Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Viktor Jav said:

Yes, just like how it was supposed to be launched 2018, and 2017 before that. It is doubtful that Russia can field anything larger than a frigate in the immediate future. They haven't even finish the renovations to their existing Kirov cruisers.
On a side note, it would seem that Russia had finally dropped any notion of building the Shtorm carriers. Not that this comes as a surprise :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

40 thousand tons put its in the same weight class of the De Gaulle carrier. But it will have conventional engines instead of the De Gaulle's nuclear reactors. Despite the vastly more realistic goals set by this project, I am not holding my breath for it.

Click to expand...

Yes, Shtorm was just silly - though I'm not sure how official it (or this concept for that matter) ever in fact was. To quote someone else's assessment of Krylov's skill set:

"... although Krylov's hydrodynamics and other fundamentals are top-notch, their naval concept ship design is legendarily nonsensical and everything above the waterline should be regarded as "industrial design" rather than "naval architecture"."

The new, lighter design is MUCH more sensible, although there are once more a couple of unusual features: a very wide flight deck for its size and (more likely than not as a consequence of this) mid-deck rather than deck edge lifts as well as the large number of the latter. Somebody with more experience of carrier deck operations might be able to judge whether that's a clever innovation or another Krylov folly. Retaining nuclear power might be a consideration for increased autonomy and greater aviation fuel bunkerage.

Apart from the specifics of the various carrier concepts, the logic of pursuing one for Russia is pretty debatable.

To illustrate the point about fuel bunkerage, consider the similarly-sized, nuclear-powered Charles de Gaulle and the somewhat larger Queen Elizabeth with gas turbine IFEP. While the Krylov concept carries 2000t of aviation fuel, CdG manages 2900t - beating QE which, in addition to 2400t of aircraft fuel, has to store another 3200t for her own use! Even allowing for the possibility that a nuclear power plant with its shielding may be bulkier (although you do get rid of the intake and exhaust ducting), there is a very handsome benefit and Russia has plenty of experience with nuclear surface ship propulsion.

More photos:

Viktor Jav said:

Yes, just like how it was supposed to be launched 2018, and 2017 before that. It is doubtful that Russia can field anything larger than a frigate in the immediate future. They haven't even finish the renovations to their existing Kirov cruisers.
On a side note, it would seem that Russia had finally dropped any notion of building the Shtorm carriers. Not that this comes as a surprise :
...
40 thousand tons put its in the same weight class of the De Gaulle carrier. But it will have conventional engines instead of the De Gaulle's nuclear reactors. Despite the vastly more realistic goals set by this project, I am not holding my breath for it.

Click to expand...

I think this carrier design is just plain terrible. It's still STOBAR and it isn't nuclear powered. It looks like something meant for export. But the only possible client is likely India and India are manufacturing their own carriers. Strike this one as a dud.

The Russian civilian nuclear power industry is robust enough to make a nuclear engine for a carrier if they want to. They also have the know how for EMALS if they want to make them. The previous twin-tower carrier design was stupidly large given their economy. This carrier is too low tech for what they are able to do. Besides, making it conventional powered would put a larger logistical burden on their carrier fleet. This is particularly problematic for a country with such a large coastline to defend and so few naval bases around the world. Last time the Kuznetsov went to the Mediterranean no country let it dock at port along the way. This puts strain on oiler ships and the like.

The Shtorm battlecruiser design seemed to have too few VLS cells for its size and seemed highly non-practical and poorly space optimized to say the least. I don't know what's in the minds of Russian naval designers to put out crap concepts like this out all the time.

gelgoog said:

I think this carrier design is just plain terrible. It's still STOBAR and it isn't nuclear powered. It looks like something meant for export. But the only possible client is likely India and India are manufacturing their own carriers. Strike this one as a dud.

The Russian civilian nuclear power industry is robust enough to make a nuclear engine for a carrier if they want to. They also have the know how for EMALS if they want to make them. The previous twin-tower carrier design was stupidly large given their economy. This carrier is too low tech for what they are able to do. Besides, making it conventional powered would put a larger logistical burden on their carrier fleet. This is particularly problematic for a country with such a large coastline to defend and so few naval bases around the world. Last time the Kuznetsov went to the Mediterranean no country let it dock at port along the way. This puts strain on oiler ships and the like.

The Shtorm battlecruiser design seemed to have too few VLS cells for its size and seemed highly non-practical and poorly space optimized to say the least. I don't know what's in the minds of Russian naval designers to put out crap concepts like this out all the time.

Click to expand...

There is no explicit statement claiming that this carrier will be a pure STOBAR, as with most of Russia's military export ads it is still largely vague in details. However, the Shtorm was depicted to have both catapults and ski jump systems, so we can reasonably assume that the new carrier has some arrangements for this setup as well. It won't be the first time Russia has introduced weird hybrid concepts.
While Russia have had experiences with nuclear propulsion, this will be the first time they will be installing it on a ship this big. The closest they ever got to was the Ice breaker Sibir which weights around 33 thousand tons. I am even more skeptical about Russian progress on EMALS, seeing as they haven't even make any serious research on steam catapults before hand.
At this point of time, building anything larger than a standard destroyer is going to put a strain on Russia's economy and logistics. If we look on the pragmatic side of things, it makes even less sense for Russia to actively want carriers given the nature of it's ice bound coasts limited over seas interests. But never ever underestimate the drive that nationalism can create.
And are you talking about the Lider class battlecruiser ? Cause the Shtorm is as similar to battlecruiser as a pig is to a cow.

gelgoog said:

I think this carrier design is just plain terrible. It's still STOBAR and it isn't nuclear powered

Click to expand...

I think this is beyond rather silly. The Russians have been taking new carrier cruiser since the early 90s but have nothing to show for it. The one time they were working on such was for India. The budget and conditions of the Russian Navy thus far have proven very difficult to just maintain the Admrial Kuznetsov. If they can't get a conventional carrier to operate without issues the thought of a Nuclear is frightening.
The issues with the black smoke belching Kuznetsov are more than "they weren't allowed to Pull into port and fuel up."
The boilers of the Kuz have been a major issue for the Russians since day 1.
The fact is the Russian Carrier program is a disaster. The single carrier they have has been flawed from day one, and the repeated financial collapse of the ruble has only exacerbated issues. Farther more the systems of that ship are increasingly obsolete yet we know the Russians could have refit her. Instead chose to deploy her to Syria, delaying a over due 3 year long overhaul and refit till this year or next.

Yes the Russians have looked into Catbar but primarily for launch of support fixed wing aircraft like AEW that never materialized. This concept dates back to the aborted Ulyanovsk class. The fighters would still be STOBAR.

Viktor Jav said:

building anything larger than a standard destroyer is going to put a strain on Russia's economy and logistics

Click to expand...

Dead on accurate. Delivery of overhauled Kirov class continue to slip and that's an existing ship as opposed to a brand new class.

Viktor Jav said:

If we look on the pragmatic side of things, it makes even less sense for Russia to actively want carriers given the nature of it's ice bound coasts limited over seas interests

Click to expand...

Well the Russians got around that in three ways. 1) Both Kuznetsov and Varyag were built in the Ukraine. At the fall of the USSR the Russian Navy was about to be forced to give up both ships which were incomplete. A crew was thrown together and they managed to navigate the Kuznetsov to a Russian port.
2) the Tsar and there Sucessors realized icing is a major issue and so they conquered and have done all in there power to maintain three warm water ports St. Petersburg, Vladivostok and the Crimea. These ports don't freeze.
3) the Russians carriers are not carriers in the same way as American or even British carriers. The Kuznetsov, Keiv, and Moscow classes are classified as Aircraft carrier cruiser since they maintain the armament of a Heavy Cruiser. This is based on a different doctrine and meant more to support other parts of the Russian Navy vs the American Super Carrier concept.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

3) the Russians carriers are not carriers in the same way as American or even British carriers. The Kuznetsov, Keiv, and Moscow classes are classified as Aircraft carrier cruiser since they maintain the armament of a Heavy Cruiser. This is based on a different doctrine and meant more to support other parts of the Russian Navy vs the American Super Carrier concept.

Click to expand...

Well actually a good part of the reason why the Kuznetsov was classified as such was that carriers were not allowed to traverse the Turkish Straits. So they came up with that novel solution to circumvent that legality. As far as practicality go, it is unlikely that the Kuznetsov can contribute much to the Russian Navy beyond near costal operations in conjunction with their bastion strategy.

Viktor Jav said:

Well actually a good part of the reason why the Kuznetsov was classified as such was that carriers were not allowed to traverse the Turkish Straits. So they came up with that novel solution to circumvent that legality. As far as practicality go, it is unlikely that the Kuznetsov can contribute much to the Soviet navy beyond near costal operations in conjunction with their bastion strategy.

Click to expand...

It's not just a designation or at least it wasn't until the end of the 1990s. But when she was new the missile systems she packs the Shipwreck system meant that even without the air wing she had a punch.
However the missiles didn't age well and took up space in the hanger deck reducing her capacity as a Carrier.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

It's not just a designation or at least it wasn't until the end of the 1990s. But when she was new the missile systems she packs the Shipwreck system meant that even without the air wing she had a punch.
However the missiles didn't age well and took up space in the hanger deck reducing her capacity as a Carrier.

Click to expand...

But with just 16 missiles for such a huge ship, it can be said with certainty that that punch is certainty lightweight. It goes without questioning that the Russians cannot just give the Kuznetsov a classification without some physical justification. We haven't even factor in the lack of radar and detection systems on the Kuznetsov to effectively utilize missiles in comparison to other surface combatants like the Kirovs.
The Russian's did not just make the Kuznetsov the way it is out of a whim or poor decisions alone, they also have to content with geopolitical matters and industry locations. The hypothetical carriers nowadays look the part because Russia is planning (at least on paper) to build them in St Petersburg.

She had the surface track radar for it but as thing went down hill for the former USSR they couldn't maintain the systems. They had an aim for her but everything around her was poor timing, economics and follow through. The USSR liked to spread projects across all the satilite States but when it fell apart this left critical infrastructure for the successor Russian state out of there hands, missiles, carriers and super transport planes and Strategic bombers in Ukraine. Space launch complex in Kazakhstan for example.


Now the Russians are trying to give there Navy the long awaited step up but... The closest they came was the Mistral deal with France and ironically one of those ships was to be named Sebastopol.
The Russians have very visibly shown models of there next carriers but as yet actually cutting steel is not happening. The refit to the Kuznetsov is finally starting but that's mostly because the Russians pushed it off to the point where it was all but about to sink on its own. They couldn't put it off any more.