Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Share
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 823
    Points : 821
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Thu May 11, 2017 11:04 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    Yes you need " 50% more industrial resources to make a 100k carrier than to make a yassen/akula/seawolf class submarine" but it will be without fighters so it's simple for you. As I tried to say it, but don't want to understand, is that this calcul is totaly stuppid because a carrier without fighters is just useless. If you build it you will obliged to build fighters for it. So the price when you talk about a carrier is is cost + the cost of fighters.

    Why don't you accept that ?


    the fighters universal, and Russia has a big pile of fighters.

    Actually as a mater of facet they have enough carrier fighters for another Kuz.

    However the carrier is attack platform ,so I presume the waiting for the T-50 with the new engine to use them with real full capability.

    Su-33 are outdated they need a big modernization to be operational against F-35 and f-18 with aesa and LO.

    Fighters are not universal. Even the mullti role rafale has a naval version. You can't ust put a air force fighter on a carrier. At the first landing it would be destroyed.

    T-50 will be at least 100 million $ ... They are ordering more Su-30SM instead of Su-35 because it's cheaper. Money is a big issue when it comes to buy new fighters or military equipement in general.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 489
    Points : 485
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu May 11, 2017 11:12 pm

    Isos wrote:

    Su-33 are outdated they need a big modernization to be operational against F-35 and f-18 with aesa and LO.

    Fighters are not universal. Even the mullti role rafale has a naval version. You can't ust put a air force fighter on a carrier. At the first landing it would be destroyed.

    T-50 will be at least 100 million $ ... They are ordering more Su-30SM instead of Su-35 because it's cheaper. Money is a big issue when it comes to buy new fighters or military equipement in general.


    So, you saying that :
    Russia can't make fighter aircrafts, due to that doesn't make aircraft carriers.

    What I try to say is either they have capacity to make aircraft, or they had option in the past to manufacture naval vereions of the aircrafts.

    Again, the question is "Can Russia make aircraft carrier?"

    Now you changed the question "Can Russia make naval fighters?"
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Militarov on Thu May 11, 2017 11:18 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    Yes you need " 50% more industrial resources to make a 100k carrier than to make a yassen/akula/seawolf class submarine" but it will be without fighters so it's simple for you. As I tried to say it, but don't want to understand, is that this calcul is totaly stuppid because a carrier without fighters is just useless. If you build it you will obliged to build fighters for it. So the price when you talk about a carrier is is cost + the cost of fighters.

    Why don't you accept that ?


    the fighters universal, and Russia has a big pile of fighters.

    Actually as a mater of facet they have enough carrier fighters for another Kuz.

    However the carrier is attack platform ,so I presume the waiting for the T-50 with the new engine to use them with real full capability.

    Russia atm lacks even full fighter wing for Kuz.. fyi...
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 823
    Points : 821
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Thu May 11, 2017 11:35 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    Su-33 are outdated they need a big modernization to be operational against F-35 and f-18 with aesa and LO.

    Fighters are not universal. Even the mullti role rafale has a naval version. You can't ust put a air force fighter on a carrier. At the first landing it would be destroyed.

    T-50 will be at least 100 million $ ... They are ordering more Su-30SM instead of Su-35 because it's cheaper. Money is a big issue when it comes to buy new fighters or military equipement in general.


    So, you saying that :
    Russia can't  make fighter aircrafts, due to that doesn't  make aircraft carriers.

    What I try to say is either they have capacity to make aircraft, or they had option in the past to manufacture naval vereions of the aircrafts.

    Again, the question is "Can Russia make aircraft carrier?"

    Now you changed the question "Can Russia make naval fighters?"

    I never said they can't. I said it's expensive and your statement that 1 carrier is just 50% costly than a nuclear sub is wrong. I never asked if they can build naval fighters, I'm just answering to what you say. The one who is escaping these questions is you by making me say Something I didn't. Again you have 0 argument to defend your ideas.

    But at this moment they can't build a carrier, they have 0 experience, 0 work on it. The shtorm is just a design for the public, they made 0 work on it. They couldn't even build heli carriers but bought it in france.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1396
    Points : 1396
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri May 12, 2017 12:12 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    Yes you need " 50% more industrial resources to make a 100k carrier than to make a yassen/akula/seawolf class submarine" but it will be without fighters so it's simple for you. As I tried to say it, but don't want to understand, is that this calcul is totaly stuppid because a carrier without fighters is just useless. If you build it you will obliged to build fighters for it. So the price when you talk about a carrier is is cost + the cost of fighters.

    Why don't you accept that ?


    the fighters universal, and Russia has a big pile of fighters.

    Actually as a mater of facet they have enough carrier fighters for another Kuz.

    However the carrier is attack platform ,so I presume the waiting for the T-50 with the new engine to use them with real full capability.

    Russia atm lacks even full fighter wing for Kuz.. fyi...

    kuz can only fit something like 40 odd fighters and currently 23 MiG-29K models and about 17+ Su-33. So it does.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1396
    Points : 1396
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri May 12, 2017 12:16 am

    Isos wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    Su-33 are outdated they need a big modernization to be operational against F-35 and f-18 with aesa and LO.

    Fighters are not universal. Even the mullti role rafale has a naval version. You can't ust put a air force fighter on a carrier. At the first landing it would be destroyed.

    T-50 will be at least 100 million $ ... They are ordering more Su-30SM instead of Su-35 because it's cheaper. Money is a big issue when it comes to buy new fighters or military equipement in general.


    So, you saying that :
    Russia can't  make fighter aircrafts, due to that doesn't  make aircraft carriers.

    What I try to say is either they have capacity to make aircraft, or they had option in the past to manufacture naval vereions of the aircrafts.

    Again, the question is "Can Russia make aircraft carrier?"

    Now you changed the question "Can Russia make naval fighters?"

    I never said they can't. I said it's expensive and your statement that 1 carrier is just 50% costly than a nuclear sub is wrong. I never asked if they can build naval fighters, I'm just answering to what you say. The one who is escaping these questions is you by making me say Something I didn't. Again you have 0 argument to defend your ideas.

    But at this moment they can't build a carrier, they have 0 experience, 0 work on it. The shtorm is just a design for the public, they made 0 work on it. They couldn't even build heli carriers but bought it in france.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya

    0 experience eh? Don't equate your IQ to a number towards someone's experience.

    As well, your comment about the fighters is laughable. Modern MiG-29K share same tech as MiG-29M2 and that of MiG-35 for most basics. Upgrades can be applied. If you think AESA radar is a magical tech, then your knowledge on it is sad. Learn more.


    Last edited by miketheterrible on Fri May 12, 2017 12:18 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5428
    Points : 5532
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri May 12, 2017 12:18 am

    Any new carrier will be using naval version of 5th gen fighter that will be produced for UAE

    The moment thy announced that project all other platforms for future carrier took a back seat
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Militarov on Fri May 12, 2017 12:43 am

    miketheterrible wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    Su-33 are outdated they need a big modernization to be operational against F-35 and f-18 with aesa and LO.

    Fighters are not universal. Even the mullti role rafale has a naval version. You can't ust put a air force fighter on a carrier. At the first landing it would be destroyed.

    T-50 will be at least 100 million $ ... They are ordering more Su-30SM instead of Su-35 because it's cheaper. Money is a big issue when it comes to buy new fighters or military equipement in general.


    So, you saying that :
    Russia can't  make fighter aircrafts, due to that doesn't  make aircraft carriers.

    What I try to say is either they have capacity to make aircraft, or they had option in the past to manufacture naval vereions of the aircrafts.

    Again, the question is "Can Russia make aircraft carrier?"

    Now you changed the question "Can Russia make naval fighters?"

    I never said they can't. I said it's expensive and your statement that 1 carrier is just 50% costly than a nuclear sub is wrong. I never asked if they can build naval fighters, I'm just answering to what you say. The one who is escaping these questions is you by making me say Something I didn't. Again you have 0 argument to defend your ideas.

    But at this moment they can't build a carrier, they have 0 experience, 0 work on it. The shtorm is just a design for the public, they made 0 work on it. They couldn't even build heli carriers but bought it in france.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya

    0 experience eh? Don't equate your IQ to a number towards someone's experience.

    As well, your comment about the fighters is laughable. Modern MiG-29K share same tech as MiG-29M2 and that of MiG-35 for most basics.  Upgrades can be applied.  If you think AESA radar is a magical tech, then your knowledge on it is sad.  Learn more.

    Building carrier and overhauling existing hull for over a decade with more time being delays than original plan... does not really qualify to compare tbh.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 823
    Points : 821
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Fri May 12, 2017 12:48 am

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya

    0 experience eh? Don't equate your IQ to a number towards someone's experience.

    As well, your comment about the fighters is laughable. Modern MiG-29K share same tech as MiG-29M2 and that of MiG-35 for most basics. Upgrades can be applied. If you think AESA radar is a magical tech, then your knowledge on it is sad. Learn more.

    Upgrading a carrier won't help that much to build a new one. I admit I've forgotten for this one and that they have some experience but it's not enough. China finished to build 1 Kuz while Russia managed to upgrade a Kiev class ...

    They also build a part of the Mistral but yet didn't start a replacement while they have the money of the mistral and the operation in syria proved they need one or two.

    I was just saying that the price of fighters is in the price of the carrier. He said that they have naval fighters in stock. So it's the su-33. These fighters are old and outdated. The radar has Something like 130 km range against 3m². F-18/35/rafale are let's say 1m² while they have ASEA that will detect the huge rcs of the Su-33 at 300 km easily and they have more of them ... Even Mig-29k can't compete against them with its dopler radar.

    If aesa is so bad why Russia is dev it for Pak Fa ?? Why india wanted it for it's new fighters and for Su-30 upgrade ??? Why every new fighter is designed with it ?? Not magical but far better than PESA and Doppler.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1396
    Points : 1396
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri May 12, 2017 2:52 am

    First you need to learn the difference between marketing and capabilities. PESA radar is a concentration of energy into one spot while AESA is multiple elements operating separately. In the end, energy input is what matters and you will end up with same performance. Issue with AESA and all those elements is that they end up having an average failure rate at around 10% or greater during operation so you are not getting full potential at all times. There are AESA advantages but not worth it.

    You are also reading up on old N001 radar. Medo would correct you. If operating n001 vep it would have a detection range of roughly 300km for fighter aircraft. As well, F-18 sh isn't 1m^2
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3148
    Points : 3271
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  kvs on Fri May 12, 2017 4:05 am

    PapaDragon wrote:Any new carrier will be using naval version of 5th gen fighter that will be produced for UAE

    The moment thy announced that project all other platforms for future carrier took a back seat

    Sounds like PAK FA was produce for India. Russia will not be making anything for a collection of Wahhabis.
    It might sell them some variant of something it makes for itself, though.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5428
    Points : 5532
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri May 12, 2017 5:39 am

    kvs wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:Any new carrier will be using naval version of 5th gen fighter that will be produced for UAE

    The moment thy announced that project all other platforms for future carrier took a back seat

    Sounds like PAK FA was produce for India.   Russia will not be making anything for a collection of Wahhabis.
    It might sell them some variant of something it makes for itself, though.

    UAE will get exactly the product that is defined in the contract

    However, derivative of that same product that Russia will develop and build for itself will be something else entirely

    Something like early Su-30MKI versus latest Su-30SM only even more different
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 12, 2017 10:42 am

    Building a carrier is nothing like building an SSN or SSBN.

    A carriers operational costs are enormous in comparison and require a fleet of vessels with decent air defence capability to operate with them.

    Having said that there is no substitute for air power... whether on land or at sea in terms of attack and defence.

    There is no point in Russia building 2-3 carriers even now as when they would be ready there would be no ships to operate with them.

    A new carrier in the mid 2020s would be a useful addition and another of the same class at the end of the 2020s would be a good step for them... by then they should have a young small ship fleet and a new mid to heavy fleet, with frigates in service in numbers and destroyer/cruiser sized vessels coming into service in numbers too.

    Right now a MiG-29K2 and Su-33 would be superior to 90% of the worlds air forces, with the support of a cruiser and a few destroyers.


    _________________
    “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
    Isos

    Posts : 823
    Points : 821
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Fri May 12, 2017 12:08 pm

    First you need to learn the difference between marketing and capabilities. PESA radar is a concentration of energy into one spot while AESA is multiple elements operating separately. In the end, energy input is what matters and you will end up with same performance. Issue with AESA and all those elements is that they end up having an average failure rate at around 10% or greater during operation so you are not getting full potential at all times. There are AESA advantages but not worth it.

    You are also reading up on old N001 radar. Medo would correct you. If operating n001 vep it would have a detection range of roughly 300km for fighter aircraft. As well, F-18 sh isn't 1m^2

    Tell that to all the air forces that are buying AESA instead of PESA if you think AESA is not worth it ...

    I didn't check but Su-33 are not equiped with last N001. So they have the old one. While SuperHornets have their AESA and have low rcs.


    Right now a MiG-29K2 and Su-33 would be superior to 90% of the worlds air forces, with the support of a cruiser and a few destroyers.

    Not realy for Su-33. Most Asian countries have Su-30Mk.. European countries have Rafale, typhoon. Arab countries have mix of modern F-15 rafale and typhoons. Mig-29k can compete but not the sukhoi unless it gets a modern powerfull radar and a big modernization.

    UAE will get exactly the product that is defined in the contract

    However, derivative of that same product that Russia will develop and build for itself will be something else entirely

    Something like early Su-30MKI versus latest Su-30SM only even more different

    Pantsir was financed by UAE and then used by Russian IIRC. However it will take time to finish it.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1396
    Points : 1396
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri May 12, 2017 4:20 pm

    ISOS,

    AESA is getting funded because of newer technology available plus the amount US already put into it since the 80's.  You have very little clue.  Please do some research on AESA vs PESA.  Learn Physics as well.  Energy Input = Energy Output.  AESA doesn't do magic and breaks laws of physics. It can break up its source of scan to multiple parts to increase angles and decrease scan time, at a cost of reducing range because it isn't concentrating on one source. PESA has slower scan rate because it is 1 source scanning at all time. Irbis-E as an example is PESA (hybrid actually) with a massive detecting range because of its power input. You can get same range and all from AESA with same amount of power required.

    Russia working on AESA because now T/R modules are becoming cheaper to produce. But funny enough, no AESA is in operation in Russia besides test beds. Wonder why? Probably because the PESA technology is still advanced for Russia and still operating as needed. Since radars like Irbis-E is still one of the best in the world.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 823
    Points : 821
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Fri May 12, 2017 4:39 pm


    I did look for the difference and (even if I didn't look in details) AESA is better, have better range, more resistant to ECM, can do more things, low probability of intercept.

    Even sputnik released a comparison between Su-35 radar and F-15 radar and said the F-15 radar is better.

    I'm not saying it's magic.

    http://www.ausairpower.net/aesa-intro.html

    In many respects an AESA is a fighter radar designer's dream device, since it not only vastly improves performance and functional capabilities, but does so with improved reliability and complete digital control of antenna/transmitter functions. Over the life of an AESA radar, progressive refinements in many aspects of antenna behaviour can be incorporated through incremental software upgrades. Software programmable AESAs at this time largely implement digital equivalents of established antenna beam shapes, scan patterns and sidelobe behaviours. Over time with proper intellectual effort, further improvements are possible.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1396
    Points : 1396
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri May 12, 2017 4:52 pm

    Isos wrote:
    I did look for the difference and (even if I didn't look in details) AESA is better, have better range, more resistant to ECM, can do more things, low probability of intercept.

    Even sputnik released a comparison between Su-35 radar and F-15 radar and said the F-15 radar is better.

    I'm not saying it's magic.

    http://www.ausairpower.net/aesa-intro.html

    In many respects an AESA is a fighter radar designer's dream device, since it not only vastly improves performance and functional capabilities, but does so with improved reliability and complete digital control of antenna/transmitter functions. Over the life of an AESA radar, progressive refinements in many aspects of antenna behaviour can be incorporated through incremental software upgrades. Software programmable AESAs at this time largely implement digital equivalents of established antenna beam shapes, scan patterns and sidelobe behaviours. Over time with proper intellectual effort, further improvements are possible.

    A very important person I know, will also tell you about AESA being rather poor in reliability as Canada spent massive amounts on upgrading ground based radar to AESA.  It made his job very difficult when monitoring the radars installation and use.

    Also, it cannot have magic range increase.  It won't.  It is once again energy input = energy output.  Hence why Irbis-E can detect targest and track at ranges up to 400km while F-15's cannot but close.

    This is an exert from one of Carl Kopps comments of Irbis-E as example:

    The available data and modelling thus easily supports the proposition that the APG-79 is a 20 kW peak power class radar, with the caveat that better performance is theoretically achievable, as is lower performance given the technology available. With around one half the aperture area of the BARS and Irbis E radars, the resulting order of magnitude power aperture product of 38 dBWm2 puts the radar almost exactly in between the two Russian designs. If we are generous with assumptions and consider growth potential, then it might be rated a little closer to the Irbis E.

    It is also worth asking the question of what peak power rating the APG-79 would require to match the 40.8 dBWm2 power aperture product of the Irbis E, given that its aperture is around half the area of the Flanker radar. The result is a considerable 35 kW - reflecting the reality that half the antenna size requires twice the peak power to match a power aperture figure. Is such performance feasible? The per transistor module rating is then 32 Watts, which is feasible but quite challenging. The peak radiant power density at the face of the antenna is 8 W/cm2 which is around twice the cited current state of the art. The HEMTs would have to be state of the art, but basically such peak power performance is pushing against the capacity of the extant cooling system, and achievable transistor performance in efficiency and power output.

    Claims that the APG-79 can outrange the Irbis E are very difficult to support given basic radar physics. A claim of a tactically significant range advantage over the extant BARS is also hard to support. The corollary of this is that a late model F-35 Joint Strike Fighter APG-81 with similar module count, module power and aperture size to the APG-79 will not provide significantly different performance, relative to the later Russian radars.

    Notice how he mentions power usage a lot?
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 823
    Points : 821
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Fri May 12, 2017 5:06 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    I did look for the difference and (even if I didn't look in details) AESA is better, have better range, more resistant to ECM, can do more things, low probability of intercept.

    Even sputnik released a comparison between Su-35 radar and F-15 radar and said the F-15 radar is better.

    I'm not saying it's magic.

    http://www.ausairpower.net/aesa-intro.html

    In many respects an AESA is a fighter radar designer's dream device, since it not only vastly improves performance and functional capabilities, but does so with improved reliability and complete digital control of antenna/transmitter functions. Over the life of an AESA radar, progressive refinements in many aspects of antenna behaviour can be incorporated through incremental software upgrades. Software programmable AESAs at this time largely implement digital equivalents of established antenna beam shapes, scan patterns and sidelobe behaviours. Over time with proper intellectual effort, further improvements are possible.

    Carl Kopp isn't exactly reliable.

    A very important person I know, will also tell you about AESA being rather poor in reliability as Canada spent massive amounts on upgrading ground based radar to AESA.  It made his job very difficult when monitoring the radars installation and use.

    Also, it cannot have magic range increase.  It won't.  It is once again energy input = energy output.  Hence why Irbis-E can detect targest and track at ranges up to 400km while F-15's cannot but close.

    For technicla knowledge he is.

    AESA has its issues too. But irbis-E will be spotted at 800km by passive radar. Most BVR fights will occure at 50-70 km, these missile max range (120km for R-77-1 -160km for AMRAAM) are just marketing. All these radars will find the ennemy before it gets in range for a missile lunch. An aesa allows you to turn your radar all the way and use it for terrain mapping.

    But I agree that PESA is not outdated. For a fighter with a big rcs, it's useless to use an expensive stealth radar. It will be spotted at long ranges anyway. Better go for a powerfull radar. The mig-25's was the best in term of power. Maybe they should improve it.

    But if you are doing a LO fighter you need a steathy radar. Mig-29k is made with reduced rcs so if you put a doppler radar that's totaly stupid.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1396
    Points : 1396
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri May 12, 2017 6:28 pm

    Isos wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    I did look for the difference and (even if I didn't look in details) AESA is better, have better range, more resistant to ECM, can do more things, low probability of intercept.

    Even sputnik released a comparison between Su-35 radar and F-15 radar and said the F-15 radar is better.

    I'm not saying it's magic.

    http://www.ausairpower.net/aesa-intro.html

    In many respects an AESA is a fighter radar designer's dream device, since it not only vastly improves performance and functional capabilities, but does so with improved reliability and complete digital control of antenna/transmitter functions. Over the life of an AESA radar, progressive refinements in many aspects of antenna behaviour can be incorporated through incremental software upgrades. Software programmable AESAs at this time largely implement digital equivalents of established antenna beam shapes, scan patterns and sidelobe behaviours. Over time with proper intellectual effort, further improvements are possible.

    Carl Kopp isn't exactly reliable.

    A very important person I know, will also tell you about AESA being rather poor in reliability as Canada spent massive amounts on upgrading ground based radar to AESA.  It made his job very difficult when monitoring the radars installation and use.

    Also, it cannot have magic range increase.  It won't.  It is once again energy input = energy output.  Hence why Irbis-E can detect targest and track at ranges up to 400km while F-15's cannot but close.

    For technicla knowledge he is.

    AESA has its issues too. But irbis-E will be spotted at 800km by passive radar. Most BVR fights will occure at 50-70 km, these missile max range (120km for R-77-1 -160km for AMRAAM) are just marketing. All these radars will find the ennemy before it gets in range for a missile lunch. An aesa allows you to turn your radar all the way and use it for terrain mapping.

    But I agree that PESA is not outdated. For a fighter with a big rcs, it's useless to use an expensive stealth radar. It will be spotted at long ranges anyway. Better go for a powerfull radar. The mig-25's was the best in term of power. Maybe they should improve it.

    But if you are doing a LO fighter you need a steathy radar. Mig-29k is made with reduced rcs so if you put a doppler radar that's totaly stupid.

    AESA isn't stealth, you are aware how radiation works, right?  So long as it emits radiation, passive systems will pick it up.  PESA, AESA or any other type.  Su-35S also has passive systems to be able to detect radiation of all types.  It isn't just a "stealth" aircraft function you know.  There is no such thing as stealthy radar, stop listening to the really bad marketing.  Su-35S can use its FLIR system to scan while its Irbis is off.  Something a lot of US jets cannot do.

    Want to know why Russia isn't rushing for AESA? Because there is almost no benefits to that of Hybrid radar used. The rest for AESA, they are waiting for ROFAR which will be still a year or two away.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3222
    Points : 3308
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  medo on Fri May 12, 2017 6:41 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:First you need to learn the difference between marketing and capabilities. PESA radar is a concentration of energy into one spot while AESA is multiple elements operating separately. In the end, energy input is what matters and you will end up with same performance. Issue with AESA and all those elements is that they end up having an average failure rate at around 10% or greater during operation so you are not getting full potential at all times.  There are AESA advantages but not worth it.

    You are also reading up on old N001 radar. Medo would correct you. If operating n001 vep it would have a detection range of roughly 300km for fighter aircraft. As well, F-18 sh isn't 1m^2

    N001VEP have range of 300 km against big planes and ships. It can detect F-16 fighter at the range of 160 km, what is still more than enough for the range of the missiles Su-30MK2 use.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1396
    Points : 1396
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri May 12, 2017 6:43 pm

    medo wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:First you need to learn the difference between marketing and capabilities. PESA radar is a concentration of energy into one spot while AESA is multiple elements operating separately. In the end, energy input is what matters and you will end up with same performance. Issue with AESA and all those elements is that they end up having an average failure rate at around 10% or greater during operation so you are not getting full potential at all times.  There are AESA advantages but not worth it.

    You are also reading up on old N001 radar. Medo would correct you. If operating n001 vep it would have a detection range of roughly 300km for fighter aircraft. As well, F-18 sh isn't 1m^2

    N001VEP have range of 300 km against big planes and ships. It can detect F-16 fighter at the range of 160 km, what is still more than enough for the range of the missiles Su-30MK2 use.

    thanks for the correction.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 489
    Points : 485
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat May 13, 2017 12:34 pm

    GarryB wrote:Building a carrier is nothing like building an SSN or SSBN.

    A carriers operational costs are enormous in comparison and require a fleet of vessels with decent air defence capability to operate with them.

    Having said that there is no substitute for air power... whether on land or at sea in terms of attack and defence.

    There is no point in Russia building 2-3 carriers even now as when they would be ready there would be no ships to operate with them.

    A new carrier in the mid 2020s would be a useful addition and another of the same class at the end of the 2020s would be a good step for them... by then they should have a young small ship fleet and a new mid to heavy fleet, with frigates in service in numbers and destroyer/cruiser sized vessels coming into service in numbers too.

    Right now a MiG-29K2 and Su-33 would be superior to 90% of the worlds air forces, with the support of a cruiser and a few destroyers.

    It is relative

    The Kuz cost as much as a super carrier, but it can operate independently ,but it has only a small load of planes.


    There are certain compromises.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1388
    Points : 1389
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat May 13, 2017 10:58 pm

    GarryB wrote:Building a carrier is nothing like building an SSN or SSBN.

    A carriers operational costs are enormous in comparison and require a fleet of vessels with decent air defence capability to operate with them.

    Having said that there is no substitute for air power... whether on land or at sea in terms of attack and defence.

    There is no point in Russia building 2-3 carriers even now as when they would be ready there would be no ships to operate with them.

    A new carrier in the mid 2020s would be a useful addition and another of the same class at the end of the 2020s would be a good step for them... by then they should have a young small ship fleet and a new mid to heavy fleet, with frigates in service in numbers and destroyer/cruiser sized vessels coming into service in numbers too.

    Right now a MiG-29K2 and Su-33 would be superior to 90% of the worlds air forces, with the support of a cruiser and a few destroyers.

    Not necessarily, we're talking about Russian ACs here so they would have some very solid air-defenses from the carrier itself, making the size of it's supposed escort fleet smaller compared to Western counterparts.

    From what i can see, sure, but what was the Soviet plan to counter carriers again?

    Makes sense, making new carriers now seems silly, since there are other ships to build that are of higher priority at the moment (Derzkiy,Gorshkov,Lider), although the exception would be helicopter carriers, like project Lavina.

    "90% of the world"!??

    Singular_Transform wrote: It is relative

    The Kuz cost as much as a super carrier, but it can operate independently ,but it has only a small load of planes.


    There are certain compromises.

    4/5Billion seems about right for a Carrier nowadays, although by today's standards that wouldn't be considered a "Super-Carrier" price (Q. Elizabeth: $8/9Bill and Ford $9/10Bill).
    I wouldn't call 50 aircraft small, even less so if your jets are all Mig-29Ks.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 14, 2017 11:31 am

    Tell that to all the air forces that are buying AESA instead of PESA if you think AESA is not worth it ...

    Very few countries in the world even had PESA... mainly the Russians/Soviets.

    For most of the world the move to AESA is huge because of the enormous advantages of electronic scanning... but for Russia they already had electronic scanning with PESA radars.

    A very good mature PESA would not be inferior in many parameters to a first generation immature AESA, but would be much much cheaper.

    Over time production will reduce costs and performance will improve considerably too, but there is no rush to change like you would going from conventional mechanically scanned radar to AESA.

    While SuperHornets have their AESA and have low rcs.

    Carrying weapons and fuel a Shornet is not that low observable.

    Not realy for Su-33. Most Asian countries have Su-30Mk.. European countries have Rafale, typhoon. Arab countries have mix of modern F-15 rafale and typhoons. Mig-29k can compete but not the sukhoi unless it gets a modern powerfull radar and a big modernization.

    Perhaps reading what I said again might help... it is not just Su-33s vs Su-30s or Rafales we are talking about. Su-33 operating with a ship carrying S-300 or S-400 and soon S-500 is no easy beat. Soon Redut and Shtil will be added in numbers too.

    Pantsir was financed by UAE and then used by Russian IIRC. However it will take time to finish it.

    Pantsir-S1 is operational. Pantsir-SM is in development and testing and will be in service soon if not already.

    Only the naval models are not in service.

    The Kuz cost as much as a super carrier, but it can operate independently ,but it has only a small load of planes.


    There are certain compromises.

    Kuz was cheap considering it was their first attempt at a real flattop.

    Russian and Soviet carrier designs are not comparable to western pieces of crap.

    Russia and the Soviets never relied totally on aircraft like the west does.

    Russian carriers will have comprehensive air defences including guns and missiles and other systems as well as aircraft.

    In comparison the west/US relies totally on its aircraft in both attack and defence.

    Russian systems will continue to use long range cruise missiles to attack both land and sea targets.

    Current missiles will be replaced by longer ranged much much faster missiles in the future.


    _________________
    “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
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1165
    Points : 2053
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Russian Patriot on Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:08 am


    found this on youtube

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:31 pm