Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

I am dissatisfied with the the pace of construction of the Russian Navy. I am not a supporter of the construction of aircraft carriers and I will write that again. I'm afraid that many things have to change in order for the construction of surface warships of significantly smaller displacement (frigates and destroyers) to be effective. Russian military shipbuilding is not efficient, it should be written clearly.
No ships and no submarines were delivered on time, with the exception of project 636.3 submarines. The construction of submarines of project 885M has slowed down again because "Novosibirsk" was launched after 6.5 years of construction, while "Arkhangelsk" has been under construction for 7.5 years and has not yet been launched.
* SEVMASH; I think that this is not the problem of the Sevmash shipyard, but the problem is either weaker financing or unclear priorities (often the case with Russian military planners) during construction. Sevmash needs to complete the project 955A strategic submarines and to FULLY commit to the construction of attack multipurpose nuclear submarines to replace the project 971 and 945A Kondor submarines.
* ZVEZDA; If we already see that Zvezda is working on the modernization of the Irkutsk and Chelyabinsk submarines, as well as the Nerpa submarine, then it is clear that nuclear-powered ships and submarines could also be built here. The catastrophic mistake is that many years ago the construction of nuclear submarines was entrusted only to Sevmash, because that way the shipyard was overloaded, and the Amur Shipyard and Krasnoye Sormovo were excluded.
* BALTIC SHIPYARD; After the construction of the project 22220 nuclear icebreakers, it should be expected that this shipyard will FINALLY be dedicated to the construction of warships. It is clear that this shipyard has extensive experience in building nuclear powered ships; heavy nuclear missile cruisers of project 1144 and nuclear ice breakers.
* SEVERNAYA WERF; I'm sick of even writing about this shipyard. Let's hope the pace of ship building improves and the gas turbines for the 22350 frigates are reliable. There is no reason for optimism because "Golovko" has not started sea trials yet. A new slipway is being built in this shipyard, where the keel for the first frigate of project 22350M should be laid.
* YANTAR; Several years have passed since the keels were laid for the two transport ships of project 11711, and I am surprised that the construction of additional ships has not started in the meantime. It is possible that it will also come after the completion of the construction of the frigate for India.
* ZALIV; Two large landing ships of project 23900.
* ADMIRALITY ; primarily the construction of non-nuclear submarines..
* AMUR; I expect a lot from this shipyard and I hope that the planned construction of frigates 22350 will be entrusted to this shipyard.
* ZELENODOLSK; This shipyard will very likely start building enlarged rocket ships, larger than project 21631.
* MORE ; small missile ships.

Big_Gazza wrote:Strange that the article doesn't mention that the PLAN carrier Fuijan (Type 003) also has electromagnetic catapults.  Kinda pokes a hole in the claim that China wanted to buy the tech from Russia but was refused. I'd find it hard to belive that Russia already has a mature EM-based catapult, as without any candidate carrier on the horizon, why pre-invest and develop the tech now?

Sounds like typical Russian "ultra-nationalist" analyst bollocks to me. The truth is Russia supplied China with the arrestor gear for Type 002. If the Chinese needed catapults, and Russia made them, I doubt they would not have been sold as well. China made their own EM catapults for Type 003. And who knows, they might be the first to perfect them, since even the US hasn't gotten the bugs out of EM cats yet as can be seen by the activity (or lack of) on the Ford carrier.

I have little doubt Russia won't be able to do their own system since they have always had an edge in high power physics but this is just typical China bashing you sometimes see in Russian media.

LMFS wrote:

in short he said :
- Russia doesn't have need to build as big and expensive carrier groups - different tasks and money that can be spent on this purpose.

- Carriers will be included in Russian Navy but possibly smaller and cheaper.

Thanks for the full quote. I don't understand that he refers to cheaper carriers, he mentions other ocean going vessels as capable of doing the same functions.

to me cheaper aviation carriers, whatever their looks will be. Just my speculation.

LMFS wrote:

Let's see whether  STOL/VSTOL fighter will materialize  in coming years?

VMF better get the Su-57 into their carriers as soon, in as big numbers and with the smallest performance loss due to navalization as they can.

Depending on carrier's size which is connected to cost of course. This info about STOL or VSTOL fighter for RN wasn't to me pulled out of thin air. And military must have requested a new naval fighter, unless Putin wakes up in the morning and then thinks what weapon to order...
Especially that Su-75 was designed more less in the same time. Strikingly similar to Yak-201. What if can me modular a bit on F-35, yes without US ventilator but light small engines (on yak 14 their weight was 700kg) in the front it doesn't have to be bulky like a pregnant penguin. F-35.


Yak-201



and Su-75

> Devaluates any surface fleet without the means to deal with such weapons

Same to dealing with aricrafts

LMFS wrote:

The Americans need to have a deployed air group, because they are distant from us by the oceans and they somehow need to get to the main theaters of military operations.

He should read the naval strategy. Russia claims global reach and global interests, therefore they need to reach equally distant potential theaters of military operations

like Desert Storm? or Libya unlikely

LMFS wrote:

Of course, this type of marine technology cannot be abandoned, you need to constantly think about it, but this is an expensive undertaking.

Expensive yes. In what measure, depends on what you references are. If you want to emulate the nonsensical USN approach, yes, it will be a bloody expensive and ultimately failed endeavor

but here we do agree, that's why imho small number of smaller airraft carriers with Su-75 shall do the trick.

It is possible to achieve the goals that we set for the navy by developing cheaper models, the same ships of the far sea zone, and get a similar effect. Therefore, the military must ultimately decide what they need in this regard. I, even when I was in the Ministry of Defense, never allowed myself to teach professionals what kind of weapons they should fight with.

There you have the reference to ocean going vessels as substitutes for carriers. It is a totally flawed analysis, no matter that it comes from a guy as competent as Borisov. And certainly VMF specialists have made it clear, once and one million times, that they need and want carriers, period.[/quote]


sure they might want to have whatever they want but need to focus not to live beyond their means. That's why Sthorm was shelved.

Podlodka77 wrote:I am dissatisfied with the the pace of construction of the Russian Navy. I am not a supporter of the construction of aircraft carriers and I will write that again. I'm afraid that many things have to change in order for the construction of surface warships of significantly smaller displacement (frigates and destroyers) to be effective. Russian military shipbuilding is not efficient, it should be written clearly. .

There's no magical independence of warship building industry (all thousands of subcontractors) and state of economic development + efficiency of fantail flow. Those mentioned above were just resurected after 25years gap...

GarryB wrote:

LMFS wrote:Thanks for the full quote. I don't understand that he refers to cheaper carriers, he mentions other ocean going vessels as capable of doing the same functions.

I suspect he means they wont be competing with the US to make the biggest and heaviest and most expensive aircraft carriers... so they wont be 100K tons... I personally think they might come up with a clever design that maximises hangar size and aircraft space with minimal ship weight... but I still think the French are right with their estimates of 70-80K tons, nuke powered, EM cats...

Damn I got to second that!  Yet me thinks Russian aircraft  carriers will be even smaller .   Cost of smaller AC can be 1/3 to 1/4 costs of Gerald Ford CVN. One big is not better then 3 small.    That's why smaller jet fighters will be welcome. And here it comes Su-75.

But again only speculation

GarryB wrote:

VMF better get the Su-57 into their carriers as soon, in as big numbers and with the smallest performance loss due to navalization as they can.

For their lighter plane the range and speed requirements are not so important, but I still think a STOL fighter makes the most sense... that twin engined MiG model would be my first choice obviously... especially if a land based version could also be used too so numbers make it cheaper.

A VSTOL fighter would be more expensive to develop and more limited in its performance and its primary advantage of being able to land or take off vertically will almost never be used in combat because of the performance limitations it imposes and the greater risk it entails.

Not really more expensive since this one demonstrator is to fly in 2023 ... it's called Su-75.

https://lenta.ru/brief/2021/07/20/rostec/

According to (CEO Rostec) Slyusar, the product is a modular platform, the capabilities of which will vary depending on customer requirements. In particular, the fighter can be adapted for use against ground, surface or air targets, and can also be implemented in single, double or unmanned versions. On the basis of Checkmate, a carrier-based aircraft can also be created.

As for VSTOL - adding 2 engines of vertical thrust (in Yak-141 2x290 kg) and got VSTOL. I guess Su-75 was designed with assumptions to be modular and easy to be unmanned or VSTOL.

GarryB wrote:

> Devaluates any surface fleet without the means to deal with such weapons

Makes air defence even more critical which actually makes air defence carriers more important, not less important... more necessary.

I can only second that again.

GarryB wrote:
They went down the mini carriers with the Kiev class together with the British, and they went for a middle sized carrier with the Kuznetsov and their direct real world experience is that it is much better than a Kiev class ship, but still not big enough... they know they don't want a full sized American strike carrier like a 100K ton Nimitz or Ford class CVN, but they need a decent amount of space on their ship which is going to include more and more drone types.

I would like to see them experiment more with airships.... the core of making carriers big is to allow decent sized AWACS aircraft to operate from them safely... the EM cats are primarily for AWACS platforms to operate with decent levels of fuel... having an airship based AWACS platform which could have an enormous antenna array and even perhaps an onboard nuclear reactor to give unlimited electrical power which could be used to transition water to hydrogen and back and also power the radar and computing power needed... with powerful electric motors it should be able to keep up with and operate with any group of ships... perhaps with EMP weapons and directed energy weapons to protect itself (ie beams to disrupt electronics rather than blow things out of the sky.

You could design it so it can land on the sea surface with some sort of catamaran type hull with lots of optics and ports looking downwards that could allow it to be tethered in battlefields for observation at 20km altitude or higher with high power optics and radar to scan the ground and the airspace for targets.

The enormous internal volume of an airship would allow enormous radar antenna to be fitted... and the heat they generate when used will help make the airship remain buoyant. Hydrogen fuel cells and electrical current would allow the transition of water to hydrogen and back as needed for balance and lifting force respectively.

Modern strong lightweight materials that are fire proof and are not highly flammable like the paint and materials used in old airships would make it much safer.

The entire internal envelope could be purged with nitrogen so fires cannot even start where the hydrogen is stored.

I actually like this airship AWACS idea. I would be great seeing Russians experiment with this.

Sounds like typical Russian "ultra-nationalist" analyst bollocks to me. The truth is Russia supplied China with the arrestor gear for Type 002. If the Chinese needed catapults, and Russia made them, I doubt they would not have been sold as well. China made their own EM catapults for Type 003. And who knows, they might be the first to perfect them, since even the US hasn't gotten the bugs out of EM cats yet as can be seen by the activity (or lack of) on the Ford carrier.

I have little doubt Russia won't be able to do their own system since they have always had an edge in high power physics but this is just typical China bashing you sometimes see in Russian media.[/quote]



The entire Chinese military industrial complex has advanced thanks to Russia. Those are the facts. Both the J-11, J-15 and J-16 were derived from the Su-30 or Su-33. The same applies to older generations of aircraft. The basic bomber still in the Chinese Air Force today is the Tu-16.
Chinese tanks use RUSSIAN 125 mm cannon. The Chinese also use the "Bakhcha" turret with two coupled guns of 100 mm and 30 mm, the same as the Russian BMP-3 or BMD-4M. The Russian 956 Sarych (Sovremeny) class destroyers certainly helped in the development of the later Chinese destroyers. The same applies to China's non-nuclear and nuclear submarines, air defense systems, etc.

That is why I think that it would not be a shame if Russia ordered several Type-052D destroyers from China, but if they were to have Russian UKSK launchers and Russian electronic equipment on them. It's a temporary variant, of course, because project 22350 frigates are not ready for mass production.. China is no longer a third-rate country or military power. Even in the automotive industry, many brands are joining forces to reduce production costs.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Podlodka77 wrote:I am dissatisfied with the the pace of construction of the Russian Navy. I am not a supporter of the construction of aircraft carriers and I will write that again. I'm afraid that many things have to change in order for the construction of surface warships of significantly smaller displacement (frigates and destroyers) to be effective. Russian military shipbuilding is not efficient, it should be written clearly. .

There's no magical independence of warship building industry (all thousands of subcontractors) and state of economic development + efficiency of fantail flow. Those mentioned above were just resurected after 25years gap...

Any talk about aircraft carriers is redundant until the issue of the construction of enlarged project 22350M frigates is resolved and the construction of SSN submarines is increased.
Project 22350 frigates are not yet ready for mass serial production and that is a fact. Yes, I agree that it is not all the fault of the shipyards that build the vessels, which is why I wrote that Russian shipbuilding is not up to the task because it was and remains the weakest link of the military industrial complex. The end of the year is approaching and "Golovko" has not yet gone on sea trials, while there is still no news about the launch of "Isakov". The "Leopard" submarine has not yet been handed over to the fleet, as is the case with the "Irkutsk". We see that it is not enough to just build a ship or a submarine, but it is also necessary to maintain or modernize a certain vessel, which often takes an eternity. And "Neustrashimiy" was overhauled and "modernized" for years so that it ended without H-35 missiles.
The same applies to the Nakhimov cruiser, Admiral Chabanenko, Chelyabinsk, project 971 submarines, etc. Sevmash is building strategic submarines of project 955A at a solid pace while project 885M is delayed - again (Arkangelsk is 7.5 years under construction and has not been launched), although it is clear that Russia MUST have at least twice as many SSN as SSBN submarines.

SUBMARINES; Sevmash is the number 1; Every story that some in Russia tell about Sevmash and how aircraft carriers should be built there is CRAZY and BS ! That shipyard will complete the construction of 9 project 955A submarines (+3 955 Borei = 12 955/955A) in a few years, and after that it is necessary to work on a quick replacement for project 971 and 945A submarines. Sevmash works at full speed; "poseidon" torpedo carriers of project 09851, 955A strategic submarines and 885M attack submarines + modernization of the Nakhimov cruiser. We can also expect the modernization of Peter the Great in Sevmash soon.
SURFACE SHIPS; There are Severnaya Werf, Yantar, Zaliv, Amur and Baltic shipyards for the construction of larger displacement ships. The Admiralty shipyard is busy building non-nuclear submarines. It remains to be seen whether Zvezda and the aforementioned Baltic shipyard will be diverted to the construction of warships. The weakest link is precisely the construction of surface warships with a larger displacement.

The Russian Air Force received all ordered planes and helicopters on time, all contracts were fulfilled. As for frontline and strategic aviation, there are no problems. I am 100% sure that the deadlines for the delivery of the Su-57 will also be met on time and within the stipulated period.
Yes, the problem is transport aviation and the Il-112 project is a tragedy. The only ones that are a little late in delivery are the Il-76MD-90A, as well as all its variants; tanker and AWACS variant. There is not even a completed prototype for the first Il-276 yet. In any case, the VVS is far better than the Russian Navy.

I'm afraid that many things have to change in order for the construction of surface warships of significantly smaller displacement (frigates and destroyers) to be effective. Russian military shipbuilding is not efficient, it should be written clearly.

The Russian Navy has not been a priority... the Army and Air Force were ahead in priority and of course the strategic nuclear forces were top priority.

The Russian Navy was lucky last.

Russian military shipbuilding is taking place at the same time modernisation and upgrades for the shipyards is taking place so of course it is slow.

It is also transitioning from the old cheap basic single use single design ships, to no work at all for 20 odd years and now they are expected to make state of the art brand new corvette sized ships that are more multirole that Cruisers were in the 1980s.

They have worked out some new corvette designs and they built some frigates but made some changes to that design to increase missile capacity... they need to get that new design into the water and tested before they can decide if they want the original frigate design or the new upgraded frigate design.

They might find the new ships are more expensive and the older smaller ships are fine for the Baltic and Black Sea/Med operations, while the bigger ships are better for the Arctic and Pacific Oceans... or they might decide the bigger ships are just better all round and only make the bigger ships.

They are not going to know until they test them, which means this takes time.

No ships and no submarines were delivered on time, with the exception of project 636.3 submarines.

They are under sanctions and their main engine supplier just screwed them over and wont supply anything... even engines they paid for.

If you think they are doing bad look at the UK military and compare them ruble to ruble and you will see they are getting amazing value for money... the UK might have two carriers, but compare submarine fleets.

* ZVEZDA; If we already see that Zvezda is working on the modernization of the Irkutsk and Chelyabinsk submarines, as well as the Nerpa submarine, then it is clear that nuclear-powered ships and submarines could also be built here. The catastrophic mistake is that many years ago the construction of nuclear submarines was entrusted only to Sevmash, because that way the shipyard was overloaded, and the Amur Shipyard and Krasnoye Sormovo were excluded.

Well that is probably going to have to change in the future if carriers and cruisers and destroyers are all likely to be nuclear powered.

The economic and political shift away from the west will force Russia to look to the rest of the world for trade which is going to require a shift in priority regarding their navy.

They wont need dozens of carriers, and they wont need anything like the Nimitz or Ford class ships, but a 70-90K ton ship or two would be valuable.

Their helicopter landing ships might also be interesting in the sense that the second one under construction appears to be drone focused which might be very interesting... depending on what sort of drones it could embark...

This thinking outside the box is good.

If the Chinese needed catapults, and Russia made them, I doubt they would not have been sold as well. China made their own EM catapults for Type 003. And who knows, they might be the first to perfect them, since even the US hasn't gotten the bugs out of EM cats yet as can be seen by the activity (or lack of) on the Ford carrier.

I would think it would make sense for China to try to buy any system Russia might have developed, but I don't think they would have wanted to spend too much because they were already funding their own version... a purchase of a Russian system could have been a backup in case there were problems with the Chinese version, but I suspect the Russians said no because the Chinese probably didn't offer enough money... why spend a lot of money on Plan B when Plan A might be going OK.

You never know if a system works till it is properly tested in the real world. The Americans have shown you can spend all the money in the world and still get it wrong... but if anything they have also shown if you throw enough money almost anything can be fixed... and ironically it is when solutions start to be found that contracts are cancelled and everything gets tied up in secrecy agreements so the taxpayers never learn how much money is being wasted.

Especially that Su-75 was designed more less in the same time. Strikingly similar to Yak-201. What if can me modular a bit on F-35, yes without US ventilator but light small engines (on yak 14 their weight was 700kg) in the front it doesn't have to be bulky like a pregnant penguin. F-35.

Unless that nose mounted engine is electric then it burns fuel and has super hot exhaust with oxygen depleted hot gas... as the aircraft comes down closer to the deck or as it tries to take off... that hot oxy depleted air goes in the main engine intakes and the rear engine stalls and it drops like a rock and bursts into flames...

but here we do agree, that's why imho small number of smaller airraft carriers with Su-75 shall do the trick.

They already tried that with Kiev class mini carriers and VSTOL fighters which were awful.

Small carriers are expensive too and having to have more of them makes them more expensive than fewer bigger carriers... and the point is smaller carriers with shit VSTOL fighters are worse than nothing because nothing would be free.

sure they might want to have whatever they want but need to focus not to live beyond their means. That's why Sthorm was shelved.

Their means will increase dramatically if they have the navy to defend their rights globally.

If you want to keep corvettes and frigates then Russia will be contained and isolated just as the west wants... if Russia can't send ships to break the blockade of countries that are trading with them then they will eventually find no one will trade with them.

Britain might have saved a billion pounds or so going from a fixed wing carrier to the Hermes class dinky toys and the cost in ships was enormous and the Hermes class ships were not cheap and neither was developing the Harrier.

Damn I got to second that!  Yet me thinks Russian aircraft  carriers will be even smaller .   Cost of smaller AC can be 1/3 to 1/4 costs of Gerald Ford CVN. One big is not better then 3 small.    That's why smaller jet fighters will be welcome. And here it comes Su-75.

But again only speculation

Look at their experience... Kiev, Kuznetsov, Ulyanovsk... the Kiev was way too small and its VSTOL fighters were a joke, the Kuznetsov is still too small because it lacks decent AWACS, and Ulyanovsk is to be a nuclear powered 75K ton carrier with steam cats... which was state of the art at the time... 35 years later it is EM cats and probably more drones.

The point is that another Kuznetsov is not going to be that much cheaper to operate or buy and will actually be more expensive to operate and less capable.

Not really more expensive since this one demonstrator is to fly in 2023 ... it's called Su-75

More likely 2025, but the Su-75 is a single engined fighter and it is intended for export first and foremost... and it is not VSTOL either (which is a good thing in my opinion).

As for VSTOL - adding 2 engines of vertical thrust (in Yak-141 2x290 kg) and got VSTOL. I guess Su-75 was designed with assumptions to be modular and easy to be unmanned or VSTOL.

If it was just that simple the Yak-141 would be in service...

I actually like this airship AWACS idea. I would be great seeing Russians experiment with this.

It is very much a neglected technology... if you could make it out of ultra light strong materials you could potentially take advantage of the trade winds to move quite rapidly around the place too.

A very green way to travel with solar panels and electric motors and new battery technology.

China is no longer a third-rate country or military power. Even in the automotive industry, many brands are joining forces to reduce production costs.

In the car industry I think China has enormous potential and could replace Japan as the best car maker in my view... but with more affordable cars.

Any talk about aircraft carriers is redundant until the issue of the construction of enlarged project 22350M frigates is resolved and the construction of SSN submarines is increased.

That is where I think you are mistaken... talk of carriers is ongoing and all their experience should go towards their new carrier designs... construction of submarines and enlarged frigates should both be going on at the same time, but I don't see how the topic of enlarged frigates can be adequately addressed till they hit the water and can be properly tested... so increasing sub production... I think SSKs will be more useful than having a huge explosion of SSNs (so to speak)... the new Lada class looks very promising and they need to get more subs and ships into proper regular serial production like the improved kilo class SSKs currently are.

Yes, I agree that it is not all the fault of the shipyards that build the vessels, which is why I wrote that Russian shipbuilding is not up to the task because it was and remains the weakest link of the military industrial complex

It has been the least useful... but use of precision guided missiles from corvettes and submarines has made Russia realise what a potent power it is and having them on subs and ocean going ships is extraordinary. Their disengagement from the west and so called pivot to the rest of the world will make their navy and merchant marine more important and a source of important revenue for the state, so the money and focus will come.

The Russian Air Force received all ordered planes and helicopters on time, all contracts were fulfilled. As for frontline and strategic aviation, there are no problems. I am 100% sure that the deadlines for the delivery of the Su-57 will also be met on time and within the stipulated period.
Yes, the problem is transport aviation and the Il-112 project is a tragedy. The only ones that are a little late in delivery are the Il-76MD-90A, as well as all its variants; tanker and AWACS variant. There is not even a completed prototype for the first Il-276 yet. In any case, the VVS is far better than the Russian Navy.

The Air Force was properly funded, but even they have serious problems... they got the Su-57 into production but at the cost of delaying the lighter fighter in that component... they are supposed to work together but the Su-57s are trickling in to service and the lighter fighter hasn't even flown yet that is going to be the numbers aircraft that makes up the bulk of the air force.

Their transport aircraft situation is terrible and is suffering because of the situation with their engines... their helicopters are in trouble too... not enough light helicopter engines... Ansat and Ka-226 using foreign engines, Mi-26 using Ukrainian engines... An-2, An-24/25/26/32, An-12, An-22, An-124 all needing urgent replacement... An-2 and the An-24-32s and An-12s are about to start falling from the skies... the An-22s already gone meaning the bigger heavier more expensive An-124s doing that job less efficiently... The An-2 is being replaced by the Baikal and L-410, the An-24-32s are being replaced by L-610s and Il-112s and Il-114s, the An-12s are supposed to be replaced by the Il-276 which has not been seen yet, the Tu-330 is nowhere to be seen either yet would be useful now the Tu-204 is in production, and of course the Il-476 is struggling to get into service and the Il-106 is nowhere to be seen as a replacement for the An-22, while Slon is just talk to replace the An-124.

Most are waiting on engines... how many crashes are we going to see before something happens and things start moving properly...

To be fair most of the aircraft were sabotaged by pro Ukraine pro motor sich factions who didn't want to see Il-106s or Il-476, or any replacement for any of the Antonovs not made by Antonov... and of course to keep the An-70 fiasco going too.[/quote]

GarryB wrote:I would think it would make sense for China to try to buy any system Russia might have developed, but I don't think they would have wanted to spend too much because they were already funding their own version... a purchase of a Russian system could have been a backup in case there were problems with the Chinese version, but I suspect the Russians said no because the Chinese probably didn't offer enough money... why spend a lot of money on Plan B when Plan A might be going OK.

Look, a Russia catapult would be more like Plan C. The Chinese already had prototypes for both steam catapults and EMALS.
The Chinese bought the carcass of the HMAS Melbourne and when they dismantled it, they basically carefully studied the steam catapults in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne_%28R21%29#Decommissioning_and_fate

The Chinese have been looking into a carrier program for a long, long, time.

Garry, it is not quite true that in the Russian GPV (Russian state rearmament program) the navy was not a priority. 10 Borei submarines, 9 Yasen submarines, Belgorod, Khabarovsk, plus over 16 non-nuclear submarines are under construction or have been built. Add to that 8 project 22350 frigates, 18 20380/5/6 corvettes, plus small missile ships, patrol ships, auxiliary ships. That's a huge amount of money. I think only the nuclear submarines under construction or already built (885 SSGN and 955 SSBN) cost more than all the Su-30SM/34/35S delivered to the Russian Air Force.
It is true that the Ukrainian "Zorya-Mashproekt" stopped supplying gas turbines back in 2014. The problem is not only that the Russians have not yet put their M90FR gas turbines and PO55P reducers into operational use, but the problem is that after the collapse of the USSR for over twenty years, they allowed their main supplier of gas turbines to be the unreliable and increasingly hostile Ukraine.
Aircraft carriers can serve Russia well only in peacetime conditions, because neither Russia nor any other country can use aircraft carriers in the Arctic Ocean. Another area is the Pacific, where the use of aircraft carriers makes the most sense. Russia can never build enough aircraft carriers to match the West and I think it is better to build a strong submarine fleet and a fleet made up of larger displacement surface ships (corvettes and destroyers) while for the rest of what an aircraft carrier costs it would be better to increase the aircraft fleet in VVS. The Russian army has always been primarily a ground army. Aircraft carriers have not won any war and will not win any war.
It is much better for Russia to finish both PAK-DA and PAK-DP than to build aircraft carriers.

Look, a Russia catapult would be more like Plan C.

Steam cats are a dead end and of little to no value... the soviets use steam systems to heat cities but even then how valuable would steam technology be to them now?

For EM cats the technology is all brand new and in everything... electric motors, super magnets, etc etc all relevant and useful in a wide range of technology fields... even if they weren't building carriers designing EM cats would be valuable... and they have been working on EM cats since the 1990s... not with a lot of money, but their hypersonic scramjet powered missiles don't seem to have suffered that same lack of money.

The Chinese have been looking into a carrier program for a long, long, time.

I don't doubt it...

But the US proudly claimed to be the first and then found they had problems.

Has China showed their Emals Cats actually work or have they put a ship with them in the water?

Garry, it is not quite true that in the Russian GPV (Russian state rearmament program) the navy was not a priority. 10 Borei submarines, 9 Yasen submarines, Belgorod, Khabarovsk, plus over 16 non-nuclear submarines are under construction or have been built.

The surface navy was the lowest priority of the armed forces... the strategic submarine force was a much higher priority but that does not effect carriers.

Add to that 8 project 22350 frigates, 18 20380/5/6 corvettes, plus small missile ships, patrol ships, auxiliary ships. That's a huge amount of money.

The amount of ships they are producing with the amount of funding they have been getting is astounding... that is why I didn't say there was a problem.

With the Army they really started funding them after 2008 in Georgia and for a half a decade it seemed like nothing was really happening, but of course it was. The C4ISTAR stuff has to be in place first and it has to be working properly... no point having super long range cruise missiles if you can't find targets and have no global navigation system for your use.

Satellites are being launched and infrastructure is being built and shipyards are being upgraded and modernised to prepare for an increase in ship building... both civilian and military... both are going to be important moving forward...

The point is that building 17 ships and then deciding they are not fit for purpose and the Navy has no use for them like the US Navy did with their LCS ships is not an option for the Russian Navy because scrapping 17 brand new ships and giving a contract to Italy to make some more conventional types is not an option financially for Russia.

The problem is not only that the Russians have not yet put their M90FR gas turbines and PO55P reducers into operational use, but the problem is that after the collapse of the USSR for over twenty years, they allowed their main supplier of gas turbines to be the unreliable and increasingly hostile Ukraine.

Cutting them out of their MIC would have just forced them into Americas arms much faster... and at the time they were spending their money on other things they needed to master first.

The technology and improvements in Russia have increased dramatically since the 1990s and staggering all the sanctions hits has made them easier to deal with and overcome.... cutting off Ukraine earlier would have just made things harder for Russia... cooperation with France over thermal imagers and many other technologies was very useful for Russia, and while they could have mastered such technologies themselves it would have taken longer and been much much more expensive... with no quality guarantees.

Aircraft carriers can serve Russia well only in peacetime conditions, because neither Russia nor any other country can use aircraft carriers in the Arctic Ocean.

Well technically an air defence carrier could be useful for Russia anywhere on the planet... in a WWIII against the west it would not make much difference to the result... we are all dead... but in any other conflict situation it is a powerful airdefence asset that could protect surface ships or land assets of allies.

Another area is the Pacific, where the use of aircraft carriers makes the most sense. Russia can never build enough aircraft carriers to match the West

The US will never send their carriers towards a Russian surface group with carrier air defence and hypersonic anti ship missiles to sink their ships... it is not a question of numbers.

The US has about 11 fixed wing aircraft carriers not counting marine VSTOL carriers... of those probably half are not available at all... under repair or upgrade... lets be generous and say that leaves 6 carriers... getting all 6 operational carriers to one sea would be quite an operation and not something that the Russians would not notice... but the point is that the Russian weapon for sinking US or UK or French aircraft carriers is not a Russian carrier... it is the supersonic and now hypersonic anti ship missile... it wont be Kuznetsovs that sink Nimitzs and Fords... it will be Yasens...

The Russian carrier is there to defend the Russian ships from enemy air attack whether it is fighters or missiles or submarines.... Russian ships have anti torpedo weapons and anti sub weapons and anti missile weapons... what they lack is solid airborne radar and fighter interceptor aircraft support... which is what aircraft carriers can provide.

and I think it is better to build a strong submarine fleet and a fleet made up of larger displacement surface ships (corvettes and destroyers) while for the rest of what an aircraft carrier costs it would be better to increase the aircraft fleet in VVS.

The VVS airfleet is going to be increased anyway.... now they have the MFS in service they need their LMFS as a numbers plane gap filler... and drones will multiply that even further to fill the gaps.

If you want to sail on the other side of the world you need a bigger ship with more endurance than a destroyer, and to defend such vessels you need a carrier.

If you think a carrier is too vulnerable then do you think Su-57s and Tu-160s should be scrapped because the airfields they operate from are too vulnerable... surely ground based radar and SAMs can do the job by themselves... no need for fighters or interceptors or AWACS platforms from terribly vulnerable huge airfields...

The Russian army has always been primarily a ground army. Aircraft carriers have not won any war and will not win any war.

Aircraft carriers for Russia are not about war, they are about peace... put yourself in the shoes of some small South American country... Russia wants to trade but America says no... you want to trade with Russia because America is a bully, but if Russia has corvettes and frigates and no carriers and the US parks its carrier off your starboard bow for exercises with your hostile neighbour... what is Russia going to do?

I admit sometimes it doesn't matter how many carriers you have... the US navy was fucking useless for Georgia and is not much use for Ukraine right now either... but time and time again around the world they were able to provide air power where and when needed.

Russia doesn't need 10 and shouldn't try to make them bigger than US carriers, but having aircraft carriers to support operations beyond the range of Russian based aircraft is valuable.

When people say they are too expensive they quote the 15 billion for the Ford class CVNs... there is simply no way in hell Russia carriers will be that much.

Even the Gorshkov mods for India cost 2.5 billion and that included the entire air component... to put that in perspective India spent 8.4 billion buying 36 Rafale fighters... no carrier... just aircraft.

In the late 1970s the British thought they saved some money by scrapping full sized carriers and building tiny 20K ton VSTOL helicopter carriers instead... but how many ships did they lose because they didn't have proper AWACS support... how much did they actually save?

France is building a new carrier and she has experience with carriers and she says her next carrier is going to be nuclear powered and in the 75K ton weight range with Emals cats... that is very very close to the Ulyanovsk design the Soviets came up with in the 1980s... accident?

Russia is going to finish off development of PAK DA and PAK DP and both will be very useful platforms too, but even just the PR and showmanship of a Russian carrier group visiting a country with a ship full of business people wanting to talk trade and government officials wanting to talk defence spending and purchases... it will be very busy and no one has to die... drumming up trade and supporting the military forces of other countries and helping them develop is Russias future.

Not doing what the US does... not imposing its own culture and language and ethics on other countries and demanding obedience just to be allowed to trade with them.

GarryB wrote:

They wont need dozens of carriers, and they wont need anything like the Nimitz or Ford class ships, but a 70-90K ton ship or two would be valuable.

Their helicopter landing ships might also be interesting in the sense that the second one under construction appears to be drone focused which might be very interesting... depending on what sort of drones it could embark...

This thinking outside the box is good.

fully agree with nuclear powered capital ships for Russian navy -  less bases are required to keep their presence in far sea zone.  As for hello carriers - of course drones will be added, on every ship now.  Perhaps VSTOL too  

Russian AC  in the official strategy document  were called   Морские авианесущие комплексы (МАК)  - Maritime aircraft carrying complex .  So looks like even name is out of the box :=)

GarryB wrote:

Especially that Su-75 was designed more less in the same time. Strikingly similar to Yak-201. What if can me modular a bit on F-35, yes without US ventilator but light small engines (on yak 14 their weight was 700kg) in the front it doesn't have to be bulky like a pregnant penguin. F-35.

Unless that nose mounted engine is electric then it burns fuel and has super hot exhaust with oxygen depleted hot gas... as the aircraft comes down closer to the deck or as it tries to take off... that hot oxy depleted air goes in the main engine intakes and the rear engine stalls and it drops like a rock and bursts into flames...

what had never happened with Yak-141 in reality.  We can always  argue but we cannot "aggregate" the facts. Please stick to them.  The only accident with flames was Yak 141's descend speed was too high as result of  pilot's action or human error as it is called.  Please compare to other  types of aircraft.   Let's  Su-57 or Mig-29k/Su-33? oh they actually  did.

You can of course believe that technology is not making progress but please note that:

1) how many crashes had F-35b by landing? oh right,  none.

2) could space rockets land vertically on the sea platform in 80s?

GarryB wrote:

but here we do agree, that's why imho small number of smaller aircraft carriers with Su-75 shall do the trick.

They already tried that with Kiev class mini carriers and VSTOL fighters which were awful.

Small carriers are expensive too and having to have more of them makes them more expensive than fewer bigger carriers... and the point is smaller carriers with shit VSTOL fighters are worse than nothing because nothing would be free.

CVN  100kton costs 5 (Shtorm optimistically calculated) -13 billions $ (Ford Class) .  Light AC like  Juan Carlos (Spanishunversal carrier/lhd)  cost ~500$ millions . Juan Carlos has all equipment to be light aircraft carrier.  

Thus Russian imho would go to build 2-4 smaller nuclear powered carriers/universal carriers for Su-75. Hopefully in VSTOL version.  I'd bet on 20 mad 30 fighters + AWACS/drones.  35-50ktons.


yup the cost between the big carrier and a light carrier is between 1/3 and 1/10. OF course for you the price might not matter but for Russian planners it does Im afraid. As for Kiev not bad but Yak-38 was a close support plane not a fighter. We are talkingabout fighters now.


So one big, easier do sink, what wprse   can be only in one place in time.

GB wrote:

Damn I got to second that!  Yet me thinks Russian aircraft  carriers will be even smaller .   Cost of smaller AC can be 1/3 to 1/4 costs of Gerald Ford CVN. One big is not better then 3 small.    That's why smaller jet fighters will be welcome. And here it comes Su-75.

But again only speculation

Look at their experience... Kiev, Kuznetsov, Ulyanovsk... the Kiev was way too small and its VSTOL fighters were a joke, the Kuznetsov is still too small because it lacks decent AWACS, and Ulyanovsk is to be a nuclear powered 75K ton carrier with steam cats... which was state of the art at the time... 35 years later it is EM cats and probably more drones.

The point is that another Kuznetsov is not going to be that much cheaper to operate or buy and will actually be more expensive to operate and less capable.

In your logic bigger ship is less expensive then smaller one. So be it, but first please show me data proving this? BTW Kiev was not an aircraft carrier  but a battlecruiser with an air  wing. Yak-38 wasn't really a fighter same as MiG-27.  Yak-141 was to be the real fighter to defend the fleet grouping. Similar characteristics to MiG-29 , same avionics/radar.  AFAIK Soviet military wanted to change modus of operandi to very short take off - like 60-120m with full load. This was one of reasons for delay  of Yak-141 programme.


Ulyanovsk was classified also as aircraft carrying carrier otherwise couldn't pass through Bosphorus  :d and she had 12 VLS for Granits and also Yak-141 were foreseen as a fighter besides Su-33. Who knows if adding Zircons to Russian carriers will continue?

GARRYB wrote:

Not really more expensive since this one demonstrator is to fly in 2023 ... it's called Su-75

More likely 2025, but the Su-75 is a single engined fighter and it is intended for export first and foremost... and it is not VSTOL either (which is a good thing in my opinion).

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps not. Borisov in 2018 wasn't talking just like that about new fighter for the navy. Military must have asked to STOL/VSTOL deck fighter. It wasn't me        Of course this might be another fighter from MiG but why to multiply fighters?

Su-75 with izdelye 30 can and 2x45kN vertical thrust can have mtow ~24t and still lift vertically.

GB wrote:

As for VSTOL - adding 2 engines of vertical thrust (in Yak-141 2x290 kg) and got VSTOL. I guess Su-75 was designed with assumptions to be modular and easy to be unmanned or VSTOL.

If it was just that simple the Yak-141 would be in service...

so much  negativity if it wasn't possible then space rockets would never land vertically. But they do.  Technology really advanced over last 50 years!

GB wrote:

I actually like this airship AWACS idea. I would be great seeing Russians experiment with this.

It is very much a neglected technology... if you could make it out of ultra light strong materials you could potentially take advantage of the trade winds to move quite rapidly around the place too.

A very green way to travel with solar panels and electric motors and new battery technology.

But you could not land such a big airship on the deck it had to be hauled lon a really long cable...[/quote]

Podlodka77 wrote:Any talk about aircraft carriers is redundant until the issue of the construction of enlarged project 22350M frigates is resolved and the construction of SSN submarines is increased.

But all of this is happening now. Sure could be better, always but step by step is done. What is called a process. AC is important and nobody claimed it's gonne be launched next year. Especially that not even preliminary design was offcially accepted. .

The same applies to the Nakhimov cruiser, Admiral Chabanenko, Chelyabinsk, project 971 submarines, etc. Sevmash is building strategic submarines of project 955A at a solid pace while project 885M is delayed - again (Arkangelsk is 7.5 years under construction and has not been launched), although it is clear that Russia MUST have at least twice as many SSN as SSBN submarines.

are you trying to say Russian admiralty doesnt see this?

The weakest link is precisely the construction of surface warships with a larger displacement.

The AC will be built on Far East, where steel works are to be opened. But building and equipping and hiring staff takes some time. On the other hands -no way anyone can block any strait and not let Russian CSG to sail high seas...what is great advantage over Baltic and Black See.




[/quote]

As for hello carriers - of course drones will be added, on every ship now.

To be clear a helicopter landing ship has very specific roles, it is to support a landing force and carries naval infantry and their armour plus landing ships to get the armour ashore faster and also a variety of helicopters including attack helicopters and transport helicopters to support the landing.

They might have a few drones but any extra drones or VSTOL fighters would be stupid because it detracts from its performance as a helicopter carrier.

Having two carriers in production where one is a helicopter carrier (with troops and armour and landing ships) and the other is an experimental helicopter carrier with drones makes sense because if it turns out to be shit or just not good just yet because drones are not mature enough then you can convert it to carry troops and armour and helicopters... no problems.

They talked about launching systems for drones that catapult drones into the air that are not built in to the deck... perhaps a crane like arm that can be pointed into the wind or angled up or down as needed that uses some propulsion method... EM or compressed air or some such thing... would be very interesting to test too... especially if it could be placed on the deck of a ship and used to launch all sorts of different drones.

Perhaps VSTOL too

VSTOL drones make sense... VSTOL fighters make no sense at all.

Maritime aircraft carrying complex

Suitably vague name.

what had never happened with Yak-141 in reality. We can always argue but we cannot "aggregate" the facts. Please stick to them. The only accident with flames was Yak 141's descend speed was too high as result of pilot's action or human error as it is called.

The Yak-141s crash was filmed and they know exactly what happened... as it came in to land hot gas from the engine exhaust went in to the main front air intakes and caused a surge and a stall leading to the aircraft dropping on to the deck where the main undercarriage ruptured a belly fuel tank (internal fuel tank, not an external tank which can't be carried on the aircraft because of the heat the main engine generates during landing). The fuel ignited and started a spectacular fire which killed the programme.

1) how many crashes had F-35b by landing? oh right, none.

2) could space rockets land vertically on the sea platform in 80s?

Anything can be made to land vertically... but why waste a billion dollars to achieve that when the final design is less capable than a more conventional solution?

Why turn an Mi-24 Hind into a light fighter plane when the MiG-21 already does a much better job than a Mi-24 could ever possibly be able to achieve?

CVN 100kton costs 5 (Shtorm optimistically calculated) -13 billions $ (Ford Class) .

We don't know what a Russian 100K ton CVN would cost because they haven't built one, but you can bet your ass it would not cost as much as an American made one.

An F-22 cost 250 billion per aircraft to make, much more right now... does that mean the Su -57 costs even a fraction of that to make?

The price of Russian and US military equipment is not comparable and not related.

Thus Russian imho would go to build 2-4 smaller nuclear powered carriers/universal carriers for Su-75. Hopefully in VSTOL version. I'd bet on 20 mad 30 fighters + AWACS/drones. 35-50ktons.

Your numbers are wrong a small nuclear powered carrier will not be a quarter of the price of a real carrier and operationally it will not be much cheaper to operate either, which means four mini carriers would cost more to operate and use than two decent sized effective carriers... France has experience with all sorts of carriers and their next carrier is going to be a 75K ton nuclear powered carrier with EMALS cats.

Cats are not for fighters... they are for AWACS aircraft which would make or break an aircraft carrier.

The British carriers used in the Falklands war had AEW in the form of Helicopters and their ability to protect the fleet was pathetic... as shown by the number of ships lost.

Their tiny size meant lack of anti sub component helicopters so it was always in fear of being sunk and sat back from the proceedings leading to ships being ambushed and sunk by some very brave and not so well equipped enemy pilots.

yup the cost between the big carrier and a light carrier is between 1/3 and 1/10. OF course for you the price might not matter but for Russian planners it does Im afraid. As for Kiev not bad but Yak-38 was a close support plane not a fighter. We are talkingabout fighters now.

The Yak-38 was nothing. A complete waste of metal and money and energy... in many ways mounting weapons on a helicopter would have made more sense... like the Ka-52K.

So one big, easier do sink, what wprse can be only in one place in time.

Saying that does not make it true. How many 100K US carriers have been sunk?

In your logic bigger ship is less expensive then smaller one

No. In my logic carriers are expensive, but big carriers are worth every penny and small shit carriers are worse than nothing because nothing would be free.

Yak-141 was to be the real fighter to defend the fleet grouping. Similar characteristics to MiG-29 , same avionics/radar.

It was cancelled because it was never close to ever achieving those claimed characteristics... different avionics and different radar... and pathetic armament... four wing pylons for weapons and a single 30mm cannon. Zero capacity to store any weapons on the belly of the aircraft because of the airflow issues.

AFAIK Soviet military wanted to change modus of operandi to very short take off - like 60-120m with full load. This was one of reasons for delay of Yak-141 programme.

All planes that were vertical take off benefited from a rolling takeoff, but a rolling takeoff and then a problem means you have to dump all that ordinance and most of your fuel if you want to land vertically safely.

Ulyanovsk was classified also as aircraft carrying carrier otherwise couldn't pass through Bosphorus :d and she had 12 VLS for Granits and also Yak-141 were foreseen as a fighter besides Su-33. Who knows if adding Zircons to Russian carriers will continue?

They could have put a bank of Redut vertical launch tubes for SAMs and called it an air defence cruiser... the terms of the agreement define an aircraft carrier as a ships whose sole operational purpose is to carry and operate aircraft. At the time the Granits were there to sink enemy ships because the Su-33s were air defence fighters and interceptors only with no anti surface weapons except dumb bombs and Kh-31 short range anti radiation and anti ship missiles.

Su-75 with izdelye 30 can and 2x45kN vertical thrust can have mtow ~24t and still lift vertically.

The internal volume and weight those two vertical lift engines will take up, plus the piping for high pressure gas thrusters to the tip of the nose and the tail and the wing tips will all add weight and points of failure to the design... but will make manouvering and speed and range all worse for the ability to be able to take off and land from smaller and much less capable ships. The vertical engines are exceptional in terms of their power to weight ratio but for most operations they are dead weight and wasted space which is critical for a 5th gen fighter that has internal fuel and internal weapons.

so much negativity Smile if it wasn't possible then space rockets would never land vertically. But they do. Technology really advanced over last 50 years!

America... throwing money and problems that are not problems.

The only place a space rocket would benefit from a powered landing would be on the moon because it has no atmosphere and parachutes and wings don't work there... even on earth it is stupid... carry lots of extra fuel to land because parachutes are so old news... what a bunch of .

But you could not land such a big airship on the deck it had to be hauled lon a really long cable..

Why would you land it on a deck? Give it a water tight gondola and have it land and operate on the water itself... if it is light enough to fly you can bet your ass it is light enough to float.

But all of this is happening now. Sure could be better, always but step by step is done. What is called a process. AC is important and nobody claimed it's gonne be launched next year. Especially that not even preliminary design was offcially accepted. .

Aircraft carriers are enormously complex... the smaller ones even more so... they take a decade to design and build... which is good because it spreads the cost of building them over a more affordable time period.

The AC will be built on Far East, where steel works are to be opened. But building and equipping and hiring staff takes some time. On the other hands -no way anyone can block any strait and not let Russian CSG to sail high seas...what is great advantage over Baltic and Black See.

And those shipyards will also be building ships to take oil and gas and other Russian resources directly to the rest of the world, bypassing western companies who previously set limits and took big cuts of the profits...

Here is what actually happened to the Yak-41 on that particular day of the accident >>

The second prototype took off with a heavy load and after doing a circuit attempted a VTOL landing on the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier.  The pilot hovered over the flight deck at from a fairly high altitude. That particular altitude was considered excessive. The aircraft suddenly became unstable and during the rapid descent the pilot somehow  moved the throttle to the full idle position and the aircraft fell onto the deck from 13 meters, collapsing the landing gear and bursting into flames. Dropping from that height was just too much for the aircraft. They are designed to absorb such impact from 5 meters above the deck.

Flight test continued after this accident, but the Soviet Union collapsed and the program (like so many others) came to an abrupt halt.

Many western observers credited the "Freestyle" as at least 15-20 years ahead of the nearest western rivals and this fact was confirmed when the Yakolev OKB's test pilot Andrey Sinitsen established 12 world records in the Yak-41 during April 1991.

I will post more info on the Yaks in a more appropriate thread in the near future.

One of the factors to consider is the propulsion system of any new follow on carrier.
What size will it be?
Will it be nuclear, or conventional?

The Gorshkov class turbine which is the currently manufactured is rated around 28 000hp per unit.
To build something in the size class of Kuznetsov as a follow on would require too many of these to be viable...probably around 8 units.
Then there is the question of which types of catapults...if conventional, then steam is required to be generated.
If EM, then a huge amount of surplus power is required.

If a larger turbine is required, say based on the PD-35 then its development time has to be considered.

If an EM catapult is required, a nuclear propulsion system looks likely.
But that comes with other issues.

If a smaller carrier is looked at, perhaps 4 of the current turbines might be sufficient, but then I guess you lose the catapults.

wilhelm wrote:One of the factors to consider is the propulsion system of any new follow on carrier.
What size will it be?
Will it be nuclear, or conventional?

The Gorshkov class turbine which is the currently manufactured is rated around 28 000hp per unit.
To build something in the size class of Kuznetsov as a follow on would require too many of these to be viable...probably around 8 units.
Then there is the question of which types of catapults...if conventional, then steam is required to be generated.
If EM, then a huge amount of surplus power is required.

If a larger turbine is required, say based on the PD-35 then its development time has to be considered.

If an EM catapult is required, a nuclear propulsion system looks likely.
But that comes with other issues.

If a smaller carrier is looked at, perhaps 4 of the current turbines might be sufficient, but then I guess you lose the catapults.

Just recently the Russians announced a new naval doctrine that should have a dramatic effect on the number of ships and submarines in the future Russian Navy. Even before that the Russians announced their intention to construct a new class of nuclear powered aircraft carriers and I guess this could be fast tracked to comply with the new doctrine.

They also have the much smaller Varan conventionally powered carriers as a possible future option and should fit perfectly into the new doctrine. I think these are also said to have EM type catapults incorporated into the design?

Its still very much speculation but I think EM catapults should be the norm in future.

Sorry Wilhelm I had to take an extended supper break

Just to elaborate >> there are currently four(five?) carrier concepts that have made it into model form - so far.

The largest one in terms of displacement is the Storm class at 100 000 tons.
The Lamantin is actually slightly longer than the Storm but has a smaller displacement of between 70-80 000 tons.
Both are nuclear powered carriers equipped with ski jumps as well as EMALS/CATOBAR.
The Storm has a capacity for 90 aircraft whilst the Lamantin has 60 aircraft.
The documentary Combat Approved once featured a gigantic carrier model in the background but it remains a mystery?
Another model was a Krylov design. It has a very wide deck but it has no hanger facilities, which makes it a dead end for the Russian Navy in my opinion.

The Varan carrier that I've mentioned earlier is a much smaller design at 45 000 tons and the whole concept is part of a family of large ships that includes support ships and helicopter carriers. The Varan will use existing conventional engines like the one you've mentioned earlier and has capacity for 30 aircraft.

I think the Russian may go for something like the Lamantin as it is a natural progression from the cancelled Ulyanovsk design, but the Varan offers a cheap alternative and can be constructed by most ship yards around Russia. The model looks very clean in that it shows no weapons fit but from what I've read it will have SAM's and other weapon systems.

Mir wrote:
Another model was a Krylov design. It has a very wide deck but it has no hanger facilities, which makes it a dead end for the Russian Navy in my opinion.

Most people are missing that Krylov submitted three concepts (not designs, since that is not their intent most of the time), one being the Storm and then two models of semi-catamaran hulls based on a patent by them which offers substantial increases in flight deck area, propulsive efficiency and air wing size to displacement ratio. This is not trivial and actually lies at the core of a design's military effectiveness, so it is obvious that it should be pursued, if technologically mature enough for actual construction and operation. The bigger of the two wide deck designs was expected to have 60 kT displacement, combined nuclear propulsion and electromechanic catapults, plus a very complete air wing. Ergo the ideal design for the VMF if you ask me. Of course both models had hangars, in fact much bigger than what would be expected by its displacement, due to the very wide and spacious hull.

One further comment about Krylov's statements that I think went misunderstood: they talked about nuclear propulsion being expensive, but they were talking about pure nuclear propulsion as in having enough power both for cruise and boost demands, which indeed drives up substantially the size of the NPP and associated equipment. But other options like CONAG are available, which provide the right combination between power, range and cost.

Here is what actually happened to the Yak-41 on that particular day of the accident >>

The second prototype took off with a heavy load and after doing a circuit attempted a VTOL landing on the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier. The pilot hovered over the flight deck at from a fairly high altitude. That particular altitude was considered excessive. The aircraft suddenly became unstable and during the rapid descent the pilot somehow moved the throttle to the full idle position and the aircraft fell onto the deck from 13 meters, collapsing the landing gear and bursting into flames. Dropping from that height was just too much for the aircraft. They are designed to absorb such impact from 5 meters above the deck.

Yeah, that is the official story because the likelyhood of the pilot forgetting what is full power and what is no power is enormous on any aircraft, while hot air ingestion leading to an engine stall and drop on to the deck and fire is much much harder to fix.

The main proposed solution was a forward mounted lift fan powered by the main single engine, which would blow cold oxygen rich air down at the front of the aircraft ofsetting the hot oxygen depleted air the rear mounted engine nozzle was blowing... in fact angle the front fan forwards 5 degrees and you could afford to angle the rear engine a few degrees backwards directing the hot air away from the front air intakes for the main jet engine.... you also reduce the temperatures of the engine exhaust hitting the underside of the belly of the aircraft... perhaps to the point of maybe even allowing external weapon pylons being fitted there to increase the meagre weapon payload capacity.

They sold that to America for the F-35... it seems the internal fan needs to be rather big and consumes a lot of internal volume which makes the aircraft fatter and requires rather more engine power which makes the engine more expensive and creates other problems too.

Many western observers credited the "Freestyle" as at least 15-20 years ahead of the nearest western rivals and this fact was confirmed when the Yakolev OKB's test pilot Andrey Sinitsen established 12 world records in the Yak-41 during April 1991.

The company that makes it saying it is amazing is no surprise, and the category it established world records in was not a demanding field.

One of the factors to consider is the propulsion system of any new follow on carrier.
What size will it be?
Will it be nuclear, or conventional?

No question it will be nuclear but probably electric nuclear.

The Gorshkov class turbine which is the currently manufactured is rated around 28 000hp per unit.
To build something in the size class of Kuznetsov as a follow on would require too many of these to be viable...probably around 8 units.

They are installing very powerful nuclear reactors in Ice Breaking ships right now that generate more power than the units the US uses in its nuclear powered carriers.

The power from each of the Fords new reactors is estimated to be 700 MW(thermal). The RITM-400 compact third gen reactor is supposed to generate about 315 MW, the Ford class has two reactors... having four reactors on a new Russian CVN wont be a problem... in fact in terms of battle damage I would think four reactors would actually be a good idea on an electric powered vessel you have a lot more flexibility as to where you place them.

Then there is the question of which types of catapults...if conventional, then steam is required to be generated.

Steam cats are obsolete.

You don't start designing a new sniper rifle with a smoothbore musket flintlock as the basis.

If EM, then a huge amount of surplus power is required.

With an electric drive ship with AESA radars and all sorts of other exotic systems lots of surplus power is going to be essential either way.

If an EM catapult is required, a nuclear propulsion system looks likely.
But that comes with other issues.

AFAIK their plans are for nuclear powered destroyers and cruisers, so nuclear propulsion systems are going to be needed.

If a smaller carrier is looked at, perhaps 4 of the current turbines might be sufficient, but then I guess you lose the catapults.

They have been down the road of a smaller carrier... they are not cheap, and they are too small.

Their experience with the Kuznetsov... which was a small carrier design... the smallest they could operate MiG-29s and Su-33s on, and they also planned and started making a bigger ship, the Ulyanovsk. They have decided that Kuznetsov lacks the onboard capacity for long international operations and want something bigger.

Its still very much speculation but I think EM catapults should be the norm in future.

We need to keep in mind that for the US and the west, they need EM cats for all their aircraft to be launched... fighters and bombers and AWACS platforms.

With a larger carrier the Russians might only have two EM CAT launchers and their use would mainly be with AWACS platforms and perhaps an inflight refuelling aircraft based on the same aircraft design. It is very likely that the heavy fighter will be the Su-57K and will carry most weapons internally and its high thrust to weight ratio, large wing area, and low external drag due to most weapons being internal should be better able to take off than Su-33s which are bigger and heavier and with less engine power even in the current Su-57 model... made worse by the newer engines for the Su-57 which should be standard production by the time they lay down their first CVN.

Most people are missing that Krylov submitted three concepts (not designs, since that is not their intent most of the time), one being the Storm and then two models of semi-catamaran hulls based on a patent by them which offers substantial increases in flight deck area, propulsive efficiency and air wing size to displacement ratio. This is not trivial and actually lies at the core of a design's military effectiveness, so it is obvious that it should be pursued, if technologically mature enough for actual construction and operation. The bigger of the two wide deck designs was expected to have 60 kT displacement, combined nuclear propulsion and electromechanic catapults, plus a very complete air wing. Ergo the ideal design for the VMF if you ask me. Of course both models had hangars, in fact much bigger than what would be expected by its displacement, due to the very wide and spacious hull.

The main focus in the west is about ship tonnage because it indicates how many aircraft the ship can operate for long periods... with clever outside the box design if they can develop a 45K ton ship that has the deck area and hangar space of a 90K ton ship then you are not only saving enormous amounts on propulsion power, but you are also cutting down operational costs... which is obviously a very good thing... BUT only if you are not sacrificing space and aircraft numbers and systems that are essential to do so.

If they can design a multihull design CAT design with an enormous hangar and aircraft carrying performance and has no serious vices in open ocean operations, then that is very much worth pursuing.

One factor I would mention is that these ships are fighting ships and operationally the more aircraft you keep on deck the better because it takes time and coordination to put aircraft down into the hangar and get them back out again... the location of the lifts doesn't move so if you have ten planes in the way you need space to select a plane in that line of 11 aircraft to get the aircraft you want out... which means you can have wall to wall planes stacked in there but having to lift 6 aircraft out to get the 7th out and then put those 6 back is a pain in the backside.

Go into the inwards/outwards dock of a large shop or organisation and you will find areas for stock on pallets that are very clear which leaves space around those pallets so people and pallets can be moved in and out of the room... an aircraft hangar would be the same... areas where planes cannot be parked to allow access to all planes without having to move planes and helicopters... especially the ones in pieces.

During battle operations your planes and helicopters are weapons so you want all operational aircraft on the deck ready to be moved to a launch position and launched or recovered and set aside ready to be refuelled and armed.

For safety reasons arming and fueling happens on the deck.

One further comment about Krylov's comments that I think went misunderstood: they talked about nuclear propulsion being expensive, but they were talking about pure nuclear propulsion as in having enough power both for cruise and boost demands, which indeed drives up substantially the size of the NPP and associated equipment. But other options like CONAG are available, which provide the right combination between power, range and cost.

I would hope experience with nuclear powered Destroyers and nuclear powered Cruisers should mean they have enough experience with all electric drive ships to make it combined electric nuclear drive... where the reactors just generate electricity, which is used to propel the ship and power the systems.

On a very large ship there would be small generators of diesel and gas turbine types as backup for essential systems I would think.

At the very least they will need to have a bunker for enormous volumes of aviation fuel for aircraft and drones

GarryB wrote:
while hot air ingestion leading to an engine stall and drop on to the deck and fire is much much harder to fix.

Yes this is exactly why they design these VTOL aircraft to withstand an impact from about 5 meters - hot air ingestion from about 5 meters leading to engine surge is a well known issue with VTOL aircraft. However the aircraft dropped from 13 meters which is quite a different story all together.[/quote]

GarryB wrote:The company that makes it saying it is amazing is no surprise, and the category it established world records in was not a demanding field.

"Many western observers credited the "Freestyle" as at least 15-20 years ahead of the nearest  western rivals" is not exactly "the company" saying its amazing  
AND I guess you can say the same thing about the Mig-25's records - not much competition there either...or any other record for that matter...

Yes this is exactly why they design these VTOL aircraft to withstand an impact from about 5 meters - hot air ingestion from about 5 meters leading to engine surge is a well known issue with VTOL aircraft. However the aircraft dropped from 13 meters which is quite a different story all together.

In good weather conditions 5 metres might be good enough, but in the Mid Atlantic in heavy seas... they need a better solution.

Their engine nozzle design has improved to the point where they could put proper articulated nozzles on the main and lift engines and therefore do away with the tail and nose and wingtip puffer jets for fine manouvering in the hover, but I personally think they will need something like an electric jet engine that does not heat the air in the airflow and does not burn fuel for a lift jet solution... when you are landing and taking off you don't need to use your radar so there should be plenty of excess electricity available, but ideally they need a solution where the lift jets can also be used in forward flight so they are not dead weight useless most of the time.

"Many western observers credited the "Freestyle" as at least 15-20 years ahead of the nearest  western rivals" is not exactly "the company" saying its amazing dunno  
AND I guess you can say the same thing about the Mig-25's records - not much competition there either...or any other record for that matter...

But being better than rivals is a sales pitch... it is not a practical thing.

The Yak-141 being ahead of the Harrier is a stretch... some models of Harrier had better payloads, the sea harrier had an excellent radar... and they were in service doing  the job.

The Yak-141 would have been rather better if there was no requirement for being supersonic... they could give it a decent profile wing to provide more lift at low and subsonic speeds... AFAIK there were never plans to have the Yak-141 on its own on an aircraft carrier, it was more a rival to the MiG-29K as a shorter range carrier fighter so high speed long range stuff could be done by the Su-33, while the Yak-141s operated closer to the ships and provided airborne radar sets and essentially the equivalent of a deployable S-350 system with a gun and with rather less missiles.

The Yak-141 promised a lot but didn't really deliver on anything... its nose was smaller than the MiG-29Ks so its radar would need to be smaller, and its single engine was a whopper, but it was not as fast as a MiG-29K either.

MiG has a new twin engine small carrier fighter planned... it will be more than a model at an airshow, and to replace the Su-33 they have already said they have the Su-57 in a naval form... which is ideal... carrier aircraft are never made in substantial numbers so if you can get one related to a land based aircraft then that is the best possible situation even though the carrier model will be more expensive you are using already paid for development money.

The amount of money they would need to spend to get a working useful VSTOL fighter is probably enough to pay for a bigger carrier and with a bigger carrier you get better aircraft and a better carrier.

Ironically if you remove the supersonic speed requirement the Ka-52K is a good substitute for the Yak-141.

Vertical takeoff, AESA radar, 6 weapon pylons, plus 30mm cannon with probably 3 to 4 times more ammo ready to fire... already in service in a different version for land forces... can take off quickly and safely and spin in place to scan the airspace around a ship out to decent distances.

The ships it will be operating with will have the naval versions of S-350 and S-400 and S-500 so targets 300km away skimming the surface of the water can be intercepted by ship based SAMs... they just need an AESA radar in the air to find the targets over the radar horizon... S-350s are ARH so targets at 60km or 150km can be engaged down to sea level if you know where the targets are and with airborne radar you can see them on radar directly.

The amount of money they would need to spend to get a working useful VSTOL fighter is probably enough to pay for a bigger carrier and with a bigger carrier you get better aircraft and a better carrier.

Frankly yak-141 already exists and if I'm not wrong they were already working on its stealthy replacement.

If they use its blueprints and modify the airframe to make it a more stealthy fighter it will be a very good poabe to use on their heli carriers for a low cost. That like mig-29 --> mig-35 work. Nothing close to creating an all new plane.

For the Kuznetsov they can just use mig-35 which is already navalized from the begining.

I'am totally for building a smaller carrier like the semi-catamaran one to gain experience and then build a bigger one. It would be ready at the same time as su-75 if they start it now.

Isos wrote:
Frankly yak-141 already exists and if I'm not wrong they were already working on its stealthy replacement.

The Yak-41 was about to be developed into a much stealthier version - the Yak-41M. They also had a STOL version planned - the Yak-43.
The next step was an even more advanced version known in some circles as the Yak-200. An apparent model of it made an appearance on the Varan carrier concept.

Isos wrote:For the Kuznetsov they can just use mig-35 which is already navalized from the begining.

That is basically the Mig-29KR.
The more realistic approach would be the Su-57K which is not much bigger than the Mig-35 and far superior.

Now that I've mentioned the Su-57K >>>

The Su-27KUB and all its planned variants comes to mind. A side-by-side two seater Su-57KUB could be interesting - developing it into bomber, AEW, ECM and tanker variants.