ILLUSTRATIVE. Click to see the full-size image
Russia will lay down two amphibious assault ships (helicopter carriers) at the Zaliv shipyard in Crimea by May 9, the commander of the Russian Navy Nikolai Yevmenov told RIA Novosti.
The warships will be named Sevastopol and Vladivostok, after cities in Crimea and Russia’s Far East, respectively. Yevmenov revealed that every warship will have a displacement of over 20,000 tonnes. Their navigability, operational and structural characteristics will be better than those of French Mistral-class amphibious assault ships. The warship will be capable of carrying helicopters and an assault force.
Earlier reports in Russian media say that the new helicopter carriers will have a displacement of 25,000 tonnes and a maximum length of about 220 meters. They will carry over 20 heavy helicopters, have a dock for landing boats, and two reinforced marine battalions with a total strength of 900 men.
The final official characteristics of the warship is yet to be revealed.
Russia is entering the stage of building bigger ships. The know how gap and “lost technology” during total collapse of Yeltsin years and “brain drain” that has produced. When many things have lost continuity or were totally stopped, collapsed…All that is about to be repaired now.. The gap is about to be closed completely between Soviet era and Russia in shipbuilding. The only missing stages now are destroyers, cruisers and air carriers. Air carrier’s are the last stage after “amphibious assault ships”. With super carrier of 100 000 tons (and laser defenses, electromagnetic catapults) as the last and the biggest of them all.
Those are tools of empire. There is no need for air carriers to defend Russia
Russian carriers would project Russian power worldwide, a task force comprising of a Shtorm super carrier, a Kirov battle cruiser, 2 Lidder destroyers, Gorshkov frigates augmented by 2-3 Yassen subs and a Thyphoon SSGN would send a US Navy carrier strike task force to the bottom of the ocean by overwhelming it with a salvo of hypersonic missiles.
You’re skipping the point that these are tools of empire and not needed to defend Russia.
Mike the carrier will be built in 10+ years time when situation will be completely different from this situation today. There is very high probability that Russia will survive US – NATO pressure without WW3 starting. But there is also very high probability that US-NATO will not survive as global dominant power. So air- carrier is built for post NATO world to keep Russia in position of relevant world power. Air-carriers were never considered defensive weapons that’s why US has so many of them. And since China, India, UK, France, Japan and US has them no reason for Russia not to have them if having ambition to stay major world power.
Russian super carriers would be just as dead in the water as any U.S. super carriers would be facing a Russian SSN armed with Zircon.
Why waste budget?
In 10-15 years when such carriers get in service Russia will use lasers (& naval S-500 upgraded ?) for anti missile defenses …Since by than, many countries will have very fast high precision hyper sonic missiles.
Well hasn’t weapons such as Poseidon (Status-6) shown that games up for high tonnage warships.
At the moment only Russia has that technology and there is of course always danger that other countries got something similar or as dangerous as Status 6. But it is impossible to function with such negative logic because every weapon has its weakness and its advantages. And since the beginning of times the cycle in which better weapons push for discovery of even better ones …Or the weapons that disable, destroy other enemy weapons.. So that is the game of chasing best weapon and counter weapon that never ends. Air carrier will have better defenses and protection ships will have better sonars to discover arrival of torpedo from huge distance or some other way to track it…etc,etc.
OK, but what ocean would a Russian ‘super’ carrier be contesting?
Why “contesting”? You make it sound as if it is some kind of conflictual situation… They will probably have the same role like their fleets to cover the same oceans. Northern fleet will have Atlantic ocean region and Pacific fleet will have Pacific ocean logically….That is basic divide of “responsibility” for those fleets.
No I’m just saying to build a super carrier, it would have to have a credible military purpose…
I don’t see what that purpose is for the Russian navy?
Russia is not wanting to build a USN analogue, is it? (i.e 60 DDG’s and 10 CVN’s)
The “purpose for the Russian navy” is exactly the same like for everybody else. You probably can’t adapt your thoughts to the fact that in 10 years time Russia will be one of few major well established world powers. And Russia will have few of those carriers just like everybody else and they’ll perform their duty like they do in other countries…”patrolling” the oceans and executing certain tasks..
Russia has now (in near future) intention to start to build 7000 tons destroyers(which they call frigates) and after that they will (maybe) build heavy missile cruisers (that they call destroyer) “Lider” class 19,000 tons ships . Both ships with Zircon missiles and cruiser (called destroyer) with naval S-500 air defense system. I have no clue if Russia will try to incorporate S-500 to smaller ship of those 2. Whichever ship gets S-500 naval version will have identical role to US AEGIS ships. From what I know S-500 were planed for “Lider”class. And for overhaul of flag ship “Peter The Great” (Kirov class)with S-500…..only after they have finished the overhaul of the “Admiral Nakhimov” and that battleship will get naval S-400 air defenses in 2 years time.
The absurd thing with Russians that they call those extremely big ships “Lider” class “DESTROYERS”which is absurd since size of Ticonderoga-class cruiser is 10 000 tons! Which is almost half the size of the Russian “Lider” class “DESTROYER”!?! So all this might sound confusing but it is not my fault !
Lider-class destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lider-class_destroyer
The U.S. has such a sized fleet to preserve their global hegemony. Russia doesn’t have ambition to have such big fleet but China yes….
You mean “PAK-FA” = SU-57? Yes of course! Ignore those SU-33 and MIG-29K because next air-carrier will have naval Su-57 instead of old SU-33 and MIG-29K. They probaly put them there because they didn’t have any SU-57..
PAK-DA is bomber…you know that… what would they do with the bomber :-) Russians are experts in confusing names.
I can see that you love SSN’s very much. And you just might overestimate them little bit. Every weapon has its vulnerabilities.
Air carriers will be built for POST – US & NATO era…When NATO becomes thing of the past and US as dominant world power also. In the case of war or conflict of any kind… Intervention with air-carrier battle group and plenty of airplanes it is easy to convince any country to behave. Air carriers are also status symbols of world power and perfect method of dissuasion without even using the force. As proverb would say: “Speak softly and carry big stick” See them as extremely big stick..
True, but carriers are still useful if you need to intervene in foreign flash-points or making your presence felt. Striking foreign-backed jihadists in Syria and supporting the SAA in re-taking terrorist-occupied territory is a good example.
To defend Russia the Damocles sword must hang over the deep state. A couple of naval task forces can wither the east and west coast of US with hundreds of hypersonic and cruise missiles directed against submarine bases, command and control HQ, Pentagon, Langley…etc. Putin mentioned this aspect of strategic appproach when he referred to Russian subs stationed 200 miles off the US coasts launching Zircon missiles at strategic locations offering US a choice of being the recipient of a decapitating strike
Tools are what we make out of them. And they can even “defend” interests “Those are tools of empire” but also that is military capability adequate to protect national interests on global level . Naval forces without air support are incomplete from military point of view. That explains why all major world powers have air-carrier capability. Or are in process of developing it. Also if dollar collapses in few years time. There will be a power vacuum similar to the one created after the collapse of USSR. And Russia will be in position to fill that vacuum only with adequate naval forces. Russia was never colonial power and has no such ambitions. But still Russia has ambition to preserve if not improve position of the major world power in the world.
Alliances have to be protected with force. Economic infrastructure must also be protected by force. Telling partners that you can’t help them does not strengthen the bonds necessary to weaken a threatening global empire.
Russia needs a fuk-ton of hypersonics on surface, submarine, air and ground launch systems.
The USN and their much-vaunted 10 CVNs will be useless in a peer-to-peer confict if the risks involved with their use outweigh the potential gains.
Perhaps Russia does not need 10 – 12 carriers as US Navy does, but one or two could be usefull in helping out allied states as they did when they send the good old Kuznetsov to help Syria.
Actually yes, what they need more is this kind helicopter carrier rather than very heavy maintenance and expensive big aircraft carrier
Ukraine shipyards Nikolaev technicians and engineers have been ‘head-hunted’ (hired) by Russian firms to this end, esp. since 2014. have some friends there. Economic collapse of that industry due to de-industrialization/EU trade agreement has had unintended effects.
Form what I was reading many have gone by themselves to Russia once Nikolaev started to fall apart.. Similar is for Motor Sich (even though in good shape for Ukrainian standards) , Antonov also… etc. And I have been reading also that many Russian shipyards are still short of experienced high skilled workers and that they see that as major problem in building very big ships. No wonder that they decided to build those ships in Crimea so that they can get all what is left in Ukraine of highly qualified shipyard workers.
Yes this is what I hear from friends in Ukraine (in Nikolaev, they ALL speak Russian, not Ukrainian, btw, they are also very friendly to foreigners like me), I am sure Motor sich situation (that is Zaporhyzia Oblast….there is also a pro Russian feeling there, btw) will be same….the best Ukraine techs will go to Russia OUT of US grasp. If US were smart (!?!), they would promote conditions for high tech industries to remain in Ukraine, but they do not.
See also Antonov, same situation. If EU were smart (!?!!, NOT!!!!), given under-capacity for Airbus to make its largest models (cf. 380), here they lose business to Boeing (777/787), they would have formed partnership between Airbus and Antonov like Skoda and Volkswagen in Czech Republic….but they are dumb in the EU.
Did you hear that China has bought 51%of Motor Sich ( just to get their hands on all blueprints, plans, documentation for chopper, jet engines, gas turbines) Practically transaction is finished and it has to be formally approved (If America doesn’t block all in the last moment)
——- If US were smart (!?!), they would promote conditions for high tech industries to remain in Ukraine, but they do not ——- You forget tiny detail that Soviet philosophy and tech know how is not compatible with Western sophistication and their solutions? Soviet approach is simplicity and ruggedness. Western approach is complicated and sophisticated They would not know what to do with that Soviet tradition know how. They have probably tried already to use it and they gave up. Also their corporations do not want to build low budget good tech in Ukraine to make competition to their VERY expensive tech also.
US and EU are not “smart” they are just what they are…short sited in US and EU way…..hard to explain. Maybe the closes explanation is “We are our own worst enemy”
Thats to hard for russia to be able to get adequate number for them, better they make more this helicopter carrier or other ship that armed with hypersonic than this heavy carrier, this will drain crazy resource just to made 1 of them
I am not Russian Admiralty and as non professional I respect their decisions. It does concern overall strategy and role of the Russian Navy. It is directly related to objectives and on how Russia wants to shape her place in the world as well.
From basic common sense. If other major powers have air carriers I do not see why Russia can’t have them? It is not as if Russia will build 10 or 12 like U.S.
I hope that Russia will build the VTOL jet successor of the Yak-141 for these ships and new air-carriers.
this is good news but isn’t it being built based on civilian shipbuilding principles ? someone correct me if im wrong
You mean the way”Mistral” was built? You are right that France has built Mistrals in identical way they build civilian ships, to lower the costs. The Russians have asked for hull to be much more reinforced (for Northern seas and ice) and space addapted for Russian choppers (at the time) Mistral was built with modern modular principals. With which even the biggest oceanic ships and super tankers are built. Russians will probably not do copy paste of the French approach but do many things differently specially where it comes to the ship defenses with at least 2 Pantsir S2 (up to maybe 4)
Decision was politically motivated at the time. No Russian admiral wanted those ships ! US did great favor to Russia by blocking the France on those ships.
Which of the Russian fleets will they join?
Northern (Atlantic) & Pacific Russian fleets Depends how many of them they will build of course.
It would be a master piece if a fighter jets can land and take off on it.
It is only 220 maters so it will be good for “VTOL”- vertical take off & landing jets (Jak-141 successors if Russia decide to build them and they say they will )
No it won’t, the bow and stern are clearly not designed to allow fixed wing operations (VTOL or not). These are only for helicopters.
OK, what is that they are missing in design to use VTOL jets more precisely? What is blocking vertical take off& landing? In simple words please… thanks in advance.
If you look at the top-down view you can see that the bow (front) and stern (rear) are not squared-off. Instead they have slightly sunken sections for weapons emplacements, which would get in the way of safe fixed-wing aircraft operations.
Since there is no ski-ramp or catapult that obviously rules-out any normal take-off ability. But even VTOL aircraft will want to take-off and land normally to save fuel, otherwise their range and payload will be very poor. So whilst technically possible for a VTOL aircraft to take-off from a ship like this, it would still be impractical.
The other issue would be with the ship-deck’s strength and heat-resistance, which have to be increased to withstand the heavy-impacts and jet-blasts that fighter-jets impart. Especially VTOL aircraft that have to point their engines straight down at the deck – in fact the new America-class amphib/heli carriers actually to be redesigned because of this reason (see linked article below) https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-builds-ship-for-f-35-ship-needs-months-of-upgrade-1697523492
Hope this clears it up a bit.
The subject was only “VTOL aircraft ” since I was talking only about “VTOL aircraft ” (look in my previous comment)
You have no plausible explanation at all, why “VTOL aircraft ” can not be used on that ship. Even though you have said loud and clear that VTOL jets can not be used on that ship. Again: The problem was to discover what was limitation in design (in your opinion), Judging of course on your knowledge of the limitations of the design on “bow” and”stern”… The story you are telling now have no acceptable explanation at all. And you simply try to weasel out instead of giving clear answer. You are trying to obfuscate instead of giving simple and direct answer on limitations of that ship’s DESIGN for “VTOL”.
“The other issue would be with the ship-deck’s strength and heat-resistance”
This has nothing to do with the limitations of the design of “bow” and”stern”. It is already pure nonsense since you presume that Russians are total idiots to build inadequate ship. If they have intentions to use that kind of the jets on that ship of course they will resolve all possible problems including the extensive “heat-resistance”.
BTW I know that “fact” and story that F-35 was damaging chopper-carriers in their take off . It is very old story.
Dude… I literally told you why VTOL airplanes aren’t practical on a ship like this… I don’t know how much more simplistic I can make it. I’ll try again though…
– Ship’s deck is not suitable in shape: if an aircraft taking-off clips the weapons emplacements it would obviously be bad.
– The ship is quite narrow: Whilst possible to land and take-off, it would be FAR from ideal to design a ship this way if you ever intended to operate any fixed-wing aircraft from it. Have a look at the front and rear designs of the American and Italian ‘light’ carriers for example:
America-class Cavour (Italy)
I am not saying that Russia would make the same mistake the US made with the America-class, what I am saying is that you either design it from the start with VTOL capabilities in mind, or you design it to only use helicopters (which makes the ship much cheaper and easier to build).
Another example of this would be the Japanese and their Izumo-class ‘destroyer’ (heli-carrier). They originally designed it in a similar way to this proposed Russian design (not squared-off at the ends or equipped with a ski-ramp) but then decided they wanted to operate F-35’s… So now they have to send it back to the shipyard for conversion. Izumo’s conversion
This will be the last time I respond, as judging by your extremely numerous comments here, you clearly have far too much time to waste.
“I literally told you why VTOL airplanes aren’t practical on a ship like this” ——————————————————– You are liar. You have no argument to confirm you categorical rejection!
I’ll QUOTE your own words for the last time: “No it won’t, the bow and stern are clearly not designed to allow fixed wing operations (VTOL or not). These are only for helicopters.”
— Learn not to take others for an idiots and have decency to accept your mistakes and unjustified exaggeration. End of the conversation !
I don’t know why I even bother… is English not your first language or something? Because I made an honest argument, and yet you throw a hissy-fit at me as though I had just insulted your mother…
Me: VTOL aircraft can’t operate from this ship [proceeds to list reasons why]. You: LIAR! [quotes my original post] You have no arguments!
Me: Where exactly did I contradict myself with that statement???…
Chill the F out dude, I am not some anti-Russian troll if that’s what you think. But I do happen to know quite a bit about these type of ships. You on the other hand have zero counter-arguments beyond calling me a “liar”… Nor do you seem to understand the difference between something being “feasible” vs “practical”.
SnowCatzor Z.P. • 3 days ago “No it won’t, the bow and stern are clearly not designed to allow fixed wing operations (VTOL or not). These are only for helicopters.”
France paid back, including bonus, plus ship designs, when they refused to hand over the Mistral. Then Egypt purchased the helicopters Russia provided for the ships. Ironic, as Russia only ordered the ships as a favour to France.
this is reasonable for localized conflicts where verdolot matter—US aircraft carriers r an expensive anchronism–all would be destroyed in 3 days were a conflict to erupt between Russia
verdolot = chopper