Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

Arrow 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.

Yes you're right - it would be more correct to say it will "bankrupt" their defense budget if they plan on building a large number of carriers - there won't be much left for anything else.

Podlodka77 wrote: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.

This are pretty much what I would like to see - with a few variations in red.

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

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

2. Multipurpose non-nuclear submarines; 10 NF, 10 PF, 6, BSF, 6 BF,

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

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

5. Frigates (multipurpose) ; 10 NF, 10 PF, 6 BSF, 6 BF,

6. Corvettes (multipurpose) ; 6 NF, 6 PF, 10 BSF, 10 BF.

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

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

Arrow wrote:Probably not.  The construction of 12 aircraft carriers would be stretched over the years.

Russia will never build anything remotely close to 12 large carriers. 4 at best and probably 4 smaller MP helicopter carriers.

Each carrier also needs aircraft. Means every season to board also requires a season on land (rotation, training, etc.)

Each carrier also requires escort ships. Ships are missing elsewhere. Such a fleet costs over the year 2 to 3 billion US dollars. There is no construction yet.

If Russia wants to build carrier, it should build three ships. Northern fleet, Pacific and Mediterranean (Crimea and Syrian base plus dry dock). The current carrier would be well suited as a training session.

The Baltic Sea is not a carrier suitable water.
It would be nice to me if the Syrian harbor would be expanded including dry dock. For this purpose, the Syria 6 Buyan-M (PanzirM) are built as an immediate action and Russia itself 6 of these ships (new) stationed. Alone already to prevent Israeli attacks at last time.

Mir wrote: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?

An aircraft carrier is not going to intimidate anyone when it burns to the waterline and rolls onto its back with its screws high in the air...

If the US carriers get involved in a shooting match with a peer competitor (China or Russia) then these thing will get SUNK, and the murkans will not be starting WW3 (and getting their cities nuked in response) in a fit of pique. Claims from the Pentagram that attacks on a CVN will amount to a declaration of war won't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to the other big boys...

Podlodka77 wrote: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.

As far as 212 is a formidable submarine indeed, it needs one piece of the puzzle to work.
A crew
Germany is peering half of its fleet due to lack of personnel and lacks personnel due to both budget cuts, and the overall condition of the German armored forces.
They have tried to lease those boats to Poland for years, or create a combined task force with mixed crews - but nothing comes out of that, for mostly political reasons.
One more puzzle would be useful either: proper maintenance.
Due to budget cuts, back in 2017 there was a year when Kriegsmarine operated ZERO submarines, as U-35 scored some hit partially destroying its rudder, and needed an intense repair.
The remaining 5 pcs - all were already taken out of service for "overhaul", but the ThyssenKrupp lacked the space for them. The first one - U-31 - was ready for duty in mid-2018 only.

And no, 636.3 won't be an easy pray to anyone.
Polish Navy operates a sole 877E, which is extremely outdated if compared with vanilla export 636, not to mention the newest variant for WMF.
This sole Eagle sub, is demonstrating continuous threat and has an uncivilized manner of calling "kill" for any engagement due to regular Baltops maneuvers.
Presenting the absolute lack of respect, they have "killed" several USN cruisers and destroyers, and on one occasion they have closed into some 2000m to a Burke class.
Needed to prove that by periscope photos later.

Russian 636.3 is a quantum jump in the technical specification. It is much quieter, has a much longer submerged range due to much better batteries - still wonder where you have found this "25x greater range" for 212, as it has some 8knm range when cruising surfaced.
636.3 is faster when submerged vs. 877, can load the batteries faster due to bigger power generated by diesel aggregates, and has an increased air regeneration system, almost doubling the time it can stay submerged with no snorkels - to about 500h.
Have I mentioned the capability to launch a Kalibr family of missiles, that 212&all its in-line derivatives can only dream of? Oh, I have. Cool

Last but not least - those are all vanilla fresh subs, that will serve for a decade without any struggle, while the 212 are known for lacking the spare parts that extend the needed repairing times notoriously.

ALAMO wrote:

Podlodka77 wrote: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.

As far as 212 is a formidable submarine indeed, it needs one piece of the puzzle to work.
A crew
Germany is peering half of its fleet due to lack of personnel and lacks personnel due to both budget cuts, and the overall condition of the German armored forces.
They have tried to lease those boats to Poland for years, or create a combined task force with mixed crews - but nothing comes out of that, for mostly political reasons.
One more puzzle would be useful either: proper maintenance.
Due to budget cuts, back in 2017 there was a year when Kriegsmarine operated ZERO submarines, as U-35 scored some hit partially destroying its rudder, and needed an intense repair.
The remaining 5 pcs - all were already taken out of service for "overhaul", but the ThyssenKrupp lacked the space for them. The first one - U-31 - was ready for duty in mid-2018 only.

And no, 636.3 won't be an easy pray to anyone.
Polish Navy operates a sole 877E, which is extremely outdated if compared with vanilla export 636, not to mention the newest variant for WMF.
This sole Eagle sub, is demonstrating continuous threat and has an uncivilized manner of calling "kill" for any engagement due to regular Baltops maneuvers.
Presenting the absolute lack of respect, they have "killed" several USN cruisers and destroyers, and on one occasion they have closed into some 2000m to a Burke class.
Needed to prove that by periscope photos later.

Russian 636.3 is a quantum jump in the technical specification. It is much quieter, has a much longer submerged range due to much better batteries - still wonder where you have found this "25x  greater range" for 212, as it has some 8knm range when cruising surfaced.
636.3 is faster when submerged vs. 877, can load the batteries faster due to bigger power generated by diesel aggregates, and has an increased air regeneration system, almost doubling the time it can stay submerged with no snorkels - to about 500h.
Have I mentioned the capability to launch a Kalibr family of missiles, that 212&all its in-line derivatives can only dream of? Oh, I have. Cool

Last but not least - those are all vanilla fresh subs, that will serve for a decade without any struggle, while the 212 are known for lacking the spare parts that extend the needed repairing times notoriously.

I didn't even write that those 636.6 submarines were not quiet, but the underwater radius of navigation is not sufficient. weapons and sonar are certainly good. why else would they develop a new class of submarines.

Because those were smaller, less expensive, and with a halved crew - if you are talking the 677s.

ALAMO wrote:Because those were smaller, less expensive, and with a halved crew - if you are talking the 677s.

Not just because of that..
much newer design, 2 knots faster when submerged, new sensors and sonar, and with larger submerged radius.
1. They dont built 971 Schchuka-B project in Russia or 949A Antey anymore, because they have 885M Yasen-M,
2. They dont built 667BDRM Dolphin or 941 Akula anymore, because they have 955A Borei-A.. there is no doubt about Russian nuclear submarines - they are beasts.
3. Those diesel-electric submarines lagged a little behind those nuclear ones, but much updated LADA (from B-586 Kronshtadt onwards) will change that - i believe.

That is not the best comparison, as you are mentioning by yourself.
677 was delayed intensively, and there was a real need to improvise. The improvisation was good enough, to make 636 an export hit, build in dozens.
That speaks for itself, as the competition was really harsh, to start with the old generation of "western" diesel subs like 209.
That is why they are making two lines of same class subs at the moment, something seen in the golden times of the Soviet Navy buildup in the '70s/'80s.

ALAMO wrote:That is not the best comparison, as you are mentioning by yourself.
677 was delayed intensively, and there was a real need to improvise. The improvisation was good enough, to make 636 an export hit, build in dozens.
That speaks for itself, as the competition was really harsh, to start with the old generation of "western" diesel subs like 209.
That is why they are making two lines of same class subs at the moment, something seen in the golden times of the Soviet Navy buildup in the '70s/'80s.

I'm sorry but I don't agree..
Yes, 10 submarines of the 636 project have been exported to Algeria (4) and Vietnam (6) in the past 12 years, or from 2009 to 2019. And no more new contracts with a foreign client for those submarines have been signed. Its over, Alamo, and its about the time for new class of submarines (updated 677) which will replace those of 877/636 projects.

Of course it is, those boat general concept is half a century old.
That is why they work on 677, and will work on new gen shortly.
But it does not make the newly build 636s obsolete. They are capable, especially if you consider it's task profile. Those are area denial boats, used close to own shores, under the cover of land based air assets&own navy forces. Very same strategy was performed by a 641B boats in the 60s already, while the type was called "the biggest intelligent mine out there".

And check the Syrian report out there. The boats have proven to be very capable in real conditions.

Big_Gazza wrote:
An aircraft carrier is not going to intimidate anyone when it burns to the waterline and rolls onto its back with its screws high in the air...  

If the US carriers get involved in a shooting match with a peer competitor (China or Russia) then these thing will get SUNK, and the murkans will not be starting WW3 (and getting their cities nuked in response) in a fit of pique.  Claims from the Pentagram that attacks on a CVN will amount to a declaration of war won't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to the other big boys...

I did mention "foreign policy" in there somewhere. These carrier's sole purpose are to intimidate and flatten those minions that don't want to comply with US democracy. Same goes for all those bases all over the globe. Engaging Russia or China in a direct conflict will most likely never happen. They will however fight them economically and very likely in cyberspace as well. Minions like Iran and North Korea should be the one's making serious plans to sink flat tops for real and they are already taking the hypersonic route.

With current Russian spending for it's military it's suffice to build what they are building;

Russias current position is that they are building Ladas as fast as they reasonably can but they can still pump out a few improved kilos to fill gaps in fleet.

The Improved Kilos are still effective subs... who gives a shit what a type 212 sub can or cannot do... Russia has plenty of subs that have unlimited submerged range. The subs they are making are good enough.

Should they stop making all aircraft and just make An-124s, Su-57s, and nothing else till Checkmate is ready?

That would be stupid.

Russia needs more new motorways and trans Siberian rail, forget about those carriers - Borei is cheaper and more effective.

Boreis have zero capacity to provide air defence for Russian surface ships operating outside the range of Russian ground based air defence.

Sorry but 10 more Bories would be the dumbest thing they could possibly do... the new start treaty limits the number of SSBN subs they can have and the number of warheads they can have... having 10 more SSBNs means you can't have any more Bulava missiles so each sub would only be able to carry 8 Bulavas instead of 12... or 16... what a stupid idea.

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

Moved back on most designs and not for aesthetic reasons for practical reasons.

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?

A helicopter carrier is useful for a variety of purposes, but apart from refits and upgrades and of course training... how much free time do you expect it to have?

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.

Having 50 Iglas does not equal having 5 BUKs...

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.

Russia has no plans to fight two different wars on two different fronts at once... bigger more useful ships are better than smaller less useful ships in larger numbers.

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.

Its lack of weapons makes me think this is for export.

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!

The problem they found was that its fire power was negated by having to land. One soldier said you knew how dangerous the landing zone was by how many men were in each Hind... which indicated how long the pilot was prepared to stay on the ground while they got out. One mission he said there were two of them...

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.

To operate from a helicopter carrier then it would have to be either a Ka-31 or a Ka-52K... the latter has a modern capable AESA radar and can be used to support other operations and could carry bundles of MANPADS like Igla-S missiles under its weapon pylons... the four pylons could carry four Iglas each for a total of 16 AAMs that would be fine against incoming subsonic Harpoon or Tomahawk missiles.

The sole requirement for any interceptor is high dash speed - that automatically disqualifies the Ka-52.

They wont operate their helicopter carriers without a fixed wing carrier like Kuznetsov.

The requirement for air power is being able to see out to a much greater radar horizon... a Ka-52K getting airborne and immediately climbing to 4km altitude can use its nose mounted AESA radar to spot targets out to 200-300km at sea level... which could be used by nearby corvettes to launch 9M96 ARH SAMs of the 60km range or 150km range variety... they fly at about mach 5... how is that for dash speed?

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.

The American Searam is a mishmash of a range of weapons but ultimately its performance isn't much different from the Igla-S...

As I said - justice prevailed.

The American way... the 1% super rich got slightly richer... everyone else got screwed.

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".

Lucky they went with the MiG-29 with better capabilities than the f-16 fighting falcon.

The aircraft you are talking about is the Mig-29M/M2

No I am not... I am talking about the single seat MiG-29K that was developed from the MiG-29M in competition for the Su-27K for use on their new carrier... it was tested and the Flanker was chosen.

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 old MiG-29M and MiG-29K... the latter of which would have become the MiG-33 if selected for service is not related to the MiG-29M2 and MiG-29M and MiG-29KR and MiG-35 which are three aircraft of unified design based on an upgraded MiG-29M original single seater.

The obvious change is that all the three new aircraft are two seater designs whether they have one seat or two seats fitted.

The old MiG-29M and MiG-29K were single seat only aircraft.

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.

I am comparing it with the Ka-52K because it is being made and they are going to have them... ie no extra expensive of designing a new VSTOL fighter aircraft... the Kamov can take off vertically and while it might not have the speed or range of the Yak-41 or 38 it is already paid for... and its radar and missile capacity is actually the same... except it carries more 30mm cannon rounds than the Yak-141.
The Yak-38 doesnt have a radar and couldn't carry any decent air to air missiles except short range IR guided missiles and its ability to exploit them in combat would be poor with no radar or IRST or optics.

In comparison the Kamov has a modern AESA radar and the capacity to carry a range of weapons.

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.

Achieving supersonic speed burns a lot of fuel and requires the aircraft to fly straight and level for quite a distance at altitude to achieve... which dramatically reduces the flight range of the aircraft... most planes wont do it.

There is no evidence the main engine of the Yak-141 could be used in flight to improve manouver performance while its IR signature would be enormous.

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.

Russia is already spending money in infrastructure... but spending money on an aircraft carrier is an investment to ensure international trade access for Russia and Russians and is worth every penny.

Do you think Su-57s are bullshit.... how about Russias IADS network? Do you think their air defence forces which used to be a branch of the Air Force and is now called Aerospace forces would work without aircraft? Should it be only surface based missiles because airfields are so easy to target?

The point is that AWACS and fighter aircraft are a critical part of any air defence network and if you are going to deny them to the Russian Navy just because new missiles make big ships a little less safe than they used to be... well I suppose they should get rid of attack helicopters because MANPADS exist... and of course all the anti armour weapons there are... get rid of tanks and armoured vehicles too because there is no way they can guarantee they would be safe.

Stop using helmets and flak jackets because they are heavy and expensive and might not always work...

In any case, it is better for Russia to have 12 strategic submarines than 12 aircraft carriers.

And how are those 12 submarines going to protect Russian ships in far away places? I rather doubt a submarine could even effectively engage a patrol boat sized target... but then if you are giving up on air power then enemy MPAs will destroy your subs fairly quickly anyway.

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 !

WTF would Russia want 10 carriers for? Are you insane?

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 ?

The Zumwalt was F-35 part two... the solution is to save money... the F-35 was going to replace all existing fighters and be made in so many numbers and be cheap to buy and operate... Zumwalt was going to have a gun instead of missiles.... those terrible tomahawk missiles cost a million dollars each... you can't shell shore targets with Tomahawks... they are too expensive. The new gun teh Zumwalt was going to have would have made delivering a heavy payload 250km with great accuracy really really cheap so put two guns on each ship and make 100 ships and you can shower cheap artillery shells on the enemy positions with the precision and accuracy of air delivered bombs but without the risk of being shot down.

Except the stupid gun they made each shell that no other gun used cost $800K per shot... they screwed the taxpayer yet again... but the taxpayer didn't realise till three ships had been made and now they are useless.

But what does this shit have to do with Russia?

Russias Coalition 152mm gun is a joint venture between their Army and Navy... it fires 70kms with excellent accuracy and will be upgraded to fire 180km in the near future... the fuse mounted on the round contains control fins and a GLONASS guidance system that costs $1K dollars per shot and is a totally affordable and reliable way of supporting troops ashore... it is cheap and available 24/7 and in any weather... they just need to give you the coordinates of the target and boom.

Russian Aircraft carriers are AWACS and fighters to defend their ships... anything needing to be attacked on land they have cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles in an enormous range of types and sizes.

but in total US will not increase its total firepower in in the foreseeable future.

That doesn't matter.

Right now Russia cannot mount a naval force to operate away from Russian controlled airspace... they need to be able to show the flag around the world to say we are here... trade with us. They don't need to invade a single country or threaten anyone, but being able to go to Venezuela to support a pro Russian government there and to boost trade and relations has monetary value.

Having lots of high speed rail links and highways means nothing to a country in Africa... there is no point in highways across Russia... it is just too far... people would freeze to death all the time if their car breaks down... it is just too far between populated areas... take the train or a plane.

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.

Russia needs aircraft carriers to support surface operations around the world, but having 12 would be dumber than having none.

These surface operations are not invasions... I am not saying Russia needs to turn into the same sort of nazi bastards that the west is/are.

But to stand up for themselves they need ships to be present... destroyers and cruisers... not corvettes and frigates... and with destroyers and cruisers they need a carrier to stop them being vulnerable.

Learn from the British... they had a fixed wing carrier with Phantoms and Buccaneers and AWACS... and they got rid of it for a small little VSTOL carrier with Harriers on it to save a few billion dollars. The money they saved with the smaller carrier they lost in ships because the smaller carrier didn't have a proper AWACS platform so it had to sit further back from the island to give it more warning of attacks which meant the ships it was supposed to be protecting became targets.

With Buccaneers there would be no need for that stupid risky Vulcan mission... those Buccs could have made that runway look like swiss cheese with phantoms making sure no one stopped them.

The speed and range and BVR missile capacity of the Phantoms would mean the air combat would have been even more one sided and likely no anti ship missiles would have been launched at any British ship... the island radar shadow would have been removed and the buccs could have supported teh ground operations and made it much safer for the British soldiers too.

Even with the shit pocket carrier they won... but at the cost of quite a few ships... so they really didn't save much money in the end with the cheap little carrier.

Each carrier also requires escort ships. Ships are missing elsewhere. Such a fleet costs over the year 2 to 3 billion US dollars. There is no construction yet.

Key there is American... a Russian carrier is an ESCORT. It is providing AWACS and fighter protection for the cruisers and destroyers it will be operating with.

Cruisers and destroyers by definition don't hang around Russian ports... that sort of work is what corvettes and frigates are for.

Russia will be making destroyers and cruisers... and they will want aircraft carriers to make sure they are hard to kill... and don't get killed.

Not having aircraft carriers is saying your crusiers and destroyers are expendable... despite not being cheap either.

If Russia wants to build carrier, it should build three ships. Northern fleet, Pacific and Mediterranean (Crimea and Syrian base plus dry dock). The current carrier would be well suited as a training session.

I suspect they will build two CVNs with one in the Pacific fleet and one in the Northern fleet and probably the Kuznetsov in one or the other.

With all the icebreakers they will have not to mention the global warming sailing across the arctic will make it quick and easy to get two carriers into the Pacific or Atlantic oceans if they wanted.

I think along with the western swing to Asia that Russia is not going to be too fussed about the Med... an Ivan Rogov class helicopter carrier in the Black Sea and likely a second of the class loaded up with all sorts of drones and helicopters including a lot of suicide drones taking up the space of all those naval infantry and their armour, would be good enough for north africa... would be interesting to see them with Egypts Mistrals...

The Baltic Sea is not a carrier suitable water.

Totally agree and would say the same about the Black Sea and Caspian Seas as well.

An aircraft carrier is not going to intimidate anyone when it burns to the waterline and rolls onto its back with its screws high in the air... Laughing

If the US carriers get involved in a shooting match with a peer competitor (China or Russia) then these thing will get SUNK, and the murkans will not be starting WW3 (and getting their cities nuked in response) in a fit of pique. Claims from the Pentagram that attacks on a CVN will amount to a declaration of war won't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to the other big boys...

Would agree but would also argue that a new Russian carrier with Su-57s and MiG-35s embarked would likely give quite a bit of punishment too... and the sort of cruisers it could have with it with literally thousands of SAMs of all types from MANPADS to missiles that will be bringing down satellites from orbit... would be very hard work for any enemy force...

Subs would be an issue but then anti sub helicopters on a carrier are a the best solution too.

I didn't even write that those 636.6 submarines were not quiet, but the underwater radius of navigation is not sufficient. weapons and sonar are certainly good. why else would they develop a new class of submarines.

They are short range subs because that is what they want... German subs might have longer range because their longer ranged SSNs don't exist.

It is like complaining that the pistol bullets in your pistol are not effective to 300m range... well it is a pistol... it is designed for short range use... if you want to kill at 300m then an AK-12 or SVD would be fine.

The Ladas were originally going to be AIP powered, but as most countries have found out AIPs are generally weak and not as effective as just carrying more Lithium Ion batteries.

Other technologies on the sub also needed work, but its performance is supposed to be rather astounding... but they can only make so many of them right now... the design is new and lots of changes have been made so getting them up to Kilo productions speeds will take a while so in the mean time any incomplete Kilos can fill gaps.

GarryB wrote:

With current Russian spending for it's military it's suffice to build what they are building;

Russias current position is that they are building Ladas as fast as they reasonably can but they can still pump out a few improved kilos to fill gaps in fleet.

The Improved Kilos are still effective subs... who gives a shit what a type 212 sub can or cannot do... Russia has plenty of subs that have unlimited submerged range. The subs they are making are good enough.

Should they stop making all aircraft and just make An-124s, Su-57s, and nothing else till Checkmate is ready?

That would be stupid.

Russia needs more new motorways and trans Siberian rail, forget about those carriers - Borei is cheaper and more effective.

Boreis have zero capacity to provide air defence for Russian surface ships operating outside the range of Russian ground based air defence.

Sorry but 10 more Bories would be the dumbest thing they could possibly do... the new start treaty limits the number of SSBN subs they can have and the number of warheads they can have... having 10 more SSBNs means you can't have any more Bulava missiles so each sub would only be able to carry 8 Bulavas instead of 12... or 16... what a stupid idea.

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

Moved back on most designs and not for aesthetic reasons for practical reasons.

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?

A helicopter carrier is useful for a variety of purposes, but apart from refits and upgrades and of course training... how much free time do you expect it to have?

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.

Having 50 Iglas does not equal having 5 BUKs...

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.

Russia has no plans to fight two different wars on two different fronts at once... bigger more useful ships are better than smaller less useful ships in larger numbers.

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.

Its lack of weapons makes me think this is for export.

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!

The problem they found was that its fire power was negated by having to land. One soldier said you knew how dangerous the landing zone was by how many men were in each Hind... which indicated how long the pilot was prepared to stay on the ground while they got out. One mission he said there were two of them...

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.

To operate from a helicopter carrier then it would have to be either a Ka-31 or a Ka-52K... the latter has a modern capable AESA radar and can be used to support other operations and could carry bundles of MANPADS like Igla-S missiles under its weapon pylons... the four pylons could carry four Iglas each for a total of 16 AAMs that would be fine against incoming subsonic Harpoon or Tomahawk missiles.

The sole requirement for any interceptor is high dash speed - that automatically disqualifies the Ka-52.

They wont operate their helicopter carriers without a fixed wing carrier like Kuznetsov.

The requirement for air power is being able to see out to a much greater radar horizon... a Ka-52K getting airborne and immediately climbing to 4km altitude can use its nose mounted AESA radar to spot targets out to 200-300km at sea level... which could be used by nearby corvettes to launch 9M96 ARH SAMs of the 60km range or 150km range variety... they fly at about mach 5... how is that for dash speed?

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.

The American Searam is a mishmash of a range of weapons but ultimately its performance isn't much different from the Igla-S...

As I said - justice prevailed.

The American way... the 1% super rich got slightly richer... everyone else got screwed.

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".

Lucky they went with the MiG-29 with better capabilities than the f-16 fighting falcon.

The aircraft you are talking about is the Mig-29M/M2

No I am not... I am talking about the single seat MiG-29K that was developed from the MiG-29M in competition for the Su-27K for use on their new carrier... it was tested and the Flanker was chosen.

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 old MiG-29M and MiG-29K... the latter of which would have become the MiG-33 if selected for service is not related to the MiG-29M2 and MiG-29M and MiG-29KR and MiG-35 which are three aircraft of unified design based on an upgraded MiG-29M original single seater.

The obvious change is that all the three new aircraft are two seater designs whether they have one seat or two seats fitted.

The old MiG-29M and MiG-29K were single seat only aircraft.

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.

I am comparing it with the Ka-52K because it is being made and they are going to have them... ie no extra expensive of designing a new VSTOL fighter aircraft... the Kamov can take off vertically and while it might not have the speed or range of the Yak-41 or 38 it is already paid for... and its radar and missile capacity is actually the same... except it carries more 30mm cannon rounds than the Yak-141.
The Yak-38 doesnt have a radar and couldn't carry any decent air to air missiles except short range IR guided missiles and its ability to exploit them in combat would be poor with no radar or IRST or optics.

In comparison the Kamov has a modern AESA radar and the capacity to carry a range of weapons.

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.

Achieving supersonic speed burns a lot of fuel and requires the aircraft to fly straight and level for quite a distance at altitude to achieve... which dramatically reduces the flight range of the aircraft... most planes wont do it.

There is no evidence the main engine of the Yak-141 could be used in flight to improve manouver performance while its IR signature would be enormous.

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.

Russia is already spending money in infrastructure... but spending money on an aircraft carrier is an investment to ensure international trade access for Russia and Russians and is worth every penny.

Do you think Su-57s are bullshit.... how about Russias IADS network? Do you think their air defence forces which used to be a branch of the Air Force and is now called Aerospace forces would work without aircraft? Should it be only surface based missiles because airfields are so easy to target?

The point is that AWACS and fighter aircraft are a critical part of any air defence network and if you are going to deny them to the Russian Navy just because new missiles make big ships a little less safe than they used to be... well I suppose they should get rid of attack helicopters because MANPADS exist... and of course all the anti armour weapons there are... get rid of tanks and armoured vehicles too because there is no way they can guarantee they would be safe.

Stop using helmets and flak jackets because they are heavy and expensive and might not always work...

In any case, it is better for Russia to have 12 strategic submarines than 12 aircraft carriers.

And how are those 12 submarines going to protect Russian ships in far away places? I rather doubt a submarine could even effectively engage a patrol boat sized target... but then if you are giving up on air power then enemy MPAs will destroy your subs fairly quickly anyway.

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 !

WTF would Russia want 10 carriers for? Are you insane?

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 ?

The Zumwalt was F-35 part two... the solution is to save money... the F-35 was going to replace all existing fighters and be made in so many numbers and be cheap to buy and operate... Zumwalt was going to have a gun instead of missiles.... those terrible tomahawk missiles cost a million dollars each... you can't shell shore targets with Tomahawks... they are too expensive. The new gun teh Zumwalt was going to have would have made delivering a heavy payload 250km with great accuracy really really cheap so put two guns on each ship and make 100 ships and you can shower cheap artillery shells on the enemy positions with the precision and accuracy of air delivered bombs but without the risk of being shot down.

Except the stupid gun they made each shell that no other gun used cost $800K per shot... they screwed the taxpayer yet again... but the taxpayer didn't realise till three ships had been made and now they are useless.

But what does this shit have to do with Russia?

Russias Coalition 152mm gun is a joint venture between their Army and Navy... it fires 70kms with excellent accuracy and will be upgraded to fire 180km in the near future... the fuse mounted on the round contains control fins and a GLONASS guidance system that costs $1K dollars per shot and is a totally affordable and reliable way of supporting troops ashore... it is cheap and available 24/7 and in any weather... they just need to give you the coordinates of the target and boom.

Russian Aircraft carriers are AWACS and fighters to defend their ships... anything needing to be attacked on land they have cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles in an enormous range of types and sizes.

but in total US will not increase its total firepower in in the foreseeable future.

That doesn't matter.

Right now Russia cannot mount a naval force to operate away from Russian controlled airspace... they need to be able to show the flag around the world to say we are here... trade with us. They don't need to invade a single country or threaten anyone, but being able to go to Venezuela to support a pro Russian government there and to boost trade and relations has monetary value.

Having lots of high speed rail links and highways means nothing to a country in Africa... there is no point in highways across Russia... it is just too far... people would freeze to death all the time if their car breaks down... it is just too far between populated areas... take the train or a plane.

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.

Russia needs aircraft carriers to support surface operations around the world, but having 12 would be dumber than having none.

These surface operations are not invasions... I am not saying Russia needs to turn into the same sort of nazi bastards that the west is/are.

But to stand up for themselves they need ships to be present... destroyers and cruisers... not corvettes and frigates... and with destroyers and cruisers they need a carrier to stop them being vulnerable.

Learn from the British... they had a fixed wing carrier with Phantoms and Buccaneers and AWACS... and they got rid of it for a small little VSTOL carrier with Harriers on it to save a few billion dollars. The money they saved with the smaller carrier they lost in ships because the smaller carrier didn't have a proper AWACS platform so it had to sit further back from the island to give it more warning of attacks which meant the ships it was supposed to be protecting became targets.

With Buccaneers there would be no need for that stupid risky Vulcan mission... those Buccs could have made that runway look like swiss cheese with phantoms making sure no one stopped them.

The speed and range and BVR missile capacity of the Phantoms would mean the air combat would have been even more one sided and likely no anti ship missiles would have been launched at any British ship... the island radar shadow would have been removed and the buccs could have supported teh ground operations and made it much safer for the British soldiers too.

Even with the shit pocket carrier they won... but at the cost of quite a few ships... so they really didn't save much money in the end with the cheap little carrier.

Each carrier also requires escort ships. Ships are missing elsewhere. Such a fleet costs over the year 2 to 3 billion US dollars. There is no construction yet.

Key there is American... a Russian carrier is an ESCORT. It is providing AWACS and fighter protection for the cruisers and destroyers it will be operating with.

Cruisers and destroyers by definition don't hang around Russian ports... that sort of work is what corvettes and frigates are for.

Russia will be making destroyers and cruisers... and they will want aircraft carriers to make sure they are hard to kill... and don't get killed.

Not having aircraft carriers is saying your crusiers and destroyers are expendable... despite not being cheap either.

If Russia wants to build carrier, it should build three ships. Northern fleet, Pacific and Mediterranean (Crimea and Syrian base plus dry dock). The current carrier would be well suited as a training session.

I suspect they will build two CVNs with one in the Pacific fleet and one in the Northern fleet and probably the Kuznetsov in one or the other.

With all the icebreakers they will have not to mention the global warming sailing across the arctic will make it quick and easy to get two carriers into the Pacific or Atlantic oceans if they wanted.

I think along with the western swing to Asia that Russia is not going to be too fussed about the Med... an Ivan Rogov class helicopter carrier in the Black Sea and likely a second of the class loaded up with all sorts of drones and helicopters including a lot of suicide drones taking up the space of all those naval infantry and their armour, would be good enough for north africa... would be interesting to see them with Egypts Mistrals...

The Baltic Sea is not a carrier suitable water.

Totally agree and would say the same about the Black Sea and Caspian Seas as well.

An aircraft carrier is not going to intimidate anyone when it burns to the waterline and rolls onto its back with its screws high in the air... Laughing

If the US carriers get involved in a shooting match with a peer competitor (China or Russia) then these thing will get SUNK, and the murkans will not be starting WW3 (and getting their cities nuked in response) in a fit of pique. Claims from the Pentagram that attacks on a CVN will amount to a declaration of war won't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to the other big boys...

Would agree but would also argue that a new Russian carrier with Su-57s and MiG-35s embarked would likely give quite a bit of punishment too... and the sort of cruisers it could have with it with literally thousands of SAMs of all types from MANPADS to missiles that will be bringing down satellites from orbit... would be very hard work for any enemy force...

Subs would be an issue but then anti sub helicopters on a carrier are a the best solution too.

I didn't even write that those 636.6 submarines were not quiet, but the underwater radius of navigation is not sufficient. weapons and sonar are certainly good. why else would they develop a new class of submarines.

They are short range subs because that is what they want... German subs might have longer range because their longer ranged SSNs don't exist.

It is like complaining that the pistol bullets in your pistol are not effective to 300m range... well it is a pistol... it is designed for short range use... if you want to kill at 300m then an AK-12 or SVD would be fine.

The Ladas were originally going to be AIP powered, but as most countries have found out AIPs are generally weak and not as effective as just carrying more Lithium Ion batteries.

Other technologies on the sub also needed work, but its performance is supposed to be rather astounding... but they can only make so many of them right now... the design is new and lots of changes have been made so getting them up to Kilo productions speeds will take a while so in the mean time any incomplete Kilos can fill gaps.

No, Garry, not 12 more new Boreis but 12 Boreis in total. I wrote about the fact that it is good that Russia has a fleet of 12 strategic submarines because without them and without ICBM's and nuclear weapons, even if there were 10 or 12 aircraft carriers in Russian Navy - The NATO pact would then immediately attack Russia. Russia needs modern nuclear weapons. RS-24, RS-28 and Avangrad are much more important. Yes, Gorshkov had began with the development of the ocean fleet, but in the meantime the USSR disintegrated. And some leftovers of that fleet are still in service; 2 1144 class cruisers (they called them "expensive toys of Admiral Gorshkov"), 3 1164 cruisers and Kuznetsov aircraft carrier. Why would Russians spend money in these conditions on something on which their survival does not depend ?

I will not even think about ships such as aircraft carriers until I see the mass construction of frigates. Is the construction of 22350 frigates as it should be ? No, not yet. Also, the modernization of multi-purpose submarines is very slow in Zvezdochka and Zvezda.
Its ponitless to thing about carriers right now and there will be no new aircraft carriers in Russian Navy in the next 8 to 10 years. Could we agree on that ? it may even start building an aircraft carrier but those ship or ships will not be in service untill early/late 30's. I think that Russian shipyards are not yet capable of building aircraft carriers.
So is it more important to continue with the production of multi-purpose submarines, ssbn's, to speed up construction of frigates, corvettes, than to to write about something that is not yet in sight (aircraft carrier/s) ?

I don't think that the Su-57 is bad at all, but I think that the Russian Air Force needs it more. More than MA VMF (Naval aviation). 76 of those are already purchased and that is just for a start. This primarily means that the Russian Air Force needs far more of those planes.
if they build even 4 realtively large aircraft carriers and each aircraft carrier has even 48 (192 fighter jets in total) aircraft, maybe Su-75, that is not enough to fight against USA, UK, France, and others in some conventional war in Atlantic. Therefore, it is better to rearm Monchegorsk airport, Krymsk, Khotilovo, Besovets airport, Kursk Vostochny airport, Belbek airport, Morozovsk airport, Baltimor airport, Chkalovsk, etc with Su-57 and other new types in the future. And of course, more Kinzhal, more Cirkon, etc..
Is it better for Russia to have 400 or 500 Su-57's in VVS or 192 in MA VMF (Naval aviation) and far less of those in VVS ?  
I have nothing against the fact that the Russian Ministry of Defense is currently ONLY building a defensive fleet.

GarryB wrote:
They are short range subs because that is what they want... German subs might have longer range because their longer ranged SSNs don't exist.
It is like complaining that the pistol bullets in your pistol are not effective to 300m range... well it is a pistol... it is designed for short range use... if you want to kill at 300m then an AK-12 or SVD would be fine.
The Ladas were originally going to be AIP powered, but as most countries have found out AIPs are generally weak and not as effective as just carrying more Lithium Ion batteries.
Other technologies on the sub also needed work, but its performance is supposed to be rather astounding... but they can only make so many of them right now... the design is new and lots of changes have been made so getting them up to Kilo productions speeds will take a while so in the mean time any incomplete Kilos can fill gaps.

The catch is that in reality, those are no longer ranged - both 212 and 636 are rated at 8-9knm with their own fuel supply.
The new Russian version of 636 is rated at about double the submerged range&endurance when compared to the early 877, only due to the new battery layout&type.
Of course, that number will be questioned by the nay sayers, but we have clear data about the air purifying system of the type - it is rated at 500h effectiveness.
It is a commercial system, a part of HVAC installation, that is presented at world salons for a while.
You don't bother that, not having the sub that needs it.
So if you have a system that purifies the air for 500h, that means a sub can easily stay submerged for 3 weeks.
If you will put the same system on a 677 - this will last for double that, as a crew is half of the 636. 212 is cited to have a 45 days submerged endurance, and what you got here by a simple evaluation ... is bingo! Having a crew in a range of 677, it is a pure apple to apple comparison.
Those numbers are really hard to compare in real, as all the parameters would be valid for specified conditions only. Increase the cruise speed from let's say rated 8kts to 12 kts, and your range would go down by 40%. Reduce it to 4kts, and it won't double, because that is already an optimized engin&gear&shaft combination... So if one says, that the sub can travel submerged a distance of xxx, that means perfectly nothing. Bigger diesel generators on 636.3 are there, to speed up the battery loading when snorkel, and reduce subs exposure to the enemy.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Mir wrote: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?

An aircraft carrier is not going to intimidate anyone when it burns to the waterline and rolls onto its back with its screws high in the air...  

If the US carriers get involved in a shooting match with a peer competitor (China or Russia) then these thing will get SUNK, and the murkans will not be starting WW3 (and getting their cities nuked in response) in a fit of pique.  Claims from the Pentagram that attacks on a CVN will amount to a declaration of war won't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to the other big boys...

Well unfortunately the earth is spherical due to  hydrostatic pressure, and that creates a tiny but inconvenient thing called a RADAR HORIZON. Carriers are always inherently more useful for air defence due to having the ability to launch AWACS and even fighter aircraft radars are superior to ship radars for early warning of incoming missiles, as well as continuously tracking enemy ships.

I know you'll say that OTH radars exist, but:
1. AFAIK not a single Russian ship is equipped with an OTH radar, let alone one capable of weapons quality track  of incoming anti-ship missiles or enemy ships
2. There is 0 info whether ground based OTH radars have the capability for weapons quality track of enemy ships and incoming missiles.  

As long as the radar horizon exists or Russia develops interceptors, drones  and AWACS aircraft with effectively unlimited range, carriers will be useful for it as an offshore air defence and early warning bubble.

I wonder... the su-57 is pretty big, not su-27 big but still. That said, with izd 30 I'm thinking it would have unbelievable short takeoff ability even with a nominal load of weapons. Could an aircraft carrier be developed around a fighter with such characteristics? You might not be able to have a lot of them but say a small squadron in size.

The Su-33 is heavier than the Su-35 and has less powerful engines and can operate just fine from the Kuznetsov.

The Su-57 is slightly bigger than the MiG-35 and will have rather more powerful engines than the Su-35, and much lower drag as it does not have external weapons, and of course it also will have thrust vectoring engines, so launching from a ramp it should easily get airborne in less distance than the Su-33 gets airborne from... without any assistance.

Its low drag and enormous wing and lifting fuselage area means it probably has a lower landing speed too.

The point is not to make your aircraft carrier as small as you can make it to make it cheaper because it is never going to actually be cheap no matter what you do and often the cost is paid in blood and lost ships because small carriers can't protect other ships like a bigger carrier can.

The key is to make your carrier slightly too big and then save money by not operating it at full capacity all the time.

Being able to carry full sized capable fighters and AWACS platforms is the whole point, if you sacrifice both of these things just to save a little money on the budget then you are wasting your time even bothering.

The carrier does not need all Su-57s, but having a decent number of heavier long range aircraft is important, but you can reduce the max potential capacity of Su-57s on board and only carry a quarter that you could carry and double you number of aircraft by carrying a lighter fighter too... if your planes spent all their time at max range from the carrier and that max range was 3,000km then they are not going to be much use defending the carrier then are they?

You need shorter range fighters that will always be around the carrier and able to defend it... even if that means using their radar to monitor incoming threats and allow the ships to defend themselves out to max range because of their detailed view of the airspace around them thanks to aircraft in the air.

Hell the AWACS might end up being a special model Su-57 with nose and tail and side mounted radar antenna giving 360 degree coverage and another mission pod carried under its centreline with a large radar antenna array in a very low frequency for spotting stealth targets at enormous ranges too that can be lowered clear of the engine nacelles in flight with the centreline weapon bays full of fuel bladders and the wing bays with self defence AAMs. It could get airborne and climb and then fly with one engine shut down to maximise endurance...

I still think an airship would be the best solution to land and sea based AWACS... with modern materials its performance could be amazing... operating for years at a time instead of hours or days... strong construction of fire resistant materials, fuel cell technology to manage the balance between hydrogen gas for lift and water for ballast... no need to dump ballast or lifting gas so a much more efficient system that is closed and doesn't need constant refillings of ballast or lifting gas.

Operating close to the water a dehumidifier could collect water and condense it for ballast in flight.

It they can make a naval Su-57 for a reasonable price they could probably just make it standard for land based and ship based use.

When forward deploying being able to operate from a motorway, being able to land with a truck based cable arrester system, and having folding wings to fit more in a hardened aircraft shelter just makes sense if it is not too much more expensive. Corrosion resistance is always useful.

Military Watch Magazine

Unlikely as it Sounds Russia Will Field Three Carriers By 2030: Here is Where They Will Likely Be Deployed

Following the announcement that the Russian Navy’s sole aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov had returned to dry dock after three years, speculation regarding the ship’s possible early retirement was largely dispelled with the vessel expected to continue to serve in the Russian Navy for well over a decade after refurbishment and modernisation are complete. Whether the outbreak of war in Ukraine in February and subsequent fast worsening of tensions with NATO, which has been accompanied by a rapid growth in state revenues as a result of high oil prices, may have changed the Russian Defence Ministry’s plans for the warship, remains uncertain. Among the upgrades expected are new electronics and sensors, a complete overhaul of propulsion systems, and possibly integration of new close in weapons systems and of Zicron hypersonic cruise missiles to replace the ageing Soviet P-700. Alongside the Kuznetsov, which is likely to return to service by 2024, the Russian Navy is also set to receive two new lighter carriers around the middle of the decade which are currently under construction in Crimea. Set to be named the Sevastopol and the Vladivostok, estimates for the ships’ displacements have ranged from 25,000 to over 40,000 tons. Serving as assault ships, they will deploy Ka-52 attack helicopters as their primary combat aircraft and may also deploy vertical landing capable fighters that have been reported from the late 2010s to be under development.

While Russia has not invested in producing cruiser or destroyer sizes ships since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the commissioning of two new carriers to accompany the Admiral Kuznetsov would provide a sizeable fleet for power projection operations - albeit one limited by the range of escorts and logistical assets available. With work to modernise the Kuznetsov underway, and with both assault carriers having been laid down in 2020, there is little question that all three will be in service sometime in the second half of the decade. It remains uncertain, however, both how capable the warships will be, with outstanding questions from whether the lighter ships will deploy fighters to whether the Kuznetsov will receive the Navy’s latest Zicron missiles. Furthermore, the fleets the ships will be deployed under and whether they will rely on newer but shorter ranged frigates or heavier but much older destroyers and cruisers for their escorts remains uncertain.

The Russian Navy is currently divided between four fleets and a single flotilla, none of which have open access to the Ocean. Where the Caspian Flotilla can be ruled out entirely due to its isolation and very small size, the Black Sea Fleet and Baltic Fleet also remain unlikely to receive carriers for multiple reasons. Both remain largely bottled in by the territories of neighbouring NATO member states, and their more confined environments are better suited to deployments of frigates, corvettes and coastal defence systems such as the Bastion. The small size of both maritime theatres means that carriers will be of only limited use, being vulnerable to strikes and eclipsed in their potential usefulness by the capabilities of shore based aircraft which have both seas comfortably within their ranges. Thus it is likely that carrier deployments will be focused in what are arguably the Russian Navy’s two most strategically critical fleets - the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet.

The Russian Navy was previously set to receive two assault carriers in the mid-2010s, namely Mistral Class ships built in France which were to be supplemented by two larger ships jointly built by the two countries in Russian shipyards. These were to be concentrated in the Pacific around the heavily fortified Kuril Islands which are currently claimed by Japan. The growing importance of the Arctic Fleet, as Russia has moved to rapidly reinforce its positions in the region in the face of a fast growing NATO military presence, has led to the possibility of commissioning carriers optimised for Arctic operations being raised in the past. Both fleets operate in larger theatres where there is a need for maritime power projection capabilities, in the Arctic particularly from assault ships and helicopters and in the Pacific from both kinds of carrier. Deployments of Russia’s three carrier warships could thus be made accordingly, with facilities constructed to accommodate Mistral Class ships in the Pacific but later abandoned when the sale was cancelled potentially being used to accommodate Russian built carriers in the theatre.

A further notable benefit of deploying the Admiral Kuznetsov to East Asia would be that the ship could deploy alongside its Chinese built sister vessels the Liaoning and Shandong, which are based on the same basic design but are significantly more advanced. The Admiral Kuznetsov could even potentially deploy for maintenance to Chinese shipyards and make regular port visits, which may be key to making its operations viable should Russia’s own defence sector continue to struggle with the ship. The possibility of the ship benefitting considerably from Chinese support in its ongoing refurbishment and modernisation, as Chinese shipbuilders have considerably more experience with the Kuznetsov design and its modernisation, has also been speculated.