Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Carrier air wing

    Share
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 600
    Points : 604
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:42 pm

    Isos wrote: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.

    It's cute you think 12 Migs will stand up to the Grouping of Aircraft on one of my countries carriers.....

    Russia would be to be insane to challenge us in the open ocean.

    Russia, unless we are talking about VTOL aircraft putting any aircraft on a ship like this, is stupid.

    That also removes the Choppers which is the entire reason the ships are built.

    Sorry your logic makes no sense here, these ships do not need fighters and that would be beyond counter-productive for them. End of the day what you think is a good idea is a silly idea.

    WW2 escort carriers had on average 30 plus planes.

    Pre WW2 Escort carriers were beyond useless in the war with their maybe eight planes at best.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 822
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Isos on Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:19 pm

    Can you read correctly what I said before answering please.

    Again, I said to add some fighters and not replace all the helicopters with fighters. Replace them only if you need fighters for a naval battle in open sea and if you are not planing to land troops. And I said they could help your fleet if you are facing a carrier in open sea, I never said you could win but protect your fleet so that Hornet job would be too dangerous and complicated and your fleet would have a better picture of the sky and they could act like another line of defence.


    This is no more WW2 era. Most countries have less than 150 fighters. Argentina send just 2 Super Etandard and destroyed two British ships. Now you can lunch missiles out of the range of air defences. Maybe against a carrier it would be stupid to lunch two mig but against a strike group of 2-3 Japanese destroyers it would be usefull.

    Your country use its carrier to attack poor countries without defences. It's doubtfull they try to engage a bigger competitor like Russia or china ...


    Sorry your logic makes no sense here, these ships do not need fighters and that would be beyond counter-productive for them. End of the day what you think is a good idea is a silly idea.

    It makes sense because British carrier during Falklands were more like big amphibious ships than true carrier. And they made a big difference.

    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 600
    Points : 604
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:42 pm

    six Migs....really that would a horrid idea.

    I am sorry any third world rate nation can take down six fighters with ZERO hassle.

    Modern day ships will out range the Migs, a half dozen migs would not be able to provide any kind of real cover. They would be slight annoyances at best.

    Buddy...six goddam migs (which honestly is a moderate number going by your counts) would under no circumstances be able to provide Air cover against F-18's in the volume they would have to deal with.

    Brits lost more ships in the War but okay?.

    Close to their shores no? if we caught them in the open ocean those fleets would be destroyed, sorry my countries navy is number 1. We would take loss sure but we would sink MUCH more ships then we would lose.

    Sorry, your idea is a poor one and only on the armchair does it make any kind of sense. If Russia thought this was a viable idea they would have done it. Please do not act like they have not considered it. The Juan Carlos was offered to the Russians along with the Mistral but the Ruskies denied it.

    That alone tells me all I need to know.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3147
    Points : 3270
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  kvs on Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:15 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    Isos wrote: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.

    It's cute you think 12 Migs will stand up to the Grouping of Aircraft on one of my countries carriers.....

    Russia would be to be insane to challenge us in the open ocean.

    Russia, unless we are talking about VTOL aircraft putting any aircraft on a ship like this, is stupid.

    That also removes the Choppers which is the entire reason the ships are built.

    Sorry your logic makes no sense here, these ships do not need fighters and that would be beyond counter-productive for them. End of the day what you think is a good idea is a silly idea.

    WW2 escort carriers had on average 30 plus planes.

    Pre WW2 Escort carriers were beyond useless in the war with their maybe eight planes at best.

    You should dial down the patriotic wank factor. This is the era of supersonic anti-ship missiles. For some reason you totally
    ignore this and pretend that your supercarrier tubs and their support ships are immune. This sort of hubris is what
    makes America a dangerous rogue state. You will only learn your limitations the hard way.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5420
    Points : 5524
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Jun 14, 2017 5:36 pm


    Guys can we not turn this tread into another Kuznetzov shitfest?

    They haven't even laid down first ship FFS...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:06 pm

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

    True, but the Mistrals Russia was getting had Russian weapons systems that are better than the French alternatives.

    The fact that they didn't totally modify them with UKSK launchers and Redut Poliment air defence systems suggests they were already balanced ships they didn't want to change too much.

    Just slightly heavier armament, the ability to operate in ice, and a higher ceiling for the helo hangar for the Kamovs.

    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.

    Of course... you can simply swap out a fighter for a helo... NOT. You need parts and support equipment, you need weapons and completely different landing and take off equipment...

    It is not as simple as taking off a couple of Helos and putting on a few MiGs.

    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.

    I disagree, I think taking off helos to fit a couple of MiGs is stupid because when you take off helos you make it useless as a helicopter carrier and you can't add enough MiGs to be useful unless you remove all the landing forces and helos... which makes it a MiG carrier and not a helicopter landing ship.

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

    If fighters were good at that then AWACS would not exist in land or sea based form.

    I think you over estimate the value of a few MiGs.

    It's cute you think 12 Migs will stand up to the Grouping of Aircraft on one of my countries carriers.....

    They don't have to. They will just shoot down the Hornets that don't make land after the Onyx and Zircon sink your carriers. Razz

    Russia would be to be insane to challenge us in the open ocean.

    And one side has to be rational... clearly not the US.

    Russia, unless we are talking about VTOL aircraft putting any aircraft on a ship like this, is stupid.

    VSTOL would be even dumber than MiGs... slower, shorter ranged, lower payload, much much more fragile... enormous heat signature that can be detected from almost any angle, high loss rate due to accidents and high operating costs.

    Just to hover they need puffer jets in all "ends". ie nose, both wing tips and tail need puffer jet exhausts to blast out air to balance the aircraft in the hover... all IR sources and all vulnerable to battle damage.

    Not to mention bloody expensive.

    Can you read correctly what I said before answering please.

    From the post this quote is taken from you seem to be suggesting taking fighters when no landing will take place... if that is what you are saying then you are pretty much saying that when not used as a helicopter landing craft carrying MiGs in numbers makes sense... which is what Papadragon and I were talking about... that makes sense to me... sometimes landing forces will be more useful and other times more fighter aircraft will be effective.

    When MiGs... either the MiG-29 in the next five years or a light 5th gen stealth fighterbomber a decade from now will likely get a Zircon-M light hypersonic anti ship missile too... which will make any navy cringe... number one navy or not.


    _________________
    “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 : 822
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Isos on Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:17 pm

    I understood your points Garry. In my opinion fighters give you an extraordinary bonus in terms of naval fight. They are fast, they can look for target at 300 km they can go 1000 km from the ship while a destroyer or cruiser is limited in speed and in detection range so it would cover max 400 km from where it is and this would be with lot of dead zones.

    The idea of adding a fighter to a naval group is just the best you could do today. To put it on a helicopter carrier can be argued however. Now in my opinion something like a bigger Mistral with a modified structure to allow the use of fighters would allow you do use it as an amphibious ship and use it as a small carrier. Maybe there are some point that doesn't allow this I'm not an expert I'm just giving my opinion.

    I agree that's not possible to put it on a normal heli carrier, you need to redesign it totaly. But if you do this you better go for a simple design so the cost will be low, that's the idea I defend.


    I disagree, I think taking off helos to fit a couple of MiGs is stupid because when you take off helos you make it useless as a helicopter carrier and you can't add enough MiGs to be useful unless you remove all the landing forces and helos... which makes it a MiG carrier and not a helicopter landing ship.

    That's exactly what I was thinking about. If you don't need as a landing ship remove all the landing equipement and put Migs and some kamov on it so you could have a small carrier. Mig are better than Ka-27 for naval warefare.

    People here have a problem with carriers. They immediatly say it's should be a true carrier of 60k or 100kT to be usefull because it will face US carrier in open ocean. I totally disagree. Something smaller even not a true one can help you boost your forces. With the vertical take off F-35 many navy will use them on helicopter carrier.

    From the post this quote is taken from you seem to be suggesting taking fighters when no landing will take place... if that is what you are saying then you are pretty much saying that when not used as a helicopter landing craft carrying MiGs in numbers makes sense... which is what Papadragon and I were talking about... that makes sense to me... sometimes landing forces will be more useful and other times more fighter aircraft will be effective.

    When MiGs... either the MiG-29 in the next five years or a light 5th gen stealth fighterbomber a decade from now will likely get a Zircon-M light hypersonic anti ship missile too... which will make any navy cringe... number one navy or not.

    He turned my quotes into " a small helicopter carrier with mig will destroy US navy". I never said that.

    That's exactly what I meant.

    For lunching cruise missiles you need position. USSR put much more money on plateform for detecting carriers than for destroying them. Sattelites are not enough and you don't know all the capabilites of "space warefare" of US or Ru navies. Mig with its speed can search for targets and escape Super Hornet while even a douzen of Helicopter would be detected easily by AWACS and destroyed. A 5 genration Mig would probably have the capability to destroy AWACS because of longer range missiles and better stealth.

    Your opinion is balanced but at the end you think like me that it is a good idea (from what I understood). Maybe you prefere the idea of using it just with helo for a landing and just with Mig for a naval battle.

    Don't forget the price and the number of crew members. It would be 500-600 million $ and the crew would be like 400. For a true carrier it's more like 3 billion $ and 1000 crews. You can easily build 2 or 3 for each fleet. Or 1 and 1 carrier for each one.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:48 am

    The idea of adding a fighter to a naval group is just the best you could do today. To put it on a helicopter carrier can be argued however.

    On this first part, we agree.

    I however think having a bigger ship in the 60K ton range like the Kuznetsov makes more sense in terms of bang for your buck.

    Without catapults a small vessel even slightly bigger than a Mistral is just too small.

    A bigger, nuclear powered ship that has a landing ship design where you could put armour and helos and troops on board as a landing ship or you could take all that off and replace it with light fighter aircraft that are not VSTOL aircraft, would be a useful way to get light fighters with a fleet. As a way of making more numbers I support this plan but think a proper 60K ton aircraft carrier should still be present... ie not replacing carriers... adding aircraft to the fleet as cheaply as possible, when needed and when not needed given another role/task.

    People here have a problem with carriers. They immediatly say it's should be a true carrier of 60k or 100kT to be usefull because it will face US carrier in open ocean. I totally disagree. Something smaller even not a true one can help you boost your forces.

    Many think to be a carrier it needs to be what the US uses or it is second best.

    Russia does not need a super carrier... it just needs air support/defence for its ships. It will continue to use supersonic and soon hypersonic missiles to defeat enemy ships/carriers.

    In the same way as on land the Russian Army uses Tochka and Iskander against enemy hard targets, yet still operates under the umbrella of the Russian AF. It does not defer all targets to the AF, it will engage them itself.

    Mig with its speed can search for targets and escape Super Hornet while even a douzen of Helicopter would be detected easily by AWACS and destroyed. A 5 genration Mig would probably have the capability to destroy AWACS because of longer range missiles and better stealth.

    Even a MiG-29K could carry an R-37M (export code RVV-BD) with a 300km flight range and ability to destroy targets just like AWACS aircraft from land and sea based models... without AWACS most fleets lose a lot of their capability immediately.

    Maybe you prefere the idea of using it just with helo for a landing and just with Mig for a naval battle.

    Yes.

    I mean situations can escalate rapidly so most of the time if there is a planned landing (you don't just decide to land or not without a LOT of preparation... unless you want to lose a lot of your force) a landing vessel or two will be there and a carrier to support operations will be there too but having one or two other vessels similar to the landing vessels adding another 20 or 30 MiGs would make a lot of sense against some opponents. Sometimes you don't know who the west will suddenly decide to support so having more aircraft in the air makes your forces safer and more capable.

    You can easily build 2 or 3 for each fleet. Or 1 and 1 carrier for each one.

    Personally I would want about four proper carriers in the 60-80K ton weight range with 6-8 landing ships that can convert to carriers... that is 2-4 landing craft and 4 support carriers carrying extra aircraft.

    Two full carriers for each of the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet, and one to two landing craft for each fleet and two light support carriers... the advantage is that most of the time those two light support carriers can perform other roles including troop transport, hospital ship for PR visits to poor countries offering medial aide, and also very useful for famine relief/disaster relief ops.


    _________________
    “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 : 822
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Isos on Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:42 pm

    Then you will need to discuss again the price and the ability of Russians to build true carrier and we will have the same discussion as we can found in every thread of this part of the forum. Not my intension.

    My idea as you understood is to add the speed of fighter in small numbers to power-up your forces for a very small price and for somme situtation, clearly not WW3. At the end true carrier is of course better than a small ship lunching a few fighters maybe 4 time every day.

    I think we can end this duscussion.

    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5420
    Points : 5524
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:33 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    .....................


    I gotta say Garry you definitely seem exceptionally critical of VTOL aircraft and they do have dodgy track record but these are not 70s. Technology moved on.


    Fact is that Russia is building these helicopter​ carriers and they will be in production and use. That is their primary purpose.

    Now, to theorize, we know that UAE have ordered new light 5th gen fighter jet. If it ends up having standard configuration then there will be no effect on this topic.

    However if UAE ended up being less than frugal and decided to go for VTOL config then it will mean that Russia will have both:

    - 5th gen fighter jet with VTOL option, development of which has been already paid for in full by foreign customer

    and

    - flat top vessel already long in production capable of carrying those VTOL aircraft

    If that happens then not combining those two would be extremely wasteful. They will not be able to fight WW2 style naval battles of course (and they won't have to because we live in the age of missiles) but they will be more than useful as fleet support and as tools for expeditionary operations.

    And those two roles are pretty much only reason Russia has for acquiring aircraft carriers.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3147
    Points : 3270
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  kvs on Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:43 pm

    Since viable and affordable alternatives exist to facilitate take off and landing, VTOL is a pointless gimmick that adds unnecessary
    complexity and breakdown risk to an aircraft. UAE are not going to be field aircraft carriers of any sort. So why would they need VTOL?

    Also, technology moves on up to a point and not to arbitrary desired amounts. The V-22 Osprey is a good example. Some limitations
    don't go away within currently accessible development envelopes. In the sci-fi future of inertial dampeners and anti-gravity propulsion
    things may be different.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 488
    Points : 484
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:51 pm

    Skyjump is more efficient the VTOL.

    Actually the skyjump IS a VTOL.


    If anyone start to thinking about it then the VTOL means a lot of equipment on the aircraft that used only for brief period of time, and afterwards it is just weight.



    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 822
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Isos on Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:54 pm

    With VTOL you don't need airfield anymore. You can operate them anywhere and lunch them from basicly anywhere. It's worth considering this option even for air force. With the introduction of hypersonic and very low observable cruise missiles, airfield are more and more in danger. I know there is little to no chance they go for VTOL but who knows.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 488
    Points : 484
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:08 pm

    Isos wrote:With VTOL you don't need airfield anymore. You can operate them anywhere and lunch them from basicly anywhere. It's worth considering this option even for air force. With the introduction of hypersonic and very low observable cruise missiles, airfield are more and more in danger. I know there is little to no chance they go for VTOL but who knows.


    They did trials in the 50s with ZELL aircraft.
    Fit an aircraft onto a truck,and launch it from anywhere.

    Impractical and expensive.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-length_launch
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 822
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Isos on Sat Jun 17, 2017 7:55 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:With VTOL you don't need airfield anymore. You can operate them anywhere and lunch them from basicly anywhere. It's worth considering this option even for air force. With the introduction of hypersonic and very low observable cruise missiles, airfield are more and more in danger. I know there is little to no chance they go for VTOL but who knows.


    They did trials in the 50s with ZELL aircraft.
    Fit an aircraft onto a truck,and launch it from anywhere.

    Impractical and expensive.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-length_launch

    That's not rocket assisted take off, not VTOL like F-35 or Yak 141


    I gotta say Garry you definitely seem exceptionally critical of VTOL aircraft and they do have dodgy track record but these are not 70s. Technology moved on.

    VTOL didn't improve a lot. For F-35 US bought legally Yak-141 plans and technical data so it's still 70's 80's technology. Russian stop research since then. There isn't successor to Harrier.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 488
    Points : 484
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:52 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:With VTOL you don't need airfield anymore. You can operate them anywhere and lunch them from basicly anywhere. It's worth considering this option even for air force. With the introduction of hypersonic and very low observable cruise missiles, airfield are more and more in danger. I know there is little to no chance they go for VTOL but who knows.


    They did trials in the 50s with ZELL aircraft.
    Fit an aircraft onto a truck,and launch it from anywhere.

    Impractical and expensive.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-length_launch

    That's not rocket assisted take off, not VTOL like F-35 or Yak 141


    I gotta say Garry you definitely seem exceptionally critical of VTOL aircraft and they do have dodgy track record but these are not 70s. Technology moved on.

    VTOL didn't improve a lot. For F-35 US bought legally Yak-141 plans and technical data so it's still 70's 80's technology. Russian stop research since then. There isn't successor to Harrier.
    Rocket assisted vertical take off, with zero runway.
    And yes, that is not landing.

    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 822
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Isos on Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:07 pm

    Rocket assisted vertical take off, with zero runway.
    And yes, that is not landing.

    I know but it's not the subject here. We are talkin about VTOL which means Vertical Take Off and Landing. The landing needs to be Vertical too if you want you aircraft to be VTOL class...

    that's not rocket assisted take off, not VTOL like F-35 or Yak 141

    I meant it is rocket assisted !! Sorry for the mistake. And yes you still need a runway for landing while for true VTOL you don't need.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 488
    Points : 484
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:58 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Rocket assisted vertical take off, with zero runway.
    And yes, that is not landing.

    I know but it's not the subject here. We are talkin about VTOL which means Vertical Take Off and Landing. The landing needs to be Vertical too if you want you aircraft to be VTOL class...

    that's not rocket assisted take off, not VTOL like F-35 or Yak 141

    I meant it is rocket assisted !! Sorry for the mistake. And yes you still need a runway for landing while for true VTOL you don't need.

    These stuff was vertical take off.

    It was a solid booster strapped to the bottom of the aircraft, to the centre of gravity. So the aircraft take off vertically, and become airborne in few seconds.

    It was better than the F-35 or Harrier, because any aircraft can be launched like this from anywhere.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:39 am

    Then you will need to discuss again the price and the ability of Russians to build true carrier and we will have the same discussion as we can found in every thread of this part of the forum. Not my intension.

    Part of the problem is that everyone wants solutions now.

    Russia has no use for four medium carriers right now... it does not have the port facilities nor the support ships needed to operate two or three carrier groups.

    They will need time to put together a properly balanced fleet, with two new helicopter landing ships in the water by 2022-4 and maybe operational 2-3 years later they will have the core of two carrier groups so a second fixed wing carrier class could be started in 2020 to be ready by 2025 for initial trials and testing together with the Kuznetsov as their two fixed wing carriers.

    My idea as you understood is to add the speed of fighter in small numbers to power-up your forces for a very small price and for somme situtation, clearly not WW3. At the end true carrier is of course better than a small ship lunching a few fighters maybe 4 time every day.

    You get what you pay for... if you could do it cheaper the UK would already be doing it.

    I gotta say Garry you definitely seem exceptionally critical of VTOL aircraft and they do have dodgy track record but these are not 70s. Technology moved on.

    Not really. To save a small amount by building a 20K ton ship instead of a 40-60k ton ship is actually very limiting.

    Taking the British example, if the Argentines had had access to better IR guided missiles the British would have been in the shit. More importantly if the Argentines even just had access to medium fighters with BVR missiles the British would have been in real trouble.

    Even MiG-23s with R-24R and R-24T AAMs, which would not have been state of the art at the time, the British would have been in serious trouble... a Harrier is a horrible IR target... for most aircraft the direct rear portion makes for an easier shot but with a Harrier every angle except directly from the front is dangerous.

    A MiG-29 with R-73s would have massacred the British.

    As I have mentioned, I don't like VSTOL aircraft... they are a one trick pony and for that trick they are expensive, complicated, delicate, and prone to terminal crashes...

    For a small extra cost you can use a proper sized carrier with better range and better capacity and aircraft that are not unique to the navy.

    The Yak-38 was tested in Afghanistan as a CAS and it was found to be a poor option... expensive, fragile, prone to damage.

    Sure the Yak was not the best example of VSTOL aircraft, but its problems are shared by all VSTOL aircraft... there are none that have solved them... even the VTOL F-35 is what is making the F-35 a poor performer... and more expensive than it needs to be.

    It could be a stealthy F-16... instead it is a stealthy Buccaneer... while will likely make it a useful strike aircraft, but a crap light fighter.... and that is half the job.

    Fact is that Russia is building these helicopter​ carriers and they will be in production and use. That is their primary purpose.

    Agreed. But the idea of making a few extra that can haul other loads like MiG-29s makes sense too... but restarting the Yak line of VSTOLs would be counter to the whole concept of a cheap support for a full carrier that carries extra airframes to make up numbers without being expensive.


    Now, to theorize, we know that UAE have ordered new light 5th gen fighter jet. If it ends up having standard configuration then there will be no effect on this topic.

    But in stealth mode a light stealth fighter should have excess thrust to make takeoffs from ships a piece of cake as low drag internal weapons storage and light air to air weapon load means little take off weight requirement...

    However if UAE ended up being less than frugal and decided to go for VTOL config then it will mean that Russia will have both:

    The UAE have no carriers... so VTOL makes no sense for them... on land VSTOL aircraft are a total failure.

    And those two roles are pretty much only reason Russia has for acquiring aircraft carriers.

    Those two requirements don't just go away if UAE does not want a jack of all trades fighter...

    The russians are talking about a CAT system for their new design carriers... it would be a total waste on a helicopter carrier but refitting it on the K could allow a heavier tanker aircraft to be carried that could top up aircraft taking off from the smaller carriers as they take off with full weapon loads...

    the addition of a EM CAT system on K would mean heavy AWACS type to be developed... a cargo plane and a tanker on the same airframe would make sense but would reduce the number of deployed aircraft on the K... the extra carriers become rather more useful and sensible to support operations.

    UAE are not going to be field aircraft carriers of any sort. So why would they need VTOL?

    Agreed... VTOL adds weight and complexity... most of which is deadweight in normal flight. It also makes the aircraft horribly vulnerable to damage/faults.

    Skyjump is more efficient the VTOL.

    Skijumps allow aircraft to get airborne easier from shorter takeoff runs. Thrust vectoring also helps a lot even on no VSTOL aircraft.

    With VTOL you don't need airfield anymore. You can operate them anywhere and lunch them from basicly anywhere.

    That was the sales pitch for Harrier... but in actual practise it was a pain in the ass... anything that was not concrete needed pierced steel planking for takeoffs, which shows up on radar. The idea they could take off from shopping mall carparks is nice but all the rubbish they ingest on takeoff they don't last very long operationally.

    With the introduction of hypersonic and very low observable cruise missiles, airfield are more and more in danger. I know there is little to no chance they go for VTOL but who knows.

    Actually even with modern very capable weapons it is still easier to repair a runway than disperse all your resources all over the place. Note your air defence unit protecting your base wont disperse like your aircraft so they will operate without air defences...


    VTOL didn't improve a lot. For F-35 US bought legally Yak-141 plans and technical data so it's still 70's 80's technology. Russian stop research since then. There isn't successor to Harrier.

    Don't get me wrong... I find the Yak-141 impressive, as is the Harrier for what they are, but the amount of investment needed to make them useful... you can fit a bigger better radar and more weapons in a MiG-29K and operate it from bigger sized ships with more aircraft on board.

    The MiGs are faster, longer ranged, cheaper, and more effective... and also used by the Air Force.

    I meant it is rocket assisted !! Sorry for the mistake. And yes you still need a runway for landing while for true VTOL you don't need.

    Landing is actually the easy part... arrester wires will pretty much land anything... it is the getting airborne that is the issue.

    Again for the Russians the solution will be different from the west because they want fighters, not bombers/strike aircraft.

    Fighters already have a high thrust to weight ratio, good lift, low max weight... AAMs are light payload stuff.

    Harriers and F-35s wont land vertically or take off vertically unless there is something wrong. More conventional takeoffs and landings use a lot less fuel and are actually safer.


    _________________
    “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
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 600
    Points : 604
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:10 pm

    Russia is not getting two new Helio carriers in the water by 2024. I'd be shocked if they can get one in the water by that time. Maybe by 2028 sure.

    Say what you want here but their build speed speaks for it's self and no Icebreakers aren't warships.

    Russia cannot build a 60k Carrier like the Kuz in five years.....you are REALLY high balling these numbers. I get the whole optimistic angle but be realistic.

    Don't get me wrong, I second carrier like the Kuz makes more sense for Russia.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16514
    Points : 17122
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:32 am

    The Kuznetsov was a Soviet design and not really a model for future designs.

    The next fixed wing carrier needs to be nuke propelled, and needs to use a modular design to use the modules developed for all new Russian ships.

    This will make upgrades easier and cheaper and simpler.

    You are entitled to your own opinion regarding future vessels for the Russian navy... the French generously handed over all the details and technology for their Mistral class ships and allowed Russia to build half of them and then refunded their money and sold the ships to Egypt and now Russia is selling the Russian components for the ships to Egypt... so Russia got its money back and is selling aircraft and equipment to Egypt.

    Incorporating the design features of the Mistral in their new design should speed up the design phase and the modular building process used to produce half of the Mistrals they built in Russia should lead to speedy production.


    _________________
    “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 : 1570
    Points : 1608
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Yak 141 is back?

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:11 pm

    Ministry of Defense is considering creation of a vertical takeoff aircraft


    Zhukovsky (Moscow Region), July 18 - RIA Novosti. Russia's Defense Ministry is discussing the creation of a vertical takeoff aircraft for aircraft carriers on the basis of "Yak", he told reporters on Tuesday, Deputy Minister Yuri Borisov.
    "Defense is discussing with our aircraft manufacturers the creation of aircraft with short takeoff and landing, possibly VTOL this development." Yakovskoy "line" - Borisov said.

    РИА Новости https://ria.ru/arms/20170718/1498711735.html
    https://ria.ru/arms/20170718/1498711735.html

    https://vz.ru/news/2017/7/18/879188.html


    Well I was always a big fan of Yak 141 and I am convinced  that you can pack this on "Mistral" like LHS or use old good Aircraft Carrying Cruiser concepts to protect own fleet on far away operations. LHS with 12-16 fighters is not that bad support after all.

    PS is this needs to me moved pls advise where Smile


    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5420
    Points : 5524
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:15 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Ministry of Defense is considering creation of a vertical takeoff aircraft......................

    Yeah, ''totally'' MoD idea... Cool

    I said before that United Arab Emirates have ordered new 5th gen fighter and that in usual Arab extravaganza they will want all the fancy stuff that looks cool even if they have no use for it.

    VTOL system looks cool and Arabs are loaded with cash.... thumbsup
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1391
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  miketheterrible on Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:17 pm

    A MiG and Yakovlev jv fighter jet will make me cream my pants.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1570
    Points : 1608
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:08 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:A MiG and Yakovlev jv fighter jet will make me cream my pants.

    it is even better ...


    MOSCOW, July 19 - RIA Novosti, Andrei Kotz. The Russian Defense Ministry plans in 2025 to lay a new aircraft-carrying cruiser,, which will be part of one of the country's naval fleet. This was at the aerospace show MAKS-2017 told the deputy head of the military department, Yuri Borisov. He stressed that the final decision will be, when the country will be a new generation of aircraft.
    "The plans of the Ministry of Defense we are discussing the creation of the deck of the aircraft, and it may be a VTOL" - said Borisov.

    РИА Новости https://ria.ru/arms/20170719/1498773102.html

    Number of MiGs 35 decreased to 24.... maybe there is a link between resumption of Yak-141 "2" and less money for MiGs 35?

    TAVKR - with Zircons, s-500, ASW torpedoes... sounds like a flag-ship not only AC. Tilt-rotor drones can replace AWACS or even strike missions and fighters just to protect fleet. But lets wait first Smile








    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Carrier air wing

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:49 am