Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Carrier air wing

    Share
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5413
    Points : 5517
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:35 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:And regardless of general dislike for ski ramps it should have one just in case. They cost next to nothing and  you never know if something unexpected will happen. Safety is worth sacrificing some aesthetics.

    Voila

    http://a133.idata.over-blog.com/600x376/4/34/37/64/Porte-avions/PA-russe.jpeg

    that's what they need, two side catapults plus a ski ramp at the front. For a total of four launch positions.
    That's how the Soviets wanted it. It works. Use the catapult for the heavily-loaded strikers/AEW&C. Then keep the ski jump for lightly loaded A2A fighters.

    Precisely.

    Although it may be a bit on the big side for this day and age but I would put that down to size of aircraft it carries (Flanker series).

    New one equipped with smaller jets should have more manageable size as a result. Avoiding White Elephant scenario is important as well.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2065
    Points : 2083
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:38 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:And regardless of general dislike for ski ramps it should have one just in case. They cost next to nothing and  you never know if something unexpected will happen. Safety is worth sacrificing some aesthetics.

    Voila

    http://a133.idata.over-blog.com/600x376/4/34/37/64/Porte-avions/PA-russe.jpeg

    that's what they need, two side catapults plus a ski ramp at the front. For a total of four launch positions.
    That's how the Soviets wanted it. It works. Use the catapult for the heavily-loaded strikers/AEW&C. Then keep the ski jump for lightly loaded A2A fighters.

    Precisely.

    Although it may be a bit on the big side for this day and age but I would put that down to size of aircraft it carries (Flanker series).

    New one equipped with smaller jets should have more manageable size as a result. Avoiding White Elephant scenario is important as well.

    The bare minimum would be something like PRC's Kuz, with at least a side catapult (2 is ideal if they make the deck large enough). I agree anything over 70,000 tons and larger deck are than the Kuz is not needed by Russia.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16510
    Points : 17116
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:14 pm

    Their single attempt to do both (incorporate strike/ground attack component when deployed) ended up with ditching two of their fighters in the Med (just a some few weeks apart). 1 out 4 MiG-29Ks gone and one Su-33.

    They wanted operational experience in a real war zone, so they went and got some.

    They learned their recovery cable system does not cope well with a heavy operational tempo... an important lesson to learn I think you will agree.

    They also learned that with a minor upgrade their air superiority Su-33 became a competent ground attack aircraft from a relatively safe altitude and with cheap dumb iron bombs.

    They lost three aircraft, which they should not have... there should have been plans for backup landing alternatives for aircraft in the air with buddy refuelling if needed to get them there... they obviously underestimated the problem with the recovery system.

    Very important lessons learned... a bit like the US learning that small calibre assault rifles are a good idea, but teaching your soldiers that high tech new weapons don't need to be cleaned in combat and not issuing cleaning kits to a combat zone is a pretty dumb thing to do... ie some hardware issues and some procedural issues too... ie don't believe the marketing department at Mattel.

    So they packed it in and went home.

    They completed their training from ground bases and then went home.

    Yak-141 is already developed, so it only need upgrades and to be put in production.

    Yak-141 would need a complete upgrade of everything as it would be as obsolete as the 1988 MiG-29M would be today.

    Of course with VTOL operation it will have shorter range than MiG-29K, but still good enough and equipped with IFR, this problem could be solved.

    With 2-4 on a Helicopter carrier inflight refuelling is simply not an option.

    VTOL capabilities made them operational in environments, where is not enough space for classical runways like in small islands or in environments, where building runways is too expensive, like in some Arctic islands.

    The MiG can operate from rough airstrips pretty much anywhere.

    No Russian or Soviet VSTOL aircraft has ever operated from anything but a nice flat hard carrier surface, or nice flat runway.

    Russia could simply enlarge and modify Priboy or Lavina ship in Izumo class carrier and equipp them with Ka-52K and Yak-141 squadrons.

    But why spend money on the Yak-141 to bring it up to a quality almost as good as a MiG-29K?

    Why not just PAK FA it with as much commonality between the land and sea based models...

    While classical carriers will serve in RuNAVY Northern and Pacific fleet, this Izumo style carriers could serve in Black sea fleet, because helicopter destroyers could sail through Bosporus, while classical carriers could not.

    Russia needs carriers in the Black Sea like it needs SSBNs in the Caspian Sea.

    No need to reinvent the wheel. RuN has the planes, all they need is three 60-70k ton CTOL or C&STOL carriers (pure STOL is a waste of tonnage). If they plan this as a 15-year project now, they can have it all by 2030. If they start reinventing the wheel, developing useless tech for new planes, etc. They will get nothing in the end (like with the Yasen, 17 years for one sub to be active).

    Aircraft-wise, what they need to develop right now is a fixed-wing, twin-engined, carrierborne AEW&C platform.

    X2

    If new carrier gets a nuclear propulsion then catapults go without saying.

    I believe that if third party decided to finance development of VTOL aircraft then that aircraft should be primary naval aircraft regardless of which type of carrier they will be deployed on (LHD or conventional AC)

    And we should stop talking about Yak-141. That one is history. If VTOL happens it will be something completely new.

    In my opinion, If new VTOL really is in the cards then new carrier should be based on Lavina LHD. Of course it should be enlarged and equipped with nuclear propulsion and catapults but still should have enough commonality with Lavina to keep the price down and vessel numbers up.

    And regardless of general dislike for ski ramps it should have one just in case. They cost next to nothing and you never know if something unexpected will happen. Safety is worth sacrificing some aesthetics.

    I agree... if someone wants to pay for them then the VSTOL aircraft will be from scratch new and likely stealthy as that is the fashion.

    Newer aircraft will need smaller lighter weapons for the same effectiveness... indeed a future Russian carrier aircraft might just have short, and medium range AAMs and a cannon and for all other targets act as a stealthy spotter for long range ship based missiles... ie mach 8-10 anti ship and land attack missiles, and 400km range S-400 based and 600km range S-500 based SAMs... hell with bigger solid rocket boosters they could double that range...

    The size of the new carriers will revolve around what they want as a flight group... having a new modular helo that can perform SAR and ASW and other roles with the change of a pod means fewer helos needed and simplification of replacement helos to cover any lost.
    UAVs and perhaps even airship AWACS are other options... especially tethered airships operating at over 30km altitude...


    _________________
    “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: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:46 am