Even Southern Asians could adopt in the 2nd & succeeding generations. Ms of African slaves also adopted to N. American winters.

Having more people there wont change anything at all, ..

more people=more production, consumption, & expansion of trade.

The romans and greeks are hardly global powers.

they colonized the Med. & Black Seas & were the superpowers of the day. If Emperor Hadrian wanted to take Scotland, he wouldn't have bothered building the wall on its border. He could take Ireland too.
The Byzantines continued as Greeks & ruled those seas for several more centuries.
Russia got a decent navy only by the end of Peter I reign.

NK & NE China, & the RFE all have similar cold climate

And the people in China seem to be migrating south as far as they can.

Ms of African slaves also adopted to N. American winters.

They really did not get much of a choice.

more people=more production, consumption, & expansion of trade.

Rubbish... some of the countries with the biggest global trade networks don't have big populations.

Internal trade is not the same as international trade... the low value of the ruble makes imports expensive and exports lucrative.

they colonized the Med. & Black Seas & were the superpowers of the day. If Emperor Hadrian wanted to take Scotland, he wouldn't have bothered building the wall on its border. He could take Ireland too.
The Byzantines continued as Greeks & ruled those seas for several more centuries.

So none of them global powers...

Russia got a decent navy only by the end of Peter I reign.

And before that... a regional power only.

And the people in China seem to be migrating south as far as they can.

If they r offered incentives & perks, some will come North. Now the gov. directed & encouraged migration is from the countryside to the cities, to increase internal consumption.

Ms of African slaves also adopted to N. American winters.

They really did not get much of a choice.

true, but Ms of their descendants migrated to the Northern states in the 1960s & 70s to escape poverty & use their welfare system.

more people=more production, consumption, & expansion of trade.

Rubbish... some of the countries with the biggest global trade networks don't have big populations.

once more people get rich enough, they'll want & demand more imported goods from near & far abroad.

So none of them global powers...

before becoming 1, any past global power had to get its economy to a certain level to afford a naval buildup.

Russia got a decent navy only by the end of Peter I reign.

And before that... a regional power only.

Peter I built a small navy, gained access to the Baltic, Caspian & Azov Seas, thus enabling Russia to trade with Europe & Persia & get richer. His successors continued building ships & fight Turks, Persians, Brits & Swedes to defend her interests. They also sent expeditions to the Northern Coast, Siberia, Kamchatka & Alaska; in fact, if they had more & bigger ships, there would be no need to spend 3 years trekking across Siberia to reach the Pacific- instead, they could've sailed from St. Petersburg around W. Europe, Africa, across the IO into China/Japan Seas & entered the Okhotsk/Bering Seas from the South.  
Japan too didn't start her naval buildup before opening up for trade with the rest of the world. The Hermit Kingdom's navy had inflicted big losses on the Japanese during their 1592 invasion of Korea which could afford its ships only by trading with China.

lyle6 wrote:If you invite the third world you become the third world. Russia is strong because of Russians - let's keep it that way.

The only question is whether this Trotskyist scum is that retarded, or just taking other people for retards...

In many ways, Russia is still a 3rd World nation anyway, with 20M below poverty line, so it makes sense to join efforts with the 3rd World.
Forming BRICS was a step in that direction.

LMFS wrote:

Backman wrote:After hearing the rhetoric from the Biden regime on the arctic , I think the anti aircraft carrier people just lost the argument. With the recent issues with the Suez canal blockage, it just shows what an asset Russia has up there.

It would have to be the Lamantin-class carrier. 3600 person crew still sounds like too much for my liking. The 1950 person crew of the Charles De Gaulle is perfect. The new French one has a 2000 person crew.

The LMA Krylov is a light carrier. All the jets stay outside. It just wouldn't be ideal for the arctic. Plus its not nuclear. So its out.

A slightly scaled down Lamantin would be the ticket.

Krylov was rather coy about their best carrier proposal, the medium sized with semi-catamaran layout, nuclear propulsion and an air wing even better than Lamantin. That is the configuration that matches what VMF said is looking for. As GarryB says, the US CVNs are conditioned by the volume of firepower they need to release on land attack and that means lots and lots of ammo, huge sortie generation capabilities, corresponding fuel and fuel facilities needed, crew, equipment etc etc, that is completely unnecessary for the VMF. Among the thousands of tons of bombs and ammo a USN carrier takes onboard there is no single decent AShM... it is simply ludicrous.

Is there an article or pic about the carrier you are talking about ?

The LMA Kryov carrier is also meant to be an export item. When you look at it that way, it makes sense. Maybe they could build a nuclear version for Russia. There would have to be a study on what the feasibility of an export carrier is. Maybe countries like Turkey or Brazil would jump on it.

Tsavo Lion wrote:In many ways, Russia is still a 3rd World nation anyway, with 20M below poverty line, so it makes sense to join efforts with the 3rd World.
Forming BRICS was a step in that direction.

That's retarded considering the phrase 3rd world meant , countries that weren't the US or USSR. If Russia is a 3rd world country then so is the US.

Compared with Indian & Chinese exports, the Russian non-arms/mil. /nuclear energy related exports that r mostly oil, gas, raw materials & agricultural, r that of the 3rd World. Now Russia is also a transit point between W. Europe & Asia.
Not much changed since the time when the Kievan Rus' rivers were used for trade between Scandinavia, Byzantium & Persia.

Backman wrote:Is there an article or pic about the carrier you are talking about ?

The information about this proposal has been confusing to say the least. This is from Flotprom:

The premiere of the" medium " aircraft carrier with a displacement of 76 thousand tons was postponed to the mvms-2019
June 28, 2019 at 19: 27 Subject: IMMS, Industry

The concept design of the third aircraft carrier in the line of the Krylov state scientific center is planned to be presented to the General public at the international naval salon IMDS-2019 in St. Petersburg. The premiere was announced in an exclusive interview with Mil.Press FlotProm head of KSCI Pavel Filippov.

The creation of the concept of a "medium" aircraft carrier with a displacement of 76 thousand tons was announced during the Army-2019 forum. The ship itself has not yet been presented.

At the stand of the Krylov center, they showed the only model of an aircraft carrier with a total displacement of 44 thousand tons. The ship received the code "Storm-KM". It was first presented during the Army-2018 forum.

As the head of the KGNC Pavel Filippov told the publication, the" medium "aircraft carrier occupies an intermediate position between the" heavy "multi – purpose" Storm "of the 23000e project (displacement-95-100 thousand tons) and the multi – purpose aircraft carrier" Storm-KM " (displacement-44 thousand tons). It is planned to be equipped with a combined power plant: the main power plant will be a nuclear power plant, similar to the power plant of the project 855 Yasen submarine, and the afterburner will be a gas turbine based on the M90 engine.

The designers also reported Mil.Press FlotProm reports that the "medium" aircraft carrier model has already passed a number of tests in the Krylov center basin.
Background of the issue

On the first day of Army 2019, representatives of the KGNC told the publication that in June-July the center will present the Ministry of defense of the Russian Federation a modified line of conceptual projects of aircraft carriers for the Russian Navy.

Earlier in June, it became known that the Russian Navy has begun to form a tactical and technical task for a promising nuclear aircraft carrier.

In April 2018, Vice Admiral Viktor bursuk, who then held the post of Deputy commander-in-chief of the Navy for armament, told the publication that the Navy needs aircraft carriers with a displacement of about 70 thousand tons.

The fifth international military-technical forum "Army" is held from June 25 to 30 on the basis of the Patriot Convention and exhibition center, at the Alabino training ground and Kubinka airfield. From June 26 to 27, the forum was open only for specialists, and from June 28 to 30, the territory of the exhibition and Convention center is open to the public.

https://flotprom.ru/2019/ФорумАрмия101/

I saw no new picture, just the same Storm KM pics that were shown before, I don't know if that is an error by the journos and the model was not shown, or Krylov just applied the same model to both the light and medium carriers. This is from Bastion:

The Krylov scientific center's exposition at the fifth Army-2019 international forum in the Patriot exhibition center near Moscow was based on concept projects of promising ships: the polukatamaran light aircraft carrier with an Electromechanical catapult, a destroyer, a universal landing ship and a Corvette. At the same time, acting General Director of the KSCC Pavel Filippov announced three variants of aircraft carriers with different types of power plants and displacement, developed by scientists of the Krylov scientific center on their own initiative. The first version of the concept project is a large aircraft carrier with a nuclear (power) installation of project 23000e "Storm" with the ability to accommodate up to 100 aircraft and a displacement of about 100 thousand tons. We demonstrated this option at Army-2017. In 2018, the KGNC demonstrated the Storm-KM light multi-purpose aircraft carrier with a full displacement, and this version of the ship was also shown at the Army-2019 forum. Scientists have developed a unique hull shape, the so-called "semi-catamaran". Due to this form, we were able to create a relatively small displacement on the ship, about 44 thousand tons, increase the deck surface, and thereby increase the number of aircraft in comparison with other projects by 25-30%." In 2019, a full-fledged aircraft carrier with a displacement of about 60 thousand tons with a very serious, balanced fleet of aircraft is expected to be demonstrated at the international naval salon IMDS-2019. The new version of the aircraft carrier is offered with a non-nuclear power plant, with a gas turbine power plant and full electric propulsion. The proposed line of aircraft carriers allows the country's and Navy's leadership to choose the most acceptable option for subsequent design and construction in terms of financial costs and practical feasibility, according to experts of the Krylov research center.

Источник: https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en.514f5173-60634133-7ad3a04b-74722d776562/bastion-karpenko.ru/srma-60-cnii-45-2019/ ВТС «БАСТИОН» A.V.Karpenko

Interestingly it remains unclear whether it is nuclear or not, I tend to think thye refer to it not being fully nuclear as an US CVN. For instance CONAG would be a nice configuration for using the booster only in specific moments but otherwise having unlimited range at lower speeds.

This was related to the light version but still relevant to the hull layout, because it is shared by both:

The stories related to the concepts of aircraft carriers from the KGNTs have gone out of their way. What are the prospects for these developments now?

I will clarify: technical and detailed design is the lot of design bureaus. The purpose of science, led by the Krylov Center, is the creation of concept projects and ideas. We say: this is how today's science sees the ship of the future.

We offered the aircraft carrier in two versions. The light aircraft carrier, which we demonstrated at Army-2018, was highly controversial.

Some even wrote that the Krylov Center does not own the theory of shipbuilding. But at the same time, no one noticed that with a limited displacement, this ship possesses the main weapon of an aircraft carrier: a balanced air wing.

It includes almost all types of aircraft. How is this achieved? First of all, due to the rejection of the traditional shape of the hull, which made it possible to increase the deck area, to solve the problems of aircraft placement. Secondly, this project has resolved the issues of hydrodynamics. According to model tests, we are not talking about a 1.5-2% reduction in resistance to movement, which lies within the margin of error, but in principle, up to 20%. That is, we could have a greater power reserve with equal power and speed.

https://flotprom.ru/2019/КрыловскийЦентр1/

Another source:

https://tass.ru/interviews/6584440

The LMA Kryov carrier is also meant to be an export item. When you look at it that way, it makes sense. Maybe they could build a nuclear version for Russia. There would have to be a study on what the feasibility of an export carrier is. Maybe countries like Turkey or Brazil would jump on it.

I think they were just trying to offer other options to the VMF mainly. The new hull is pretty advanced and would allow a smaller power to have a carrier with many of the capabilities of a CVN. But as they explain, their work is not to design final ships, just to point possible development paths. When you have a 20% advantage in propulsive performance and 30% in air wing capacity, I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that is an awesome breakthrough...