Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1288
    Points : 1286
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:37 pm

    You are something else by all accounts the plan you speak off is based on the SAP of 2011-2020.

    It assumed certain ships would be in commission by a certain date, the SAP and their "naval" doctrine go hand and hand.

    The Russians have failed miserably in terms of naval when the SAP is concerned, the next phase of the SAP

    shows only Super Gorks will be laid down which contradicts the plan you love to quote since that doctrine envisioned having certain ships with a certain number in the fleet by this point

    Long story short you have some mental damage to your head and at this point, I suggest you seek mental help.

    I could give a rats ass what kind of Navy the Russians build (fact is they cannot afford a remotely big one). In fact if you knew me you would know I believe in a multi-power world.

    ETC a world where all major powers are equal offset each other.

    So keep believing that silly 2015 plan is reality because it's not and you are legit the only one here who thinks that they are still holding true it. Also pal we wll know they will eventually build a new CV however that won't be tell close to 2030 and THEN you gotta wait around 15 years for them to make the dam thing and 15 years is me being generous.

    Going on 12 years and they still don't have a single Gorshkov commissioned, I cannot imagine how bad a CV will be for them. Let alone a 100k one IF they decide to build that
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 562
    Points : 602
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:10 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:if you knew me you would know I believe in a multi-power world.

    ETC a world where all major powers are equal offset each other.


    Oh so thats why you hate the idea of complete Russian millitary superiority over all enemies combined or better yet no enemies left.

    The Russian miliatry is slow to modernise but when it does it will be the most powerful on the planet and no amount of your posts can change this.

    Slimy westerners cannot be trusted with power so your whole idea of a "multi power world" is clearly a bad one unless it incledes their elimination.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1288
    Points : 1286
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:47 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:if you knew me you would know I believe in a multi-power world.

    ETC a world where all major powers are equal offset each other.


    Oh so thats why you hate the idea of complete Russian millitary superiority over all enemies combined or better yet no enemies left.

    The Russian miliatry is slow to modernise but when it does it will be the most powerful on the planet and no amount of your posts can change this.

    Slimy westerners cannot be trusted with power so your whole idea of a "multi power world" is clearly a bad one unless it incledes their elimination.

    Russia will never have complete military superiority over all enemies "combined".

    Just like the US won't.

    You are delusional if you believe this, utterly delusional and clearly don't know about anything.

    Population, Manufacturing, GDP and many more factors come into play. What are you 10?

    Russia will never be the most "powerful" ever there is no such thing. You can say "Russia is the most powerful in this area" and I may find that to be a fair statement. No country on earth will ever be number one in all areas that is just idiotic to say frankly.

    If you really must say such fanboy filled garbage do it with someone who doesn't know better kid or do it with someone who believes in that kind of crap.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4896
    Points : 4936
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:38 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:Ok, if thread had turned to SciFi novels, with Wasp able to carry a couple dozens F-35B, not to mention robocops, terminators and Alien's eggs, please be my guest.

    I'll simply switch to the ignore it all mood.


    No wonder since you are self elected expert above Royal Navy and Russian Navies combined Smile Loosing arguments that your 44' battles never return simply hurts your inner child. Ignore. Dont get hurt then. 


    As for subject matter, we were talking about 2030s. Not 1940's  I dont blame you that you have never heard  

    a) about Russian  plans to develop long range hypersonic missiles to fly with 12-14Ma
    Jane's Commentary"
    According to General-Colonel Zelin, Russia is now implementing a two-stage program for the development of hypersonic missiles. The first stage envisages the development by 2020 of a "compact operational and tactical aviation missile with a range of 1,500 km and a speed of 6 Mach"; this is the aforementioned GZUR. It should be supplemented in the next decade with weapons at a speed of M = 12, assuming a global range.



    b) about Kh-50 and   GZUR of range ~ 1500km 
    According to reports, GZUR is a missile with a speed of M = 6 and with a range of 1500 km in flight by altitude profile. The length of the rocket is 6 m, and the weight is about 1500 kg. As you can understand, the missile has mainly anti-ship designation.


    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/profile

    c) Fregat V/STOL drone  (actually kind of converti-pane)  
    https://topwar.ru/115642-v-rossii-sozdan-avanproekt-bpla-srednego-klassa-fregat.html
    https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/59818cef9a79472e5008df54

    The company "Kronstadt" created a flying model of an unmanned convertoplane "Fregat". This was in an interview with the agency RIA Novosti, the deputy general director of the company and the head of the Center for Advanced Studies Vladimir Voronov.

    "Kronstadt" created a drones, which can fly in both airplane and helicopter. Due to this quality, the range of his flight is increased three-fold compared to helicopter drones, "said Voronov.



    Подробнее на РБК:
    https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/59818cef9a79472e5008df54


    But that you have never heard hear about surveillance drones, about Arctic  importance for Russian Navy, A2/DA and discuss military matters I am a bit surprised. 
    What a Face What a Face What a Face
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4896
    Points : 4936
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:50 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:You are something else by all accounts the plan you speak off is based on the SAP of 2011-2020.

    It assumed certain ships would be in commission by a certain date, the SAP and their "naval" doctrine go hand and hand.

    The Russians have failed miserably in terms of naval when the SAP is concerned, the next phase of the SAP

    shows only Super Gorks will be laid down which contradicts the plan you love to quote since that doctrine envisioned having certain ships with a certain number in the fleet by this point

    Long story short you have some mental damage to your head and at this point, I suggest you seek mental help.

    I could give a rats ass what kind of Navy the Russians build (fact is they cannot afford a remotely big one). In fact if you knew me you would know I believe in a multi-power world.

    ETC a world where all major powers are equal offset each other.

    So keep believing that silly 2015 plan is reality because it's not and you are legit the only one here who thinks that they are still holding true it. Also pal we wll know they will eventually build a new CV however that won't be tell close to 2030 and THEN you gotta wait around 15 years for them to make the dam thing and 15 years is me being generous.

    Going on 12 years and they still don't have a single Gorshkov commissioned, I cannot imagine how bad a CV will be for them. Let alone a 100k one IF they decide to build that


    It was not answer to me but please note, and almost agree but: 
    With naval component  of previous SAP there were additional events of force majeure: Ukraine, low oil prices, economical crisis. This is not about inability of Russia to build ships but that first you need to rebuild economy, build shipyards and train people not to mention about engines and ship avionics.

    Well live and see (hopefully) to more naval stuff in 2025 plan. Finally for something those large dockyards are now being built?
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1288
    Points : 1286
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:37 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:You are something else by all accounts the plan you speak off is based on the SAP of 2011-2020.

    It assumed certain ships would be in commission by a certain date, the SAP and their "naval" doctrine go hand and hand.

    The Russians have failed miserably in terms of naval when the SAP is concerned, the next phase of the SAP

    shows only Super Gorks will be laid down which contradicts the plan you love to quote since that doctrine envisioned having certain ships with a certain number in the fleet by this point

    Long story short you have some mental damage to your head and at this point, I suggest you seek mental help.

    I could give a rats ass what kind of Navy the Russians build (fact is they cannot afford a remotely big one). In fact if you knew me you would know I believe in a multi-power world.

    ETC a world where all major powers are equal offset each other.

    So keep believing that silly 2015 plan is reality because it's not and you are legit the only one here who thinks that they are still holding true it. Also pal we wll know they will eventually build a new CV however that won't be tell close to 2030 and THEN you gotta wait around 15 years for them to make the dam thing and 15 years is me being generous.

    Going on 12 years and they still don't have a single Gorshkov commissioned, I cannot imagine how bad a CV will be for them. Let alone a 100k one IF they decide to build that


    It was not answer to me but please note, and almost agree but: 
    With naval component  of previous SAP there were additional events of force majeure: Ukraine, low oil prices, economical crisis. This is not about inability of Russia to build ships but that first you need to rebuild economy, build shipyards and train people not to mention about engines and ship avionics.

    Well live and see (hopefully) to more naval stuff in 2025 plan. Finally for something those large dockyards are now being built?

    I am well aware of such things however in the case of the first Gork for example none of that was a factor, it had it's engine before that started and it was faully paid for. I am willing to give them a pass on certian ships for couple of years over the engines.

    However in the case of shipyards and training people they should have planned accordingly for that and they clearly didn't.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20586
    Points : 21136
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:28 am

    I have said it plenty of times and will say again.... any group of ships including subs are much safer if they have aircraft supporting them.

    The number of aircraft is not that critical because they are not there to overwhelm an enemies air force to invade that country, they are there to protect those ships from enemy attack.

    An S-400 with 400km range cannot replace an aircraft simply shown by the US AEGIS cruisers example of shooting down an Iranian airbus in the 1980s... it detected what it thought was a threat but was unable to verify that threat so they left it as long as they felt they could and then they launched a missile and murdered over 200 innocent people.

    If the airbus had really been an enemy aircraft attacking that ship it would have flown low and no missile launch would likely have taken place until the attacking aircraft was much much closer...

    The Russians wont be able to build thousands of ships, and they wont need thousands of ships.

    They will actually be rather limited as to how many actual ships they will be able to operate... that means they need to be selective... if they can only have 500 ships then 500 corvettes would be a very dangerous but very limited force.

    Larger ships have capabilities smaller ships simply do not... including endurance and better range and the ability to carry enough weapons to remain in the battle more than a few hours.

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4896
    Points : 4936
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:51 am

    GarryB wrote:....



    Indeed there is no need to repeat the same arguments from both sides. As for Iranians, apart form moral grounds,  I am sure they shoot passenger plane but didn't care or planned this (vide MH-17) .

    Please note that
    a) Russia cannot and in our lifetime unlikely can afford so many ACs as US. Thus every try to counter US CSG in Midway style is doomed for failure

    b) Russia's doctrine focuses on sea denial not sea control and if you look currently every ship or plane is or will be platform to long-arm precision weapons. With 1500 km hypersonic antishp airborne missiles you dont really need so much AA cover by own fighters, do you?

    c) there are drones for surveillance drones

    d) 3 tasks already mentioned earlier onby PapaDragon small universal  LHD/ACs/ASW helicopter AC with 18-24 V/STOL fighters is more then enough.


    SeigSoloyvov wrote:

    I am well aware of such things however in the case of the first Gork for example none of that was a factor, it had it's engine before that started and it was faully paid for. I am willing to give them a pass on certian ships for couple of years over the engines.

    However in the case of shipyards and training people they should have planned accordingly for that and they clearly didn't. 

    True,could be better but training personnel requires money now, not in budget planned in 5 years (aka cashflow). Uncertainty and inflation + still "money leaking " system without control and central procurement are not of much  help. It is going better but the question is :will it be fast enough?
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2518
    Points : 2535
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  eehnie on Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:40 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:You are something else by all accounts the plan you speak off is based on the SAP of 2011-2020.

    It assumed certain ships would be in commission by a certain date, the SAP and their "naval" doctrine go hand and hand.

    The Russians have failed miserably in terms of naval when the SAP is concerned, the next phase of the SAP

    shows only Super Gorks will be laid down which contradicts the plan you love to quote since that doctrine envisioned having certain ships with a certain number in the fleet by this point

    Long story short you have some mental damage to your head and at this point, I suggest you seek mental help.

    I could give a rats ass what kind of Navy the Russians build (fact is they cannot afford a remotely big one). In fact if you knew me you would know I believe in a multi-power world.

    ETC a world where all major powers are equal offset each other.

    So keep believing that silly 2015 plan is reality because it's not and you are legit the only one here who thinks that they are still holding true it. Also pal we wll know they will eventually build a new CV however that won't be tell close to 2030 and THEN you gotta wait around 15 years for them to make the dam thing and 15 years is me being generous.

    Going on 12 years and they still don't have a single Gorshkov commissioned, I cannot imagine how bad a CV will be for them. Let alone a 100k one IF they decide to build that

    First the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 is a document of superior range than the State Armament Program.

    As consequence, the State Armament Program 2011-2020 was under the Russian maritime doctrine of 2000/2001 in the refered to the Russian Navy, and the State Armament Program 2018-2025(27) is under the Russian Military Doctrine of 2015 in the refered to the Russian Navy.

    And as consequence, the rest of what you said is totally wrong and ridiculous. You have still many things to learn as US "soldier" in Syria.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7892
    Points : 7984
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:08 pm


    Happy New Year everyone, just gonna drops some replies before returning to bed where I belong ATM      santa


    GunshipDemocracy wrote:................
    d) 3 tasks already mentioned earlier onby PapaDragon small universal  LHD/ACs/ASW helicopter AC with 18-24 V/STOL fighters is more then enough.
    .................


    And coincidently, look what is happening in the Pacific even as we speak. Someone must have thought of this before me...or was it the other way around?   Very Happy


    Amphibious Ships Transformed Into Aircraft Carriers Debut in Asia-Pacific

    http://defense-update.com/20171231_lhd_with_f35.html

    ...Last week it was announced that South Korea considers buying additional 26 F-35s, in addition to the 40 they already ordered. Six of those 26 are likely to be F-35B STOVL variants, that will be able to operable from the Marado – the Korean Navy second Dokdo class assault ship currently under construction. This 14,000 ton vessel can be modified through the remaining construction phase, to operate F-35s as it is commissioned around 2020. Korea expects to begin deploying the first F-35As in 2018, and all 40 planes are slated for delivery by 2021 and open to receive the second batch of 20-26 starting in 2023.

    Japan is also evaluating the possibility to deploy F-35B on naval vessels, specifically, the 20,000 ton Izumo Class helicopter carriers Izumo (JS183) and Kaga (JS184). The size of the Japanese ships is 30 ft (nine meters) shorter than the wasp (814 vs 844 ft – 257 vs 248 meters), This will practically transform Izumo into an aircraft carrier with limited offensive capability....


    Dokdo and Izumo as aircraft carriers with STOVL air wing, I wonder who was talking about that on this very forum for a while now...  Cool
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3248
    Points : 3244
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 01, 2018 4:12 pm

    @papadragon Yeah but russia doesn't have this type of ship nor the aircraft. Unless if they manage to put a yak on a modified tarentul boat lol1
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7892
    Points : 7984
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Jan 01, 2018 7:46 pm

    Isos wrote:@papadragon Yeah but russia doesn't have this type of ship nor the aircraft. Unless if they manage to put a yak on a modified tarentul boat lol1

    Compared to eehenie's Shtorm-class supercarrier (that is supposedly​ under construction already at secret Santa-Clausinsk shipyards in Arctic) Russia will actually be getting LHDs and STOVL aircraft at some point in the future.

    So putting those two together would be reasonable course of action.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:24 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:



    Dokdo and Izumo as aircraft carriers with STOVL air wing, I wonder who was talking about that on this very forum for a while now...  Cool

    WOW, a total six aircrafts for Dokdo, a 18.000 tons ship, and likely a little more for Izumo, a 27.000 tons ship.

    No doubt, wouldn't the F-35B developement being paid for by USA et others, Japan and South Korea would have developed their owns STOVL top-of-the-line aircrafts.

    Maybe not?

    Russia has not a viable, ready and competitive STOVL aircrafts, and numbers would never justify such a developement, while has already competitive aircrafts needing only the right kind of ship.

    And anyway, Dokdo is and will be nothing more than a token navale aviation asset.

    Izumo would be some more credible tool, just enough to provide self protection around the clock.

    And Izumo is not, in any way, an amphibious ship.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3248
    Points : 3244
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:21 pm

    WOW, a total six aircrafts for Dokdo, a 18.000 tons ship, and likely a little more for Izumo, a 27.000 tons ship.

    Well, they can do the same ship but using mig29k and a ski jump and some wires to stop it at landing. The mig doesn't need catapults or expensive technology, just need to design the ship like a small carrier with a recovery aera and the ski jump.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4896
    Points : 4936
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:36 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Happy New Year everyone, just gonna drops some replies before returning to bed where I belong ATM      santa


    GunshipDemocracy wrote:................
    d) 3 tasks already mentioned earlier onby PapaDragon small universal  LHD/ACs/ASW helicopter AC with 18-24 V/STOL fighters is more then enough.
    .................


    And coincidently, look what is happening in the Pacific even as we speak. Someone must have thought of this before me...or was it the other way around?   Very Happy


    Amphibious Ships Transformed Into Aircraft Carriers Debut in Asia-Pacific

    http://defense-update.com/20171231_lhd_with_f35.html


    They didnt read  Perriers, Eehneis posts damn. Neither Royal Navy did.


    PapaDragon wrote:
    Dokdo and Izumo as aircraft carriers with STOVL air wing, I wonder who was talking about that on this very forum for a while now...  Cool

    Ohhhhh Thank you for mentioning me again  respekt respekt :@:To me the choice is obvious: you got 3 ships in price of 1.
    Very positive IMHO surprise would be if Russians add more UKSK-Ms to make it true TAKR ... not like LHD/AC. But we ll have to live to see it yet Smile





    and below vertical take off and landing of F-35b. For all folks this is basic carrier model for Royal Navy and USMC Smile




    and here STOVL action looks like  simulation of AC operations


    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:25 pm


    Well, they can do the same ship but using mig29k and a ski jump and some wires to stop it at landing. The mig doesn't need catapults or expensive technology, just need to design the ship like a small carrier with a recovery aera and the ski jump.

    That's not the point.

    Adding an angled deck means adding an angled deck lonng enough and able to withstand landings, plus having arrestor gears.

    By all past experiences, under 30.000+ tons it isn't possible to design a flat top equipped with an angled deck able to let 18+ tons aircrafts land on it.

    Charles de Gaulle is probably the smallest size a modern carrier could be, and it has nuclear propulsion, which usually has a fairly small footprint compared to the propulsive power generated.

    With facilities devoted to amphibious operations, the 37.000 tons of Charles de Gaulle would be far less than ideal.

    Reality is, the characteristics are dictated by Phisics, and an angled deck alone require a good tonnage in displacements by itself.

    A Wasp would easily top the 50.000 tons mark, if it had an angled deck added.

    I am higly skeptical about Russia building a 100.000 tons vessel, it would be really an overshot and of doubtful fit within the actual and foreseeble force structure of the russian Navy.

    But I am far more than skeptikal about the chances an LHD could turn into an aircraft carrier, the more so if requiring an angled deck.

    A carrier has to be purpose designed and built, and require its own internal facilities and spaces.

    And it needs a decent displacement just to act as a carrier, without much more roles to play.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Peŕrier on Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:04 am

    So, just to cure my own ignorance, how much could/should cost the development of a new russian STOVL aircraft?

    Very approssimate guess-stimations will be welcome as well.

    Please, don't be shy and put some number forward.
    avatar
    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 513
    Points : 519
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  ATLASCUB on Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:08 am

    2 reasons why this aircraft will be ordered:

    #1: Keep a design bureau afloat, either YAK/MIG aka nepotism with Russian tax payer money.
    #2: Keep up with Western development of single-engine VTOL aircraft which can spill over to the drone development realm. By Western, I mean the U.S so it's a very weak reason but hey.... can't think of many that would make sense. The points put forth by people in favor are weak as hell in my opinion.

    No brainer to just develop Shtorm and put navalized Pak-fa's/Navalized Su-35s or 34's in it. Save the money (R&D) AND time (10 years least on that engine). Not to mention, capabilities will be maximized in that combo config, not constrained.

    4 Shtorms would be ideal. But b4 all of that, Russia should bulk up on destroyers.


    Last edited by ATLASCUB on Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:20 am; edited 3 times in total
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4896
    Points : 4936
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:16 am

    PapaDragon wrote:

    ....They didnt read  Perriers, Eehneis posts damn. Neither Royal Navy did....

    Pathetic fools are they not?

    But then again even likes of Nelson, Ushakov and Nimitz pale in comparison to pure naval genius of Grand Admirals eehenia and Perrier don't they? pwnd

    we, we might disagree with both eehnie and perrier, sometimes fairly strong  Idea  but there is no reason to call them bad names.





    Peŕrier wrote:So, just to cure my own ignorance, how much could/should cost the development of a new russian STOVL aircraft?

    Very approssimate guess-stimations will be welcome as well.

    Please, don't be shy and put some number forward.


    How much should cost? how can I or anybody here possibly know? We do not know who is sponsoring, what should be characteristics or tasks to fulfill.  Since F-18, F-35 or Yak-141 didn't pass 2Ma mark possibly this one also will not have need to.  PAK FA cost is about $20BLN so this one should be less.   

    I'd also presume that deal with Arab Emirates can offset this costs by nice part.  This fighter if build probably replaces MiG-29 class and be for export to. 


    My educated guess is that technically it will be something like F-35 , possibly less stealth but with better flight characteristics. To keep costs down usage of NK-32, PAK-FA avionics or coatings would greatly help.


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:56 am; edited 1 time in total
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7892
    Points : 7984
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:06 am

    ATLASCUB wrote:2 reasons why this aircraft will be ordered:

    #1: Keep a design bureau afloat, either YAK/MIG aka nepotism with Russian tax payer money.
    #2: Keep up with Western development of single-engine VTOL aircraft which can spill over to the drone development realm....

    #3 and most important one: someone else is paying for it and Navy is taking a chance for a free ride just like with MiG-29K on Indian dime




    Peŕrier wrote:So, just to cure my own ignorance, how much could/should cost the development of a new russian STOVL aircraft?

    Very approssimate guess-stimations will be welcome as well.

    Please, don't be shy and put some number forward.

    I am sure that it is so super very much money and that exact amount is listed somewhere in Russian Naval Doctrine of 2015 as an argument not to develop it

    If only we had someone to post a copy of that document here, so many questions would be answered...  Razz

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4896
    Points : 4936
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:16 am

    Peŕrier wrote:
    ....

    And it needs a decent displacement just to act as a carrier, without much more roles to play.

    And for which roles and where should it sail? the Northern Route? Baltic? or be the white elephant near Kamchatka?  And here we get back to basics: Russian Navy has no need for AC besides protection of own subs and geopolitical dick waving. 

    Besides Russia has no budget to build  "pure ACs" and "pure LPHDs" not to mention that USN Wasp class LHD has 20 F-35Bs in "sea control" missions. And no angled deck. Why? no need for arrester gear. No need for catapult either 
     
    For me Russia has 2 options it would be 2+ of  30,000-40000tones displacement or max 2 of 60-70,000 tons class
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2518
    Points : 2535
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  eehnie on Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:07 am

    ATLASCUB wrote:2 reasons why this aircraft will be ordered:

    #1: Keep a design bureau afloat, either YAK/MIG aka nepotism with Russian tax payer money.
    #2: Keep up with Western development of single-engine VTOL aircraft which can spill over to the drone development realm. By Western, I mean the U.S so it's a very weak reason but hey.... can't think of many that would make sense. The points put forth by people in favor are weak as hell in my opinion.

    No brainer to just develop Shtorm and put navalized Pak-fa's/Navalized Su-35s or 34's in it. Save the money (R&D) AND time (10 years least on that engine). Not to mention, capabilities will be maximized in that combo config, not constrained.

    4 Shtorms would be ideal. But b4 all of that, Russia should bulk up on destroyers.

    All the design bureaus were merged by Putin in 2006 (UAC). Economically they are a unity. Still as bureaus there is some independence and increasing specialisation, but at this point there is enough work to keep them very busy until 2025.

    1.- Irkut (Yakovlev) (Airliners and Trainers): MS-21. Likely CRAIC joint venture wil have support from Yakovlev.
    2.- Ilyushin (Transport aircrafts): A number of transport aircrafts in development.
    3.- MiG (Fighter Interceptors): MiG-41
    4.- Tupolev (Strategic Bombers): Tu-PAK-DA
    5.- Sukhoi (Fighters and Fighter Ground Attack): Su-57 (begin of serial production). Likely MiG and Tupolev will have also support from Sukhoi.

    To note that the Ministry of Defense talking about orders of the L-410, SR-10 and Diamond DA42 is bad news for Yakovlev. This project would be fairly distracting for Yakovlev.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20586
    Points : 21136
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:59 am

    Indeed there is no need to repeat the same arguments from both sides. As for Iranians, apart form moral grounds, I am sure they shoot passenger plane but didn't care or planned this (vide MH-17) .

    The point is that if they had used carrier based aviation to investigate the "target" they would have realised their error and over 200 people would still be breathing today.

    Move that to any situation at sea and having aircraft you can send to investigate offers flexibility and critical information to the commanders of those vessels and that naval group... information sending a small corvette to investigate cannot match.

    a) Russia cannot and in our lifetime unlikely can afford so many ACs as US. Thus every try to counter US CSG in Midway style is doomed for failure

    Russia does not need carriers to take on the US Navy... what a stupid fucking waste of time and money that would be.

    Russia needs a couple of carriers... perhaps only two new ones with the upgraded K as support/backup so that when they are operating a group of ships away from Russian shores it can offer air protection.

    b) Russia's doctrine focuses on sea denial not sea control and if you look currently every ship or plane is or will be platform to long-arm precision weapons. With 1500 km hypersonic antishp airborne missiles you dont really need so much AA cover by own fighters, do you?

    During WWIII the goal will be to defeat NATO vessels... big and small and the optimum way to do that is at extended range with powerful missiles... not aircraft which are slower and much more vulnerable, yet likely not more effective.

    During peacetime having a carrier that you can send to the south atlantic for a visit to Argentina and perhaps deliver some Su-30Ms or MiG-31BMs Smile means the ability to protect your own ships and to see what is around while you are doing it.

    c) there are drones for surveillance drones

    Yes, they will most likely have them too.

    3 tasks already mentioned earlier onby PapaDragon small universal LHD/ACs/ASW helicopter AC with 18-24 V/STOL fighters is more then enough.

    Such confidence regarding V/STOL fighters that don't actually currently exist and likely are not even on paper or computer model yet.

    Even right now without EM cats, a MiG-29K2 is superior to any potential V/STOL aircraft you could build... anything you could put on the new V/STOL aircraft to make it superior could just as easily be put on the MiG to make it even more so because the MiG will be lighter and stronger and cheaper.

    Dokdo and Izumo as aircraft carriers with STOVL air wing, I wonder who was talking about that on this very forum for a while now...

    If they have to take off V then they aren't worth getting airborne... a false promise.

    Russia will actually be getting LHDs and STOVL aircraft at some point in the future.

    They didn't get them last time.

    The Russian Navy is the poor half cousin in the Russian military heirarchy... they only got MiG-29K2s because India bought some... they would still have Su-33s with partial upgrades otherwise... and you think they will be getting state of the art super naval VSTOL fighters... yeah right.., now who is the fanboy.

    Russia has not a viable, ready and competitive STOVL aircrafts, and numbers would never justify such a developement, while has already competitive aircrafts needing only the right kind of ship.

    They have no export market for such planes, so two helicopter carriers that at a stretch carry 16 helicopters might have 4-6 jets and maybe 4-5 helicopters... making it useless as a helicopter carrier and nothing like an aircraft carrier that could support a landing or some sort of international operations...

    What a waste of money.

    Mistral funds are supposed to be used for russian counterpart which will cost much more as they will need to do the R&D.

    They have full design information for the Mistral... a Russification of that would suffice.... perhaps a nuke engine for endurance and speed, and better defensive array of weapons and sensors, and ice operations capability too.


    and below vertical take off and landing of F-35b. For all folks this is basic carrier model for Royal Navy and USMC

    WOW... amazing... I am totally converted.... what was its fuel weight and weapon load?

    It probably had quarter tanks and no weapons and was therefore not a weapon of war.

    The Hilarious thing of course is that some suggest Eehnie is a joke for suggesting they might be building a carrier sometime in the near future but those same people are certain that Russia will build an F-35B analog in less time than it would take to build a super carrier... wake up.

    The Russian navy can't afford either.

    I'd also presume that deal with Arab Emirates can offset this costs by nice part. This fighter if build probably replaces MiG-29 class and be for export to.

    So not only do you want to make a more expensive (than conventional land based aircraft) VTOL fighter you want your allies to buy it too?

    What MiG will be building with the UAE will be a 5th gen fighter... what makes you think that will be ready before 2030.... how long has PAK FA taken to design and get into production? Do you think this light fighter will be designed and built faster or cheaper?

    #3 and most important one: someone else is paying for it and Navy is taking a chance for a free ride just like with MiG-29K on Indian dime

    You could turn that around and say the Russian Navy does not spend money to upgrade or improve aircraft until it is in a corner with a gun to its head so what sort of future could a VSTOL aircraft have with them?

    The UAE will buy 50 and the Russian Navy will buy 12... 6 for each Mistralski and it will be the most expensive aircraft in Russian history.

    The magical formula of Papadragon: The UAE will pay the cost.

    Yeah... as part of the contract they could get them made in France with their Mistrals... or not.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4896
    Points : 4936
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty temp temp talking rubbish

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:11 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Indeed there is no need to repeat the same arguments from both sides. As for Iranians, apart form moral grounds,  I am sure they shoot passenger plane but didn't care or planned this (vide MH-17) .

    The point is that if they had used carrier based aviation to investigate the "target" they would have realised their error and over 200 people would still be breathing today.


    and sending drone doesn't count? 



    Russia does not need carriers to take on the US Navy... what a stupid fucking waste of time and money that would be.

    Russia needs a couple of carriers... perhaps only two new ones with the upgraded K as support/backup so that when they are operating a group of ships away from Russian shores it can offer air protection.

    as one of roles very true



    During peacetime having a carrier that you can send to the south atlantic for a visit to Argentina and perhaps deliver some Su-30Ms or MiG-31BMs  Smile means the ability to protect your own ships and to see what is around while you are doing it.


    Agree. This was called "geopolitical dick waving" wasnt it? 



    3 tasks already mentioned earlier onby PapaDragon small universal  LHD/ACs/ASW helicopter AC with 18-24 V/STOL fighters is more then enough.

    Such confidence regarding V/STOL fighters that don't actually currently exist and likely are not even on paper or computer model yet.

    Even right now without EM cats, a MiG-29K2 is superior to any potential V/STOL aircraft you could build... anything you could put on the new V/STOL aircraft to make it superior could just as easily be put on the MiG to make it even more so because the MiG will be lighter and stronger and cheaper.

    Nmm neither Zircons nor GZURs or MiG-41 don't exist yet too. MiG 29k  is form 70s. Accepting it on 2010 is only because almost 20 years project was not funded. Russians buily 24 for own needs and not going to buy anymore.  I wonder why?

    Probably you did not check details: STOL without ski jump for  Yak-141 was 120m,  for MiG-29k with ski jump is 200m If those 80m of ship and vertical landing ability i\means noting for fleet you're probably right. 


    BTW In 2030s you want to relay on 60th years old fighter machine?! 




    Dokdo and Izumo as aircraft carriers with STOVL air wing, I wonder who was talking about that on this very forum for a while now...

    If they have to take off V then they aren't worth getting airborne... a false promise.

    why they shpild have? they can get STOL




    The Russian Navy is the poor half cousin in the Russian military heirarchy... they only got MiG-29K2s because India bought some... they would still have Su-33s with partial upgrades otherwise... and you think they will be getting state of the art super naval VSTOL fighters... yeah right.., now who is the fanboy.

    Because in 2025 most of aviation plants will have not much to do? because Russia still needs light Vgen fighter?  also fo rexport? because only fanbois can rely on MiG29K , then why not on Po-2 Smile



    Russia has not a viable, ready and competitive STOVL aircrafts, and numbers would never justify such a developement, while has already competitive aircrafts needing only the right kind of ship.

    They have no export market for such planes, so two helicopter carriers that at a stretch carry 16 helicopters might have 4-6 jets and maybe 4-5 helicopters... making it useless as a helicopter carrier and nothing like an aircraft carrier that could support a landing or some sort of international operations...

    What a waste of money.

    how do you know that no customers? Besides you never checked about Wasp LHD class? neither Canberra, Izumo or Juan Carlos? Wasp is to have sea control missions (i.e. light carrier with 20 fighters wing) or  LHD missions. What s the difference with Kuznetsov with 24 fighters? 





    The Hilarious thing of course is that some suggest Eehnie is a joke for suggesting they might be building a carrier sometime in the near future but those same people are certain that Russia will build an F-35B analog in less time than it would take to build a super carrier... wake up.

    The Russian navy can't afford either.

    Hilarious is that some of us dont recognize need of LHDs/light carriers/ASW ships for Russia.  And dont accept the fact that for some reasons many fleets opt for F-35B nor MiG-29k or F-18.  Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil





    I'd also presume that deal with Arab Emirates can offset this costs by nice part.  This fighter if build probably replaces MiG-29 class and be for export to.

    So not only do you want to make a more expensive (than conventional land based aircraft) VTOL fighter you want your allies to buy it too?

    What MiG will be building with the UAE will be a 5th gen fighter... what makes you think that will be ready before 2030.... how long has PAK FA taken to design and get into production? Do you think this light fighter will be designed and built faster or cheaper?


     V/STOL or STOVL both can start and land vertically it doesn't mean they have to do it every time.  Nothing tells me it will be before 2025s or even 2030s. Whe did I say this? So what's the problem? 

    [/quote]
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7892
    Points : 7984
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Russia to Expand its Carrier Fleet with Two Advanced New Assault Ship Classes; Vertical Takeoff Aircraft Could Follow

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:12 pm


    Oh my... Cool

    Russia to Expand its Carrier Fleet with Two Advanced New Assault Ship Classes; Vertical Takeoff Aircraft Could Follow

    http://militarywatchmagazine.com/read.php?my_data=70725

    ... It also remains a possibility, particularly for the ‘large amphibious assault ship’ referred to by the Deputy Commander in Chief, that Russia may well develop a new fixed wing aircraft to operate from its warships. With these ships potentially approaching the size of the Japanese Izumo Class or even the Untied States' own American Class carrier warships, this remains a considerable possibility. Much like the United States developed the F-35B with short takeoff vertical landing (STOVL) to operate from its own amphibious assault ships, so too did the Soviet Union before it develop Yak-38 Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) strike fighter to operate from its own Kiev Class vessels - which lacked runways entirely. These aircraft served until the year of the Soviet disintegration, when the more advanced Yakovlev 141 VTOL fighter was also cancelled with four prototypes built. The possibility of a resurrection of the Yak-141 program, or a derivative program making use of similar technologies, remains a considerable possibility for the Russian Navy to equip its new carriers - thus allowing it to field a larger force of fixed wing aircraft carrying warships without the costs of developing and operating a vessel the size of the Kuznetsov, Ulaynovsk or SHOTRM ships....

    Sponsored content

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 7 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon May 20, 2019 7:43 pm