Russian Navy plans to build 4 new Aircraft Carriers

[gf0012-aust]

There are several designs that they can explore which, I am surprised to say, have nopt been suggested in public to have been considered for US future carrier design.

These are the 'iceberg', the catamaran and the 'butterfly' designs, any one of which would offer a reduction in the physical signiature or greater stealth in general for smaller carriers that would make even Iran capable of operating such a vessel with lesser level of support form the task force vessels that need to accompany the carrier.

The catamaran and butterfly were comprehensively dismissed by a DERA report.

In 2001 I spoke to a DERA (now Qinetic) maritime engineer who openly stated that they had bought designs from the Russians (it was a buyers market then).

Both designs were singularly flawed and not seen as worth pursuing.

The trimaran and catamaran data from australia (which is actually regarded as the worlds most experienced in multihull designs) also shows length to beam limitations.

Multi-hull carriers are not going to happen soon.

 

[Rich]

I agree Russia is capable of building and operating fleet carriers but i also think it would be a trial and error endeavor. They couldn't, for instance, make the political decision to build them and then just churn them out. The carriers they have built have had many problems, but at the same time, they did actually build them which gives them the experience to take the next step.

In reading about the Soviet navy I must say there has always been a mis-trust about carriers in their command and leadership, and a lot of hesitation about making the funds available for them. Ive seen, read, or heard nothing that would convince me those voices have either been silenced or overruled. You cant change 50 years of Russian strategic/Naval thinking with one on-line dictionary article.

Heres a quick study about what Ive been talking about. http://www.webcom.com/~amraam/rcar.html To gauge the possibility of a future Russian Fleet super carrier I guess its best to look at the past first.

 

[gf0012-aust]

No disrespect here but the only evidence Ive seen in this thread has been a single Wikipedia article. I repeat that this carrier has been a Russian dream for over 30 years. And whatever they say now there is going to be a transfer of power shortly and the man who replaces Putin may not share his predecessors wishes for such expensive systems like a super carrier.

Iran is a gun boat navy. Can you really see them operating a 80,000+ ton super carrier? And even if they did where would they base it? Where would they send it? And how would they defend it? You dont buy 80,000 ton carriers to put in the Persian Gulf.

Indonesia is a frigate navy, and a rusty one at that. Again what would they do with a super carrier? And how would they afford it? They have just started an expensive program to upgrade their frigates, submarines, and corvettes. India and China make more sense but both have significant ship building industries and both have expressed their desire to build their own carriers. I will add that neither wants their carrier fleet to be dependant on a foreign power. Thats why they both build foreign systems in their own factories on contract. India has been on the verge of building their new VSTOL carrier for 10 years but have never gotten around to starting it. I'd say China is the only possibility and even they want to build their own, which is why they purchase old ones to study.

Wholeheartedly agree.

There is no compelling need for the Russians to go back to a multiocean fleet posture - and even their own naval staff are dubious. Its a posturing move.

They have neither the resources to build, infrastrucuture to support or assets required to supplement the capability.

The sooner russia realises that she is a pre-eminent land power and not a cold war power in waiting - the sooner she will fix her problems.

As for countries like Indonesia etc.. for crying out loud they can't even do greenwater ops - let alone fleet handling blue water ops.

Mainland Chinas philosophy is to only buy second hand stock if there is a learning curve opportunity - or if there is a sense of urgency about capability gaps (eg the Sovromenys). They have more large vessel construction experience than the russians - they can afford to wait and develop a COTS to MOTS mentality on large vessel construction on their own time. As it is, I suspect that any vessel they build will be a stronger focus on COTS.

 

[tphuang]

Russia has vast expereince in shipbuilding. Much of the Chinese and Indian navies consist of Soviet built vessels.

Since 2002 amongst surface ships, China got 2 Sovs. At the same time, China built 2 052B, 2 052C, 2 051C, multiple Jiangwei 2, 2 054, launched 2 054A and building 2 more, built 12 type 72 LSD, launched 071 LPD, 30+ type 22s, 3 huge fleet replenishment ships, I wouldn't call that "much" of the Chinese navy. Even in diesel subs, there are more Songs/Yuans than Kilos.

China still relies much more heavily on Russian technology but its several new DDGs and FFGs are gradually using more local technology...

not really, none of the indigenous ships use Russian anti-ship missile. Only 052B and 051C use Russian SAM. None of the ships use Russian sonar or torpedoes. The combat systems are not based on Russian ones either.

 

[FutureTank]

The catamaran and butterfly were comprehensively dismissed by a DERA report.

I'm just making suggestions about possibilities. Like other spheres of military technology, naval engineering is also in constant development. I would not dismiss Russians so easily although I largely agree with you.

 

[Tasman]

Indonesia is a frigate navy, and a rusty one at that. Again what would they do with a super carrier? And how would they afford it? They have just started an expensive program to upgrade their frigates, submarines, and corvettes.

Couldn't agree more. Indonesia has tried in the past to commission a sophisticated warship (the 'Sverdlov' class cruiser transferred from the U.S.S.R. in the 60's) but they were unable to maintain it or operate it efficiently. Likewise they have had real difficulty operating the large numbers of smaller vessels acquired since then. If they couldn't operate these ships successfully how on earth would they run a large carrier yet alone an airgroup for it?

IMO there is no market for a new Russian carrier. Navies that may want to move into the carrier field in the future, or replace existing ships, would be more likely to look at small or medium sized VSTOL vessels from countries with a proven record of being able to deliver (eg Spain/Italy). This being the case and the fact that Russia's past history suggests it would be unlikely to want or be able to maintain more than one operational carrier, it is hard to see any reason why Russia would construct 4 carriers. At most they might want two so that one would always be available but it is difficult to see why they need a carrier at all.

 

[Ths]

Gf0012: I agree there is no profit in carriers for Russia.

But who will front a down payment for a carrier developed and build in Russia?
Who in Russia would finance the building a carrier that China/Indonesia/Iran MIGHT buy?

 

[FutureTank]

look at small or medium sized VSTOL vessels from countries with a proven record of being able to deliver (eg Spain/Italy)

Well, Russian shipyards used to deliver, and I think thwy think its about thime they started delivering again.
Have a look at the history of shipbuilding in Spain and Italy after the Civil War and WW2 respectively.
Its not strategy now, its business

 

[PETER671BT]

I didn't know russia had a aircarrier program ready,last I heard they were thinking about it with joint operations china.If anyone knows where to see the ship please reply ,I would interested to have a look. thanks

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well, Russian shipyards used to deliver, and I think thwy think its about thime they started delivering again.
...............................................Its not strategy now, its business

if thats the case, then they might have problems. having seen some russian kit up close, I can tell you from what I've seen that it aint that flash.

there are significant QA issues outstanding.

and quite frankly, the changes in quality coming out of china are substantially better than what the russians have been exporting.

China is a classic example where the preference is for euro systems like those provided by france, israel, germany etc.... rather than russia.

the QA changes in russian gear compared to US or France are dramatically visible - and the commercial grade gear coming out of Alcatel almost rivals US Milspec in some areas. Without even hooking them up for reflection tests, you can visibly notice the diff between what goes into Migs and Tupolevs as compared to a COTS Boeing or Airbus.

China is far better placed to build their own large vessels at a superstructure/hull level and then go for a euro fitout. They actually don't get any advantage from going with a russian purchase unless they are desperarate to parallel build to meet projected deadlines. - and I can;t see them buying major vessels from the russians to do so.

 

[Ths]

Russia exporting hulls to China is like sending potatoes to Idaho - after a bumper crop in Idaho.
Prices on Chinese yards are coming up - which spells excess capacity.

An other thing, just mentioned in passing, the Russian plans for oil/gas pipelines combined with the new pilot-law in Denmark will reduce the need for new tankers - when that will affect the market is hard to say.

 

[contedicavour]

Russian naval exports

IMO Russian shipyards should focus on realistic export potential, while waiting for some new orders from the Russian MOD (which realistically will not include carriers for a long while).

Surface ships :
China and India are gradually becoming independent of Russian shipyards (Indian Delhi, improved Delhi, P17, and IAC, plus all of the latest Chinese DDG and FFG except 2 Sovremenny) and even of Russian weapons systems. For those 2 huge markets Russia's best hope is joint ventures to develop systems such as the Brahmos cruise missile. In SAMs Russia risks losing Shtil contracts to Barak II with Elta radars, and China has longer range systems than Grumble (though I've read Ukrainian companies helped Chinese ones).
Ukraine is likely to become more of a competitor than a market for Russian ships or equipment.
This leaves smaller markets for Russia : Vietnam (Gepard light FFGs, evolved Tarantul, though all these are local production), Indonesia (though local production FPB57 and now Sigma limit the potential of 20380 and 22350 projects), Iran (though Iran is building copies of Vosper '70s frigates and Combattante II FACs), Syria, Algeria, potentially Egypt (though Western second hand FFs would clearly be preferred) and eventually Venezuela (though Spain is trusting the OPVH market) and Cuba (with Venezuelan oil money).
To summarize, not much of a remaining potential.
Besides, the potential is limited to corvettes and light frigates, nothing bigger. Hence my support for 20380, Gepard, 22350. May be some of the new LSTs currently building.

Subs:
In this area Russia maintains a significant potential, though HDW and DCN are eating into it real fast. Here as well joint ventures for local production of SSNs in China and India are the most promising. Then Lada/Amur designs (may be S1000) are the next best idea, with Indonesia's bizarre order, and some potential in India (to replace Kilo after 2015), Iran, Algeria, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam...

cheers

 

[Ths]

Conte:
You are illustrating the dilemma the Russian yards are in:
1. Prices are low, which means that you have to be eficient if you are to survive. Efficiency has never been the long suit of Russian industry.
2. Civilian hulls are getting bigger, which means less steel pr. ton deadweight AND less small ships (for the same trade volume) - which again is bad news for Russian yards.
3. It takes many small ships to equal the work of one big ship. This again means an other organisation of the building process.
4. More and more of the ships value moves away from the yard into engines and accessories (pumps, fittings,...).

Perhaps what we are seeing is the struggle for survival of Russian yards as a species.
I know that Maersk bought the yard in Kleipeda in Lithuania, they were happy enough with that; but when they saw the manning plan their sense of humour got strained.
The death struggle of a yard is usually longdrawn, as there is huge sunk cost in infrastucture, so yards keep operating even at a loss after depreciation if there is the slightest margin before depreciation and interest.
We will se some yards close when interest rates raise, as there will be a problem of rescheduling debt.

 

[contedicavour]

I agree.
The only ways out for the Russian shipyards are (i) massive investment buildup with MOD orders... and/or (ii) merging of shipyards in one company (orchestrated by the government) may be run by one of the major steel groups such as Severstal with serious manning reduction and closure of the least efficient, followed by a product focus on ships Russian companies can use : oilers, LNG transport, heavy minerals transport, etc.
We'll probably see a mix of the 2, but not orders for aircraft carriers. They would require capacity increase at the moment when the shipyards need streamlining and more civilian orders.

cheers

 

[Ths]

Conte:

There is another problem to add to the Russian yard industry's grieviences:

As far as I see: The trend is towards smaller ships - only the carrier is a big ship - and SSBN's.
There are not many cruiser on the slipways around the world, the destroyer seems to be the biggest ship for a sane navy. The frigatte the weapon of choise for long range independent operations and the corvette for coastal waters.

This - if I'm right - is due to following factors:

A general reduction of firepower afloat since the cold war.
Other areas of interest besides the ones known yestersyear.
A greater effective range of smaller vessels weapons - meaning a small ship can cover more ocean.

What you really need is a lot of patrollers - armed sufficiently for anti-terror and facilities for a helicopter of sorts. Not exactly what the communist party had in mind.

 

[tphuang]

if thats the case, then they might have problems. having seen some russian kit up close, I can tell you from what I've seen that it aint that flash.

there are significant QA issues outstanding.

and quite frankly, the changes in quality coming out of china are substantially better than what the russians have been exporting.

China is a classic example where the preference is for euro systems like those provided by france, israel, germany etc.... rather than russia.

the QA changes in russian gear compared to US or France are dramatically visible - and the commercial grade gear coming out of Alcatel almost rivals US Milspec in some areas. Without even hooking them up for reflection tests, you can visibly notice the diff between what goes into Migs and Tupolevs as compared to a COTS Boeing or Airbus.

China is far better placed to build their own large vessels at a superstructure/hull level and then go for a euro fitout. They actually don't get any advantage from going with a russian purchase unless they are desperarate to parallel build to meet projected deadlines. - and I can;t see them buying major vessels from the russians to do so.

yeah, totally agree with everything you mentionned. The most recent Sov delivered (139) was delayed in delivery, because it had a fire accident in the building process. And I think even 138/139 were only ordered, because PLAN was desperate after ROCN got the 4 Kidd class destroyers. When China got the Ukrainian engines (DA-80), they had so much problem with turbine blade that they fixed them on their own. In comparison, they never had an problem with the French and German engines they got for the diesel subs and frigates. btw Gary, is the embargo preventing China from importing gas turbines from west?

And another problem with Russian shipyards is that they are all desperate for orders. So when export order comes in, there are more squabbling over who gets the contract rather than the actual building. That leaves a really bad impression on customers (as was the case with China).

 

[gf0012-aust]

btw Gary, is the embargo preventing China from importing gas turbines from west?

I'm certainly aware that Euro GT's are available for China - but I'm unsure of whether there is an output limitation.

I know that there is a strong preference for german maritime diesels over ukrainian - and the ukrainian prices are absolutely silly prices - almost a 1/3rd of an equiv german in output.

You pay for it however in through life support. The Russian/Ukrainian low entry prices are a false economy. They typically (without exageration) have a 3-400% higher maint cycle - and the user will get caught by the consumable prices.

There is no such thing as a cheap jet engine, or a cheap maritime engine.

 

[Ths]

gf0012: There is an aside to this:

Traditionally weapons export has increased the quality of the weapons for domestic consumption. The coustoumers generally have ideas for add-ons, extras and so on. Some of them are a good idea for the launch costoumer at home.

In this context: If Russian exports leaves something to be desired, what is the quality they deliver to the Russian Navy?

 

[contedicavour]

gf0012: There is an aside to this:

Traditionally weapons export has increased the quality of the weapons for domestic consumption. The coustoumers generally have ideas for add-ons, extras and so on. Some of them are a good idea for the launch costoumer at home.

In this context: If Russian exports leaves something to be desired, what is the quality they deliver to the Russian Navy?

I read somewhere that even Aeroflot's new civilian jets (Airbus IIRC) have Rolls-Royce engines... while the Russians could have pushed for integration of their own engines into an Airbus airframe. Anyway in a few years the last Ilyushin and Tupolev civilian airliners will have been retired and (some cargo Antonov aside) nobody will remember Russia once supplied those engines...

Sorry if I went off topic with airplane engines, but I though it fitted with the discussion

cheers

 

[Ths]

Conte:
I don't think it is an aside, as turbine technology is crucial to the propulsion of naval ships.