Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

Too much money for something not so necessary.
Aircraft carriers were not used against country that has technologically approximately the same capabilities or in some cases even better capabilities since World war 2. I see these ships only as prestige and valuable units against countries with downgraded military power.  

US has 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and France has one. Twoo more CODAG powered carriers are in the service of Royal Navy. Italy has Cavour and Treste but i dont see any anymosity towards Russia from Italia.
And thats why i think that is better fro Russia to spend money on additional or more Su-57 regiments and Su-75 (in the near future), more multipurpose submarines, proposed MiG-41, hypersonic missiles, Tupolev family of bombers, and ABM's, than to build an aircraft carrier. OK, those ships could be more valuable in more ice free Pacific ocean than in the Arctic and in the service of Northern fleet.  
I have more "fear" from a huge number of Arleigh Burkes + Ticonderogas than from those carriers.
But OK, the US Navy will deccomission seven Ticonderoga class cruisers this year and that is 854 missiles in total for seven ships.

You also have F-35 capable carriers from the US Marines, Spain, Australia, South Korea, Japan and perhaps even Turkey! All of them (f-35 incl)will go down well with a Tsirkon/Khinzal/Kalibr-M cocktail mixture!
Heck a coupe of Oniks/Kh32's would probably do the trick! Same story with those dreaded Burkes. The only real naval threat would be their submarines.

We have to think about the scenarios a carrier would be useful. This would mostly be something like a Syrian or Libyan intervention.
In both cases there was a focus on air to ground capability larger than in traditional Soviet carrier doctrine.
You also had potentially hostile forces with their own airpower in there so a robust air to air capability was required.

I think a large carrier with a naval Su-57 would be the most viable. You would have combat over potentially unfriendly territory and extra engine redundancy would help.

Mir wrote:You also have F-35 capable carriers from Spain, Australia, South Korea and Japan. All of them (f-35 incl)will go down well with a Tsirkon/Khinzal/Kalibr-M cocktail mixture!
Heck a coupe of Oniks/Kh32's would probably do the trick! Same story with those dreaded Burkes. The only real naval threat would be their submarines.

Russia has no intensions to invade any european or african country; Serbia, Somalia, Algeria, Norway, etc.
How many fully rearmed Su-57 regiments could be equipped compared to the price of JUST one nuclear aircraft carrier..
I think its better not to built that ships just for the sake of prestige. China maybe needs those carriers for measuring the penis size with Japan, for Taiwan, and India. They (China) also compete with the United States, but Russia doesnt need those ships just because someone from the west would say "Oh, you don have aircraft carriers ? What a shame !"...
Give us more YASENS (i really really love those subs) and enlarged variant of 22350M frigates/destroyers, thats all !
And yes, Russia needs in the future a worthy replacement for 1164 Atlant and 1144 Orlan classes of cruisers.

Podlodka77 wrote:
Russia has no intensions to invade any european or african country; Serbia, Somalia, Algeria, Norway, etc.
How many fully rearmed Su-57 regiments could be equipped compared to the price of JUST one nuclear aircraft carrier..
I think its better not to built that ships just for the sake of prestige. China maybe needs those carriers for measuring the penis size with Japan, for Taiwan, and India. They (China) also compete with the United States, but Russia doesnt need those ships just because someone from the west would say "Oh, you don have aircraft carriers ? What a shame !"...
Give us more YASENS (i really really love those subs) and enlarged variant of 22350M frigates/destroyers, thats all !
And yes, Russia needs in the future a worthy replacement for 1164 Atlant and 1144 Orlan classes of cruisers.

A blue water naval presence is as vital as a strategic bomber. It allows you to project your power quite far and wide and it gives you a visible deterrent to protect your trade interests. Something submarines and ICBM's can't do although they will be the principal weapons used in any major conflict. You also need to protect those blue water assets with air power. The Russians don't need a huge number of aircraft carriers, but they would need at least one carrier always on hand in the Pacific and Northern Fleets. That means a minimum of two in each fleet.

My minimum blue water requirement for both the Russian Pacific and Northern Fleets would include those two carriers I mentioned.
At least 10 SSN's and another 10 SSGN's with a similar number of SSK's.
One modified Orlan cruiser with 10 Pr.22350M's and a similar number of Pr.22350's would do.

Mir wrote:

Podlodka77 wrote:
Russia has no intensions to invade any european or african country; Serbia, Somalia, Algeria, Norway, etc.
How many fully rearmed Su-57 regiments could be equipped compared to the price of JUST one nuclear aircraft carrier..
I think its better not to built that ships just for the sake of prestige. China maybe needs those carriers for measuring the penis size with Japan, for Taiwan, and India. They (China) also compete with the United States, but Russia doesnt need those ships just because someone from the west would say "Oh, you don have aircraft carriers ? What a shame !"...
Give us more YASENS (i really really love those subs) and enlarged variant of 22350M frigates/destroyers, thats all !
And yes, Russia needs in the future a worthy replacement for 1164 Atlant and 1144 Orlan classes of cruisers.

A blue water naval presence is as vital as a strategic bomber. It allows you to project your power quite far and wide and it gives you a visible deterrent to protect your trade interests. Something submarines and ICBM's can't do although they will be the principal weapons used in any major conflict. You also need to protect those blue water assets with air power. The Russians don't need a huge number of aircraft carriers, but they would need at least one carrier always on hand in the Pacific and Northern Fleets. That means a minimum of two in each fleet.

I dont believe in those ships and i am not so sure that fighter jets are as important as they were only few decades ago. Why they cry so much when someone new buys an s-400 ?
Can Russia build 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and does Russia wants an open confrontation with the NATO pact in the Atlantic ? No, i dont think so, and why to spend money than on a few smaller carriers (smaller than Nimitz class), when its obvious if war breaks out between the United States and Russia that those carrers will be mostly useless ?
Russia has survived all these past decades without an aircraft carrier. Yes, they had and they still have Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, but that ship was useless most of the time and again - they survived. Russia does not need such a "blue water" presence, the NATO pact does, and you can protect your naval bases with your own figher jets based close to the border with Norway or in Novaya Zemlya. And not just fighter jets but hypersonic missiles and you can launch a Poseidon torpedo at Norfolk - it would be a big party.



They also had 1143 Krecheyet heavy aircraft crusiers but all of those are decomissioned long time ago, except Vikramaditya.

Well you can rest at ease - Russia will NEVER want to have 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers!

Mir wrote:My minimum blue water requirement for both the Russian Pacific and Northern Fleets would include those two carriers I mentioned.
At least 10 SSN's and another 10 SSGN's with a similar number of SSK's.
One modified Orlan cruiser with 10 Pr.22350M's and a similar number of Pr.22350's would do.

i don't think they are in a hurry to build a much smaller number of aircraft carriers - even one..
Russian submarines sailed in every corner of all the oceans as opposed to Chinese aircraft carriers, for example.

In 2021 next submarines are commisioned: 3 885/885M class, 7 949A Antey class, 10 971 Schchuka-B class, 2 945A Kondor class, 2 671 RTM(K) Schchuka = 24 submarines. Some are under repair and some are in the process of modernization or are waiting to be modernized, such as K-442 Chelyabinsk. I do not believe that Russia will go below this number - 24

My opinion, nothing else about the future of NF and PF...
1. Northern Fleet; 12+ multipurpose nuclear submarines (this fleet had and will have the largest number of nuclear powered submarines), 6 SSBN, 6 677 class diesel-electric submarines, 2 large amphibious ships, at least 4 larger ships than those proposed 22350M frigates (substitute for cruisers), 6+ 22350/22350M frigates, 6+ 20386 corvettes, 4 landing ships.

2. Pacific fleet; at least 12 multipurpose nuclear submarines, 6 SSBN, 12 diesel-electric submarines (6 of project 677 and 6 of project 636.3), 2 large amphibious ships, at least 4 larger ships than those proposed 22350M frigates, at least 6 22350/22350M frigates, 12 corvettes (6 X 20380 and 6 X 20385) corvettes, 4 landing ships, 4 small missile ships of 22800 project.

Plus 09852 K-329 Belgorod , 09851 Khabarovsk and maybe 2 or 3 more of that class for those fleets.

Mir wrote:My minimum blue water requirement for both the Russian Pacific and Northern Fleets would include those two carriers I mentioned.
At least 10 SSN's and another 10 SSGN's with a similar number of SSK's.
One modified Orlan cruiser with 10 Pr.22350M's and a similar number of Pr.22350's would do.

They already have more subs than what you expect them to have. 10 Akula, 3 yasen out of 10 planned, 9 Oscar, 2 Sierra and 1 Victor 3.

They also lready have 9 modern improved kilos in service build since 2014 and another 4 being build. They also operate a good quanatity of older kilos, some were improved. They also build 2 Lada, 1 is being build and 3 more on order.

That's 19 modern diesel subs and around 12 older kilos.

And in total it will be at least 20 Akula/Yasen, with more yasen on order probably to replace the Sierra/Victor and 9 improved Oscar.


That's 60 subs with more to come to replace the oldest. US navy operates 50 SSN. Russia has enough to counter them around its borders the Yasen/Oscar keep the carriers away. China growth is also keeping most of those 50 US subs busy.

Isos wrote:

Mir wrote:My minimum blue water requirement for both the Russian Pacific and Northern Fleets would include those two carriers I mentioned.
At least 10 SSN's and another 10 SSGN's with a similar number of SSK's.
One modified Orlan cruiser with 10 Pr.22350M's and a similar number of Pr.22350's would do.

They already have more subs than what you expect them to have. 10 Akula, 3 yasen out of 10 planned, 9 Oscar, 2 Sierra and 1 Victor 3.

They also lready have 9 modern improved kilos in service build since 2014 and another 4 being build. They also operate a good quanatity of older kilos, some were improved. They also build 2 Lada, 1 is being build and 3 more on order.

That's 19 modern diesel subs and around 12 older kilos.

And in total it will be at least 20 Akula/Yasen, with more yasen on order probably to replace the Sierra/Victor  and 9 improved Oscar.


That's 60 subs with more to come to replace the oldest. US navy operates 50 SSN. Russia has enough to counter them around its borders the Yasen/Oscar keep the carriers away. China growth is also keeping most of those 50 US subs busy.

I am not a fan of 636.6 submarines and i think that those submarines are only temporary solution, because 677 project was not finished in time, and I also think that existing submarines (delivered from 2014 to 2016) in the Black Sea Fleet will be replaced with new ones in the second half of the next decade. That 877/636 class of submarines were great 15 years ago and earlier but that design with that propulsion is outdated. And Russia doesnt have any more contracts abroad for those submarines. Yes, i love russian submarines but 877/636 class is outdated already. Only 677 LADA class should be produced, LADA, LADA, LADA.

OK, but not 9 submarines of the project 949A are comissioned but 7 ;
1. K-132 Irkutsk,
2. K-442 Chelyabinsk,
3. K-456 Tver,
4. K-186 Omsk
5. K-150 Tomsk. ONLY twoo 949A submarines are active in NF; 6. K-410 Smolensk and 7. K-266 Orel. 8. K-119 Voronezh is inactive more than 2 years and will not sail again. I can't copy the links yet, unfortunately, but Voronezh ise dead. K-119 Voronezh was replaced by K-561 Kazan.

671 RTM(K): 2 submarines: K-138 Obninsk is active and B-448 Tambov is in overhaull in Zvezdochka and it will return in service.

Isos wrote:

Mir wrote:My minimum blue water requirement for both the Russian Pacific and Northern Fleets would include those two carriers I mentioned.
At least 10 SSN's and another 10 SSGN's with a similar number of SSK's.
One modified Orlan cruiser with 10 Pr.22350M's and a similar number of Pr.22350's would do.

They already have more subs than what you expect them to have. 10 Akula, 3 yasen out of 10 planned, 9 Oscar, 2 Sierra and 1 Victor 3.

They also lready have 9 modern improved kilos in service build since 2014 and another 4 being build. They also operate a good quanatity of older kilos, some were improved. They also build 2 Lada, 1 is being build and 3 more on order.

That's 19 modern diesel subs and around 12 older kilos.

And in total it will be at least 20 Akula/Yasen, with more yasen on order probably to replace the Sierra/Victor  and 9 improved Oscar.


That's 60 subs with more to come to replace the oldest. US navy operates 50 SSN. Russia has enough to counter them around its borders the Yasen/Oscar keep the carriers away. China growth is also keeping most of those 50 US subs busy.

No my numbers are what I would like to see in EACH fleet. In other words 10 SSN's in the North and 10 SSN's in the Pacific etc etc - as a minimum.
Note: these numbers do not include the Baltic or Black Sea units.

Mir wrote:Well you can rest at ease - Russia will NEVER want to have 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers!

They can master how to sink those, still not having them ...

Sorry yes you're quite right - most later versions of the Mi-8 has the sliding door on the right as well and the ramp at the rear. The evidence I was asking for is on how the Russians military use the Mi-8 helicopter - not the CIA

The shift in design change from clamshell doors and the addition of a door on the other side of the cabin wasn't an accident... it was a feature added to the design presumably by the request of the customer.

Another factor is the the vehicles being moved around by these aircraft would now include unmanned ground vehicles too, which would require a ramp rear door.

At various stages the Soviets experimented with a few different options including troop carrying armed helicopters like the Hind... their experience showed that it actually made more sense to have dedicated troop carrying helicopters than mixed helicopters.... a troop carrying helicopter is most vulnerable when it is stationary on the ground so having three exits or entrances reduces the that time when it is most vulnerable. When you have 25 people on the ground needing to be picked up then one Mi-8 or Mi-17 on the ground and the remaining Hinds flying around shooting at any enemy positions is much more efficient than four Hinds on the ground picking those people up.

This led to the replacement for the Hind being chosen in the 1990s as the Ka-50 and then the Mi-28N.

AND yes they can use the rear ramp or clam doors for entry and exit but as I've said they seem to reserve the rear entry/exit for vehicles and favour the side door for troops.

When under fire they would likely use all entry and exit points.

Complicated retractable gear like that would make it heavier and the other problem is that it would make recovering the helicopter in heavy seas a lot more difficult and even dangerous by narrowing the wheelbase.

The helicopter gear has to take the weight of the helicopter which is over ten tons so it is going to be complicated anyway. It does not need to fully retract... just narrow... it could do that by changing angle or simply rotating 90 degrees in the vertical plane.

Think of a canoe with an outrigger canoe and straight strut arms between them... if both arms are on a hinge you could fold them forward or backward to bring the outrigger portion in to the side of the canoe. Mechanically not complicated or heavy at all. The undercarriage of the MiG-23 created a very wide wheel base that folded down into a tiny compact space.... this problem is much much easier because there is no requirement to fully retract away in a compartment.

The Ka-52 is a brilliant attack helicopter but it could never replace a fighter jet, but if you think it can you should rather compare it to later generation aircraft. It would struggle against something like the Su-30SM in every aspect.

Why?

A future role for a Yak-38 replacement would be to fly around the helicopter carrier using a radar to look for air threats and very low flying threats like sea skimming anti ship missiles. The Ka-52 can get airborne very quickly without taking up too much deck space, it can carry a radar and has 6 wing pylons it could carry clusters of MANPADS type missiles and heavier weapons. Its AESA radar should be able to detect targets out to very very significant ranges.

Neither the Kamov or the Yak would be used against a modern fighter, except if that fighter is attempting an attack at very low altitude to surprise the ship in which case the Kamov would spot them and the Ships air defence systems would be able to engage them out to extended ranges with 9M96 ARH missiles.

Lockheed didn't think that the Yak's design was a "dead end" - neither did the Yakolev OKB.

And what a brilliant job they did with their new affordable stealth fighter for all of Americas allies...

The Mig-33 designation was fictional and briefly used for marketing the Mig-29M (export version) at the time, which like the Yak failed to get any orders. Must have been a dog like the Yak!

Not even close to true... the MiG-29K was based on the MiG-29M and had the Russian Navy accepted it into service and actually bought some it would be called MiG-33, just like the Su-27K was renamed Su-33 when it entered service and production.

Its core problem was that MiG had to make it somehow better than the longer ranged Su-33 and the only way to do that was to make it based on the MiG-29M and fully multirole... which of course resulted in it being the same price as the bigger longer ranged Su-33.

The Su-33 was an Su-27 with folding bits and a tail hook and bugger all else... a MiG-33 would have kicked its arse with its much better radar, fully multirole design with a wide variety of weapon options including guided air to surface weapons and of course compatibility with the then new R-77.

But just like the MiG-29SMT for the Army, the Navy didn't care if its new interceptors were multirole and they didn't want to pay any extra for features they were not interested in so they bought neither. The Navy wanted a long range interceptor rather than a point interceptor and that is what they bought.

That launch rate will make a huge difference if the scenario required it!

And fighting underwater would make an even bigger difference to the situation too, but that is not important if that never happens either.

It is pretty clear that you are not a fan of the Yakolev OKB and any of the VTOL Yaks they produced! I myself have said I'm not the greatest fan of VTOL aircraft but I am now beginning to look forward to the next gen Yak VTOL which will most likely be no better than dog shit!

Not true at all... I very much liked the Yak-1, the Yak-3, the Yak-5, the Yak-7, the Yak-9, and the Yak-130 is pretty good too.

The Yak-36 was totally useless, and the Yak-38 and Yak-141 were not much better in the sense that even when their biggest problems are solved... assuming they could be solved, there are other solutions to such problems that make rather more sense.

The promise of being able to take off anywhere is a myth, and when you add that the new carriers the Russian Navy want are going to be bigger than Kuznetsov then there is no need for VSTOL fighter planes any more.

An attack helicopter has a very slim chance of being able to down a jet fighter. It lacks the speed and altitude.

Very true, but being able to fly as fast and high as a Yak-38 is not going to transform it into a super plane either.

An attack helicopter does, however, have great potential as an anti-shipping platform against other ships which lack the proper air defenses. Or for air supporting an amphibious land assault.

The Ka-52K helicopter is an attack helicopter so even if it is a shit fighter it still has that, and in terms of flying near a helicopter carrier with a decent air to air radar that can spot incoming sea skimming threats from rather further than ship based radar and optics it would be 10 times more useful than a Yak-38.

The comparison is between the Harriers and the Yaks - but just out of interest the Yak-41 was not much slower than the Mig-29K and actually had significantly better range than the Mig-29K but you're right the Yak had a more limited payload.

The Yak-141 could manage about mach 1.6 which is significantly slower than the MiG, and AFAIK the operational range of the Yak very much depended on fuel weight state and how it took off...

Lets just say not much of what they said the Yak-141 could do was actually confirmed... apart from being supersonic.

The speed for example is a major downgrade over previous generation aircraft. If they think they can cover that with stealth I have a bridge to sell you.

Even the lack of speed could be acceptable if it was for a good reason... for instance the F-16 and F-18 are slower than previous generation fighters, but that was because of specific choices that made them simpler and lighter and cheaper and easier to maintain and operate.

The F-35 is slower and yet still eye wateringly expensive...

Too much money for something not so necessary.
Aircraft carriers were not used against country that has technologically approximately the same capabilities or in some cases even better capabilities since World war 2. I see these ships only as prestige and valuable units against countries with downgraded military power.

The west sees air power and their strike component and so for invasions and occupations they need large carriers with both fighters and strike aircraft.

For the Russians the role is very different... an aircraft carrier for the Russians is not as a land attack or imperial ship... in a US carrier group the AEGIS cruisers are there to protect the carrier and the carrier is the invasion tool. For the Russians the ships and subs carry the missiles, while the aircraft carrier is there to defend the other ships in the surface group.

The US carrier is protected by the US ships, the Russian carrier is there to protect the Russian ships.

And it is not about prestige... it is about future ties and trade.

US has 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and France has one. Twoo more CODAG powered carriers are in the service of Royal Navy. Italy has Cavour and Treste but i dont see any anymosity towards Russia from Italia.

The US has that many so it can dominate and in a sense regulate international trade... or more accurately influence trade in different places around the world.

The UK and France have carriers so they can send their navies to the various corners of the globe where their former colonies are and current colonies are with air cover.

And thats why i think that is better fro Russia to spend money on additional or more Su-57 regiments and Su-75 (in the near future), more multipurpose submarines, proposed MiG-41, hypersonic missiles, Tupolev family of bombers, and ABM's, than to build an aircraft carrier.

Well first of all Russia is already buying those things, but tell me... if Russia signs a deal with Venezuela that makes Venezuela potentially rich and independent an finally free of interference from the US and so the US decides enough is enough and that the government in Venezuela is illegal and that the US will send Navy ships to blockade the country to force it to sign contracts with US companies and cancel the contracts with Russia.

Now if Russia only has frigates and corvettes what exactly are they going to do?

Even with submarines what are they going to do?

All the countries in the rest of the world just saw a tiny country like them stand up to the evil west and get help from Russia... and be economically and politically crushed and regime changed... do you think countries are going to be lining up to be friends with Russia?

If Russia can get to them then there can be no serious deals.

We have seen US reaction to events like the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia... what is the likelyhood of the west helping Russia with problems around the world?

Russia needs to be able to help herself and as the old saying goes the only friend the Russians have are her army and airforce and navy and strategic rocket services...

These carriers don't need to be US sized 100K ton lumps of shit... decent air defence carriers with their best fighter... naval Su-57s... hell do a nice job and India might want to buy some... even Iran might want one it can sit off the coast of the US just to piss them off.

I have more "fear" from a huge number of Arleigh Burkes + Ticonderogas than from those carriers.
But OK, the US Navy will deccomission seven Ticonderoga class cruisers this year and that is 854 missiles in total for seven ships.

Russia does not need carriers to go into combat with the US or HATO... the presence of carriers and a strong navy is so Russia can get its way without having to fight anyone.

And those big scary AEGIS cruisers can probably be sunk with a single Zircon missile let alone an upgraded Onyx.

To fight US carriers and carrier groups Russia does not need a navy... Russia does not care what sea the US wants to dominate... all they really need to care about is the water around Russia and the best defence against US ships in those waters will be land based Zircons, and MiG-31K based Daggers... not to mention follow on missiles and follow on aircraft.

We have to think about the scenarios a carrier would be useful.

The most common use for a carrier is showing the flag... visiting countries around the world... promoting Russia as a genuine power... and also sailing places the west and the US does not want you to go, which is going to wrankle some feathers... but they started it.

A Russian navy visit to Cape Town with a few cruisers and a carrier and a few destroyers and frigates... and a ship with Russian businessmen wanting to invest and boost trade relations between Russia and South Africa... then visit a dozen other countries in Africa and then sail to Asia and America... take a helicopter landing ship or a hospital ship and go to poor countries and perform operations to help them... sell them some good reliable machinery... find out what they sell...

How many fully rearmed Su-57 regiments could be equipped compared to the price of JUST one nuclear aircraft carrier..

Mother Russia is already well protected... there are all sorts of missiles and radars and planes and ships protecting Russia and the airspace and space above her... but what they lack really is the ability to operate away from Russia. There is a whole world out there of countries Russia could trade with but right now there is a problem because much of that trade goes through the EU... and the EU wants to be the enemy... so be it... Russia needs to create ties and trade relations with the rest of the world that does not go through the west to prevent the west from interfering or blocking that trade. Russia needs a blue water navy and to protect itself that navy needs organic air power.

I think its better not to built that ships just for the sake of prestige. China maybe needs those carriers for measuring the penis size with Japan, for Taiwan, and India. They (China) also compete with the United States, but Russia doesnt need those ships just because someone from the west would say "Oh, you don have aircraft carriers ? What a shame !"...

Prestige is important, but independence is even more important and Russia needs to be able to trade with allies and customers without western interference and that means by ship. China needs ships for trade too... the US is being friendly with India and Australia so they can effect Chinese shipping trade going to the EU... that is why Russia is working so hard on ice breakers and the north sea route...

Give us more YASENS (i really really love those subs) and enlarged variant of 22350M frigates/destroyers, thats all ! Wink
And yes, Russia needs in the future a worthy replacement for 1164 Atlant and 1144 Orlan classes of cruisers.

Their cruisers were impressive ships... but even those are vulnerable to a heavy air attack... adding an aircraft carrier does not make a surface group of ships weaker... it makes it much much stronger... even without launching missiles a MiG-29K is a modern radar and IRST that can be launched from the carrier and fly out hundreds of kilometres to check or identify a potential threat that can fight its way out of trouble itself. An Su-57 could perhaps do it without even being noticed...

Russia does not need to dominate the worlds oceans all at once like the US seems to want to, but some country in Africa that has Lithium or some other valuable material that you want to mine is hardly going to sign contracts with Russia if Russia has a Navy of Corvettes and Frigates, because they are not stupid... they know plan A in the US Playbook is regime change or invasion... a visit from a Russian carrier group would reassure that country that they wont get dropped in it and left to fend for themselves like the Afghans that helped the Americans, thinking the Americans were going to fix everything and make Afghanistan great again...

Why they cry so much when someone new buys an s-400 ?

America does not have anything that approaches the S-400 in performance or numbers... the wests IADS is aircraft based... and much more fragile.

Any Russian Su-57Ks operating from carriers will be operating within an IADS that includes S-400s and all their other AD systems as well.

Can Russia build 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and does Russia wants an open confrontation with the NATO pact in the Atlantic ?

Nobody is suggesting that... these carriers are not for WWIII they are to protect trade access to the world for Russia and her allies.

They will boost the income of the country.

they might even sell some to other countries.

Russia has survived all these past decades without an aircraft carrier.

Russia needs to look beyond its borders for trade partners... most of eastern europe is no longer allies and now actively hostile and it is not likely to change any time soon. Russia needs to expand its civilian marine fleet and also its naval capacity to reach out and trade with the world.

Yes, they had and they still have Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, but that ship was useless most of the time and again - they survived

The fact that they are keeping it and upgrading it suggest they see value in having them in the future.

Russia does not need such a "blue water" presence, the NATO pact does,

Russia does not need blue water presence to destroy HATO or the US, existing defences for Russia are sufficient to keep her safe from those idiots.

Russia needs to expand its trade to the rest of the world or it risks isolation and economic containment by the west.

They also had 1143 Krecheyet heavy aircraft crusiers but all of those are decomissioned long time ago, except Vikramaditya.

The old carriers were sold off because they had no money to upgrade the Kuznetsov... having the Gorshkov in service as a carrier would have further drained their available funds without much return. The choice of the Kuznetsov over the Kiev class shows they know size matters.

Even if you gave them the US fleet they would have had to scrap most of it or it would have bankrupted them.

Now, however, they need to expand their presence in the world... the world outside HATO and the US... for trade they need to stop looking at their European land borders and look to all the places they can reach through their ports... enormous potential... but equally the US Navy and the HATO Navy are not going to be helpful or friendly so you need to expand your own navy to include destroyers and cruisers and you need carriers to protect those new ships too.

i don't think they are in a hurry to build a much smaller number of aircraft carriers - even one..

They need Destroyers and Cruisers to support new carriers before laying down new carriers... but then they didn't spend decades and billions of dollars upgrading shipyards to build large ships for nothing.

Russian submarines sailed in every corner of all the oceans as opposed to Chinese aircraft carriers, for example.

And how much trade and sales contracts did they drum up?

And Russia doesnt have any more contracts abroad for those submarines. Yes, i love russian submarines but 877/636 class is outdated already. Only 677 LADA class should be produced, LADA, LADA, LADA.

There is the best and there is good enough... Improved Kilos are good enough most of the time.

And most of the time I suspect they lose contracts because their bribes are not up to scratch...

They can master how to sink those, still not having them

It has been their lives work to work out how to deal with them...

But to say they don't need some of their own is to say the Russian Air Force does not need Su-57s because they have S-400s and S-500s and now S-550s.... and airfields are such big easy targets too...

Podlodka77 wrote:
That 877/636 class of submarines were great 15 years ago and earlier but that design with that propulsion is outdated.

636 are excellent boats and are hardly outdated. NATO were (apparently) unable to track them when they were deployed to the Med for Syrian operations.

Yes, the Lada is a generation ahead and generally much superior (now that the bugs are worked out), but don't disparage the 636s. They didn't earn the nickname "black holes" for nothing.

636 constructed now is everything but outdated.
Let me focus you at one single issue: it is a double hull construction, while 677 is a monohull one.
That makes it smaller&less displacement but affects the survivability either.
The only real gain, is a further reduction of a crew, but the level of automatization for all the Soviet&Russian subs is making them ahead of any given competitor.

With current Russian spending for it's military it's suffice to build what they are building; multipurpose submarines, Borei, frigates, corvettes, Su-30SM/34/35S/57, S-350/400/500, Kinzhal, cirkon, Islander, tanks, howitzers, bmd's, etc. Yes, 636.3 class has range when it's submerged of only 400 nautical miles compared to more than 25 times better range in Type 212 submarines. It's outdated and it would most certainly be an easy pray for NATO submarines in the Baltic sea. And that black hole nickname is decades and decades old. It's better for Russia to have 10 Borei class submarines than 10 aircraft carriers, but none of those Boreis. Atlantic is forbidden for Russian fleet in some hypothetical war between Russia and NATO. Even if Russia has 3 or 4 aircraft carriers those ships can not help Russia against those NATO ships and will not change situation in Atlantic, they will be of no help for Russia for trading with other countries because all of those NATO countries combined would say the same things again to someone who wants to trade with Russia; you want to buy a Russian goods but not ours ? Okay, sanctions follow. Russia needs more new motorways and trans Siberian rail, forget about those carriers - Borei is cheaper and more effective. Sorry, guys, because I am on the phone and I will answer you later.

Personally I'm quite a fan of that Varan concept.

I've always liked that forward island aesthetic like WWII Escort carriers.


Obviously compared to a big proper Carrier its no good but I think you need to look at it from this view point: What do you do with an LHD when you're not doing naval invasions or using them as very expensive cargo ships?

I've long been very perplexed by the massive emphasis on amphibious ships by pretty much all navies regardless of how tiny & minimal likelihood of doing a naval invasion, from this viewpoint, rather than building a couple of bigger carriers & a couple of LHDs you could build say 6 Varans & have either 6 LHDs, 6 light carriers, 6 ASW carriers or any combo between depending on the current situation.

Plus logistically 6 ships = 2 available at any time, with 4 intermittently.
With 4 ships of 2 types you'd average only 1 available most of the time with a 50:50 chance of it being the type you need.

As has been previously discussed the fact of being fairly small means its easier to find a shipyard to build it or dock for maintenance, also individually much cheaper to build.


On the downside & again as mostly previously stated: the big cost as depicted is developing & fielding EMALS cats and a bunch of CATOBAR aircraft, if you're going to spend the $$$ for that, the cost of building a bigger hull is proportionally small.
With the angled flightdeck coming so far forward it makes a ski-jump hard to fit but if it could be done then you can build these without that large development cost, using existing STOBAR aircraft.

I don't like it having no notable armament as depicted.
Yes it allows to maximise the displacement fraction used for airwing/fuel/munitions but you have a big expensive ship crammed with a bunch of expensive aircraft/pilots or vehicles/troops so leaving all that $$$ entirely dependent on escorts is a bad idea IMO, it'd definitely need at least a couple of Pantsir-M.

And yes, much more important is having a lot more 22350, 20380 & Yasens in service before considering building something like this.

At various stages the Soviets experimented with a few different options including troop carrying armed helicopters like the Hind...

That is actually one of the aspects I do like about the Hind. As an example - its troop capacity made it perfectly suited to cover the flanks with an anti-tank team/s or whatever and using its own weapons in support. A fantastic helicopter!

When under fire they would likely use all entry and exit points.

Very true indeed!
They probably only use the side doors as to prevent troops from "advancing" to the rear!

The helicopter gear has to take the weight of the helicopter which is over ten tons so it is going to be complicated anyway.

You can't get a more simplified landing gear than on the Ka-25/27 helicopters. My guess is that they will likely stick with this kind of simplicity.

A future role for a Yak-38 replacement would be to fly around the helicopter carrier using a radar to look for air threats and very low flying threats like sea skimming anti ship missiles

I don't think they would use ship borne fighters like that. A simple helicopter (Ka-31 - like) or a dedicated AEW aircraft/UAV would be a much more viable option.

The Ka-52 can get airborne very quickly without taking up too much deck space, it can carry a radar and has 6 wing pylons it could carry clusters of MANPADS type missiles and heavier weapons. Its AESA radar should be able to detect targets out to very very significant ranges.

The sole requirement for any interceptor is high dash speed - that automatically disqualifies the Ka-52. Second point is the Iglas would serve no purpose as the Russians ships and fighter aircraft would have vastly more capable missiles and other means at hand to fend off any attack. Same goes for the radars. The Ka-52 is however very well suited as an attack helicopter and trying to turn it into an interceptor would be degrading for such a magnificent machine! The Ka-52K has only 4 hardpoints.

And what a brilliant job they did with their new affordable stealth fighter for all of Americas allies...

As I said - justice prevailed.

Not even close to true... the MiG-29K was based on the MiG-29M and had the Russian Navy accepted it into service and actually bought some it would be called MiG-33, just like the Su-27K was renamed Su-33 when it entered service and production.

Actually MUCH closer than you think!
The so-called "Mig-33" has quite a long history and it dates back to Soviet times. The name "Mig-33" was first used for a single-engine, lightweight strike fighter similar in capabilities to the F-16 Fighting Falcon known as "Izd.33". The project started in 1980 but was canceled in 1986.

The second time they used the MiG-33 designation was at the 1994 Farnborough Airshow as the briefly used marketing name for the MiG-29ME export model of the MiG-29M Fulcrum-E. Very few samples were built and failed to get any customers. These aircraft served as prototypes for the development of the the MiG-35.

The aircraft you are talking about is the Mig-29M/M2 variant and development was only started as late as 2005. Any association with the fictional "Mig-33" here is incorrect as this Mig-29M/M2 was developed from the Mig-29K. This aircraft is a land based variant of MiG-29K with whom it shares avionic and other components and now belongs to the "new unified family" of Mig aircraft.

The Ka-52K helicopter is an attack helicopter so even if it is a shit fighter it still has that, and in terms of flying near a helicopter carrier with a decent air to air radar that can spot incoming sea skimming threats from rather further than ship based radar and optics it would be 10 times more useful than a Yak-38.

You keep on comparing the Ka-52K to the Yak-38. Even though the Yak-38 would beat it in most aspects (like taking off much quicker and getting to the target much quicker) - you should rather compare it to a 4th gen aircraft like the Yak-41, Mig-29K or Su-33.

The Yak-141 could manage about mach 1.6 which is significantly slower than the MiG, and AFAIK the operational range of the Yak very much depended on fuel weight state and how it took off...Lets just say not much of what they said the Yak-141 could do was actually confirmed... apart from being supersonic.

The Yak-41's supersonic speed was perfectly within the actual air-to-air combat "dogfight" zone and it's thrust vectoring engine would have made it a very dangerous opponent to even something as capable as the Mig-29 - which currently has no thrust vectoring engine fitted. The Yak-41 was thoroughly tested and if you actually read my short piece on it you would have seen that it met ALL the designers specifications.

But again if you insist that the Yak-38 and the Yak-41 was dog shit - so be it

A sample of the very briefly known "Mig-33" or more accurately the Mig-29ME. "Blue 156" was the one displayed during the 1994 Farnborough Airshow.



Great picture from the Rosoboronexport catalogue of the Mig-29M2.
https://roe.ru/eng/catalog/aerospace-systems/fighters/mig-29mm2/

The Russians manage to build and deliver a lot of weapons to their army with a relatively "small" defense budget of the RAF (Russian armed forces) - not the british one   .

United States has 11 aircraft carriers as well as 9 amphibious ships with VTOL planes. However, its not great in US Navy either. We are witnessing the rapid development of missile weapons and my opinion is that the air force is not as dominant as it was few decades ago. I do not believe that it is impossible to destroy a floating airport over 330 meters long in 2022. I really don't believe in those ships. Sorry guys, thats just my opinion - nothing else. My opinion is that it is better for Russia to redirect the money for the construction of aircraft carrier for the development of Russian infrastructure, economy, etc. I just don't see the Russian Navy as a pirate fleet showing muscles around the world. In any case, it is better for Russia to have 12 strategic submarines than 12 aircraft carriers. Can you imagine a situation in which neither the United States nor Russia has nuclear weapons, but there is still a NATO pact and both countries have (US and RU) 10 aircraft carriers each ? I think this current situation is better after all because the NATO pact would attack Russia immediately if Russia is without nuclear weapons. One Borei and one Yasen or one aircraft carrier - one BOREI and one YASEN !



1. The US has built SIXTY TWOO Los Angeles class submarines in the period from 1972 (when SSN-688 Los Angeles was laid down) to the commissioning ceremony of the last sub in that class in 1996 - SSN-773 Cheyenne. 62 submarines for 24 years.
2. Virginia ; 19 commissioned and in service, first SSN-774 Virginia was laid down in 1999 and 22 years later 18 submarines were comissioned. 19 submarines for 22 years. And EIGHT out of the 19 Virginias are already in service for 10 or more years. I really dont see how thay think to have an active fleet of 66 to 72 multipurpose submarines with this pace of construction.

1. Zumwalt class; the Americans wanted to build dozens of ships of this class , but the construction of Zumwalt's was completed after only three ships were built. And what they have done ? They started yet another new series of Arleigh Burkes IIA Restart and IIA Restart (technology insertions). But yes, the US has many destroyers and their power is not in question, except for the desperate situation with anti-ship missiles. And all of that happened because the Chinese have built a lot of destroyers in the past decade and they are commissioning new ones. But yes, it looks like that their are no keels laid down for new destroyers in China. They have stopped at 25 Type-052D and 8 Type-055.

3. Cruisers; 7 tico's will be decommissioned this year and 5 more till 2026. Thats 12 ships with 122 missiles per ship or 1464 in total. it will not be easy to replace loss of this cruisers although new destroyers will be built in the meantime, but in total US will not increase its total firepower in in the foreseeable future.

@Podlodka77

US foreign policy requires a large fleet with aircraft carriers. It's been mentioned before, but this is the only meaningful way you can project your power around the globe. An aircraft carrier stuffed full of aircraft 12 miles from your shore is far more intimidating than...no aircraft carrier. It can stick around for quite a long time and it can deliver a devastating punch. Whatever you plan on using as an alternative is not going to make much of an impression. Yes it can be sunk but who wants to start WWIII?

I see you have upped your "Russian aircraft carriers" to 12 now!
If Russia wants to build 12 full size aircraft carrier they WILL be bankrupt in no time but as things stand now they are economically in a very good situation despite all the sanctions. Russia has huge resources and fiscal reserves unmatched by any except China.
Also Russia will NEVER relinquish its Nuclear Power so you have nothing to fear there!

As far as the US Navy is concerned they plan on having around 50 SSN/SSGN's and 12 SSBN's. With China on the rise they might increase this number slightly. The Ticonderoga's will be replaced by the Burke III's and they have a new Frigate class of about 20 planned. The Zumwalts are now regarded as experimental ships and pretty soon the Littoral ships as well. But these will be more than enough to sail alongside the 11 carriers.

Serbs in the 90's were pretty much powerless against NATO's air power and from what I can gather from the Serbian military - it's more of the same today.
Adding huge aircraft carriers and their air wings to the mix (like they did) gave them even more options. Let's pretend Yugoslavia was still around - so now you have a small navy and a not too bad air force. Now you can take the story from here...

I see you have upped your "Russian aircraft carriers" to 12 now!
If Russia wants to build 12 full size aircraft carrier they WILL be bankrupt in no time but as things stand now they are economically in a very good situation despite all the sanctions. Russia has huge resources and fiscal reserves unmatched by any except China.
Also Russia will NEVER relinquish its Nuclear Power so you have nothing to fear there!

No, you didnt understand. I just wrote that it is better for Russia to have 12 strategic submarines than to have 12 aircraft carriers, but without ANY of those strategic submarines - world without nuclear weapons and with only conventional weapons. in that case, NATO would attack Russia immediately, regardless of the fact that it has 12 aircraft carriers.
I have expressed my opinion and I am against the construction of these ships.
More submarines, more hypersonic missiles, more frigates and corvettes, an more Su-57's, SAM, ABM, etc.

]If Russia wants to build 12 full size aircraft carrier they WILL be bankrupt in no time but as things stand now they are economically in a very good situation despite all the sanctions wrote:

The construction of 12 aircraft carriers would not go bankrupt in the Russian economy.  It is a matter of priorities.  They plan to build 10 nuclear icebreakers.  The cost of building an aircraft carrier in Russia would cost $ 2 billion.  Since the project 23900 with a displacement of 40k costs about $ 800 million.

these were some predictions for the Russian navy in 2050, navy. korabel...This predictions are from 2015 and we can see already now in 2022 that Pacific fleet will get 12 non-nuclear submarines and 12 corvettes. That suffix "M" in the table is for multipurpose.

Northern fleet (NF), Pacific fleet (PF), Black sea (BSF), Baltic (BF).

1. Multipurpose nuclear submarines; 12 NF, 12 PF,

2. Multipurpose non-nuclear submarines; 6 NF, 6 PF, 6, BSF, 6 BF,

3. Aircraft carriers (multipurpose) ; 2 NF, 2 PF,

4. Destroyers (multipurpose) ; 8 NF and 8 PF,

5. Frigates (multipurpose) ; 6 NF, 6PF, 6 BSF, 6 BF,

6. Corvettes (multipurpose) ; 6 NF, 6 PF, 6 BSF, 6 BF.

7. Universal landing ships; 2 NF, 2 PF,

8. Landing ships; 6 NF ,6 PF, 4 BSF, 4 BF...