Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

GarryB wrote:

The idea of the two island structure is to separate landing ops from ship sailing ops... ie a separate control tower for landing and takeoff, and a tower for ship operations and sailing.

Each tower is generally slim and allows aircraft to be parked between them... the air control tower benefits from being further back while the ship control tower benefits being further forward. By splitting them the AC tower can be further back and the SC tower benefits from being further forward. Having one tower means a long island or  the AC less far back and the SC further back from ideal too.

Yes I do understand the rational - the ONE island it is just my personal preference. The benefit in air control would be minimal in a TWO island structure as you already have people on deck keeping a very close eye on landing proceedings which is most critical. These guys make the actual call if the landing is either good or bad.

Yes I do understand the rational - the ONE island it is just my personal preference. The benefit in air control would be minimal in a TWO island structure as you already have people on deck keeping a very close eye on landing proceedings which is most critical. These guys make the actual call if the landing is either good or bad.

From a design point of view the people running air operations don't just watch the planes taking off and landing... they also essentially manage the flow and processes taking place on the deck, but even ignoring that from a design point of view having two separate structures allows them to be positioned in more ideal places for their relevant functions while creating deck space between them for more places to park aircraft which is always useful.

The alternatives are move them closer together or have a really massive island, which I think you will agree are not very appealing alternatives... but not the end of the world either.

I just don't think aesthetics should ever be an important factor.

That's just the thing Gary - two islands actually takes away some deck space - no matter how small the second structure is. By combining the two you end up with a bit more space on the deck. I never mentioned aesthetics as a factor - only deck space. In fact the Shtorm is a very handsome design and I quite like it.

Arrow wrote:
What kind of dry dock near Murmansk?   Belokamenka ?

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2019/05/murmansk-gets-russias-biggest-dry-dock

There are also plans underway to lift the sunken PD-50 in Kola Bay but I don't know if they will be able to do so and f they plan to put the dock back in service?

They might raise the PD-50 but only to remove a navigation hazard.  It was (reportedly) in poor condition before it sank, so after 4-5 years submerged it will be a complete write off. Heck, even if it was in pristine condition, it would still be utterly rooted (*).

BTW that Barents Observer article is ~2.5 years old.

(*) Aussie slang. It means FUBAR

I just grabbed the first article that came up on the new dry dock construction in Murmansk for Arrow's info.

PD-50 is definitely FUBAR yes!

That's just the thing Gary - two islands actually takes away some deck space - no matter how small the second structure is. By combining the two you end up with a bit more space on the deck. I never mentioned aesthetics as a factor - only deck space. In fact the Shtorm is a very handsome design and I quite like it.

Looking at the drawings provided I don't think you are right. The actual foot print area of the one design with two separate towers doesn't look any worse than the other designs using single towers.

If you take into consideration the positioning too the rear most tower is much further back than any other design allows and they are both far apart enough to almost give both towers full 360 degree views which is not possible with one tower as each group would occupy their own area of the tower limiting the views possible when the space is shared.

I don't think this is an accident either because the concept of two separate towers would be driven by having a smaller footprint on the deck and having the best views possible from each tower... that would be the core motivation for having two separate towers in the first place.

For the Kuznetsov obviously that would not be possible because the engine funnel exhausts are also incorporated in the tower to raise the smoke up and away from the operational deck so the island is always going to be rather big anyway.

I am glad to hear that looks do not sway your views...

PD-50 is definitely FUBAR yes

But may need to be removed for normal operations to continue where it is currently located...

Would need to be inspected in detail and might need to be cut to pieces and removed that way... which would not be easy... or cheap.

It is true that most carriers have the island offset slightly to the rear. The French carrier is probably the exception. In fact most carriers have only one island with the British carriers currently as the sole exception. Just looking at it tells me they had to implement a lot of extra reinforcement to support the separate structures - hence the reason why they are fairly large. My thinking is that if you only had only one island a lot of the reinforcement structure would be unnecessary - making the total volume smaller. Hopefully that makes some sense?

Side note: The British carrier's control tower seems to have a less than ideal view?

Arrow wrote:Yes, but I haven't found any news confirming any work on this dry dock in almost 3 years.  So I guess the work is going very slowly or not at all.

You mean Belokamenka or the merging of 2 docks for K?

Belokamenka is already well underway building the first 2 massive concrete platforms (Google earth pic dated June 2021)


The merger of docks for K had a slow start but picked up speed after some ass-kicking, discussed in the K thread
https://www.russiadefence.net/t7140p750-aircraft-carrier-admiral-kuznetsov-news-2#329305
Status also as of June 2021

The British carrier's control tower seems to have a less than ideal view?

As Garry said: the front one is for helming, the rear is for air-group, has a big windowed control tower thing on the port side.

I'll add that they have backup secondary function so the ship can be helmed from the rear island & airgroup controlled from the front if one or the other gets damaged. (less well certainly but still better than no backup if something goes wrong)

They also actually have the gas-turbines in the sponson below the islands, made possible by electric main motors & light weight of gas turbines.
It saves weight & volume on exhaust trunking vs if they were deep in the hull but being more exposed they also went for separate islands to reduce the chance of both units being taken out with one hit.


With nuclear propulsion & large ships the US made their their islands as small & as far aft as they can to suit their aircraft deck handling process & simultaneous launch/landing ops.

The French carrier is too small for an aft-island/simultaneous ops so they put it up forward which gives them a maximised aircraft handling area aft of the island.

[quote="Arrow"]

Mir wrote:
Yes, but I haven't found any news confirming any work on this dry dock in almost 3 years.  So I guess the work is going very slowly or not at all.

It has been discussed here quite a few times already.

hoom wrote:
As Garry said: the front one is for helming, the rear is for air-group, has a big windowed control tower thing on the port side.

I'll add that they have backup secondary function so the ship can be helmed from the rear island & airgroup controlled from the front if one or the other gets damaged. (less well certainly but still better than no backup if something goes wrong)

They also actually have the gas-turbines in the sponson below the islands, made possible by electric main motors & light weight of gas turbines.
It saves weight & volume on exhaust trunking vs if they were deep in the hull but being more exposed they also went for separate islands to reduce the chance of both units being taken out with one hit.


With nuclear propulsion & large ships the US made their their islands as small & as far aft as they can to suit their aircraft deck handling process & simultaneous launch/landing ops.

The French carrier is too small for an aft-island/simultaneous ops so they put it up forward which gives them a maximised aircraft handling area aft of the island.

The control room on the British ship does give some exceptional view over the carrier deck - that I'll grant you. However it has a huge blind spot to the rear up to about 8 o'clock.



If you compare it with the Kuznetsov - which is a hybrid aircraft carrier cruiser - the control room gives almost all round visibility.



The similar island from the old Baku gives you an even better view of the control room.

In fact most carriers have only one island with the British carriers currently as the sole exception.

Most of the important and relevant technologies in aircraft carrier design... the lights landing system, the angled deck, the catapult, the arrester gear, was mostly invented by the British...

Just looking at it tells me they had to implement a lot of extra reinforcement to support the separate structures - hence the reason why they are fairly large. My thinking is that if you only had only one island a lot of the reinforcement structure would be unnecessary - making the total volume smaller. Hopefully that makes some sense?

If you look carefully at that picture you posted that extra structure seems to have been put to good use because between and behind the towers appears to be aircraft lifts... which would benefit from structure support.

The control room on the British ship does give some exceptional view over the carrier deck - that I'll grant you. However it has a huge blind spot to the rear up to about 8 o'clock.

The thing is that different ships have different setups... the upgraded Kiev class ship modified for India actually has a deck level position for landings:



While the Kuznetsov has rear and side and front windows to view landings, deck operations, and takeoffs... on its island, it also has a deck level viewing position for landing in the same location as on the Gorshkov:

You can see the deck position here, there is an Su-25 parked at the rear of the island... directly below it on this photo on the other side of the ship in front of the naval TOR vertical launchers is a box shaped position with three windows... well actually windows all around it.... which is where they control the landings from.

In comparison this is the view from the Island looking backwards:

If you compare it with the Kuznetsov - which is a hybrid aircraft carrier cruiser - the control room gives almost all round visibility.

Radar will give all aircraft carriers 360 degree views, but there is no point giving them views of directions aircraft would not be allowed to approach from... essentially 360 degrees of view is not needed...

If you look at the British carrier you can see the glass sticks out sideways to give a very adequate view of the deck...



Meanwhile here are some better images of the deck level landing viewing position on the Kuznetsov:





An elevated view from the tower would be useful, but not critical and a view from the deck level would immediately warn the crew if the aircraft is coming in too low.

Most of the important and relevant technologies in aircraft carrier design... the lights landing system, the angled deck, the catapult, the arrester gear, was mostly invented by the British...

Yes and I never disputed that. The Americans have since taken over that role and since the carrier disasters in the 60's they have had a good safety record.

If you look carefully at that picture you posted that extra structure seems to have been put to good use because between and behind the towers appears to be aircraft lifts... which would benefit from structure support.

In the space between the towers the space avialable on either side of the lift could have been more useful if they only had one island structure. Each lift usually have it's own structural support. But if you prefer tthe 2 island structure that's fine with me. It's just a personal preference. 

The thing is that different ships have different setups... the upgraded Kiev class ship modified for India actually has a deck level position for landings:While the Kuznetsov has rear and side and front windows to view landings, deck operations, and takeoffs... on its island, it also has a deck level viewing position for landing in the same location as on the Gorshkov:

My post earlier on >>

you already have people on deck keeping a very close eye on landing proceedings which is most critical. These guys make the actual call if the landing is either good or bad.

   

Radar will give all aircraft carriers 360 degree views, but there is no point giving them views of directions aircraft would not be allowed to approach from... essentially 360 degrees of view is not needed...

During peace time it's fine but in a heavy ECM environment when your radar is jammed or and your coms are down you will have a bit of a problem...

If you look at the British carrier you can see the glass sticks out sideways to give a very adequate view of the deck...

As I've said before >>

The control room on the British ship does give some exceptional view over the carrier deck - that I'll grant you. However it has a huge blind spot to the rear up to about 8 o'clock.

An elevated view from the tower would be useful, but not critical and a view from the deck level would immediately warn the crew if the aircraft is coming in too low.

Pilots rely on the landing lights to tell them if they are either too high - too low - or good to land and the info from the flight control room. The guys in the "hut" near the stern's job is to see if the arresting hook has taken the cable. These are the guys on deck I referred to earlier.

Some notes on air traffic control from a carrier >>

The air controllers use an array of radars, electronics and communication equipment to keep in contact with aircraft but visual contact is absolutely crucial. On the Nimitz they not only have the control room but they also have what is known as the vulture's row that stretch all the way around the island - giving you a 360 eyeball view on proceeding. The bridge below has an identical structure for that same purpose despite having all the radars and electronics available for navigation.

All of them still rely heavily on their own eyes to keep tabs on activity around the ship.



Starboard view >>

Now I am a little biased here but which one of these queens would you prefer if you were forced to make a choice?

In the space between the towers the space avialable on either side of the lift could have been more useful if they only had one island structure. Each lift usually have it's own structural support. But if you prefer tthe 2 island structure that's fine with me. It's just a personal preference.

Looks to me like there are two lifts.... one between the two islands, and a second lift behind the rear island.

During peace time it's fine but in a heavy ECM environment when your radar is jammed or and your coms are down you will have a bit of a problem...

Not being able to see aircraft from every direction is not critical because aircraft only ever land in one direction and only ever take off in one direction... approaching from any other direction is not normally allowed.

Pilots rely on the landing lights to tell them if they are either too high - too low - or good to land and the info from the flight control room.

I know, but people at deck level watching the landing can call it off if they are coming in too low to prevent a crash... I realise they see colours in the mirror and use that to achieve the perfect glide slope, but sometimes mistakes are made... the guy in the pilots seat might see red and raise his nose and increase power and do other things to reduce his sink rate, but there will come a point where it is not going to be a safe landing and at that stage the guy in the box might call it off and flag the pilot away to come around and have another go.

The guys in the "hut" near the stern's job is to see if the arresting hook has taken the cable. These are the guys on deck I referred to earlier.

Why?

The hook either catches or it does not but when that aircraft touches deck the pilot will be engaging full thrust and bracing himself for either a sharp stop or a touch and go... there is little a pilot can do with any information from the guy in the hut except if he is landing early and bouncing his hook or late and not getting a chance to pick up at all four cables...

The air controllers use an array of radars, electronics and communication equipment to keep in contact with aircraft but visual contact is absolutely crucial.

On the Kiev class carriers there was a landing autopilot for the Yak-38 and Yak-38M... the aircraft themselves had a safety system so that if sink rate or AOA or Yaw exceeded certain numbers or an engine surge or flameout, the pilot was automatically ejected.

But if you prefer tthe 2 island structure that's fine with me. It's just a personal preference.

I don't know enough about the way they use the two towers vs a single to have an opinion either way...

Mir wrote:There is also this unknown monster size carrier that was shown briefly on Combat Approved!

Wow that thing is GIGANTIC!
It must be nearly 2000 feet long!
What would land on it? The An-225 and Tu-160? hahah

Surely thats Russia trolling its enemies.

I sometimes wonder if in the modern (hypersonic missile) environment that the classic aircraft carrier falls between 2 stools.
Its not concentrated net worth ie small and very expensive and stealth enough to hide.
But its not so large that it can be a genuine airfield with mega defences.
Nor is it "non concentrated value" ie big but very cheap for its size.

WW2 had ideas for cheap airfields that were made from some very cheap materials that would float.
And Japan had submarine type carriers that were very expensive but of course could hide away.

So I wonder if ultra cheap floating barges could be built? Perhaps choppy seas are the concern?

Additionally I think that an aircraft carrier is largely useless for most of its lifetime. Unless you are a belligerent country always blowing up little countries like Iraq, Syria, Vietnam, Korea, Lebanon, Somalia, Central America and about 100 other places since 1900.

I suppose another idea would be huge oil tankers that get revenue in peacetime. But could rapidly be converted to "naval airfields" during conflict? Might make sense for Russia, given that it doesn't consider itself to be a a "naval empire".

@Firebird. The interview took place in the office of the Deputy Minister of Defense who makes the final decision on future procurement for the Russian Armed Forces. The rest of several models displayed in the office seems to be of known types. This carrier's model is certainly new and should have at least been one of several carrier concepts under evaluation. But who knows maybe they were just trolling?

@Gary.

Not being able to see aircraft from every direction is not critical

Well you obviously missed my post 763 above! 360 eyeball vision is considered critical - even for the US Navy with unparalleled aircraft carrier experience.
Having tunnel vision is not a good thing in any situation  

Btw - The last real carrier the British built was the HMS Hermes - back in 1944!
I think they lost a bit of touch since then  

Now I am a little biased here but which one of these queens would you prefer if you were forced to make a choice?

Not relevant to this thread...

I sometimes wonder if in the modern (hypersonic missile) environment that the classic aircraft carrier falls between 2 stools.

The best way to deal with hypersonic missiles will probably end up being directed energy weapons or S-500 related missiles... both the sort of thing that requires very large ships to carry energy supplies and large numbers of very heavy missiles... so if you need big cruisers then you need big carriers to carry aircraft to protect them.

Hypersonic missiles don't render large ships obsolete... they render them critical... most solo smaller ships simply wont survive an attack... numbers of bigger ships have a better chance of survival.

But nothing is invincible.

And Japan had submarine type carriers that were very expensive but of course could hide away.

An aircraft carrier is only useful when planes are in the air... a submarine carrier is a contradiction in terms... it is only safe when totally worthless.

So I wonder if ultra cheap floating barges could be built? Perhaps choppy seas are the concern?

When Russian aircraft carriers are being hunted and sunk then price does not come in to it...

Cruise missiles with cluster muniton payloads could easily deal with very large barges.

Additionally I think that an aircraft carrier is largely useless for most of its lifetime. Unless you are a belligerent country always blowing up little countries like Iraq, Syria, Vietnam, Korea, Lebanon, Somalia, Central America and about 100 other places since 1900.

The Russian territory is very well protected by ground and air and space based systems... do you think it would be safer without air power... air fields are expensive and vulnerable too... more so than carriers because they are fixed. Do you think retiring Su-35s and Su-57s and Su-30s and MiG-31s and MiG-29s and MiG-35s would make Russian air defence better or worse?

Even just being able to send aircraft out to meet a closing contact is valuable... without carrier aircraft the surface action group commander just has to guess what it is... it would take hours to send a helicopter... minutes to send fighter aircraft... they could quickly identify the target and report back... deal with it if necessary.

An aircraft carrier adds visiblity... perhaps including new photonic radar AWACS by 2030 which might see targets out to 1,000s of kms in exceptional detail, and carrying aircraft like a naval Su-57 that can fly 1,000km to inspect a dot on a radar screen to see what it is is a very valuable resource for that commander.

Situational awareness is key in everything to do with the military and carriers add SA.

They convert a surface action group into something that can operate with reasonable safety anywhere on the world oceans... and moving forward Russia is going to need to exert force anywhere on the planet... not everywhere at once... but in certain places they need to show the flag and force other naval powers to abide by the international rules... even when they don't want to.

It is not about invading countries or bombing countries, but it might be about stopping other countries bombing your allies for being your allies.

If a country decides to improve relations with Russia and the US objects because they source a lot of important materials from that country, the US might stage a coup or some sort of economic blockade on some trumped up charges of human rights violations or some such crap and blockade that country till they return to selling that stuff to the US and cut ties with Russia.

How long is Russia going to last if all foreign countries are afraid to trade with them?

The fear of colour revolution is real and proven.

I suppose another idea would be huge oil tankers that get revenue in peacetime. But could rapidly be converted to "naval airfields" during conflict? Might make sense for Russia, given that it doesn't consider itself to be a a "naval empire".

No need for empire.

Their might be alternative options to get various capabilities, but for all the talk of civilian ships being used as arsenal ships or makeshift aircraft carriers... it generally doesn't work because converted normal ships are horribly vulnerable to even pretty basic stuff a real carrier can defend itself from.

This carrier's model is certainly new and should have at least been one of several carrier concepts under evaluation. But who knows maybe they were just trolling?

Maybe he liked the model... models are easier and cheaper to make than the real thing.

Well you obviously missed my post 763 above! 360 eyeball vision is considered critical - even for the US Navy with unparalleled aircraft carrier experience.
Having tunnel vision is not a good thing in any situation

I think you are confusing 360 degree views around the ship for protection and self preservation, with the ability to land aircraft... which does not require 360 degree views.

Btw - The last real carrier the British built was the HMS Hermes - back in 1944!
I think they lost a bit of touch since then

The rest of their navy is fake, why should their carriers be any different?

The core of their problems are financial and political in nature... but this is hardly a thread to discuss their problems.

I think you are confusing 360 degree views around the ship for protection and self preservation, with the ability to land aircraft... which does not require 360 degree views."

Here you can read on "How Stuff Works" about the aircraft carrier's island structure and how stuff works >>
https://science.howstuffworks.com/aircraft-carrier5.htm

Quite an interesting read actually - they also mention the "Ouija Board".

The rest of their navy is fake, why should their carriers be any different?

The core of their problems are financial and political in nature... but this is hardly a thread to discuss their problems.

My post actually refers to your earlier post (761) referring to British expertise regarding carrier design.

Not relevant to this thread...

You are welcome to delete my post (764) but it was in reference to our discussion on the ONE or TWO island structure.

@Garry, Mir and others

1)I'm not saying big a/carriers are a bad thing.
I can see how Russia can have a big use for them, necessity.

But what puzzles me is that its happily going by with virtually none.
OK perhaps it wants the full rnge of support ships modernised first.
Perhaps it wanted its nuclear and non nuclear missile arsenal sorted first.

2)America has what 13 carriers and many more heli carriers/amphibious ships.
Its fine when someone else is funding your navy... unless they ask for their money back!
Russia currently has to fund its own navy.

So if America isn't doing 2000 ft carriers.. why would Russia?
Given that Russia is a master of asymetrical ie non arms race tactics.

3)Just to build a first megacarrier u are prob looking 4 to 7 billion dollars - at Russian rates!
I'm not sure how much further ships in the series would cost... plus the maintenance, crewing etc.
Personally I think the solution is a ship that is useful in peacetime AND wartime. Maybe not a brilliant peacetime ship, but something that gives revenue nonetheless.

4)A 2000 ft carrier is just perplexing. Its not long enough for big planes.. perhaps it could use a regular range of planes tho.

I noticed that the biggest ships in the World, megatankers are 1500 ft long and upto 500k deadweight tons. But instead of costing multi-billions they are around a few hundred million USD to build.
They aren't fast, they don't have fancy catapults, or crew space for thousands, and fancy radar, or nuclear propulsion, and the ability to turn full circle in short distances, but they are really big.

Of course radar, missiles and the like are essential. But I wonder if a "superbarge" type arrangement could work?
It would certainly rewrite some naval combat strategies.... if it could be effective.

5)"Superbarges" could be used in peacetime for revenue. Perhaps for bulk carrying, even for satellite launches nr the equator. They could use non carrier aircraft in wartime due to their longer runways.
They would be far cheaper than full blown carriers and could be positioned in a network over wide distances. Maybe connect 2 up to produce an "temporary island". The loss of one wouldn't be as catastrophic as the loss of a Shtorm supercarrier.
Despatch time would be slow, but you would probably position one in the general vicinity of a hotspot long before conflict began.
Personally I think the possibilities could be intriguing.