New Russian aircraft carrier will revolutionize shipbuilding

January 22 2021 44

Amid continuing uncertainty about the future of Russian carrier groups, Moscow has considered several designs for new aircraft carriers to replace the aging Soviet cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov, ranging from the nuclear Storm to the much more conservative Manatee design.

And just recently, the Nevsky Design Bureau has developed a project for the Varan aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy, which is much lighter than the Manatee and more than half the size of the Storm. Military Watch experts write about a possible revolution in Russian shipbuilding.

Analysts of the American publication consider the design of the new Russian aircraft carrier revolutionary in comparison with past similar projects. A vessel with a displacement of only 45000 tons is likely to be much cheaper, but could have similar or even superior capabilities than the Manatee. Thanks to efficient use of deck space and a very small island superstructure, the ship will be able to accommodate 50 aircraft, including 24 heavy fighters, as well as 20 drones and 6 helicopters. The combat ship will have a length and width of about 250 and 65 meters, respectively, and will also be able to reach speeds of up to 26 knots.

The Varan's lightweight design could potentially be ideal for the Russian Navy. The project model released by the specialists of the Nevsky bureau shows the possibilities of placing more than a dozen Su-35 fighters in the sea version on the deck of the ship.

It looks like Varan also has a system for launching aircraft using an electromagnetic catapult, which was so lacking for Admiral Kuznetsov. Such systems are used to launch fighters with full ammunition and fuel tanks, and their absence currently limits the capabilities of the MiG-29K and Su-33, based on the deck of the Admiral Kuznetsov.

Nevsky Design Bureau

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

VK Zen Telegram

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Sergey Latyshev

0

22 January 2021 12: 07

On other sites, amers are translated quite differently.
The complete absence of a pipe, inscriptions from right to left in the photo to deceive the enemy - a truly complete revolution in shipbuilding.
In the future tense, the stump is clear.
1. ASK.21.07
  
  +4
  
  26 January 2021 18: 28
  
  Here the point is different. Firstly, this aircraft carrier with 24 attack aircraft, alas, will be greatly inferior in capabilities to a potential enemy. For example, "Ulyanovsk" could well challenge "Nimitz" with the only difference that it was "sharpened" under the air defense of ship groups, and even had superiority in the implementation of this task.
  The hypothetical "Varan" should have a comparable air group, which, judging by the above data, is out of the question. UAVs now and in the foreseeable future will not be comparable in efficiency with classic aircraft. This time.
  
  In terms of price and maintenance, it will not be much cheaper than a full-fledged aircraft carrier. the equipment is installed the same on the "small" AB, as on the full one. The greatest costs are spent on the development, installation and maintenance of the radar, etc. Therefore, it will not work to call such a solution an effective or budgetary investment. We will spend a little less money, and the "exhaust" will not turn out very much. These are two.
  
  When the USSR was deciding which aircraft carrier ships it needed to build, the American special press always published a wave of publications, praising ships with airborne and military aviation, aircraft carriers with a small displacement, etc. All as one sang manses about the fact that the big AVs will literally leave the race tomorrow, because they are outdated. However, for some reason they themselves did not take this path, preferring to build the "Nimitz", and now they are launching "Gerald Ford" into the series. And why is it all of a sudden? So the opinions of overseas experts, similar to the above, are hardly worth taking seriously. These are three.
  
  Considering that there are no technical specifications for the development of a domestic aircraft carrier yet, it is impossible to take seriously either the Manatee, or the Varan, or, all the more, the Storm, which was "developed" by the Krylov Center, which does not have the appropriate competencies. in our country only the Nevskoe Design Bureau is capable of. But "Varan" is an initiative study, aimed, apparently, to push the Navy to make a decision about which AB the country needs. Like, we can also "Varan" and Manatee and whatnot, that's four. Period.
amateur

+4

22 January 2021 12: 11

It is a pity that the pioneers' houses were dispersed. Otherwise, the pioneers in their ship modeling circles would have invented such models of aircraft carriers that the Americans, along with the current Russian designers, strangled themselves with envy.
1. Just a cat
  
  +2
  
  22 January 2021 13: 43
  
  Did you study resistance materials, drawing, industrial design and so on in the circles? Sumerian designers are probably still gagging with envy remembering a cardboard tank from a "pioneer"
  1. Binder
    
    -8
    
    22 January 2021 15: 29
    
    Quote: Just Cat
    cardboard tank from "pioneer"
    
    Is the cardboard tank your Armata? Therefore, the production of cardboard should be increased in the country so that there is enough for both tanks and aircraft carriers ...
2. faiver
  
  0
  
  24 January 2021 19: 14
  
  It's a pity that the houses of the pioneers were dispersed
  
  - not everywhere
Michael1950

-4

22 January 2021 12: 44

- Varan, - how does this lizard swim, okay ?!
1. Igor Berg
  
  -1
  
  22 January 2021 13: 26
  
  Most monitor lizards are terrestrial, but there are many arboreal and semi-aquatic species. Semi-aquatic species swim and dive well, some of them can stay under water for about an hour.
2. greenchelman
  
  +5
  
  23 January 2021 01: 24
  
  Well, the tulip is also a flower ... and a chrysanthemum and a peony
  1. Ivan Ivanov_20
    
    +1
    
    15 February 2021 19: 39
    
    I forgot the acacia ... Yes, there is also a whole greenhouse ... :))
andrew42

+4

22 January 2021 14: 39

Shaw, again? New papier-mâché mockup? How much dough did the layout go this time? Storm, Manatee, Varan ... Probably, the next layouts are already in line. According to the established logic, these will be "Echidna" and "Platypus". there are many more names, the main thing is to master the budget.
1. ASK.21.07
  
  +1
  
  26 January 2021 18: 36
  
  Despite the fact that I put a "+" on your comment, I can't help but note that making a layout is a low cost. Moreover, the Ministry of Defense does not pay for them, so no one will get out of their pants here. There is nothing to master. But if they give the go-ahead for development, here it will be possible to profit. There are examples. For example, leapfrog with corvettes, especially with "breakthrough, technological and unparalleled in the world (well, of course ) 20386. As a result, we cannot fully protect the near sea zone, but we have mastered a lot of funds.
  
  In a word, budgets are not cut on mock-ups created on their own initiative, they are cut on the design of real samples. Let's hope that when (if) it comes to the aircraft carrier, things will turn out somehow differently. I would very much like to believe it.
Alexander K_2

-8

22 January 2021 21: 54

When will the new cartoon be released? You need to have enough space for daggers, zircons, armatures, hunters and other onyxes!
1. Nikolaevich I
  
  +5
  
  23 January 2021 09: 07
  
  Quote: Alexander K_2
  When will the new cartoon be released?
  
  As for cartoons, baby, turn to your mother and ask her to show TV channels with cartoons ...
  1. Alexander K_2
    
    -3
    
    23 January 2021 19: 35
    
    So there will be no cartoons7 PRO onyxes. daggers. armata. terminators and, "having no analogues" SU-57 were and on the cartoon about "Varan" money ran out?
senima56

+2

23 January 2021 14: 01

In terms of "drawing and modeling", we are, perhaps, really "ahead of the rest"! The only pity is that all our projects remain on paper and in models!
1. Vladimir Tuzakov
  
  +1
  
  23 January 2021 18: 45
  
  As for the aircraft carriers, they have already outlived their best years and will soon retire. The British have already recognized the construction of two aircraft carriers as a mistake, the United States cannot commission its newest ones for five years, and the word hypersound sounds like a funeral alarm for large ships ... A series of "crowds of small fast ants" is suitable, from which the "elephants" will gallop away and to die of numerous cheap "stings" ... The picture will still be spectacular, so it prepares to buy elephants - an obvious bankrupt with all the consequences ...
  1. ASK.21.07
    
    +2
    
    26 January 2021 18: 50
    
    It is not true that aircraft carriers are a thing of the past. The Americans really can't bring Ford to mind yet, but they are already building two more, so the serial production is already evident. And about the fact that some RTOs can sink an aircraft carrier - this is for "Military Acceptance", they love to carry such nonsense. In reality, the "mosquito" fleet will be killed by aviation from the same "Nimitz" a few hundred kilometers from the aircraft carrier. Examples are, for example, the defeat of the Iraqi fleet by the Americans in 1991 (I don't remember the correct name of the place where this happened). And to launch "Caliber" or "Onyx" at full range, you need target designation from aircraft or AWACS helicopters, which must maintain contact with the target until it is captured by the missile homing head. Perhaps, in the future, UAVs will be able to do this, but this is a prospect. Until then - aviation. Do we have a lot of AWACS planes or helicopters?
    
    Perhaps someone will remember about satellites, but they are only able to detect the target, and it still needs to be identified and taken for escort. Considering that in the Legend system there are 4 satellites flying over one point once a day, the breaks between signals from the satellite will be at 6 o'clock. During this time, the AUG will travel more than 185,2 km on the economic course in an unknown direction. And on full - twice as much. And you also need to know that the Americans are masters of avoiding such tracking, hiding in civilian traffic, maneuvering so as not to expose the satellite, substituting false targets, but, most likely, all together. They are constantly working on this and have vast experience since the Cold War.
    
    So just finding AUG at sea is a very difficult task. And you also need to accompany her, the accompanying aircraft or AWACS helicopter should not be destroyed (and aircraft with AB will do just that, as well as escort ships), and missiles launched on it should break through a very powerful air defense and hit a moving target, which with this development of events, it will develop a maximum speed, that is, more than 60 km / h. Think it's easy? Not impossible, but very, very difficult. And certainly not with our current capabilities.
    1. Vladimir Tuzakov
      
      -1
      
      26 January 2021 19: 51
      
      You really amused, citing an example from 1991 - 30 years ago, it is just as funny if satellites see a soccer ball, and a piece aircraft carrier does not identify and do not aim the means of destruction, you seem to be 30 years behind in life ...
      1. ASK.21.07
        
        +1
        
        26 January 2021 21: 53
        
        Do not juggle. An example from 1991 concerned the confrontation between the mosquito fleet and carrier-based aircraft. As for the fact that the satellite sees the soccer ball, there are two questions. First, how do you know this? Second, if there are only four satellites in orbit, intended for naval reconnaissance, then how will they maintain contact with a potential target if, as mentioned above, appear above a specific point only four times a day?
        
        And, by the way, this is how the American AUG looks like in a picture from a modern satellite.
        
        Try to spot the soccer ball here! Much also depends on the altitude of the orbit in which the satellite is located. So not everyone is able to distinguish the ball. Marine reconnaissance satellites are not intended for target designation, but for detecting ships or their groups. This is the whole point.
        
        Let me remind you again: the Americans are great at avoiding satellite tracking, knowing how often and where they appear. They also know how to substitute false targets, etc.
        
        Cat
        
        0
        
        29 January 2021 20: 24
        
        Well, yes ... as the English say:The oceans are still huge The oceans are still huge ...
  2. andrew42
    
    +1
    
    27 January 2021 13: 29
    
    Well, not quite gone. Let's just say we moved. Not "kings of the seas" for a long time, that's for sure. A couple of air-troughs would not hurt us, but only after everything necessary. And what is needed is "Leaders", multi-purpose submarines with anaerobics, and amphibious assault helicopter carriers (with an emphasis on helicopter carriers, not "regimental" carriers, for which there must be transport). But Russia still cannot hold out to this, the oligarchic economy does not allow, you see. The rest - only with fat, including avics, if they don't die as a class.
2. ASK.21.07
  
  0
  
  26 January 2021 18: 38
  
  Well, not all. Don't bend it. And "Vanguard" is on the database, and "Peresvet", and "Dagger". "Zircon" is on its way. Su-57 still went into production (FINALLY !!!!!)
beeper

0

24 January 2021 06: 03

The photo for the article is wrong - it must be inverted so that the "tower" of the control is on the right and the "tactical model number" is read normally (from left to right).
The "tower" on aircraft carriers is located on the right side for a reasonis a tribute to the psychology of the flight crew, since, even at the dawn of aviation, it was empirically established that seven out of ten pilots evade danger by turning to the left, not to the right!
The layout of this promising Russian aircraft carrier is really promising, with a very large margin of modernization!
And with a block-modular standard construction, in a series, it will be possible to almost "painlessly" insert new sections into the hull (both "in the bow" and "in the stern" of the "tower"), adding volumes to increase the armament and air group, and power of the propulsion (nuclear or non-nuclear) installation!
The idea is good, allowing you to build and assemble aircraft carriers at existing shipyards in the Russian Federation!
But even with the accompanying coastal infrastructure for basing and repairing, with ships of protection and support at sea, such large aircraft-carrying ships should not be allowed Soviet one-sided mistakes !!!
Michael I

0

24 January 2021 21: 58

I wonder how the industry, which has never built even steam catapults, can cope with a more complex electromagnetic one? Will it master 30 years?
1. ASK.21.07
  
  -1
  
  26 January 2021 18: 52
  
  It is not true, we built steam catapults for both "Ulyanovsk" and "Nitka". And there were great developments in the EM catapult. So the point here is to properly organize the process, and the fundamental possibility has not gone anywhere yet.
  1. Michael I
    
    -2
    
    28 January 2021 19: 30
    
    Is there a catapult on "Thread"? In my opinion there is only a springboard. And what were the developments on the EM catapult? Who produced it?
    1. ASK.21.07
      
      +1
      
      28 January 2021 23: 22
      
      Quote: Mikhail I
      Is there a catapult on "Thread"?
      
      I wrote that it was built for "Thread". and was not there. It just started shortly before the collapse of the USSR, and ready-made catapults have sunk into oblivion. Here's a confirmation link. https://www.aviapanorama.ru/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/86.pdf
      
      And here is an indication of EM catapults. In the section "Takeoff and landing operations". https://topwar.ru/160626-sovetskij-uljanovsk-i-amerikanskij-nimic-atomnye-avianesuschie-no-pochemu-zhe-takie-raznye.html
      True, I got a little excited, saying this unequivocally. It only contains an indication that there is such information. How reliable they are is a question. But, given the knowledge of the author, I am inclined to trust him.
      1. Michael I
        
        -2
        
        29 January 2021 09: 40
        
        This is the point, there is no experience in creating and, most importantly, operating catapults, at least steam ones. And these are years of experience with bumps and failures
        
        ASK.21.07
        
        +1
        
        29 January 2021 18: 54
        
        I agree that operating experience is needed. But that years of bumps and failures are direct - I disagree. However, this is true only if thorough order is established in the fleet. And if they do, then bringing the aircraft carrier to operational readiness will not be difficult to say. Look, the floating NPP "Akademik Lomonosov" is generally the first of its kind, and nothing - it works for itself in a regular mode. Why should it be any different with catapults if we actually build them?
The comment was deleted.
UAZ 452

+1

28 January 2021 09: 50

And the electromagnetic catapult is already developed and ready for production?
Leonidas Grips

+1

28 January 2021 17: 32

And how many planes this miracle can launch, before the first plane takes off. Or like Kiev, out of 25 on board, only 12 could be lifted into the air.
stepset

-4

28 January 2021 20: 15

New Russian aircraft carrier will revolutionize shipbuilding

There is one "little nuisance".
They will never be built.
1. Cat
  
  0
  
  29 January 2021 21: 00
  
  This Varan is definitely, I hope we saw him for the last time. And, of course, we need AB, but unlike the USA, we absolutely do not need atomic shock XNUMX-kilotons, such as Ford and so on. No matter how we scold ourselves, we have weapons such as the Onyx and Co anti-ship missiles, which is not in the USA!... Therefore, percussion functions are not needed by our AB. The strike functions of the compound will be performed by the BNK, starting with the MRK and the corvette, on which there are UKSK and nuclear submarines. Why do we need to build a giant with catapults, the experience of creating which we do not have, so that our Su-33 can lift as much as one Onyx anti-ship missile with a launch range of 800 km? And the whole squadron can hit 12 anti-ship missiles. And if the Su-33 is intercepted? Such a blow can easily be made by a hundred times smaller RTOs "Karakurt". Why duplicate media? AB we should be of the Kuznetsov type, with a springboard, which we know how to build, with a regiment of fighters, for solving reconnaissance, air defense and anti-aircraft missile forces. Moreover, we do not need an atomic one, and so at least fill up with oil. Otherwise, the price of such an AB will be several billion dollars more expensive. And for one billion dollars, you can build a couple of frigates with three UKSK. And for two or three? It would be better to have 4-6 more frigates in the formation, the striking force of each of which will be equal to two squadrons of Su-33 .. And of course it is pointless to consider a hypothetical situation AB against AB. It is clear that if this happens (and it will never happen, nuclear weapons will not allow), then the air defense AB will win, and not the shock AB. The strike will lose all or part of the strike aircraft and sink home until they are drowned, and then, with luck.
  1. stepset
    
    -3
    
    29 January 2021 21: 21
    
    Quote: Cat
    And of course we need AB,
    
    Look at the neighboring countries of the Russian Federation and count how many aircraft carriers they have:
    13 Taiwan (Chinese Taipei) 133.08%
    14 Switzerland 127.01%
    15 Netherlands 121.83%
    16 Brazil 115.79%
    17 Hong Kong SAR 100.45%
    18 Russia 100.00%
    19 Mexico 88.48%
    20 Belgium 71.87%
    21 Sweden 67.11%
    22 Austria 63.87%
    23 Indonesia 59.73%
    The legs must be stretched over the clothes. Otherwise, you can glue the flippers from hunger, cold and disease.
    It seems that you do not know at all where the place of the Russian Federation is in the modern world.
  2. isofat
    
    +2
    
    29 January 2021 21: 33
    
    Cat, signs that he likes to show stepset, he composes himself.
Leonidas Grips

+1

1 February 2021 20: 44

Who is this foam model for? The Americans, of course, are terrified, as our correspondents like to say, they shit in their pants with fear. Our number could not even be written on the deck. It is not readable, everything is through ...
fss

+1

5 February 2021 10: 55

Projects are a good thing. For example, to amuse your vanity. I remembered the film "The Marriage of Balzaminov". There Mishenka also loved to project.
anclevalico

+1

10 February 2021 07: 47

And overclocking by a nanocatapult from Chubais.
Yurich60

0

10 February 2021 10: 18

Mirrored photos and videos are very annoying.

As for the topic, aircraft carriers are good at local conflicts. That is why the Americans need them - they climb into all holes. I believe that they will not live long in a global war, and chasing the countries of the 3rd world is the very thing.
Praskovya

0

10 February 2021 11: 55

Russian aircraft carrier !!! Haha !!! Does anyone believe in this tale?
1. isofat
  
  +1
  
  16 February 2021 21: 12
  
  We were born to make a fairy tale come true.
osemyonoff

-1

20 February 2021 22: 57

Exactly, will make a splash in cartoon drawing