Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

Any truth to this, fellas?

By the time it is ready the USN is not going to be the problem it is now or has been in the past.

Having said that an aircraft carrier means mobile fire power that can move anywhere around the world in a relatively short time and can make sure Russian interests are not walked all over with no regard.

If Russia really intend on building that carrier we might seen rebuild of Baltic Shipyard or expansion of other shipyard. As well as a proper naval Su-57 prototype being tested at naval aviation base.

Actually the huge shipyards in the Far East are intended for making the big ships and Sukhoi has talked about a carrier based Su-57... and will probably start working on that now.

I would add it is amusing seeing a brand new carrier design with Yak-44 AWACS and Ka-27 helicopters. Minoga is more likely and possibly something developed from the Il-212 could be used as an AWACS platform.

but should the Checkmate see rapid success in its development as a land-based platform, then it might make better sense to develop that aircraft into a naval platform also, but fuel is always the deal-breaker when it comes to having a carrier-based fighter and we still need to see what kind of internal fuel capacity the Checkmate will have.

I don't think they would go for a single engined light fighter for carrier use. You are not going to have a lot of them so why not make them  the best (Su-57).

They are building a new shipyard complex near St. Petersburg?

They have a lot of new ships they need to build before they start to build fixed wing carriers.

Remember in 2028 they will be launching two 40K ton helicopter carrier landing craft...

They are going to need escort ships, which means destroyers and probably cruiser sized ships for serious anti air capacity.

It is highly unlikely given the current priorities and changes in warfare.

The Russian Navy is currently constructing two 40K ton helicopter carrier/landing craft, one of which appears to be specialised for mass drone use applications.

Having two helicopter carriers within a group of surface ships would be very useful because it would improve protection from subs with anti sub helicopters but also improve protection against sea surface drones where light transport helicopters like the Ka-226 could be loaded up with door mounted gatling guns and tens of thousands of rounds of ammo to fire at small fast sea surface targets.

A fixed wing carrier just makes sense... keeping in mind that the Kuznetsov is already much better defended against enemy anti ship missiles and drones because it carries the ship based version of TOR in significant numbers.

The likelyhood that it also carries added air defence vertical launch missiles is also highly likely and may include the replacement of the Granit anti ship missile with the UKSK vertical launch system which can carry land attack cruise missiles and anti ship missiles, but can also carry anti sub ballistic guided weapons and also medium and long range surface to air missiles as required too.

A decent AWACS platform and flight of fighters to protect it would go a long way to making Russian ships at sea much much safer from threats the western navies present. The ship launched anti ship hypersonic missiles of one frigate would be sufficient to sink an entire US carrier battlegroup so the aircraft would not be needed for anything other than air defence. Indeed Yasen should be able to take down any threats to a Russian surface group, but would be powerless to do anything about anti ship missiles and drones already launched in the direction of the Russian ships.

AWACS aircraft allows early detection and identification meaning the situational awareness of the commander of the group of ships will be excellent, which leads to better decisions and better outcomes.

The cost of such ships is not insignificant, but in terms of allowing Russia to trade around the globe the economic boost free trade will bring makes it a very good bargain.

Aircraft carriers are not super ships and no ship cannot be sunk. But would you give up you seven non pawn pieces in chess and play with 15 pawns and a king and expect to win?

Activity in the Middle East shows even western ships struggle to protect shipping lanes for coastal threats... lots of places to hide and no assurance you stop everything every time.

Aircraft give you fast and long ranged options when presented with problems.

If the captain of the USS Vincennes had not been acting so irrationally and had not sailed into Iranian waters firing at Iranian navy boats the nearby US carrier could have sent a couple of F-14s to intercept the suspected attacking aircraft to properly identify it. Instead they could only go by what their radar returns told them and they panicked and shot down a civilian airliner.

Russia has developed a concept for a new aircraft carrier, the MAK, by Dmitry Zubarev for VZGLYAD. 10.11.2024.

Russia has developed a concept project for a sea-based aircraft carrier complex for the Navy.

The Krylov State Research Centre has completed the development of a concept design for a new aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy, named MAK; a decision on construction has not yet been made.

The Krylov State Research Centre (KGNC) has completed the development of a concept design for a new aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy, which has been named MAK, KGNC CEO Oleg Savchenko told RIA Novosti . Currently, the Russian Navy has only one aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, which is undergoing repairs and modernization.

Savchenko emphasized that the Krylov Centre is engaged in ongoing scientific support of processes related to the design of aircraft carriers. According to him, two years ago the centre completed the conceptual design of a new naval aircraft carrier complex (MAC). However, the decision on the construction of a new aircraft carrier has not yet been made.

Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian Aerospace Forces to begin permanent patrols of the airspace above the Black Sea using aircraft with Kinzhal systems.

It was noted that Russian Naval Aviation has five main tasks.

https://vz.ru/news/2024/10/11/1291906.html

Apparently it is not based on the smaller "Varan" model. I still hope it is a evolutionary and updated development from the Ulyanovsk/Lamantin design.

That's like the 5th design they make...

Every two years you have the same articles.

They have no intention to build any. With the war in Ukraine and all the losses it's even less likely as they will have to spend on replacing all the lost stuff in this war.

The Russians will have to if they want to stay relevant. If they weren't serious about building an aircraft carrier they would have scrapped or sold the Kuznetsov - instead of upgrading it.

the MAK

Also known as Big MAK.

This conflict in the Ukraine is clear proof that Russia cannot rely on the international community (ie the west) to be fair and honest regarding sea lines of communication anywhere on the planet and Russia needs to create its own shipping and its own ability to get resources to and from its international trading partners and to have a navy that can protect their interests.

Different concepts in aircraft carriers is a good thing... as long as they don't ignore their own history where mini carriers have proven to be not that much cheaper than full sized carriers, yet at the same time more vulnerable and more limited and less effective.

This is not about showing off or making things the Americans made for ego or pride.

This is about including aircraft (recon and fighter) in a mobile force that can operate anywhere on the planet as needed when needed.

Aircraft, including AWACS and fighters are an important part of any air defence and make surface based missiles rather more effective and useful when you can detect targets earlier and engage them further away from your ships. Ships are not safe, aircraft carriers are not safe, subs are not safe, aircraft are not safe, tanks are not safe, BMPs are not safe... nothing is safe... but having air power and big ships with decent range of weapons and fire power and enough weapons to withstand a few attacks is important and useful.

S-500 batteries are probably their least mobile air defence batteries and some might claim they are vulnerable to drone attack... but the value they bring protecting all your positions and systems and equipment from ballistic weapons and semi ballistic weapons and hypersonic bombers and missiles is worth having them and possibly losing a few.

They are not cheap to buy or to operate but they add power and capability to your forces that nothing else will add and gives you options no other system gives you.

I think part of the problem is that Russia is not as aircraft focused as the west... perhaps it was their inability to do very much on the western front for most of the war except strategic bombing, but Germany didn't surrender till Soviet troops took Berlin.

Air power is useful though, and is a real force multiplier... but it is not invincible either and there will be losses, but as we have seen in the conflict in the Ukraine, war is war and if you are afraid of losing men or machines then surrender.

I think Russia even from USSR era isnt focused on aircraft carroer construction because they considered them too costly and vulnerable wrote:

True, it is doubtful that they will build any new aircraft carrier in the future. Geography means that they do not need aircraft carriers, and in a clash with an advanced enemy, an aircraft carrier is an easy target.

I think Russia even from USSR era isnt focused on aircraft carroer construction because they considered them too costly and vulnerable

No disrespect, but obviously that is not true.

If they thought aircraft carriers were expensive and too vulnerable then they would have scrapped the Kuznetsov decades ago and there would be no 40K ton helicopter carriers under construction.

Saying the Russian navy does not need aircraft carriers is like saying the Russian military does not need an air force.

Airfields and aircraft design is expensive and planes are so easy to shoot down...

Well they are expensive but they are made of Russian materials made in Russia so that money stays in the Russian economy.

In terms of spending, it funds development of all sorts of new technologies that can be applied in all sorts of areas... EM catapults involves all sorts of new and useful technologies including super magnets and electrical systems, while spending on aircraft also benefits civilian aircraft construction and use.

Systems allowing aircraft to land on ships in the Northern Atlantic could also help aircraft land in Russian airports in difficult conditions too.

True, it is doubtful that they will build any new aircraft carrier in the future. Geography means that they do not need aircraft carriers, and in a clash with an advanced enemy, an aircraft carrier is an easy target.

If a clash with an advanced enemy means aircraft carriers are too vulnerable then navies are pointless... there is no better protected ship in the US Navy than their aircraft carriers so if they are vulnerable then all their ships are junk.

Except the most advanced enemy Russia could have in terms of destroying ships at sea would be itself and in fact it it all the other navies around the world that should fear the Russian navy. A single Corvette armed with 16 Zircon missiles would wipe out 3 or 4 US carrier groups at one time... simply by sinking the aircraft carriers and AEGIS class cruisers.

Of course solutions to the threat of hypersonic missiles will be developed and might involve high energy laser defence systems... which will probably require a rather larger cruiser sized ship to carry and operate... and it is going to need an aircraft carrier to carry aircraft to defend it.

It reminds me of claims MANPADS make attack helicopters and attack aircraft useless, or anti tank missiles render tanks useless.

At the end of the day a helicopter is a mobile well armed weapon of war and a tank is a mobile gun platform that supports ground forces like no other vehicle can... the enemy having weapons to kill such platforms does not take away the fact that the platforms are still useful.

Having aircraft at sea is useful.

If it wasn't the Kuznetsov would be scrapped and these new mistral replacements would not be getting built.

After three years of war in the Ukraine a few enemy weapons (including the best HATO has on offer) have occasionally slipped through the defences, but the most heavily protected targets were not hit. They picked weak, less well protected targets, including civilian targets most of the time, or they concentrated dozens of weapons and drones and decoys to get ships in dry dock, or in port.

I would say the introduction of Aircraft carriers and modern cruisers to protect them will massively increase the threat the Russian navy represents to its enemies and make these attacks on easy targets rather less likely to happen in the first place.

Actually an aircraft carrier or two in the north would secure their SSK subs operating north of Europe against P-8 Orions that could then sneak in and decimate NATO ships protecting UK and GIUK gap.

Same in the Pacific it would protect Russian borders and could protect their bases as well as inflict huge damages on Japanese navy in case of war from the east by going west of Japan. Japanese SSK would be terribly slow against a carrier and the mig-29K would hunt japanese P-3/8.

Also they could be used for supporting friendly countries.

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.

Second, obviously the carriers are not going to happen anytime soon, but they need to happen, and that is the strategically relevant realization that Russian command has declared in their strategy. wrote:

They probably won't appear for the next 20 years, so the discussion about Russian aircraft carriers is SF. Unless someone likes to look that far into the future. Just like the Russian blue fleet. Currently they only have four 22350 frigates and their production rate is very slow. 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.

Arrow wrote:
They probably won't appear for the next 20 years, so the discussion about Russian aircraft carriers is SF.

In fairly difficult economic times the Soviets managed to build and commission the Kuznetsov within 8 years. If the requirement is urgent it can be done fairly quickly.

Mir wrote:
In fairly difficult economic times the Soviets managed to build and commission the Kuznetsov within 8 years. If the requirement is urgent it can be done fairly quickly.

I have to agree with Arrow here. As of now, civil shipbuilding should be priority (icebreakers, merchant marine, tankers, LNG carriers, etc.). If they really urgently need aircraft carrier, fastest solution would be to order it from China. Shipbuilding in USSR and Russia can't be compared in scale. Also, there's a lot of work before they arrive at the point of ordering aircraft carrier. They need to build many more support ships before that. Twenty years sounds about right.

Aside from the recent important change in naval doctrine, there is one very clear indication that the Russians are serious about acquiring aircraft carriers in the near future, and that is the current development of the Su-57 into a carrier borne fighter as we speak.

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!

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.
I'm always optimistic but lets see what happens

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 can always buy from the chinese aan empty carrier and fit it with russian stuff... They were ok for buying heli carrier from France, why not carriers from China ?

They could also order from India a Catobar for their remaining mig-29K and send the Kuznetsov at the bottom once it is ready.

That cheaper than invest 10 billion in a new project. Empty carriers should cost 1/3 of total price china and india pay for them. Then fit some proven stuff like Poliment/redut and some uksk and you're good.

Su-57 won't be outdated but improved and mig-29 can always carry a new radar and long range hypersonic missiles to hunt ships.

Isos wrote:
Su-57 won't be outdated but improved and mig-29 can always carry a new radar and long range hypersonic missiles to hunt ships.

The "new" version of the Mig-29K is already 20 years old. In 20 years from now you are unlikely to see any Mig-29K's in service on a carrier.
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.

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. wrote:

They would have to start making some designs for a new aircraft carrier. Nothing has been heard yet. They have been talking about the 22350M frigate for many years and there is still no keel and there won't be any soon.

The question is which shipyard would build this aircraft carrier?