Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Carrier air wing

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    AC air-wing

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 02, 2014 2:32 am

    Are you sure you want to climb and accelerate a mach 6 ramjet piece of machinery while you already have a mach +4 thing heading towards you?  Rolling Eyes
    Even if you have the.....balls to do this, what makes you think that your plane can out accelerate and out climb your R-37M who is anyway well inside it's range?
    Probably letting the hypersonic beast do it's own thing from the beginning sounds much better idea.


    Launched from 1,000m altitude at 500km/h  that mach 6 missile wont be flying at mach 6 to a target 300km away... its rocket booster will be used to climb to higher altitude and also increase speed a little, then it will burn its fuel trying to accelerate but it wont reach the peak speeds and then be able to coast with its low throttle setting ramjet motor just overcoming drag all the way to the target area.

    Climbing to 12,000m and accelerating to mach 1.5 means that rocket booster doesn't need to climb 11km straight up or accelerate the missile from 500km/h to top speed, so it will use all its energy to accelerate the missile at the distant target and then the ramjet engine wont need to operate at full throttle to accelerate the missile to attack speed... it can operate at a low throttle setting and maintain speed just by overcoming drag.

    This has a serious effect on effective range and time to target for your missile... plus all that time you have wasted climbing and accelerating IS NOT WASTED... you can use that altitude and speed to then turn away and fly out of range of the incoming enemy missile.

    If the enemy plane fires and turns away then your missile can gain more energy by diving down on it which further increases speed and range...

    A bit , but is it possible to create a sufficiently stealthy ship without it being a flush deck design?

    With modern computing you don't even need flat surfaces... even curves can be made stealthy.

    1- For a Russian AC to look like a container ship, and for the idea to have an impact, it would at least be required for the AC to look like a container ship in the visible spectrum (to eyeball Mark 1).

    When looking at a forest floor when you see a spider it is easy to then deal with it... if you see a column of army ants however even the biggest animal in the jungle knows it is time to move somewhere else if you can. The point is however Camouflage is about pretending to be the background and therefore not interesting... in the case of pretending to be a container ship it is a wolf wearing a sheep skin and hiding amongst sheep... if you have to get so close that you can see the carrier with your naked eye then you are already in trouble because if you see it it can see you.  There are millions of ships operating on the open ocean all the time you can't disguise any large ship to make it look like open ocean and a moving island would not be convincing either.

    A large container ship would not be flagged immediately as a threat like an aircraft carrier would.

    2- The probability of a container ship being attacked is much higher that a Russian AC.

    Only by pirates and they will find out fairly rapidly their mistake...

    It's neither stealth nor camouflage nor a synergistic combination of the two characteristics; it's only the sheer cluelessness of those who give that kind of description of the "US" "stealth" aircraft.

     Very Happy   Agreed....   Very Happy 

    Not to mention that container ships are obliged to stay on sea routes and submit travel plans. One check with civil authorities and you can check whos who and attack anyone without an id.

    Really? Container ships of unknown origin are fair game in war time? Have you not heard of neutral shipping? You don't win wars by sinking allies container ships just because they are sailing around bad weather or have a change of plans because an engine fails or a new passenger needs to be collected or delivered unexpectedly.

    Spies on rubber boats with binoculars and iphones would prolly be the smallest targets, tho I doubt if they can reach a carrier, a bigger boat with much effective sensors and endurance would prolly be detected early on.

    There are tens of thousands of container ships all round the world... there are not enough spies with binoculars to go and look at them all. A satellite can cover an enormous swath of ocean very quickly and with AI software they can scan a detailed image for specific signatures so someone doesn't need to spend hours scanning the image looking for carriers.

    If your carrier looks like a carrier then there might be 20 or 30 real carriers at sea that could be it... if your carrier looks like a large boat like a tanker or container ship then the number of ships you need to manually check suddenly becomes MUCH bigger.


    _________________
    “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

    Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E

    Posts : 21
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2016-01-20

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E on Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:13 pm

    Better a carrier in the class of Charles de Gaulle. Four of these ships. With the support group already pretty expensive.

    When aircraft 24 Jak-133IB, 4 Yak-133PP and 24 new MiG-35D in the K version (no old SMT) as a two-seater.

    In are the costs of 4x 2 billion euros with training, maintenance and others.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:31 am

    With two seater MiG-29K (MiG-29M2) there is little need for the Yaks... the MiGs can be used as trainers and also as light strike aircraft... instead of 24 MiGs and 28 Yaks... why not 50 MiGs?

    Of course adding EM based cats means a few AWACS type aircraft should be added, plus a couple of transports and inflight refuelling tankers would be useful too.

    they could adapt the aircraft so they can be used as a transport or a tanker depending on the mission requirements...


    _________________
    “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
    George1

    Posts : 10215
    Points : 10703
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  George1 on Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:46 am

    in order to say which aircrafts must carry the future russian carriers we must define their role first

    For example US carriers are definitely attack platforms-mobile air bases.

    So what will be RAC's role?


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E

    Posts : 21
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2016-01-20

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E on Wed Feb 03, 2016 6:21 pm

    GarryB wrote:With two seater MiG-29K (MiG-29M2) there is little need for the Yaks... the MiGs can be used as trainers and also as light strike aircraft... instead of 24 MiGs and 28 Yaks... why not 50 MiGs?

    Of course adding EM based cats means a few AWACS type aircraft should be added, plus a couple of transports and inflight refuelling tankers would be useful too.

    they could adapt the aircraft so they can be used as a transport or a tanker depending on the mission requirements...

    Cost is the main reason. The Yak is much cheaper and can do a lot as well. It can also be 48 Mig-35K but the drives only unnecessary costs in the amount and by the pilots fly less.

    The task of such four carriers would prevent NATO no-fly zones as in Libya. At a rotation one or two carriers with 4 squadrons Mig-35K were always on the spot and any NATO could prevent deceit.



    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5517
    Points : 5562
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Militarov on Wed Feb 03, 2016 8:46 pm

    Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:
    GarryB wrote:With two seater MiG-29K (MiG-29M2) there is little need for the Yaks... the MiGs can be used as trainers and also as light strike aircraft... instead of 24 MiGs and 28 Yaks... why not 50 MiGs?

    Of course adding EM based cats means a few AWACS type aircraft should be added, plus a couple of transports and inflight refuelling tankers would be useful too.

    they could adapt the aircraft so they can be used as a transport or a tanker depending on the mission requirements...

    Cost is the main reason. The Yak is much cheaper and can do a lot as well. It can also be 48 Mig-35K but the drives only unnecessary costs in the amount and by the pilots fly less.

    The task of such four carriers would prevent NATO no-fly zones as in Libya. At a rotation one or two carriers with 4 squadrons Mig-35K were always on the spot and any NATO could prevent deceit.




    Yak130 based variants can be used at the best for deck operations training like T45 is in the US. They lack range, payload, speed to be real deck figthers. Having one squadron of them for training is legit, but them forming half of the airwing isnt very viable.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3278
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  medo on Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:46 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:
    GarryB wrote:With two seater MiG-29K (MiG-29M2) there is little need for the Yaks... the MiGs can be used as trainers and also as light strike aircraft... instead of 24 MiGs and 28 Yaks... why not 50 MiGs?

    Of course adding EM based cats means a few AWACS type aircraft should be added, plus a couple of transports and inflight refuelling tankers would be useful too.

    they could adapt the aircraft so they can be used as a transport or a tanker depending on the mission requirements...

    Cost is the main reason. The Yak is much cheaper and can do a lot as well. It can also be 48 Mig-35K but the drives only unnecessary costs in the amount and by the pilots fly less.

    The task of such four carriers would prevent NATO no-fly zones as in Libya. At a rotation one or two carriers with 4 squadrons Mig-35K were always on the spot and any NATO could prevent deceit.




    Yak130 based variants can be used at the best for deck operations training like T45 is in the US. They lack range, payload, speed to be real deck figthers. Having one squadron of them for training is legit, but them forming half of the airwing isnt very viable.

    Agree. Russian NAVY should buy a squadron or two of Yak-130 trainers for their Yeysk training center, where NAVY could school their own pilots, a squadron of MiG-29KUB for constant carrier pilots schooling and training and a squadron of Su-30SM for ground based naval pilots trainings. With having both fighters there, pilots could as well train their air combat skills.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5517
    Points : 5562
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Militarov on Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:17 pm

    medo wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:
    GarryB wrote:With two seater MiG-29K (MiG-29M2) there is little need for the Yaks... the MiGs can be used as trainers and also as light strike aircraft... instead of 24 MiGs and 28 Yaks... why not 50 MiGs?

    Of course adding EM based cats means a few AWACS type aircraft should be added, plus a couple of transports and inflight refuelling tankers would be useful too.

    they could adapt the aircraft so they can be used as a transport or a tanker depending on the mission requirements...

    Cost is the main reason. The Yak is much cheaper and can do a lot as well. It can also be 48 Mig-35K but the drives only unnecessary costs in the amount and by the pilots fly less.

    The task of such four carriers would prevent NATO no-fly zones as in Libya. At a rotation one or two carriers with 4 squadrons Mig-35K were always on the spot and any NATO could prevent deceit.




    Yak130 based variants can be used at the best for deck operations training like T45 is in the US. They lack range, payload, speed to be real deck figthers. Having one squadron of them for training is legit, but them forming half of the airwing isnt very viable.

    Agree. Russian NAVY should buy a squadron or two of Yak-130 trainers for their Yeysk training center, where NAVY could school their own pilots, a squadron of MiG-29KUB for constant carrier pilots schooling and training and a squadron of Su-30SM for ground based naval pilots trainings. With having both fighters there, pilots could as well train their air combat skills.

    I fully support idea of deck capable Yak-130, and i even support limited number of them being even always present on the carriers for cheap entry training etc while on sea. And having full sized squadron on training facilities is great idea.

    Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E

    Posts : 21
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2016-01-20

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E on Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:02 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:
    GarryB wrote:With two seater MiG-29K (MiG-29M2) there is little need for the Yaks... the MiGs can be used as trainers and also as light strike aircraft... instead of 24 MiGs and 28 Yaks... why not 50 MiGs?

    Of course adding EM based cats means a few AWACS type aircraft should be added, plus a couple of transports and inflight refuelling tankers would be useful too.

    they could adapt the aircraft so they can be used as a transport or a tanker depending on the mission requirements...

    Cost is the main reason. The Yak is much cheaper and can do a lot as well. It can also be 48 Mig-35K but the drives only unnecessary costs in the amount and by the pilots fly less.

    The task of such four carriers would prevent NATO no-fly zones as in Libya. At a rotation one or two carriers with 4 squadrons Mig-35K were always on the spot and any NATO could prevent deceit.




    Yak130 based variants can be used at the best for deck operations training like T45 is in the US. They lack range, payload, speed to be real deck figthers. Having one squadron of them for training is legit, but them forming half of the airwing isnt very viable.

    The Yak 130 has enough reach and this at a moderate load. So much more coverage can not bring in a Mig-35D / K as a two-seater. The Mig-35 is the better aircraft and with the Mig-29K, there is enough experience in the operation of aircraft carriers. Looking at the costs and possible flight hours as well as the number of bets, the Yak is the better value. A refueling probe yet and the range is no longer a big deal.

    Four seasons a 48 Mig-35 is carrier for each simply too expensive.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5517
    Points : 5562
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Militarov on Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:24 am

    Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:
    GarryB wrote:With two seater MiG-29K (MiG-29M2) there is little need for the Yaks... the MiGs can be used as trainers and also as light strike aircraft... instead of 24 MiGs and 28 Yaks... why not 50 MiGs?

    Of course adding EM based cats means a few AWACS type aircraft should be added, plus a couple of transports and inflight refuelling tankers would be useful too.

    they could adapt the aircraft so they can be used as a transport or a tanker depending on the mission requirements...

    Cost is the main reason. The Yak is much cheaper and can do a lot as well. It can also be 48 Mig-35K but the drives only unnecessary costs in the amount and by the pilots fly less.

    The task of such four carriers would prevent NATO no-fly zones as in Libya. At a rotation one or two carriers with 4 squadrons Mig-35K were always on the spot and any NATO could prevent deceit.




    Yak130 based variants can be used at the best for deck operations training like T45 is in the US. They lack range, payload, speed to be real deck figthers. Having one squadron of them for training is legit, but them forming half of the airwing isnt very viable.

    The Yak 130 has enough reach and this at a moderate load. So much more coverage can not bring in a Mig-35D / K as a two-seater. The Mig-35 is the better aircraft and with the Mig-29K, there is enough experience in the operation of aircraft carriers. Looking at the costs and possible flight hours as well as the number of bets, the Yak is the better value. A refueling probe yet and the range is no longer a big deal.

    Four seasons a 48 Mig-35 is carrier for each simply too expensive.

    If 48 multirole deck fighters are too expencive for you to operate, then you dont need carrier at all. Yak-130 is way, way to small, its so small that you cant even mount full sized radar on it what for would you use it on a carrier? I can understand it being used as ground based COIN aircraft. On top of everything its subsonic.



    I am not sure you are aware how small Yak-130 actually is


    Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E

    Posts : 21
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2016-01-20

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E on Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:13 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:
    GarryB wrote:With two seater MiG-29K (MiG-29M2) there is little need for the Yaks... the MiGs can be used as trainers and also as light strike aircraft... instead of 24 MiGs and 28 Yaks... why not 50 MiGs?

    Of course adding EM based cats means a few AWACS type aircraft should be added, plus a couple of transports and inflight refuelling tankers would be useful too.

    they could adapt the aircraft so they can be used as a transport or a tanker depending on the mission requirements...

    Cost is the main reason. The Yak is much cheaper and can do a lot as well. It can also be 48 Mig-35K but the drives only unnecessary costs in the amount and by the pilots fly less.

    The task of such four carriers would prevent NATO no-fly zones as in Libya. At a rotation one or two carriers with 4 squadrons Mig-35K were always on the spot and any NATO could prevent deceit.




    Yak130 based variants can be used at the best for deck operations training like T45 is in the US. They lack range, payload, speed to be real deck figthers. Having one squadron of them for training is legit, but them forming half of the airwing isnt very viable.

    The Yak 130 has enough reach and this at a moderate load. So much more coverage can not bring in a Mig-35D / K as a two-seater. The Mig-35 is the better aircraft and with the Mig-29K, there is enough experience in the operation of aircraft carriers. Looking at the costs and possible flight hours as well as the number of bets, the Yak is the better value. A refueling probe yet and the range is no longer a big deal.

    Four seasons a 48 Mig-35 is carrier for each simply too expensive.

    If 48 multirole deck fighters are too expencive for you to operate, then you dont need carrier at all. Yak-130 is way, way to small, its so small that you cant even mount full sized radar on it what for would you use it on a carrier? I can understand it being used as ground based COIN aircraft. On top of everything its subsonic.



    I am not sure you are aware how small Yak-130 actually is


    The application profile of a carrier requires no 48 Mig-35K but cheap bombs Transporter. Four carriers are 24x Mig-35k per carrier 96 Migs total. Given again 96 Yak-130K. The costs are lower rather than 4X48 Mig-35K in about 40 percent.

    A carrier would be held suited with its 24 Yak 130 off the coast of Syria. These give the 24 Mig-35K good escort and special bomb missions.

    See the aircraft currently used. 12x Su-25, Su-24M 12x, 8 Su-34, 4xSu 30M and 4xSu-35s. A carrier is like a mix of Yak-130 and Mig-35th

    The Yak 130 is gübstig to wait, to wait faster, more inserts can fly and is to expensive. Can the Yak 130 is not yet much so well have later still a squadron Mig-35 also will be added from the mainland. Smile
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 04, 2016 4:51 am

    Cost is the main reason. The Yak is much cheaper and can do a lot as well. It can also be 48 Mig-35K but the drives only unnecessary costs in the amount and by the pilots fly less.

    When the primary fighter on the K was the Su-33 which does not come in a two seater version then it made sense to have two seat trainer versions of the Su-25 on board because simulations are not an acceptable substitute for learning to land on a carrier at sea... you need to do it for real in a real aircraft.

    When it comes to cost a blank rifle bullet is cheaper than a standard rifle round so what you are saying is that Russian infantry should have half the ammo they carry in combat should be blanks... it is cheaper and when they need to kill someone they can load live ammo.

    Like I was saying with the Su-33 as the primary fighter on the carrier you could argue that a light fighter bomber version of a Yak-130 could be an alternative to do the job of light short range attack and also as primary trainer, but with the MiG-35 it simply does not make sense to replace effective combat aircraft with shorter range slower much less capable aircraft just for training and light dumb strike roles.

    Much of the time a modern carrier will be facing the air power of land based forces, which means potentially very capable air arms. The MiG-35s will be pressed even just in numbers most of the time, let alone the Yak130 which would be way out of its depth against pretty much any modern fighter or previous generation fighter.

    By all means have several units at both land based carrier simulators, but at sea the flight training can be on MiGs to keep up skills.

    The small amount of aviation fuel you save is just not worth the loss in capability the carrier has with a full compliment of real combat aircraft.

    Agree. Russian NAVY should buy a squadron or two of Yak-130 trainers for their Yeysk training center, where NAVY could school their own pilots, a squadron of MiG-29KUB for constant carrier pilots schooling and training and a squadron of Su-30SM for ground based naval pilots trainings. With having both fighters there, pilots could as well train their air combat skills.

    Have they even developed a carrier capable Yak-130 yet?

    Personally I would wait... they already have Su-25 based trainers... there is no point getting YAK to make a dozen Yak-130Ks only to find the next gen carriers will have EM Cats and need modifications to the Yak-130Ks... building just 12 and then redesigning them for EM cats and they wont be that cheap. especially when the Su-25s are already doing the job and two seat MiGs are able to do the job too.

    Even an 20 million dollars per Yak-130 modified for carrier use and produced in relatively small numbers... that is a lot of fuel... it would be cheaper to continue using Frogfoot aircraft.



    _________________
    “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
    medo

    Posts : 3188
    Points : 3278
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  medo on Thu Feb 04, 2016 9:19 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]

    Agree. Russian NAVY should buy a squadron or two of Yak-130 trainers for their Yeysk training center, where NAVY could school their own pilots, a squadron of MiG-29KUB for constant carrier pilots schooling and training and a squadron of Su-30SM for ground based naval pilots trainings. With having both fighters there, pilots could as well train their air combat skills.

    Have they even developed a carrier capable Yak-130 yet?

    Personally I would wait... they already have Su-25 based trainers... there is no point getting YAK to make a dozen Yak-130Ks only to find the next gen carriers will have EM Cats and need modifications to the Yak-130Ks... building just 12 and then redesigning them for EM cats and they wont be that cheap. especially when the Su-25s are already doing the job and two seat MiGs are able to do the job too.

    Even an 20 million dollars per Yak-130 modified for carrier use and produced in relatively small numbers... that is a lot of fuel... it would be cheaper to continue using Frogfoot aircraft.


    I didn't mention any carrier capable Yak-130 as I don't think Russian Navy need them. Navy need Yak-130 in Yeysk training center to replace old L-39 trainers for basic pilot trainings and to prepare pilots for new modern MiG-29K/KUB and Su-30SM, for what Yak-130 is far better suited than old L-39. Yeysk should become full naval aviation school and training center, where pilots will be constantly schooled and trained for navy needs.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 05, 2016 8:02 am

    I must say the Yak-130 is a very attractive aircraft and for the role it was designed for it is excellent.

    I think an enlarged single seat model with an RD-33 like engine... perhaps uprated to 10-12 tons thrust in the form of a 5th gen engine would be an excellent little non stealthy sub 5th gen light fighter that could be designed to be upgradable with AESA radar and other new systems to make it a potent little numbers fighter bomber.... but for use on a carrier... I disagree.


    _________________
    “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
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1502
    Points : 1542
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian Carrier Air Wing

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:30 am

    GarryB wrote:I must say the Yak-130 is a very attractive aircraft and for the role it was designed for it is excellent.

    I think an enlarged single seat model with an RD-33 like engine... perhaps uprated to 10-12 tons thrust in the form of a 5th gen engine would be an excellent little non stealthy sub 5th gen light fighter that could be designed to be upgradable with AESA radar and other new systems to make it a potent little numbers fighter bomber.... but for use on a carrier... I disagree.

    Idea of creation light fighter /bobber unified with trsining aircraft is IMHOvery good. Koreand/Chinese seem to agree with that Smile

    Many countries which cannot afford to 4 expensive fighters might be tempted by small fairly cost effective and still ca n do the job. Especially when combined with drone based on same airframe.

    As for AC - best option for Russia as it needs mainly fighter defence wings for fleet - Yak-141 development or MiG light V/STOL fighter proposed in late 90´s

    Firebird

    Posts : 945
    Points : 977
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    I wonder how serious the UAE and Russia are about a VTOL/STOL plane?

    Post  Firebird on Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:59 pm

    Something I've noticed with the new choppers is the huge ferocity of the new missiles they are carrying. Not that dissimilar from fixed wing jets.

    However, the problem of choppers as I see it is twofold. Lack of stealth and also lack of range. America and its vassals are starting with the F-35. Ok shit plane in some ways, but it has advantages over a chopper. And they could be put on a heli carrier.

    I wonder how serious the UAE and Russia are about a VTOL/STOL plane?
    Russia was really ahead of the field back in around 1990 with the Yak.
    So I wonder how far off a resurrection of that is. I know the Yak was limited vs other planes. But thats not the point. The fact is, having a jet with its range and arnaments without the need for a Kuznetsov or Storm class carrier is a palpable weapon.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 11, 2017 11:47 am

    VSTOL aircraft are limited in performance and very expensive to buy and to operate and have a poor safety record in terms of aircraft lost.

    It would be a total waste to develop a new VSTOL aircraft now.

    It makes more sense to spend a little more money on a conventional takeoff and landing aircraft in the 60k ton range with conventional aircraft based on PAK FA or MiG-35 or Su-35 or a new 5th gen light fighter... an amphibious helicopter carrier is for landing forces... helos are more use than VSTOL fighter aircraft for that.

    If you develop a VSTOL aircraft an put it on a Heli carrier it stops being a heli carrier and becomes a retarded fixed wing carrier with relatively slow short range jets.

    Better to keep the carriers separate with real fighters and a proper helo carrier.


    _________________
    “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 : 774
    Points : 776
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Isos on Sun Jun 11, 2017 12:33 pm

    GarryB wrote:VSTOL aircraft are limited in performance and very expensive to buy and to operate and have a poor safety record in terms of aircraft lost.

    It would be a total waste to develop a new VSTOL aircraft now.

    It makes more sense to spend a little more money on a conventional takeoff and landing aircraft in the 60k ton range with conventional aircraft based on PAK FA or MiG-35 or Su-35 or a new 5th gen light fighter... an amphibious helicopter carrier is for landing forces... helos are more use than VSTOL fighter aircraft for that.

    If you develop a VSTOL aircraft an put it on a Heli carrier it stops being a heli carrier and becomes a retarded fixed wing carrier with relatively slow short range jets.

    Better to keep the carriers separate with real fighters and a proper helo carrier.

    An simple support carrier build without all the new electronics can be as cheap as a Mistral class. US navy had plenty of them during WW2, they were build very fast and provided important air support to the fleet. They are not main carrier but they already have the K, so a Mistral class with a ski jump and 6 mig-29k and some Ka-27 and maintaining its landing troops capabilities would be very good.

    Japan is planing to do this with their heli carriers and F-35.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:30 am

    But why?

    Another 60K ton ship makes more sense... far more aircraft and far more supplies of aviation fuel and weapons for the aircraft and itself.

    Small Mistral sized carriers are great for helos and landing craft and armour for a landing force... they are not so great for air support alone.

    Putting a ski jump and MiG-29s means you have to ditch all those helos and to be honest the main purpose of the ships is to get helos to the landing area.

    Don't get me wrong... MiG-29Ks could really deal damage to shore based defences but for transporting supplies and troops and weapons, ammo and equipment they are bloody useless.

    For most of the roles they are likely to actually use them for... flood/famine relief, good will visits and the odd bit of landing training, MiG-29s would have no value... and nor would F-35s.

    On a larger carrier a fixed wing 5th gen light fighter should have the thrust to weight ratio to get airborne easily even with a medium weapon load without a ski jump. In stealth roles it would not carry external ordinance so would not approach max payload capacity.

    If you just want a plane carrying barge then some sort of modification of a container ship with multiple levels able to stack containers during peace time and able to carry and launch aircraft in times of war could be made but British experience shows civilian ships are seriously vulnerable to weapon damage, so they would need to be designed from the ground up to be military vessels first with a secondary container role. The use of container based missile systems currently includes Uran and Kalibr but could easily be expanded to include TOR for instance for self defence... in fact a container with a side mounted AESA antenna array could be placed centre front centre both sides, and centre rear with the containers next to it filled with vertical launch TOR missiles... they don't need to be tied in to the ships systems... just act by themselves, with a human controlling them to defend the ship. The new TOR missiles are smaller and can fit 16 missiles in the turret of the land based TOR system so a 40 foot container could have hundreds of missiles each...

    Obviously only during conflict... not when transporting container freight.


    _________________
    “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
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 4985
    Points : 5093
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:04 am

    GarryB wrote:........
    .

    Supplementing these ships with figter jets would definitely not make any sense.

    However, completely modifying them into escort aircraft carriers would be worth considering.

    Basically remove any troop/vehicle carrying function, modify the deck and maybe even go with nuclear propulsion/catapults (if you want to go all in)

    Logic behind this would be the fact that they will be building at least 4 of these amphibious ships so by then they will have production worked out and it would be much quicker and cost effective to modify existing platform rather then develop now one from scratch.

    It will also allow them to acquire more of them in less time and for less money than completely new model.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 774
    Points : 776
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Isos on Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:34 pm


    But why?

    Another 60K ton ship makes more sense... far more aircraft and far more supplies of aviation fuel and weapons for the aircraft and itself.

    Small Mistral sized carriers are great for helos and landing craft and armour for a landing force... they are not so great for air support alone.

    Putting a ski jump and MiG-29s means you have to ditch all those helos and to be honest the main purpose of the ships is to get helos to the landing area.

    You can easily switch the Migs for Ka-27 if you are planing a landing.  If you need to face a enemy navy you can send it as a escort carrier. That what british "carriers" did in the Falkland war and they did very well. Without their fighters they would have lost all their ships.

    I'm not saying to change it into a true carrier, just adding some capabilities for low cost. In WW2 big destroyers and cruisers had some planes on them to lunch and found the foes. They were meant for specific roles and limited support in a global strategy, the strategy wasn't based on them like US do with their F-35 today. Just adding some capabilities.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_ship_Juan_Carlos_I

    Look it cost 460 million $ and has fighters, helicopters and troops on it. Mistral has only helicopters and troops for the same price. Indian small carrier cost 4 billions $ ...

    I agree 6 Mig-29 won't be decisive against a US carrier battlegroup but in a potential war with Japan for exemple they could do lot like detecting their ships lunching salvos of Kh-31 and 35. It provides you a bigger picture of the battlefield.

    Helicopters will help you land your troop but if you need to destroy a strategical bridge for exemple deep in enemy teritory protected by Long range SAM a squadron of Mig-29 will have a chance while helicopters won't.

    Supplementing these ships with figter jets would definitely not make any sense.

    However, completely modifying them into escort aircraft carriers would be worth considering.

    Basically remove any troop/vehicle carrying function, modify the deck and maybe even go with nuclear propulsion/catapults (if you want to go all in)

    Logic behind this would be the fact that they will be building at least 4 of these amphibious ships so by then they will have production worked out and it would be much quicker and cost effective to modify existing platform rather then develop now one from scratch.

    It will also allow them to acquire more of them in less time and for less money than completely new model.

    I disagree totally. If you add some Mig on it with a basic ski jump you add a big capability to your ship for a low cost. If you change it into a small carrier it would have the same limited capacities but for a astronomic cost. Better go fora 100kT class carrier in this case.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 13, 2017 12:21 pm

    However, completely modifying them into escort aircraft carriers would be worth considering.

    They are driving a multirole concept for their new vessels... having a cheaper vessel with plenty of internal capacity that could be used for transport, or for aircraft, or as a landing ship would be interesting.

    Basically remove any troop/vehicle carrying function, modify the deck and maybe even go with nuclear propulsion/catapults (if you want to go all in)

    I would probably go nuke propulsion anyway... high initial costs, but operational costs and support would be greatly simplified.

    With modular weapons and systems you could use the decks for troop transport, for fixed wing transport, for rotary wing transport... even container ship transport...

    I am thinking more of airships for AWACS, which means cats are less necessary... even an air ship tender ship, or a mother ship for special forces operations with UAVs, helos and light armour...


    Logic behind this would be the fact that they will be building at least 4 of these amphibious ships so by then they will have production worked out and it would be much quicker and cost effective to modify existing platform rather then develop now one from scratch.

    It will also allow them to acquire more of them in less time and for less money than completely new model.

    Agreed.

    That what british "carriers" did in the Falkland war and they did very well. Without their fighters they would have lost all their ships.

    They lost several civilian ships because they lacked EW systems to decoy AShMs... one of the ships lost held most of their helicopters and was a serious problem for the landed force.

    Helicopters will help you land your troop but if you need to destroy a strategical bridge for exemple deep in enemy teritory protected by Long range SAM a squadron of Mig-29 will have a chance while helicopters won't.

    A fixed target like a bridge would be better hit with a cruise missile... but I understand what you are trying to say... a Helicopter cannot fight a fixed wing fighter on anything like equal terms so fighter cover is necessary.

    I just don't like the idea of trying to put everything on at once... having a landing ship with helos makes sense... taking helos off to put a token number of MiGs does not in my opinion.

    However the idea of having two vessels... one with helos and troops and armour and another with all the decks full of aircraft... now that is interesting.

    Used together with proper 60K ton carriers I think that is a good idea.

    I disagree totally. If you add some Mig on it with a basic ski jump you add a big capability to your ship for a low cost. If you change it into a small carrier it would have the same limited capacities but for a astronomic cost. Better go fora 100kT class carrier in this case.

    Adding a couple of MiGs to a Mistral type ship wont magically make it anything like a Kuznetsov, and will actually make it less like a Mistral in a bad way.

    Leave the fighter cover to a real carrier, because you will need all the landing craft and helos you can get to the landing area.

    Having another ship of the same design with all the levels filled with fighter aircraft and attack helos on the other hand becomes interesting... and we are talking fighters... anything to do with strike missions can be cruise missile jobs, though a few large UAVs could be deck launched to enter deep into enemy territory to keep an eye on enemy forces with a few MiGs flying escort to protect it from enemy fighters and SAMs.

    In terms of recon and jamming the MiG-35 should have the electronics to do a good job as well as CAP.

    In places like Somalia or Yemen there would be little indigenous resistance in terms of air power and any foreign aircraft would soon leave with the presence of Russian air power I would think.

    BTW Russia will never need a 100K ton carrier.


    _________________
    “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 : 774
    Points : 776
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Isos on Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    That what british "carriers" did in the Falkland war and they did very well. Without their fighters they would have lost all their ships.

    They lost several civilian ships because they lacked EW systems to decoy AShMs... one of the ships lost held most of their helicopters and was a serious problem for the landed force.
    [/quote]

    That's not an argument. Mistral are totally defenceless. EW won't hide such a big ship from a modern missile.

    Helicopters will help you land your troop but if you need to destroy a strategical bridge for exemple deep in enemy teritory protected by Long range SAM a squadron of Mig-29 will have a chance while helicopters won't.

    A fixed target like a bridge would be better hit with a cruise missile... but I understand what you are trying to say... a Helicopter cannot fight a fixed wing fighter on anything like equal terms so fighter cover is necessary.

    I just don't like the idea of trying to put everything on at once... having a landing ship with helos makes sense... taking helos off to put a token number of MiGs does not in my opinion.

    However the idea of having two vessels... one with helos and troops and armour and another with all the decks full of aircraft... now that is interesting.

    Used together with proper 60K ton carriers I think that is a good idea.

    Actually, these big ships are underarmed. No air defence, no anti ship capabilities, so it's not putting everything at once, it's just giving it more power to defend itself and to attack soft targets.

    Russia has one carrier and it needs lot of time to go from Northern bases to somewhere else like near Japan. Having like you said two of these for 500 million each and one armed with 12 mig and the other with kamov is a possibility.

    A true carrier is not really needed unless you want to invend a country and not just some strategical islands. That's not the case of Russia.

    I disagree totally. If you add some Mig on it with a basic ski jump you add a big capability to your ship for a low cost. If you change it into a small carrier it would have the same limited capacities but for a astronomic cost. Better go fora 100kT class carrier in this case.

    Adding a couple of MiGs to a Mistral type ship wont magically make it anything like a Kuznetsov, and will actually make it less like a Mistral in a bad way.

    Leave the fighter cover to a real carrier, because you will need all the landing craft and helos you can get to the landing area.

    Having another ship of the same design with all the levels filled with fighter aircraft and attack helos on the other hand becomes interesting... and we are talking fighters... anything to do with strike missions can be cruise missile jobs, though a few large UAVs could be deck launched to enter deep into enemy territory to keep an eye on enemy forces with a few MiGs flying escort to protect it from enemy fighters and SAMs.

    In terms of recon and jamming the MiG-35 should have the electronics to do a good job as well as CAP.

    In places like Somalia or Yemen there would be little indigenous resistance in terms of air power and any foreign aircraft would soon leave with the presence of Russian air power I would think.

    BTW Russia will never need a 100K ton carrier.

    Cruise missiles against moving posts or air defences are not good.

    Against most countries or situations 12 Mig-29 are enough. France has a few Rafales in Africa and can control most countries out there...

    UAV won't last more than 1 hours on a battlfield. They are defenceless and are good training targets for fighters.

    Again I wasn't thinking of turning a Mistral into a carrier but just giving some basic and cheap capabilities to lunch a few fighter which will help a lot. Helicopters are carried by other ships too. Even civilian ships can lunch them.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:22 pm

    That's not an argument. Mistral are totally defenceless. EW won't hide such a big ship from a modern missile.

    The Russians are not building Mistrals... Mistral is a French design.

    The Russian design will have proper air defences and EW systems.

    Actually, these big ships are underarmed. No air defence, no anti ship capabilities, so it's not putting everything at once, it's just giving it more power to defend itself and to attack soft targets.

    New Russian systems are modular... a landing ship does not need anti ship weapons, it will almost certainly have weapon systems even just for self defence. Worst case scenario a TOR vehicle could be parked on three corners of the main deck to provide protection.

    Russia has one carrier and it needs lot of time to go from Northern bases to somewhere else like near Japan. Having like you said two of these for 500 million each and one armed with 12 mig and the other with kamov is a possibility.

    A vessel carrying aircraft is one thing... a real carrier is another. To suppliment real carriers a few aircraft carrying ships makes economic sense to boost aircraft numbers.

    A true carrier is not really needed unless you want to invend a country and not just some strategical islands. That's not the case of Russia.

    A true carrier is needed to defend ships... whereever you send them. Having a few aircraft carrying ships to add aircraft numbers without the enormous cost of a 60K ton carrier makes a lot of sense. If it can be used for other roles as well when not needed as an aircraft carrier support vessel all the better.

    Cruise missiles against moving posts or air defences are not good.

    No they are not really, but most air defence infrastructure is fixed... big radar sites, major SAM bases, communications centres, major HQs, parliament buildings... Hit them first and the enemy will be degraded... take out their major Air bases and you can operate UAVs to do the looking for targets without the need for deep strike fighter bombers.

    Against most countries or situations 12 Mig-29 are enough. France has a few Rafales in Africa and can control most countries out there...

    12 MiGs wont control a whole country... even a third world one.

    That means 3 CAP of four aircraft, so you can control one piece of air space 24/7 assuming no losses with three rotating teams of 4 aircraft.

    In other words you can fly over the landing area and that is about it.

    And if those 12 MiGs are operating from your Mistral class ship that means no helicopters... transport or support so those MiGs are flying combat air patrol and CAS missions...

    UAV won't last more than 1 hours on a battlfield. They are defenceless and are good training targets for fighters.

    That is the job of the fighters... dealing with enemy air power. In the mean time cruise missiles will be taking down major radar sites, major airfields, comms centres, HQs, etc etc and ports.

    Again I wasn't thinking of turning a Mistral into a carrier but just giving some basic and cheap capabilities to lunch a few fighter which will help a lot. Helicopters are carried by other ships too. Even civilian ships can lunch them.

    A Mistral sized ship is relatively small so you are either going to completely ruin it capacity as a landing ship by taking away armour and helos to fit fighter aircraft... making it useless for what it was supposed to do and a half assed attempt at a real carrier, or you leave the mistral type ship as it is and add another vessel of similar design that has all the armour and helos replaced with fixed wing aircraft to carry a decent force... together they would be useful...

    Remember this is about a ship that doesn't just carry MiG-29s but can actually launch and recover them.


    _________________
    “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 : 774
    Points : 776
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Isos on Wed Jun 14, 2017 12:58 pm

    Russia wanted Mistral  and would be using them today if there wasn't sanctions.

    But when I say Mistral I mean something of it class or little bit bigger. Not specially the Mistral class. I mean an amphibious ship.

    They can carry " 16 NH90 or Tiger helicopters, four landing barges, up to 70 vehicles including 13 AMX Leclerc tanks, or a 40-strong Leclerc tank battalion,[3] and 450 soldiers"

    A mig is similar in size to a NH90 helicopter. So you can have 10 helicopters and 6 Mig on it. The capacity for troop won't be changed as they are not in the same hangars. If you want to use it in the open sea for naval battle and NOT for a landing you can fit easily at least 12 Mig 29 or more if you built a bigger "Mistral" of let's say 230m, that's modularity.

    12 MiGs wont control a whole country... even a third world one.

    That means 3 CAP of four aircraft, so you can control one piece of air space 24/7 assuming no losses with three rotating teams of 4 aircraft.

    In other words you can fly over the landing area and that is about it.

    And if those 12 MiGs are operating from your Mistral class ship that means no helicopters... transport or support so those MiGs are flying combat air patrol and CAS missions...


    That's what I said. They can't control a country, they can just be used in some situations like retaking an Island or attacking some strategical targets or helping a landing by attacking deeper. Even K won't be enough to control a country ... Even US needs more than 1 to control Afghanistan ...

    British carriers allowed them to take an Island, they would never allow them to control Argentina if they wanted to.


    I hope you understood me. I'm not saying it's a magical ships that will replace carriers. I'm just saying that big amphibious ships have the place needed to give them more capabilities by adding some fighters on it (not replacing all its helicopters but a mix of them) and giving a second role for high sea deployment against other navy by having it's small number of fighter patroling and giving them better visibility. Japan navy is planning to do this with it's F-35 BTW. Even fiting one Mig is giving it a enormous advantage over a navy that is not or can't employ its aviation during a battle far from homeland.

    Imagine you confront 2 navies: 5 destroyers against 5 destroyers. They will be affected by radar range and missile range. Now you send your amphibious ships with 2 Mig-29 on it

    >> It becames   5 destroyers + 2 Mig-29 radars (300km against destroyers) + a better picture of the battlefield + fast moving vectors armed with anti ship missiles which can be carried in big numbers on the amphibious ship and rearmed AGAINST 5 destroyers.

    Even if you are facing a US carrier having 12 Mig-29 can be usefull to intercept attack by giving the position of the Harpoons to the ships and destroying some Hornets AND lunching surprise air attacks from long range.

    If you don't have the money for a big modern carrier, a cheap basic ship lunching modern fighters is really enough.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:25 pm