Russia Planning a Catapult Launch System Aircraft Carrier, Any new planes for India?

[sancho]

If Mig-35 Naval Version was launched with catapult launch friendly systems It could be a future replacement for 29ks too!

Mig 35 and the Mig 29K have the same base airframe, so would require many modifications to make it catapult capable, while you can easily upgrade a Mig 29K into 35 by adding AESA and TVC. That's why IAF even evaluated Mig 29Ks without the hook in the MMRCA trials. So Mig 35 for IN is likely to come, simply as an upgrade, although I hope that we will get the approval to at least add the indigenous AESA to have commonality to N-LCA. If Kaveri would be useful, it would be even better, but sadly that seems to be a dead end.

 

[Echo_419]

I seriously doubt this, the Russians have little expertise in steam catapults/CATOBAR carriers let alone EMALS they are a LONG way out (decades) from making this fantasy a reality and india shouldn't be used to find these delusions whilst the Russian economy plummets.



I wouldn't be so hopeful. The Russian economy is tanking I don't see how they can afford anything even remotely as ambitious as this for the medium term whislt the IN is right now finalising the design for the IAC-2.

I'm not interested in seeing india sign up for another "co-development" with Russia that leads to little but contractual disputes, inevitable delays, cost hikes, vast amounts of indian funds but little actual ToT for india.

These Russians are going to try and milk india no more than ever. I for one am not hoping for this to move ahead.

At least with the Americans you know what you are signing up for from the outset.

+ let's remember the IN is all but certain to go for the General Dynamics EMALS and work is going on on this front.


The Russian daydreams can go and impress another cash-rich nation, india needs to stop being their bottomless treasure chest

Agreed US is reliable partner & we know what we are signing up for though I still have doubts that they may play their national sport with us
'Lets sanction you'

 

[DeathInvader]

Mig 35 and the Mig 29K have the same base airframe, so would require many modifications to make it catapult capable, while you can easily upgrade a Mig 29K into 35 by adding AESA and TVC. That's why IAF even evaluated Mig 29Ks without the hook in the MMRCA trials. So Mig 35 for IN is likely to come, simply as an upgrade, although I hope that we will get the approval to at least add the indigenous AESA to have commonality to N-LCA. If Kaveri would be useful, it would be even better, but sadly that seems to be a dead end.

IN is planning to keep one squadron of Mig-29ks offshore ! The Real question is, what after IAC-2. WIll India go for another carrier, maybe a supercarrier. If it does then Mig-35s could be a cheaper alternative to add upto the 100 Aircraft we might have along with AMCA and LCA.

Mig 35 and the Mig 29K have the same base airframe, so would require many modifications to make it catapult capable, while you can easily upgrade a Mig 29K into 35 by adding AESA and TVC. That's why IAF even evaluated Mig 29Ks without the hook in the MMRCA trials. So Mig 35 for IN is likely to come, simply as an upgrade, although I hope that we will get the approval to at least add the indigenous AESA to have commonality to N-LCA. If Kaveri would be useful, it would be even better, but sadly that seems to be a dead end.

Btw, Given Rafale a chance, you think it has any future in IAC-2 ? Or it will be a mess considering too many projects might have naval versions? N-LCA, N-FGFA, N-AMCA? Or FGFA and AMCA will we only seen in IAC-3 if they are planning?

@sancho @Abingdonboy

 

[DeathInvader]

Ship building is a perishable skill, building carriers isn't something the Russians do to often, will their shipyards be up to the task? Will their workers have the needed skills? Most aren't so sure. having the tech is important, but the workers need experience and that's something they sorely lack right now.

COLUMN-No, Russia isn't building a giant new aircraft carrier

The Kremlin is preparing blueprints for a huge new aircraft carrier, Russian media reported in early February, to replace its navy's current flattop, the relatively small and aged "Admiral Kuznetsov."

Moscow's new carrier, however, is likely to remain a paper concept. A quarter-century after the Soviet Union's collapse, Russia lacks the money, expertise and industrial capacity to build aircraft carriers.

A new flattop could boost Moscow's military power by providing air cover to warships sailing far from Russian shores and giving the Kremlin another option for launching air strikes on distant enemies. Both are now particular concerns for the West because President Vladimir Putin's Russia has become far more aggressive along its borders.

But the Kremlin has failed to maintain its expensive shipyard facilities and perishable worker skills. So it can't actually complete the new vessel any time soon.

The Krylov State Research Center in St. Petersburg, which brainstorms most of Moscow's warships, is doing the design work for the carrier, according to Russia's TV Zvezda. The TV network featured a scale model of the new flattop earlier this month.

The model is revealing, however. It underscores the Kremlin's narrow chance of ever building the warship. Based on the model planes on the scale ship's deck, the proposed flattop appears to be huge - at least as big as the U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered supercarriers, which can exceed 1,000 feet in length.

The United States operates 10 such nuclear carriers, each with an air wing of 60 or more planes, plus 10 smaller, non-nuclear amphibious assault ships that can launch small numbers of vertical-landing Harrier attack planes.

Russia's "Kuznetsov" is bigger than the U.S. assault ships but smaller than the nuclear flattops. When jets take off from the deck of "Kuznetsov," which isn't often, they rarely number more than a dozen. The new carrier that Krylov is reportedly developing would represent a significant upgrade. That's why Moscow probably can't build this new ship.

When the Soviet Union launched "Kuznetsov" in 1985, it was a major technical accomplishment for the then-superpower. Moscow began assembling "Varyag," a sister ship of "Kuznetsov," around the same time. It also started work on a true full-size carrier, as big as anything the United States builds.

But the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991 abruptly halted the carrier program. One emerging problem was logistics. The Krylov design agency is in Russia, but the Soviet Union's main carrier-building shipyard was on the Black Sea in Ukraine, which became an independent country that year. (It has not been subjected to the recent fighting.)

Ukraine scrapped the big carrier then under construction and, in 1998, sold the half-completed "Varyag" to China. Beijing spent 13 years finishing and upgrading "Varyag" to turn it into China's first-ever flattop. The rechristened "Lianoning" now conducts sea trials to help the Chinese navy prepare for future homebuilt carriers and to train a cadre of naval aviators.

Russia was left with "Kuznetsov" as its sole flattop and, deprived of funds and Ukraine's assistance, has struggled to keep the vessel in working condition. Since the ship was commissioned into frontline service in the early 1990s, "Kuznetsov" has deployed just five times. Each deployment, lasting between three and six months, saw the flattop sail from its home port in northern Russia around Europe and into the Mediterranean as a show of force and to demonstrate support for Russia's allies in the region, including Syria.

By contrast, the U.S. Navy deploys its carriers once every two years for cruises lasting between six and nine months. At any given time, the United States has two or three big carriers and an equal number of small carriers on station in the world's hot spots.

Russia, however, is lucky if its flattop is available for combat for a few months every few years.

U.S. aircraft carriers have engaged in almost all America's conflicts since World War Two. "Kuznetsov" hasn't launched a single combat sortie.

The carrier is clearly inadequate as a reliable instrument of Russian foreign policy. This says as much about the poor state of Russia's arms industry, military planning and overall economy as it does about the ship itself. Eager to improve its ability to build reliable flattops, in recent years Moscow undertook two parallel initiatives. Neither worked out as the Kremlin had hoped it would.

First, in 2004, Russia and India struck a deal whereby Moscow would pull a small, Soviet-era carrier - the "Admiral Gorshkov" - out of mothballs, rebuild it to enhance its ability to support jet fighters and sell it to India to replace one of New Delhi's aged British-built carriers or flattops.

The roughly $1-billion deal was supposed to be a win-win. India would get a reasonably up-to-date carrier for a fraction of the cost of building a new one. (Today, a new large U.S. carrier costs as much as $14 billion.) Meanwhile, Russia's defense industry would gain fresh experience in carrier construction that should prove useful when it came time to replace "Kuznetsov."

But the carrier sale quickly turned into a disaster for both countries. Moscow had underestimated the deficiencies of its main Sevmash shipyard on the White Sea. Costs more than doubled when workers fell behind schedule. Sevmash finally finished the refurbished flattop in late 2013 - five years late.

Then on its maiden voyage from Russia to India, the carrier's engines broke down, an unsurprising development considering "Kuznetsov's" tarnished record. The Indian deal was supposed to reinvigorate Russian shipbuilding. Instead it only underscored the industry's weakness. Russia inked a similar deal with France in 2010 to acquire two French-made assault ships for $2 billion. Russian companies would contribute to the vessels' construction and, at some later date, might build a few more of the ships on their own.

The Mistral-class vessels can carry only helicopters, not fixed-wing planes. Still, Russian officials hoped that co-producing the ships with France would do what the Indian deal was supposed to - help restore Russia's ability to construct big warships.

"The purchase of Mistral shipbuilding technology will help Russia to grasp large-capacity shipbuilding," Russian Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky said. "It is important for construction of ships like the future ocean-going class destroyer and later an aircraft carrier."

But the French program failed in even more dramatic fashion than the Indian effort. Paris suspended the Mistral deal after Russian troops invaded Ukraine's Crimean peninsula in early 2014. Notably, when Russia annexed Crimea, it failed to seize Kiev's main shipyards just north of the peninsula - the same yards that had assembled the Soviet carriers, including Kuznetsov.

For at least 11 years, Moscow has been trying to restore its ability to build aircraft carriers but has made little progress. And with the Russian economy in free fall, owing in large part to sanctions that other countries have imposed over the war in eastern Ukraine, even that modest progress could grind to a halt.

Major General Igor Kozhin, the Russian navy's chief of naval aviation, said a carrier could be ready before 2025. But one expert doubts if even that is possible. "The earliest that Russia could build a new aircraft carrier is 2027," estimated Dmitry Gorenburg, a research scientist who is an associate at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University.

From COLUMN-No, Russia isn't building a giant new aircraft carrier| Reuters



If you're with us, you've nothing to fear.

Don't cross us, we wont cross you.

The Confirmation from the NAVY chief came two days ago the report said!


Why would we cross you? And the last time US sanctioned India, in-turn forced India to develop more indigenous systems. You think USA will end up on sour terms with India? It might push INDIA-CHINA-RUSSIA to form an Alliance?

 

[Ind4Ever]

So it will be a juicy target for NATO. Russia should stick to submarines rather than aircraft carriers.

The thing with aircraft carriers knew they are huge spotted by enemy radar and that's why they operates far way from any threat . That saying more space means more possibility and capabilities to defend threats aimed at the AC

 

[sancho]

IN is planning to keep one squadron of Mig-29ks offshore ! The Real question is, what after IAC-2. WIll India go for another carrier, maybe a supercarrier. If it does then Mig-35s could be a cheaper alternative to add upto the 100 Aircraft we might have along with AMCA and LCA.

They won't keep 1 squadron, but will have reserve and training fighters at the bases of the carrier wings, which will be split to both coastlines.
Even IAC 2 will come beyond 2025, so no way Mig 35 as a new fighter will ever play a role for India again.

Btw, Given Rafale a chance, you think it has any future in IAC-2 ?

It will be a choice for sure, but the limitation to single seaters and the larger space their fixed wings require are disadvantages that IN will consider. Besides that stealth fighters and the F18SH with weapon pods will be on offer earlier, whith indigenous N-FGFA / AMCA on the other side.

Ship building is a perishable skill, building carriers isn't something the Russians do to often, will their shipyards be up to the task? Will their workers have the needed skills? Most aren't so sure. having the tech is important, but the workers need experience and that's something they sorely lack right now.

Why do you think they offered us the Gorshkov for free and why they wanted the Mistral class with a licence production part? Both added to the experience and know how of their shipyards and as I said, they are not developing a complete new carrier design, but further developing what they have for decades.

 

[DeathInvader]

And? Just because you commit to something doesn't mean it will actually happen. The US committed to de-committing from Afghanistan and the Middle-East. Now those policies are being reversed. Our pivot to Asia? Yeah, didn't happen as planned.

Committing to do something doesn't make a damn difference if you lack the means, and funds, to make it happen.

At present, Russia lacks the infrastructure and worker skills, hence the talk about a partnership with India... well from people here, not sure if that's actually happening in real life.

The point still stands, they lack the relevant capabilities to produce large ships.



Who said you would? I say you shouldn't.

Vikiramaditya was Completely build by russia! Only thing missing was a nuclear propulsion system. Its not so hard to build a carrier. If India can do it with limited infrastructure, then why can't Russia? It is more technically advanced than India anyways?

 

[DeathInvader]

Russian Navy plans new supercarrier, but will it ever float? (+video)
The new Russian aircraft carrier would be larger than even the US's Nimitz class. But experts are skeptical that it will ever be realized.
By Fred Weir, Correspondent MARCH 4, 2015
Courtesy of US Navy/Reuters/FileView Caption
MOSCOW — Moscow is planning to build at least one giant aircraft carrier, even larger than the US Nimitz class of supercarriers, to give Russia's navy the ability to project power around the globe, according to naval chief Viktor Chirkov.

The new carrier is still in the early planning stages, and many experts doubt Russia has the ability to construct such a vessel. But Admiral Chirkov's announcement does come amid a massive naval buildup that will see the Russian navy receive 50 new warships this year alone.

"No doubt Russia needs this aircraft carrier, and not just one of them," says Viktor Litovkin, military editor of the official TASS news agency. "It might take 3 or 4 years to solve the basic technical problems, and find a drydock where it can be constructed. But Russia needs to go out into the ocean. Whether some people like it or not, we are a global power."

Recommended: Sochi, Soviets, and tsars: How much do you know about Russia?
Few details have emerged about the planned carrier. But a scale model, built by the Krylov State Research Center in St. Petersburg where the ship is being designed, suggests it will be a seagoing behemoth capable of carrying about 100 fixed-wing aircraft (compared to 90 for a Nimitz carrier). Other innovations would include a US-style catapult take-off system, although the model shows the ship also having a ski-jump snout, the system used by Soviet-era carriers.


TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE Sochi, Soviets, and tsars: How much do you know about Russia?

PHOTOS OF THE DAY Photos of the day 03/04
Russia's sole operating carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, was launched in 1985, is half the size of a Nimitz class ship, and carries up to 50 aircraft.

Analysts say that Russia faces overwhelming obstacles if it goes ahead with the plan. Soviet aircraft carriers were built in Mikolaiv, Ukraine, and no comparable shipyards yet exist in Russia. Writing for Reuters, US military blogger David Axe summarizes all the reasons why the massive machine announced by Chirkov will probably never be built.

Some Russian security experts agree.

Alexander Golts, an analyst with the online newspaper Yezhednevny Zhurnal, says the Russian Navy has been lagging behind other military services in the struggle for resources, amid the huge rearmament program ordered by President Vladimir Putin. The Navy probably have invented the carrier project to attract the attention of politicians.

"There is a scramble for available funds; every service is trying to get more. So, the admirals decided to go public with this announcement," he says. "But it's mostly wishful thinking."

Russian Navy plans new supercarrier, but will it ever float? (+video) - CSMonitor.com