Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:14 am

    Wouldn't Russia be better off with LHC's instead?

    The primary use of a carrier is air cover/air support/air surveillance and you don't really get that from a helicopter carrier.

    You need fixed wing aircraft and catapults for heavier aircraft like AWACS and AEW aircraft.

    If they give the Kuznetsov a decent upgrade they could certainly get by with building just 3 new carriers...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  TR1 on Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:15 am

    Flyingdutchman wrote:I think the best option is 3 medium aircraft carriers 1 in the northern fleet and 2 in the pacific fleet.
    With growing tensions almost everywhere in the south they really need some aircraft carriers!

    Why?

    Why does Russia really need some carriers?
    For what tensions?
    avatar
    Flyingdutchman

    Posts : 543
    Points : 561
    Join date : 2013-07-30
    Location : The Netherlands

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Flyingdutchman on Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:34 am

    Russia needs aircraft carriers because the subs of the northern fleet need aviation.
    There are Some tensions between china and japan, phillipines, Vietnam etc.

    But was not a good reason because russia Doesnt care.
    And they shouldnt!

    But i still think they need Some good AC to keep Up with other navies.

    I think china now has a better navy then Russia.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  TR1 on Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:37 am

    Better in what way? China's submarine fleet is nowhere near as potent. It's fleet lacks in many core capabilities. Of course it also has many more newer ships than the Runavy...but so what? China's navy is of little concern to Russia. In fact, the more China spends on its navy, the better for Russia, from a security standpoint.

    Northern fleet needs aviation why? Russia has the longest ranged fighters in the world, they can do fine for its purposes.

    As you can tell, I am not particularly in favor of carriers. Not when other priorities need to be met first.

    Kuznetsov with new propulsion and MiG-29Ks is enough for me for now.
    avatar
    Flyingdutchman

    Posts : 543
    Points : 561
    Join date : 2013-07-30
    Location : The Netherlands

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Flyingdutchman on Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:03 pm

    TR1 wrote:Better in what way? China's submarine fleet is nowhere near as potent. It's fleet lacks in many core capabilities. Of course it also has many more newer ships than the Runavy...but so what? China's navy is of little concern to Russia. In fact, the more China spends on its navy, the better for Russia, from a security standpoint.

    Northern fleet needs aviation why? Russia has the longest ranged fighters in the world, they can do fine for its purposes.

    As you can tell, I am not particularly in favor of carriers. Not when other priorities need to be met first.

    Kuznetsov with new propulsion and MiG-29Ks is enough for me for now.

    The surface fleet of china is better then the russian navy for sure but About the sub fleet no country has a better submarine fleet then russia Thats for sure to!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 11, 2014 9:40 am

    I could care less whether China has or has not got a "better navy".

    Russia needs carriers because her navy needs air power to grow and expand and reach her full potential.

    I do however also agree that for now the K is good enough... Russia doesn't have the support structure or support ships to operate 4 carriers now.

    A serious upgrade to the K however is needed and over the next two decades they need to plan and put into service two more carriers... Don't rush them, don't make them super carriers able to kill everything and anything expensive stealthy white elephants.

    Make them cheap practical useful vessels that carry aircraft to expand the sight and reach of the surface fleet and offer an extra layer of protection for surface and subsurface units.

    Air power is a critical force multiplier for the Navy (and Army).


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Flyingdutchman

    Posts : 543
    Points : 561
    Join date : 2013-07-30
    Location : The Netherlands

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Flyingdutchman on Tue Feb 11, 2014 10:16 am

    I dont think one carrier is enough for a Powerfull country like russia.
    Build another medium AC based on the kuznetsov with the granit missiles (or an updated version of it) and the AC wont need Much escorts.
    And then you Will always have atleast one AC ready for deployment when needed.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  collegeboy16 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:25 am

    If i were in charge I wouldnt spend much on the carrier itself, instead ill blow it on the air wing.
    A simple Kuznetsov sized or slightly smaller CATOBAR, that is optimized for supporting naval pak-fas would be nice.
    It may not be a super carrier but it can neuter one with its much better air wing  Twisted Evil .
    avatar
    Flyingdutchman

    Posts : 543
    Points : 561
    Join date : 2013-07-30
    Location : The Netherlands

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Flyingdutchman on Tue Feb 11, 2014 9:06 pm

    Navalized Sukhoi T-50 PAK FAs will be deployed on the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and future Russian aircraft carriers. There will be a competition between the Sukhoi, Mikoyan and Yakovlev design bureaus to choose the new naval aircraft.
    Alexei Fedorov has said that any decision on applying fifth-generation technologies to produce a smaller fighter (comparative to the F-35) must wait until after the heavy fighter, based on the T-50, is completed.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:51 am

    I dont think one carrier is enough for a Powerfull country like russia.

    Russia hasn't had the investment and support infrastructure right now to operate more than one carrier so having ten right now would be pointless... they would spend all day tied up on the pier with no crew and no aircraft to operate from them.

    A good strong navy will make Russia a more powerful global country... it doesn't happen the other way around.

    Build another medium AC based on the kuznetsov with the granit missiles (or an updated version of it) and the AC wont need Much escorts.

    It would be an enormous mistake to put heavy AShMs on their new carriers... they should certainly have 4-6 UKSK launchers, but loading them with land attack cruise missiles and anti sub missiles makes rather more sense as the aircraft on board could deliver air launched anti ship missiles to targets much further away than any ship launched missile.

    Kuznetsov with Granits still needs escorts... and without its Granits will still need escorts but with more space for aircraft will offer better protection for the ships escorting it.

    And then you Will always have atleast one AC ready for deployment when needed.

    Not possible right now... it makes more sense to build up the rest of the fleets first to allow any new carriers to be properly used.

    Alexei Fedorov has said that any decision on applying fifth-generation technologies to produce a smaller fighter (comparative to the F-35) must wait until after the heavy fighter, based on the T-50, is completed.

    Which should be about 2018. Navalised PAK FA could be ready for naval use by 2022 and naval light 5th gen fighters perhaps 5-6 years after that.

    Keep in mind that the smaller lighter cheaper 5th gen light fighter is not in limbo... the avionics for PAK FA are in the Su-35 and the avionics for the new stealth light fighter will likely be used in the Mig-35. Experience and production tools and skills can be applied directly to the new aircraft which will be stealthy by virtue of its airframe design no being based on a Mig-29.

    Lets face it... the current plans of the US Navy show the stealth fighter on Russian ships will only need to contend with 4th gen western fighters... Rafale on French carriers, F-18 on US carriers, and the F-35 on the UK carriers and the F-35 as a strike aircraft on US carriers... the F-18 being replaced by the F-35 as the naval strike aircraft and relegated to fighter... replacing the F-14.

    Fairly odd progression where the F-14 is the carrier fighter and the A-6 is the strike aircraft with the F-18 first replacing the A-6 as strike aircraft and then the F-14 as fighter is now to be replaced as the strike aircraft and will just be a fighter again.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    GJ Flanker

    Posts : 39
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2012-07-28

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GJ Flanker on Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:16 am

    Russia should build heavy nuclear carriers, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

    Russia don't have friendly ports nor bases around the world like the USA. They need a strong autonomic battle group, able to sustain heavy attacks and able to powerful strike back.

    A new Russian carrier should have nuclear propulsion, electromagnetic catapults, AESA radar system, most advanced multirole fighters (T-50K or MiG-XXK), advanced helicopters, first class ASW and AEW aircraft and UCAV/UAV. There is time enough to get it right, they don't need to hurry.

    Small carriers are for smaller navies. Russia has great interests in the Arctic region and must control the passages to the Arctic from both, the Atlantic and the Pacific, side.
    They also need carriers in the southern regions of the Oceans for support of their blue water fleets.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:42 am

    GJ Flanker wrote:Russia should build heavy nuclear carriers, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

    Russia don't have friendly ports nor bases around the world like the USA. They need a strong autonomic battle group, able to sustain heavy attacks and able to powerful strike back.

    A new Russian carrier should have nuclear propulsion, electromagnetic catapults, AESA radar system, most advanced multirole fighters (T-50K or MiG-XXK), advanced helicopters, first class ASW and AEW aircraft and UCAV/UAV. There is time enough to get it right, they don't need to hurry.

    Small carriers are for smaller navies. Russia has great interests in the Arctic region and must control the passages to the Arctic from both, the Atlantic and the Pacific, side.
    They also need carriers in the southern regions of the Oceans for support of their blue water fleets.      
    If you mean heavy as in supercarrier heavy i disagree. A Kuz is 55k ton- so maybe a 65-70k ton vessel would suffice if we are
    expecting a supercarrier length service life (40 -50 years) out of it. The extra tonnage would be good for upgrading the AC over
    the years.
    Regarding a strong autonomic battle group, I think nuke power for the whole battle group is necessary.
    Also about VLS, I agree with GarryB, heavy ashms are no longer needed in the AC. I would put S-500/400 in VLS tubes buried
    in the deck, maybe squeeze them with the EMALS.
    avatar
    Flyingdutchman

    Posts : 543
    Points : 561
    Join date : 2013-07-30
    Location : The Netherlands

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Flyingdutchman on Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:04 am

    GarryB wrote:
    I dont think one carrier is enough for a Powerfull country like russia.

    Russia hasn't had the investment and support infrastructure right now to operate more than one carrier so having ten right now would be pointless... they would spend all day tied up on the pier with no crew and no aircraft to operate from them.

    A good strong navy will make Russia a more powerful global country... it doesn't happen the other way around.

    Build another medium AC based on the kuznetsov with the granit missiles (or an updated version of it) and the AC wont need Much escorts.

    It would be an enormous mistake to put heavy AShMs on their new carriers... they should certainly have 4-6 UKSK launchers, but loading them with land attack cruise missiles and anti sub missiles makes rather more sense as the aircraft on board could deliver air launched anti ship missiles to targets much further away than any ship launched missile.

    Kuznetsov with Granits still needs escorts... and without its Granits will still need escorts but with more space for aircraft will offer better protection for the ships escorting it.

    And then you Will always have atleast one AC ready for deployment when needed.

    Not possible right now... it makes more sense to build up the rest of the fleets first to allow any new carriers to be properly used.

    Alexei Fedorov has said that any decision on applying fifth-generation technologies to produce a smaller fighter (comparative to the F-35) must wait until after the heavy fighter, based on the T-50, is completed.

    Which should be about 2018. Navalised PAK FA could be ready for naval use by 2022 and naval light 5th gen fighters perhaps 5-6 years after that.

    Keep in mind that the smaller lighter cheaper 5th gen light fighter is not in limbo... the avionics for PAK FA are in the Su-35 and the avionics for the new stealth light fighter will likely be used in the Mig-35. Experience and production tools and skills can be applied directly to the new aircraft which will be stealthy by virtue of its airframe design no being based on a Mig-29.

    Lets face it... the current plans of the US Navy show the stealth fighter on Russian ships will only need to contend with 4th gen western fighters... Rafale on French carriers, F-18 on US carriers, and the F-35 on the UK carriers and the F-35 as a strike aircraft on US carriers... the F-18 being replaced by the F-35 as the naval strike aircraft and relegated to fighter... replacing the F-14.

    Fairly odd progression where the F-14 is the carrier fighter and the A-6 is the strike aircraft with the F-18 first replacing the A-6 as strike aircraft and then the F-14 as fighter is now to be replaced as the strike aircraft and will just be a fighter again.

    Your making a mistake the US currently has 2 f 18 aircraft one for fighter and one for strike but there is a big difference between f-18 hornet and f-18 super hornet the super hornet replaced the f 14 and the hornet replaced the a-6/a-7 BUT the most modern air wing on carriers is the one stationed in Japan 2 squadrons of f18f super hornet (strike) s and 2 squadrons of f 18E super hornets.(fighter)
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:23 am

    Russia should build heavy nuclear carriers, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

    I pretty much agree with everything you said in that post, though I would not want to see the Russians try to build 100,000 ton carriers like the US.

    60-70K ton would be the biggest they should go and I would support more exotic technologies as well... like huge airships for AEW/AWACS, and UCAVs.

    There was talk about the new carriers being subsurface, surface(sea and land), air, and space combat ready, so naval S-500s and S-400s will be part of the armament too.

    I also agree they need nuclear propulsion for all their carrier group vessels for long endurance and speed where needed... they need new compact but powerful reactors that are as safe as they can possibly be.

    Small carriers are for smaller navies.

    There is a correlation between weight and cost, but also in deployment of aircraft... they want the smallest lightest carrier with the most aircraft on board... the best combination.

    Your making a mistake the US currently has 2 f 18 aircraft one for fighter and one for strike but there is a big difference between f-18 hornet and f-18 super hornet the super hornet replaced the f 14 and the hornet replaced the a-6/a-7 BUT the most modern air wing on carriers is the one stationed in Japan 2 squadrons of f18f super hornet (strike) s and 2 squadrons of f 18E super hornets.(fighter)

    Hornets hornets hornets... call them stealthy and triple the price but at the end of the day they are the same plane.

    The F-35 will replace the Hornet in the strike role, but the external weapon capacity of the Hornet will mean it will remain the fighter of choice.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1320
    Points : 1485
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:49 am

    With all that great info you give ,my final opinion is that I don't care what AC the Runavy builds as long as it has AWACS capability. However in the future I believe ACs will start being obsolete due to big detectibility and improvements in SAMs and land attack cruise missiles.


    Maybe in the future we will have very stealthy ships armed only with AA railguns tasked with sneaking close to a carrier gruop and cleanly, cheaply and rapidly destroying the aircraft while they're still slow and easy to hit.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:12 am

    dedicated AWACS aircraft is nice but imo against a capable opponent those would be among the first to be shot down.
    Better to have lots of mini AWACS-like capability like those in PAK-FA and further develop them- eggs and basket really.
    avatar
    Flyingdutchman

    Posts : 543
    Points : 561
    Join date : 2013-07-30
    Location : The Netherlands

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Flyingdutchman on Wed Feb 12, 2014 12:17 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:dedicated AWACS aircraft is nice but imo against a capable opponent those would be among the first to be shot down.
    Better to have lots of mini AWACS-like capability like those in PAK-FA and further develop them- eggs and basket really.

    They wont be the first to be Shotdown because they see the fighters coming from a long distance and the fighters Will have enough time to come while the AWACS is maybe retreating when you have a super carrier AWACS aircraft are a MUST.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:47 am

    However in the future I believe ACs will start being obsolete due to big detectibility and improvements in SAMs and land attack cruise missiles.

    Why do you think stealth technology can't be applied to air craft carriers?

    Is the B-2 less stealthy than an F-22 or more stealthy?

    In fact EM catapults should greatly reduce the IR signature of the modern carrier and the technology could be applied to tube artillery at sea and on land.

    Maybe in the future we will have very stealthy ships armed only with AA railguns tasked with sneaking close to a carrier gruop and cleanly, cheaply and rapidly destroying the aircraft while they're still slow and easy to hit.

    How will those stealthy ships find those stealthy aircraft and stealthy carriers? Do you not think that any sensor that a stealthy small ship can carry would not be as useful as the sensor a very large ship could carry which means the large ship detects the small ship first and can open fire first?

    A very large target is easier to hit but also is harder to sink... a huge transport ship carrying balsa wood or ping pong balls would be impossible to sink unless you could make it catch fire.

    dedicated AWACS aircraft is nice but imo against a capable opponent those would be among the first to be shot down.
    Better to have lots of mini AWACS-like capability like those in PAK-FA and further develop them- eggs and basket really.

    To have them on a carrier... by definition they can't be the size of a 747. The Naval PAK FA will likely have 360 degree radar capability, though an AWACS aircraft that is heavier with larger sensor arrays and larger fuel tanks to allow longer endurance at high altitude also makes sense.

    If you operate your AWACS aircraft above your primary air defence cruiser it will likely be rather safer than you might think...

    They wont be the first to be Shotdown because they see the fighters coming from a long distance and the fighters Will have enough time to come while the AWACS is maybe retreating when you have a super carrier AWACS aircraft are a MUST.

    Indeed the whole purpose behind adding dedicated air power to a naval group is to extend the vision of the fleet with AWACS aircraft and also extend the air defence ring well beyond the horizon. Air based sensors are better able to detect at long range low flying threats, but more importantly in peace time and in war time it can send out aircraft to investigate and deal with any potential problem without risking a ship.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Hannibal Barca

    Posts : 1254
    Points : 1276
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Hannibal Barca on Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:07 am

    Why do you think stealth technology can't be applied to air craft carriers?

    Because AC decks make a really bad shape in terms of signal


    In fact EM catapults should greatly reduce the IR signature of the modern carrier and the technology could be applied to tube artillery at sea and on land.

     Laughing  This is not the way you detect an AC anyway


    Maybe in the future we will have very stealthy ships armed only with AA railguns tasked with sneaking close to a carrier gruop and cleanly, cheaply and rapidly destroying the aircraft while they're still slow and easy to hit.

    This will never happen because there are already extremely convenient weapons to put an AC at rest. Missiles like DF-21 or really long range cruise missiles like the Russian ones is all it takes.


    How will those stealthy ships find those stealthy aircraft and stealthy carriers?

    The primary tool are satellites. Then you have a much narrower area to scan. Obviously the principal target, like in WW2, are not the planes but the ship itself.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:47 am

    Hannibal Barca wrote:
    Because AC decks make a really bad shape in terms of signal
    I think the concrete on top of the the AC deck would be a good ram.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:23 am

    Because AC decks make a really bad shape in terms of signal

    Actually flat is the simplest shape to make something stealthy... look at the F-117s shape before they got high speed computers to calculate curves...

    Think of it in terms of window panes... the small flat panes on the Mi-28 means that a bright light like the sun will reflect strongly only along very small specific angles and not very well at any other angle. The curved canopy of the Mi-24 however will show a sun reflection from most angles because the transparency is curved and the suns reflection is reflected over a wide range of angles.

    This is not the way you detect an AC anyway

    Currently it is one if the easiest... not many large heat sources in the middle of a dark ocean... a wide field of view scan of the north atlantic for instance in IR would reveal only a few dozen objects hot enough to register... when you only have to manually check a few dozen your job of finding a carrier suddenly become much easier... in comparison scanning a radar image would show every larger cruise ship, every large tanker, every large gas tanker, and every large container ship... much longer to find the carrier.

    I think the concrete on top of the the AC deck would be a good ram.

    Concrete does not absorb radar. Real RAM would be a much better choice.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    eridan

    Posts : 148
    Points : 154
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  eridan on Fri Feb 14, 2014 4:07 pm

    AC deck is *always* full of people and equipment, from various carts, tractors, hoses to helicopters, planes (with exposed landing gear and other non VLO treated bits); not to mention the features of the deck surface itself - tons of tie down hooks across the deck, chains and the uneven and rough surface of the deck itself (which is a must, unless one wants planes to skid around the deck)

    It's really a radar return heaven for X band radars.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:45 pm

    eridan wrote:AC deck is *always* full of people and equipment, from various carts, tractors, hoses to helicopters, planes (with exposed landing gear and other non VLO treated bits); not to mention the features of the deck surface itself - tons of tie down hooks across the deck, chains and the uneven and rough surface of the deck itself (which is a must, unless one wants planes to skid around the deck)

    It's really a radar return heaven for X band radars.
    up really really high in the sky i doubt if any of those realtively minute features wouold spoil the realtively flat top IR or radar wise.
    avatar
    Hannibal Barca

    Posts : 1254
    Points : 1276
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Hannibal Barca on Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:02 pm

    Actually flat is the simplest shape to make something stealthy... look at the F-117s shape before they got high speed computers to calculate curves...

    Think of it in terms of window panes... the small flat panes on the Mi-28 means that a bright light like the sun will reflect strongly only along very small specific angles and not very well at any other angle. The curved canopy of the Mi-24 however will show a sun reflection from most angles because the transparency is curved and the suns reflection is reflected over a wide range of angles.

    Please, let us stop here your attempt to prove that an aircraft carrier deck is actually the ideal shape for a stealthy ship


    Currently it is one if the easiest... not many large heat sources in the middle of a dark ocean... a wide field of view scan of the north atlantic for instance in IR would reveal only a few dozen objects hot enough to register... when you only have to manually check a few dozen your job of finding a carrier suddenly become much easier... in comparison scanning a radar image would show every larger cruise ship, every large tanker, every large gas tanker, and every large container ship... much longer to find the carrier.

    Modern radars, let alone satellites, can detect an AC from hundreds if not thousands of kilometers away. No IR detector can come even remotely close to this ranges.
    This is not WW2. If you are against a semi-decent opponent e.g. Iran or Pakistan they will try to take you down before you ever reach 1000 kilometers from their missile silos.
    Else you will land your strike first, not risking to get closer, since your jets are already well inside their operational ranges.




    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:57 am

    Please, let us stop here your attempt to prove that an aircraft carrier deck is actually the ideal shape for a stealthy ship

    The basic shape is flat, but as mentioned above it is a working environment with lots of clutter.

    Stealth does not mean no radar return. Stealth means less radar return to the antenna that is scanning. In X band there are plenty of things you can do to various items to reduce or divert their return to disguise the presence of the ship... the sea surface has plenty of features that move on it too.

    tons of tie down hooks across the deck, chains and the uneven and rough surface of the deck itself (which is a must, unless one wants planes to skid around the deck)

    There are plenty of materials that do not reflect radar energy that could be used, I am not talking about existing decks being stealthy... just like existing non stealthy planes are not stealthy either. Stealth has to be part of the design.

    No IR detector can come even remotely close to this ranges.

    Many of the early warning satellites used by the US and Russia use IR sensors to detect launches of ICBMs and SLBMs.

    Any heat source on the background of cold space coming up over the horizon tends to stand out... a steam catapult in the middle of a cold ocean also stands out... even if it is not as hot as a rocket exhaust plume.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:12 pm