This is a good example of the closed thinking system carrier detractors often employ.
It is also something western experts will encourage... you have lots of oil and gas and we need oil and gas so why not we buy your oil and gas at a very reasonable price and then you use those Euros and US dollars to buy everything you need from us... food, airliners, agricultural machinery... you don't need to make anything so anything you do make you can send by truck or rail to our ports and we can send it around the world for you so you wont need a navy.
Of course a few years later when they want to damage your economy and start playing bullshit games with the price of gas and oil to try to bankrupt you... you suddenly realise it was a trap, and it certainly suited them much more than it suited you.
It used to be that Russia oil and gas and other resources were either piped or were shipped on european owned ships run by european shipping companies, and the insurance was mostly done in London by people who hate Russia.
They knew everything Russia was doing and how much was being bought and who was buying, and they control the markets so they can control the price essentially.
The Russian Navy needs to plan for a future without cooperation or trade with the west... in fact a potential future where the west is still actively acting against Russia and her trade partners.
Who can say what their aircraft carriers will be carrying in 30 years time... they might be drone ships that look more like container ships with VSTOL drones from Scifi movies today... in the 1980s that is what we thought the 2025s would be like... in the 1950s when ramjets were the next new thing... remember the cartoon Roger Ramjet? Everything was getting faster and the speed of sound had been broken so everyone thought we would just be getting faster and faster and by the 1980s we would have bases on the moon and planes would fly at mach 5 or something.
Of course that didn't take into consideration of the heat problems of flying that fast or the energy required meaning lots and lots of fuel is needed too.
It wasn't till we tinkered with things that we found that mach 3 is already probably too fast for most things except interceptors and that it is easier to make the missiles go that fast instead of the manned aircraft.
For the Russians the two core features of an aircraft carrier that appeal is the AWACS capacity which is high altitude 360 degree radar coverage from the sea surface to space, and also the high speed mobile missile platforms called fighter planes that can be used in peace and in war to go out and investigate things and deal with them or retreat while other forces are sent to deal with the problem if they can't handle it.
Keep in mind that right now a MiG-29KR can fly 600km out to a group of targets on a radar screen to see what they are from a safe distance... if it turns out to be a problem... like an enemy ship approaching at high speed it can feed the target data including radar and IR signatures to the nearest friendly ship or sub who can launch an Onyx or Zircon to deal with it.
One of the more interesting technologies they are working on is long range SAMs or AAMs that carry a cluster of independent missiles to engage multiple targets with one long range missile. Imagine a 2 ton S-500 missile sitting in a launch tube on a ship that carries 8 independent AAMs as a payload... an approaching swarm of anti ship missiles detected at long range by aircraft and you fire a half dozen of these 600km range SAMs that might kill a half a dozen missile threats each... that seriously depletes the attack... even more so if instead of the missiles at 600km they hit Hornets carrying anti ship missiles, or a group of C-130 transport planes carrying a launcher for cargo bay loaded missiles that are released out the rear in flight.
The point is that having a fighter aircraft there with a modern AESA and modern IIR sensor equipment means you can accurately assess the threat and therefore make better choices in dealing with the threat in peace time and at war.
I don't think aircraft carriers will be a lot of use in WWIII, but I do think that during peace time they will be very important... not just training with new trade partners, but also giving them the confidence that you have reach and power and are not going to leave them on their own if the west decides to bully them.
I would also add that countries like Brazil and South Africa might be in the market for surface fleets themselves as their economies grow and develop.
But it's not gonna happen in the near future. They would also need a new destroyer type ship. They don't have a ship armed enough to protect it and certainly not in enough numbers. Gorshkov's 32 9m96 aren't enough. Such target would need to face hundreds of missiles.
They have a lot of shipyards and it seems to me they went from very little use to minor upgrades to now having no space for new jobs because military and civilian orders are overwhelming them. They want to further upgrade and improve their shipyards but when a berth becomes free it is filled.
Russia has been investing in their shipyards and more is needed, but they are making progress and bigger shipyards are coming as well as large floating docks which further expands production capacity too. The ports along the northern coast will be rejuvenated to support shipping traffic along the northern sea route, which should also expand capacity because not only are they building more ships but they also need to support the operation of more ships... when they make aircraft carriers it is not a case of have a 350m long dock... construct a ship and then it is all over... they already have the Kuznetsov and any new ships they build will need overhauls and upgrades every 4-5 years or so, which means the more large shipyards they have the better... because they will also be making tankers of 350Ktons and cargo ships and all sorts of other things that are going to need big docks to make and to support.
It is, however, heading in the right direction... they are not going to make 10 CVNs and they wont have 7 fleets around the world dominating every ocean.
They probably won't appear for the next 20 years, so the discussion about Russian aircraft carriers is SF.
Even if it does take 20 years before a new CV hits the water... and it will be a CVN... that means it will likely be laid down in about 12-14 years time... which is not that far away in any terms.
Currently they only have four 22350 frigates and their production rate is very slow
They are frigate sized multirole ships... something they have never had before. The complexity is enormous and the technology is impressive.... these new frigates have the capabilities of several different destroyers of the previous generation... they can carry hypersonic anti ship missiles more powerful than the missiles only their cruisers could carry, and they can carry SAMs with almost four times the range of the missiles their cruisers carried, not to mention anti sub weapons with two and a half times the flight speed of the anti sub weapons the Udaloy and Kirov classes carried... the SS-N-14 was subsonic...
And of course they had to design and put into serial production full propulsion systems and there were problems with the gun and the SAMs which seem to have been ironed out.
Compare that with the US LCS programme... not picking on the US or anything, but the worlds last super power built 16 ships before they realised they were crap and then cancelled the entire idea and ordered some Gorshkov like ships from Italy... and last I heard they were changing things and screwing the design up...
They have tested the ship in the water and have decided on a few modifications which will be applied to a new ship so there is no urgency at the moment to mass produce them till they have tested the improved model to see if that is better and is value for money. If it is then switch to the new design and start mass production...30-40 would be useful... and the experience will be useful for the design of the destroyers to come... which will likely be nuclear electric.
Ironically making nuclear powered ships will probably be quicker and easier... but not cheaper... but over time it will be cost effective.
In addition, Russia will spend money on priorities and after 2022 the priority will be the land army and aviation. As for the navy, nuclear and conventional submarines. In all these plans, aircraft carriers and blue fleets are far away.
The separation of Russia and Europe and the west will mean a blue water navy will be more important than ever before. Russia needs to present itself to the rest of the world without the western middle man distorting things and boosting prices up.
I have to agree with Arrow here. As of now, civil shipbuilding should be priority (icebreakers, merchant marine, tankers, LNG carriers, etc.).
If they are that urgent then have them built in China or India... or Turkey... or any country that did not impose western sanctions on Russia.
If they really urgently need aircraft carrier, fastest solution would be to order it from China.
There is no urgent need for an aircraft carrier... they have one. Two helicopter carriers are on their way too.
The problem is that in 20 years from now the Su-57K will be near obsolete - not to mention the Mig-29K as mentioned above!
Ahh come on.... Russia might have problems... but what sort of fighter plane are you expecting Europe or the US to come up with in 20 years time that will make the Su-57K obsolete? Especially considering it will likely be based on the Su-57M.
Even today a MiG-35K based carrier aircraft is about as good as any other aircraft available.... not as stealthy as the F-35 but most of its systems probably work as advertised... and it could be fitted with a decent AESA radar when the funding is ready.
They have AESA radars for Yak-130s, so how far away would they be for fighters?
It might take some time to get the ball rolling, but my guess is that the first nuclear powered carrier will be laid down in 2027 at the latest.
They have excellent naval nuclear reactors going into heavy icebreakers, so that is not a problem... their shipyards are getting upgraded and improved, but also a huge backlog of civilian ships being built, so perhaps offloading some work to India or China or both as well as Turkey of course... they could get Turkey to build a floating dock that is 200m long that they could use in the Black Sea to make Frigates and Destroy sized ships. Lots more construction on the entire northern coast of Russia for ship building and bases etc.
Considering they needed 15 years for some first of their class random ships to be built, we can assume they would need 25 years to have an operational carrier.
That's not "near future" at all.
They have a carrier.
They can always buy from the chinese aan empty carrier and fit it with russian stuff...
Everybody seems to suggest that... ignoring the fact that making big ships is not that difficult with the right sized shipyard, which they already had built so they could make aircraft carriers.
It would make rather more sense to get the Chinese and Indians and even Turkey to make civilian ships to free up the Russian yards for military ships and nuclear powered ships.
They were ok for buying heli carrier from France, why not carriers from China ?
The appeal of the Mistral was it was a mature design that could be made more quickly than a new design developed from scratch in Russia.
All the work they did with the Mistrals with France allowed them an indepth examination of the design and its good features and its problems so with that experience they could confidently produce a design of their own that solves some of the problems (from their perspective... for the French there might be no problems at all because they have different expectations). Handing this new design to the Chinese would not really make much sense as they would likely not produce it a lot faster than the Russians.
It would make sense to get China and India and Turkey and other neutral states to build all the civilian ships the Russian shipyards are currently working on so they can shift to making military ships of various types... they are testing the waters by having conventional icebreakers made in India using some of the excess Rupees from energy sales. If they do a good job there are likely lots of other civilian ships they could be making for Russia customers... and of course if it doesn't work out then China can do the work too.
They could also order from India a Catobar for their remaining mig-29K and send the Kuznetsov at the bottom once it is ready.
They are not going to get rid of the Kuznetsov any time soon... it isn't an amazing ship, but a ship that can carry aircraft is better than none.
If anything they managed to make their own replacement gas turbines pretty quickly.
Incredibly quickly. I rather suspect the American politician who ordered the Orcs to stop trading with Russia probably thought they had just destroyed the Russian Navy for the 21st C.
The "new" version of the Mig-29K is already 20 years old.
And how old is the Rafale, or F-18?
I will answer myself... Rafale started production in the mid to late 1980s with the Rafale-C entering service in the early 1990s.
The F-18.. early 1980s...
But to be fair the F-35 is probably already obsolete because they refuse to fix its problems while not offering discounts...
What exactly is going to render an upgraded MiG-29 obsolete?
Remember 20 years ago the F-18 was supposed to be replaced by the F-35 by now, yet it continues...
The fact is that not every aircraft benefits from stealth because real stealth means internal weapons which dramatically limits the amount of weapons you can carry... which would be a problem if the enemy launches large numbers of missiles at you.
The new self defence missiles for supply convoys with ARH seekers or IIR seekers or command guidance could be developed to be 80mm calibre so you could carry them in aircraft in rocket pods to deal with drone swarms... an Su-25 could carry 160 missiles in 8 x 20 shot rocket pods.... plus have its cannon.
In 20 years from now you are unlikely to see any Mig-29K's in service on a carrier.
I don't think it will be used on Russian carriers in 20 years time, but as other countries around the world grow and develop they might introduce carriers they might want a cheap simple aircraft to operate from to deal with drones.
The Su-57 won't be quite outdated as you say but the design will by then be superseded by a new 6th gen design and UAV's.
Really? Which western aircraft is on the drawing boards now that will be head and shoulders above the Su-57 now in service?
Let alone the soon to be used Su-57M and the Su-57K will likely be Su-57M based.
They can call something 6th gen or even 7 gen, but is that really technology or marketing spin.
F-35 is not fully operational yet and can't even operate at supersonic speeds for very long, and most of its stuff does not work... it cannot supercruise AFAIK.
Does it even count as a 5th gen fighter?
They would have to start making some designs for a new aircraft carrier. Nothing has been heard yet.
They have revealed multiple aircraft carrier designs, but have not mentioned whether the Navy is interested in them or not.
If the Navy was interested the information would not be revealed to the public. They reveal designs to the public to see if foreign countries are interested in making these designs... and for all we know South Korean and Chinese companies might be buying designs to investigate for themselves.
Su-57K may be deployed already with the Kuznetsov. On the one hand, you test the new cnaval fighter, on the other you bring highest end capabilities to your so-so carrier, in order to make it a worthy opponent for anyone in the world's ocean. What is not to like?
The Su-57K will likely be based on Su-57M design and engines so its power to weight ratio and performance should be rather astounding.
The Su-33 is a bigger heavier aircraft with much more external drag even just with an air to air load and with rather less powerful engines, yet it manages to operate from the Kuznetsov... a Su-57K model should have no problems at all.
On a proper CVN the Russian aircraft likely wouldn't need cat launch assistance most of the time... the cats would be used for heavy aircraft like AWACS and cargo and inflight refuelling aircraft, or maybe to increase payload and fuel for a strike armed aircraft.
Who knows what design they might come up with... a cat or a triple hull design... there is plenty of potential to change from the current angle deck design.
So the construction may be started even before the rest of the carrier group is operational, though it would be uncharacteristically risky for the Russians.
The thing about the Russians is that they are clever and think outside the box.... the UK built two carriers because it was cheaper to build two than to build one, if they could sell one of the carriers to France or another friendly country. In the end they ended up with two carriers and 6 of twelve Frigates to support them. They call them destroyers of course but they are similar to Gorshkov frigates really.
The point is that the Russians probably plan to make destroyers and also cruisers because cruisers offer much better protection to carriers than destroyers do, and it creates an opportunity.
If the carrier is going to be multihulled then three cruiser hulls could be used under a large flat deck where the centre cruiser has the entire centre section removed and the bow and the stern moved closer together so the centre section forms a large hangar and could also contain the nuclear power plants beneath them... hidden from the sides by the two outer full length hulls. A flat deck across all three hulls would give enormous deck space for aircraft and enormous volume beneath for storage and hangars. A few islands for monitoring the decks and steering the ship and you might get a 60K ton carrier with the capacity of a 100K carrier. Instead of angle deck you have two full length runways... one for takeoff and one for landing and parking space between them for 100 aircraft... or air defence systems/vehicles etc... or mini runways for drones.
They have the software and computer modelling... they can work it out.
They have experience with lots of different options and solutions and know what works and what does not.
A heavy fighter makes sense for the extra reach... a lighter simpler fighter adds numbers and can deal with anything that leaks through the outer layer past the heavy fighters... and then you have the ships air defences... which with the Russians are generally pretty good. Missile and gun and likely laser, as well as jammer and decoy etc etc.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
LMFS
