Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4882
    Points : 4922
    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 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:20 am

    LMFS wrote:
    By now CTOL vs STOVL is rather like two competing athletes, one of which carries a backpack full of rocks. Should we discuss who will win?

    it is rahter you want sprinter to run marathon. You dont need same qualities.
    From F-35:
    50% deck fighters is F-35B
    100% of Royal Navy
    100% Italian Fleet
    1000 of Spanish fleet

    Yes Su33 won in 2040! and 60 years old MiG-29k Smile


    But what features would make the carrier so extremely expensive and the LHD so cheap? Why would a light carrier like the one presented in Army 2018 be so many times more expensive than a big LHD with space for two squadron STOVL + well dock + VLS + helos + advanced systems? Displacement similar, similar systems... similar costs me thinks. I am an ignorant, so please explain to me!

    I didnt write cheap as dirt. did I? Carrier as on forum is definitely an option but then you still need to buy 2x as man LHS ships. Isnt it more expensive?




    One more question: any guess what is the exact status of this STOVL development? Funds approved? For what exactly? It is not clear to me whether they have decided that they definitely want the STOVL or are just saying "we may want them". Any evidence they are already doing preliminary design of the plane itself? Since no design bureau has been named I have to doubt it.

    deputy primeministersays on opproav of Supreme Commander, it is in 2027 SAP plan. OK doubt it. You have right!
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:16 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:it is rahter you want sprinter to run marathon. You dont need same qualities.
    From F-35:
    50% deck fighters is F-35B
    100% of Royal Navy
    100% Italian Fleet
    1000 of Spanish fleet

    Yes Su33 won in 2040! and 60 years old MiG-29k Smile
    You say STOVL will substitute STOBAR. Then they should have the same roles and hence qualities. Another option is that STOVL are deployed in LHDs and STOBAR fighters and carriers operate in parallel with different requirements. This will be the case for some years with the K and its air wing of Su-33s and brand new MiG-29K, after that we don't know exactly.

    Not very interested in what other navies do:
    - vassal states are not going to carry the weight of the fighting in war against peer opponents and are rather interested in colonial wars and prestige. BTW no orders by Spain that I know, are they new?
    - US has already a huge fleet of CVNs with CATOBAR fighters.

    Russia has their own needs, doctrine and resources. Should not give a damn copying what Marines or Italian navy does.

    I didnt write cheap as dirt. did I? Carrier as on forum is definitely an option but then you still need to buy 2x as man LHS ships. Isnt it more expensive?
    You keep deflecting the question. Why are the LHDs so much cheaper, what features do they have in comparison to the expensive carriers? Also, why do you need twice as many LHDs as CVs, is that not a matter of doctrine? And who says Russia will have LHDs instead of carriers so the later can be spared with the development of STOVL fighters?

    deputy primeministersays on opproav of Supreme Commander, it is in 2027 SAP plan.  OK doubt it. You have right!
    Don't kill me, I am just asking in what state of development the program is. The Supreme Commander has approved exactly what?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20240
    Points : 20794
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:19 pm

    still in senial, Supreme Commander signed VSTOL unlik EMALS

    Supreme commander hasn't signed off on any carriers either... for all we know they could be operating them from civilian cargo ships, or chinese made islands in the middle of international waters...

    in 1991 any pretext was good to cancel financing. This had nothing to do with technical issues tho. True Yak-43 , MiG-144 too, nothing to do with technical side.

    Definitely true that there was no funding at the time for carriers or carrier aircraft... the Su-33s they had made are still the ones they have, and the only reason they got MiG-29MRs is because the Indian order paid for tooling and most of the design... so they tagged their order on the back of the Indian order.

    The thing with the MiG-1.42/1.44 and the Yak-43 is that the former failed because Sukhoi offered something better, and the latter never got off the drawing board, while there are already aircraft with likely better performance already in service in the form of the MiG-29KR, that is related to a land based aircraft of the same design and many of the same parts... that is entering service too... paid for by the Air Force.

    skijump can be on 20k too. Invincible could take 18 Harriers and had skijump and 22ktons

    A ship replaced by a new carrier similar in size to the Kuznetsov by a country well known for only spending money on absolute essentials... and even then cutting budgets after conflicts...

    MiG-33 is a hybrid of MiG-29 and Su-33? lol1 lol1 lol1 BTW speed of Yak-141 in pair with F-18 or F-35.

    MiG-33 is the name for the MiG-29K/R... like the Yak-41M is sometimes called Yak-141... and the amount of fuel needed to operate supersonically means the Fulcrum and the Yak are unlikely to ever operate at such speeds operationally...

    useles to what? to your requirements of solving real ltaksks?

    To provide adequate air cover for a group of Russian ships beyond land based aircraft range.

    so you didn notice that currently there is netcentric warfare? and drones? you still live in 90s?

    Of course... everyone uses drones instead of AWACS... can you name them?

    Describe the drone the Russians would use...

    I hear tanks are all going to be replaced because ATGMs are too powerful... what they are going to replace tanks with is a land vehicle with a really big gun and three crew in the hull under the heaviest protection, with a range of anti missile and anti warhead and anti IED capabilities... they are going to call this replacement for the obsolete tank... a tank.

    I suspect the same for AWACS platforms... you need a huge radar and lots of computing power to process the enormous raw volume of data, so that information can be used to generate commands and controls to direct your forces... it is the difference between AWACS and AEW... and of course you need humans in the loop to make decisions and issue those commands... so it will end up being an unmanned aircraft with 4 crew and probably 2-4 guys operating consoles sending commands to ships, other aircraft, and via satellite HQ.

    not true, 1 is enough to send anywhere. besides Midway. For 1/4 of costs.

    If you are wrong, your surface fleet will get wiped out... costing lives and perhaps a trillion dollars worth of hardware... not to mention a political and likely economic defeat Russia might not recover from.
    If I am wrong they spend a little too much on their shipyards and domestic production...

    6 billion dollars is a lot of money... but over the 15 years it will take to get the thing into service and properly trained and ready for combat it is not that big a deal... and in many ways it ensures the money spent on other vessels is money better spent as it will make them more useful and safer.

    It wont let Russia take on the US or NATO, but that would never be a consideration... use Kinzhal and Kh-32 and Onyx and soon Zircon...


    What a Face What a Face What a Face so you want to have years somewhere?!

    If it is a blockade, you might need to be there for 2-3 months... the logistics chain for a small vessel would be cheaper but also more taxed to maintain such a deployment.

    Unliely 40-50ktons has it all, and if she needs more supplies that's wny are supply ships for right?

    Supply ships that might be banned from various choke points around the world... so no Panama canal, no suez canal, no bosphorus straight... who knows how far this supply line might have to go... and in some places it will need protection too.

    Better to have larger capacity on board... they could have an 80KT vessel with 90 fighters that only carries 30 fighters and AWACS and helicopters and the rest of the capacity extra resources... the point is that a carrier designed to carry 90 planes will have weapons and fuel reserves for 90 planes... so 40 planes could operate for twice as long without any resupply support.

    It is like the Flanker... it has the capacity to carry an enormous load of fuel, but most of the time most of its internal fuel tanks are empty... you are claiming money could be saved by buying a smaller aircraft like the MiG-29 and if you need to operate great distances then use external fuel tanks (which reduce load) or send some inflight refuelling aircraft to support them.

    I am saying if it was for home defence then a MiG would be fine but the intention of these carriers is to support operations well away from Russian territory so the extra capacity is useful and worth the extra money.

    If you are afraid of US carrier groups attacking Russia then MiG-29s and MiG-31s with kinzhal, in addition to coastal defences and land based airpower should already be plenty to not just stop an attack but also totally obliterate the attacking force...

    That is not what they need carriers for.

    OK denial of existing and approved plans. Next I expect aggression. Acceptance comes later.

    The call for a new VSTOL aircraft design does not mean the Yak-43 would be involved...

    now? yes she does. BTW 80 destroyers you mean? for 1,4 blns $ each? right.

    All their new large ships are going to be expensive... new technology is not cheap.

    But they are not going to need enormous numbers of new ships anyway... the Russian Navy is not going to be as big as the Soviet Navy, but the Russian navy is going to be more mobile and likely more active than the Soviet Navy was... the Soviet Navy was all about facing off against the enormous US and powerful French and British navies... the future Russian navy will be about supporting free and open commerce with Russias trading partners around the world...

    no there are plans for CVNs the question is not if but whenm, And yes they are persistent since last year

    There are no plans for mini CVNs... ie helicopter carriers, that you seem to be endorsing...

    Nuclear propulsion and EMALs and the new larger ship designs seem to suggest several things... first a shift from single used optimised ship design, to more multirole modular approach, but such a change means an increase in cost per vessel, despite an increase in flexibility within the fleet... instead of having 6 air defence missile destroyers and 6 anti sub destroyers and 6 anti ship destroyers, they could have 8-12 destroyers able to carry anti ship, anti sub, and land attack, plus all with serious air defence capability... those 8-12 ships might cost more than 18 of the older ships but they will also be more useful, more flexible... and cheaper to run and man and maintain.

    The V in CVN suggests they wont be Hermes sized carriers.

    America class LHA is 45k tons.

    American Lha sounds like something that comes out of a volcano.

    And no country would fuck with Russia who has global reach with either bombers + cruise missiles of closer to shores missile ships.

    The US is screwing with Russia now... a good example is the USS Liberty... it was at risk of revealing Israel cheating on agreements made with the US so they had to stop it... but they couldn't ask it to stop operating in international waters... so they pretended to misidentify it and they attacked it... and they didn't stop attacking it until they intercepted a message that a nearby carrier group was sending F-14s...

    Knowing the US has nukes is one thing having actual F-14s approaching at high speed and weapons armed is something else... something tangible... something that turns your underpants brown...

    But who on the planet is as arrogant as an Israeli... perhaps an American? If America decides to blockade Venezuela for whatever reason do you think they will back off because a ship is there... when fighter aircraft are inbound then they will listen...

    Programme cost read again please, This time with understanding. lol1 lol1 lol1
    R&D + 3 ships =37 blns

    And what was the unit cost of the F-35 before they were built? ... I seem to recall statements of $50 million each... because they are buying 2,300 of them... now it is more like double and when Turkey gets S-400... the numbers might change again...


    How to Find the Mean
    The mean is the average of the numbers.

    Of course... but in the US MIC you are better off taking estimates of cost and doubling them and then delay a couple of years and increase the price by 30% again just to be sure... and then once they are in service... because they were rushed add another 40% for all those problems that weren't fixed during testing and wont get fixed until the 3rd or 4th block or tranch...

    According to Borisov, we are talking about the creation of a new aircraft, and not about working out on the basis of some existing machine.

    Because the Yak-41M was a failure and the Yak-43 was an untested paper plane...

    At the same time in the mid-1990s work was already underway on the Yak-201 design sketch, which was to be the further development of the Yak-141. It was envisaged that it would already be implemented using stealth technologies.

    Read was going to be enormously expensive...

    At the same time, engineers and designers will be able to take full advantage of all the existing developments in this field and modern aircraft engineering

    So brand new design not evolved from the Yak-41M or Yak-43 design... that is good news at least.

    If they want STOVL they could use the AN-2 prototype... with a carrier sailing into the wind at 10 knots and a wind of say 20 knots the An-2 could hover over the deck and land vertically... and it is already made....
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4882
    Points : 4922
    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 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:The thing with the MiG-1.42/1.44 and the Yak-43 is that the former failed because Sukhoi offered something better, and the latter never got off the drawing board, while there are already aircraft with likely better performance already in service in the form of the MiG-29KR, that is related to a land based aircraft of the same design and many of the same parts... that is entering service too... paid for by the Air Force.



    Not, really PAK-FA first flight in 2010, MiG 1.44 - 2000. Yes MiG was 9 years dealyed guess why?
    It is hard to say It was worse, Su had nothing better then Su-47/Su-37 Internal contacts of Pogosyan could here mean more then "technical excellence"



    skijump can be on 20k too. Invincible could take 18 Harriers and had skijump and 22ktons

    A ship replaced by a new carrier similar in size to the Kuznetsov by a country well known for only spending money on absolute essentials... and even then cutting budgets after conflicts..

    Filled with VSTOL fighters Very Happy



    .

    useles to what? to your requirements of solving real ltaksks?

    To provide adequate air cover for a group of Russian ships beyond land based aircraft range.


    Then VSTOL is perfectly fitted. Glad you agree withme on this.




    so you didn notice that currently there is netcentric warfare? and drones? you still live in 90s?

    Of course... everyone uses drones instead of AWACS... can you name them?

    Describe the drone the Russians would use...


    My first guess it would be Fregat
    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 Drone%2BFregat

    can be shipborne OTH radar

    can be new Russian tiltrotor



    I suspect the same for AWACS platforms... you need a huge radar and lots of computing power to process the enormous raw volume of data, so that information can be used to generate commands and controls to direct your forces... it is the difference between AWACS and AEW... and of course you need humans in the loop to make decisions and issue those commands... so it will end up being an unmanned aircraft with 4 crew and probably 2-4 guys operating consoles sending commands to ships, other aircraft, and via satellite HQ.


    did you ever hear C4I? you know drones can transmit data to control center on the ship. You have same abilities just different approach. Depending of course how conservative military




    not true, 1 is enough to send anywhere. besides Midway. For 1/4 of costs.

    If you are wrong, your surface fleet will get wiped out... costing lives and perhaps a trillion dollars worth of hardware... not to mention a political and likely economic defeat Russia might not recover from.

    affraid affraid affraid trillions hardware?! surface fleet wipped out - we didnt talk about III WW. In this case again large CVN make no sense. US o far never dared to attack Russian ship or airplane. Why they start with CN?



    It wont let Russia take on the US or NATO, but that would never be a consideration... use Kinzhal and Kh-32 and Onyx and soon Zircon...
    that's the ides why to build large and expensive ships if they dont solve tasks better then smaller and cheaper ones? dunno dunno dunno










    Unliely 40-50ktons has it all, and if she needs more supplies that's wny are supply ships for right?

    Supply ships that might be banned from various choke points around the world... so no Panama canal, no suez canal, no bosphorus straight... who knows how far this supply line might have to go... and in some places it will need protection too.

    Can you please name such case of blockade you are talking about?! Im not sure what kind of situation you are talking about here. Seriously




    I am saying if it was for home defense then a MiG would be fine but the intention of these carriers is to support operations well away from Russian territory so the extra capacity is useful and worth the extra money.

    True but well away to me means mean away form Russia borders. Even with small fighters you have ~800km radius. IT just fine for fleet defense and Syrian campaign.



    OK denial of existing and approved plans. Next I expect aggression. Acceptance comes later.

    The call for a new VSTOL aircraft design does not mean the Yak-43 would be involved...


    Yup, I dotn think anybody will speak about Yak family anymore.The new machine to me is not only VSTOL copied form Soviet times. It's gonna to b a light fighter , new construction and perhaps also some breakthrough tech.



    But they are not going to need enormous numbers of new ships anyway... the Russian Navy is not going to be as big as the Soviet Navy, but the Russian navy is going to be more mobile and likely more active than the Soviet Navy was... the Soviet Navy was all about facing off against the enormous US and powerful French and British navies... the future Russian navy will be about supporting free and open commerce with Russias trading partners around the world...

    unless in 2050s aircraft carriers will be rendered obsolete by new tech development.

    Anyway large or small doesn't matter if war starts in conventional scenario (what I seriously doubt) having 50 fighters or 25 fighters doesnt make much of difference when you face 2 Ford carriers with 150 fighters





    no there are plans for CVNs the question is not if but whenm, And yes they are persistent since last year

    There are no plans for mini CVNs... ie helicopter carriers, that you seem to be endorsing...


    there were 2 options considered in 2017 AFAIK small ~30ktons and larde 80ktons. I am just convinced that to have light CVN is much better then to havenone Smile






    Nuclear propulsion and EMALs and the new larger ship designs seem to suggest several things... first a shift from single used optimised ship design, to more multirole modular approach, but such a change means an increase in cost per vessel, despite an increase in flexibility within the fleet... instead of having 6 air defence missile destroyers and 6 anti sub destroyers and 6 anti ship destroyers, they could have 8-12 destroyers able to carry anti ship, anti sub, and land attack, plus all with serious air defence capability... those 8-12 ships might cost more than 18 of the older ships but they will also be more useful, more flexible... and cheaper to run and man and maintain.

    That's precisely my idea universal ships - small displacement a bit like Soviet TAKRs :-)






    And no country would fuck with Russia who has global reach with either bombers + cruise missiles of closer to shores missile ships.

    The US is screwing with Russia now...

    where?!





    But who on the planet is as arrogant as an Israeli... perhaps an American? If America decides to blockade Venezuela for whatever reason do you think they will back off because a ship is there... when fighter aircraft are inbound then they will listen...

    they wont send ens of own fighters right


    Programme cost read again please, This time with understanding. lol1 lol1 lol1
    R&D + 3 ships =37 blns

    And what was the unit cost of the F-35 before they were built?  ... I seem to recall statements of $50 million each... because they are buying 2,300 of them... now it is more like double and when Turkey gets S-400... the numbers might change again...

    Su-57 programme si ~10 billions, 2 delivered what makes it pretty expensive dont you think?





    According to Borisov, we are talking about the creation of a new aircraft, and not about working out on the basis of some existing machine.

    Because the Yak-41M was a failure and the Yak-43 was an untested paper plane...


    it want failure at all. It was killed like many military programmes after Soviet Union was killed.



    At the same time in the mid-1990s work was already underway on the Yak-201 design sketch, which was to be the further development of the Yak-141. It was envisaged that it would already be implemented using stealth technologies.

    Read was going to be enormously expensive...


    do you suggest that any of new fighters will be cheap?!





    If they want STOVL they could use the AN-2 prototype... with a carrier sailing into the wind at 10 knots and a wind of say 20 knots the An-2 could hover over the deck and land vertically... and it is already made....

    lol! lol! lol! That's definitely good ides to consider


    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20240
    Points : 20794
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 11, 2018 2:31 pm

    Then VSTOL is perfectly fitted. Glad you agree withme on this.

    Sorry to give lessons in English, but you cannot describe something as perfect if there is another solution that suits the problem better.


    My first guess it would be Fregat

    Where would you put a 360 degree radar antenna on that?

    can be shipborne OTH radar

    OTH radar is not good enough to detect and track low flying missiles... the primary weapon of the US Navy ATM.

    can be new Russian tiltrotor

    So piss away money on VSTOL AND TILTROTORS... the Russian Navy must have US Navy level funding...

    or perhaps nothing better to spend their money on...

    did you ever hear C4I? you know drones can transmit data to control center on the ship. You have same abilities just different approach. Depending of course how conservative military

    Did you know the F-22 doesn't have a datalink because that would defeat its stealth and give away its position... C4IR between ships and drones will also reveal their numbers and position... why bother with stealth VSTOL fighters... MiG-29KR fighters are not stealthy either but then neither are these new drones you are suggesting anyway... the MiG-29KR is already paid for and ready for service now.

    trillions hardware?! surface fleet wipped out - we didnt talk about III WW. In this case again large CVN make no sense. US o far never dared to attack Russian ship or airplane. Why they start with CN?

    WTF are you talking about the Americans for.... what has this got to do with them?

    that's the ides why to build large and expensive ships if they dont solve tasks better then smaller and cheaper ones?

    Because all ships are going to be expensive... they are multi role vessels that need all sorts of state of the art technology in air defence, anti shipping, anti Sub use and land attack, and in the case of a carrier anti satellite ABM missiles too... by making them smaller you are just limiting their ability in each area and also reducing their potential endurance and capacity.

    A very large transport plane like an An-225 does use a lot more fuel than an Il-76, but with nuclear powered carriers the cost of operations in not that big, and the group of ships that needs to operate with the carrier is going to make operations expensive no matter how cheap the carrier was.

    A bigger carrier offers better protection with larger more capable aircraft.

    Can you please name such case of blockade you are talking about?! Im not sure what kind of situation you are talking about here. Seriously

    Well rather recently, when Russia was sending ships to Syria the countries of the EU basically closed their ports to Russian ships for refuelling... do you think it would be impossible for them to do something to prevent the use of the Suez or Panama canals to prevent Russian flagged vessels getting somewhere they didn't want them to go?

    True but well away to me means mean away form Russia borders. Even with small fighters you have ~800km radius. IT just fine for fleet defense and Syrian campaign.

    If the problem is in Syria then a carrier is not necessary as shown by the fact that not much changed after the K left.

    The real test would be in a conflict where the carrier is critical and really makes a difference...


    unless in 2050s aircraft carriers will be rendered obsolete by new tech development.

    You mean like an anti ship missile of some kind?


    Anyway large or small doesn't matter if war starts in conventional scenario (what I seriously doubt) having 50 fighters or 25 fighters doesnt make much of difference when you face 2 Ford carriers with 150 fighters

    You are not listening... who gives a fuck what America has... but lets say we go with your example... 150 F-35s up against 50 Su-57s, with Zircon Mach 8 hypersonic scramjet powered anti ship missiles... what makes you think Russia would be at a disadvantage?

    Those subsonic Harpoons and Tomahawks probably have those Russian cruisers shaking in their shoes... NOT.

    But I agree, 50 Yak-41s vs 150 F-35s would be in the shit...

    Which is why I am suggesting bigger carriers and bigger carrier fighters.

    I am just convinced that to have light CVN is much better then to havenone

    I agree light CVNs are better than none, but 80kt CVNs are better than light CVNs.

    That's precisely my idea universal ships - small displacement a bit like Soviet TAKRs

    But the new ships CAN'T be small displacement... they are combining the firepower of 3-4 of the old vessels they are replacing... to be fully multi role they need a variety of weapons for a variety of roles... you can't fit a decent warload of anything on a small ship.

    The new destroyers would need to be cruiser sized to carry the firepower of four old destroyers... the Sovremmeny carried 8 main armament missiles (SS-N-22), a new destroyer will have 4 USUK launchers able to carry 32 Onyx missiles that replace the SS-N-22, but it can also carry a mixed load of 8 anti ship missiles plus 8 anti sub missiles and 8 land attack missiles and still have 8 launch tubes free for a mix of other weapons... the point is that the new destroyers wont be smaller than the old ones... but they will be much better armed and equipped... and that is the point... it is not about cheap... it is about performance...

    There is no point in saving a billion dollars on a cheap carrier only to find it does not have enough capacity to be useful for the things you want to use it for.

    Now they have committed to developing STOVL aircraft... I very much doubt that will mean Hermes class carriers... it is more likely to be what they had already decided... a carrier bigger than the K, but with STOVL aircraft to operate on it together with CATOBAR fighters with better performance...

    where?!

    Economically punishing them... and any country they sell S-400s to...

    they wont send ens of own fighters right

    English?

    Su-57 programme si ~10 billions, 2 delivered what makes it pretty expensive dont you think?

    Star Wars programme... trillions spent... nothing delivered. Russia doesn't know how to spend like the US does...

    it want failure at all. It was killed like many military programmes after Soviet Union was killed.

    The design was fundamentally flawed and was a total dead end... yes it was a failure...

    do you suggest that any of new fighters will be cheap?!

    Modfying a land based aircraft with folding wings and tailhook is cheap in comparison to developing a new aircraft from scratch.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4882
    Points : 4922
    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 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:06 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Then VSTOL is perfectly fitted. Glad you agree withme on this.

    Sorry to give lessons in English, but you cannot describe something as perfect if there is another solution that suits the problem better.

    After Brexit we Europeans dont take lessons from loyel subjects of Her Majesty  lol1  lol1  lol1





    My first guess it would be Fregat

    Where would you put a 360 degree radar antenna on that?


    like that?

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 4c7e1797d1b489068376761c42bcb03a





    can be shipborne OTH radar

    OTH radar is not good enough to detect and track low flying missiles... the primary weapon of the US Navy ATM.


    in some publications I've found they do. But true not knowing for sure and what size of such antenna is I agree CM might not be but ships and planes  are. Missiles need carriers anyway. If they use stealth LARSM in massive salvo your AWACS wont help you much.

    Ka-31 radar can see 250km in every case. Just duration sucks. That's why tiltrotor  suggestion. More efficiency.



    can be new Russian tiltrotor

    So piss away money on VSTOL AND TILTROTORS... the Russian Navy must have US Navy level funding...

    or perhaps nothing better to spend their money on...


    tiltrotor was only mine suggestion as they seem to be considering to build it anyway. Still better then any AWACS chopper. On VSTOL they are working already.
    No Russian Nav is using money efficiently that's why unconventional solutions.

    You really want have symmetrical answer? that's the game you cannot win  US.





    did you ever hear C4I? you know drones can transmit data to control center on the ship. You have same abilities just different approach. Depending of course how conservative military

    Did you know the F-22 doesn't have a datalink because that would defeat its stealth and give away its position... C4IR between ships and drones will also reveal their numbers and position... why bother with stealth VSTOL fighters... MiG-29KR fighters are not stealthy either but then neither are these new drones you are suggesting anyway... the MiG-29KR is already paid for and ready for service now.

    [/quote]F
    So US is not using C4I?  affraid  affraid  affraid  MiG-29k is paid and outta service soon too.  Wasent  it what Boriosv said? Su/Mig are in ~10 years obsolete ...Im not sure if VSTOL has to be stealthy or better to what weight in characteristics should stealthiness have. It's just better use of resources you got.






    trillions hardware?! surface fleet wipped out - we didnt talk about III WW. In this case again large CVN make no sense. US o far never dared to attack Russian ship or airplane. Why they start with CN?

    WTF are you talking about the Americans for.... what has this got to do with them?

    [/quote]
    nope you are talking  lol1  lol1  lol1  I am talking about Russian way - bettter use os smaller (and cheaper ) ships. More universal but for [/b] different set of tasks





    that's the ides why to build large and expensive ships if they dont solve tasks better then smaller and cheaper ones?

    Because all ships are going to be expensive... they are multi role vessels that need all sorts of state of the art technology in air defence, anti shipping, anti Sub use and land attack, and in the case of a carrier anti satellite ABM missiles too... by making them smaller you are just limiting their a
    +
    A bigger carrier offers better protection with larger more capable aircraft.[/quote]

    All animals ships are equal expensive, but some animals ships are more equal expensive than others.'
    First of all you should be able to afford it.  

    Second use funds efficiently within limits you have, instead of  copying US solutions and US strategy.  





    Can you please name such case of blockade you are talking about?! Im not sure what kind of situation you are talking about here. Seriously

    Well rather recently, when Russia was sending ships to Syria the countries of the EU basically closed their ports to Russian ships for refuelling... do you think it would be impossible for them to do something to prevent the use of the Suez or Panama canals to prevent Russian flagged vessels getting somewhere they didn't want them to go?
    Hmm  and how does it relate to size of carrier?  scratch  scratch  scratch





    True but well away to me means mean away form Russia borders. Even with small fighters you have ~800km radius. IT just fine for fleet defense and Syrian campaign.

    If the problem is in Syria then a carrier is not necessary as shown by the fact that not much changed after the K left.
    The real test would be in a conflict where the carrier is critical and really makes a difference...


    again where size of carrier matters? in cale of full scale war you are dead in both cases.





    unless in 2050s aircraft carriers will be rendered obsolete by new tech development.

    You mean like an anti ship missile of some kind?


    orbital bombers with global range for example?




    Anyway large or small doesn't matter if war starts in conventional scenario (what I seriously doubt) having 50 fighters or 25 fighters doesnt make much of difference when you face 2 Ford carriers with 150 fighters

    You are not listening... who gives a fuck what America has... but lets say we go with your example... 150 F-35s up against 50 Su-57s, with Zircon Mach 8 hypersonic scramjet powered anti ship missiles... what makes you think Russia would be at a disadvantage?

    Time stands still in US right? there will be F-35 (or improved one) with AAD lasers, F-X (also as drones) and US hypersonic missiles.





    Those subsonic Harpoons and Tomahawks probably have those Russian cruisers shaking in their shoes... NOT.

    Tomahawks and harpoons are when you have Krivaks, 2 Slavas  What a Face  What a Face  What a Face




    But I agree, 50 Yak-41s vs 150 F-35s would be in the shit...


    Which is why I am suggesting bigger carriers and bigger carrier fighters.[/quote]

    Is anybody mentioning Yak-41 here ?!  affraid  affraid  affraid



    I am just convinced that to have light CVN is much better then to havenone

    I agree light CVNs are better than none, but 80kt CVNs are better than light CVNs.

    yes if you can afford for one and for some tasks too  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup




    That's precisely my idea universal ships - small displacement a bit like Soviet TAKRs

    But the new ships CAN'T be small displacement... they are combining the firepower of 3-4 of the old vessels they are replacing... to be fully multi role they need a variety of weapons for a variety of roles... you can't fit a decent warload of anything on a small ship.

    I'm not sure about offensive armament (although it would be nice) but ~40ktons should be ok with this + 24 fighters+helos.





    Now they have committed to developing STOVL aircraft... I very much doubt that will mean Hermes class carriers... it is more likely to be what they had already decided... a carrier bigger than the K, but with STOVL aircraft to operate on it together with CATOBAR fighters with better performance...

    Hermes is unlikely I bet on ~40 isk kind of ship. But we both dont know which approach will be chosen. I am not sur w hy do they need 2 types of deck fighters on tho.




    where?!
    Economically punishing them... and any country they sell S-400s to...

    like size of carrier then matters? either you have one ~24-30 fighters and helps. If not 50 wont change much wither. Their fighters will be there too. Only in bigger numbers.



    it want failure at all. It was killed like many military programmes after Soviet Union was killed.

    The design was fundamentally flawed and was a total dead end... yes it was a failure...

    yup, you're entitled to you own opinion what doesn't change objective reality.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3056
    Points : 3050
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Isos on Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:34 pm

    Ka-31 radar can see 250km in every case. Just duration sucks. That's why tiltrotor  suggestion. More efficiency.

    Very bad. And ka-31 just isn't awacs but send data to the ship which then send it back to fighters which in the future will have a far better radar tha ka-31.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20240
    Points : 20794
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:19 am

    After Brexit we Europeans dont take lessons from loyel subjects of Her Majesty

    Yes... the Americans don't respect rules either... from the language they speak to the countries they invade/occupy/bomb/bully.

    I would expect better standards from colonial Europe... not the first time I have been disappointed though. Smile

    like that?

    Not really ideal though is it?

    The front and rear would get little to no coverage with much smaller or nonexistent antenna, so you would have to constantly fly in circles to get reasonable coverage... not to mention the curve of the wing blocking the signal for low flying threats in the rear sector... I mean you want to fly this thing high for max range so low flying targets will be blocked in the rear area by the main wing...

    Missiles need carriers anyway. If they use stealth LARSM in massive salvo your AWACS wont help you much.

    An AWACS platform can carry a range of sensors including EO... long medium and short range IR, as well as a large aircraft can have a variety of radar antenna sizes optimised to detect a range of targets... and of course the new photon radars are supposed to be eye watering in terms of performance, so having an eye in the sky that does not just see targets (AEW) but manages the defence (AWACS) would be enormously useful... especially against swarm attacks... it could direct interceptor aircraft and also guide ship launched SAMs beyond the radar horizon of the ships at low flying threats... it would multiple by several times the number of missiles needed to defeat a surface group... and with a powerful radar perhaps even detect launch platforms that could be engaged before they launch their missiles... which is even better.

    Ka-31 radar can see 250km in every case. Just duration sucks. That's why tiltrotor  suggestion. More efficiency.

    2 hours 30 minutes at 3.5km altitude at 100km/h with the antenna deployed is not that bad when it can operate from any ship with a helipad... including Frigates if need be, but I agree more endurance would be much more valuable.

    You really want have symmetrical answer? that's the game you cannot win  US.

    You keep talking about the US... it wont be the carrier that defeats any fleet the Russian carrier group comes up against... the carrier is just for defence from external attack... land or sea based air threats and anti ship missiles.

    Any enemy surface vessels or land based targets will be engaged with missiles using carrier based recon platforms, plus ship and sub based platforms, and of course space based assets as well as special forces assets on the ground...

    So US is not using C4I?

    The only way they can get away with inferior aircraft on their smaller carriers...

    MiG-29k is paid and outta service soon too.

    They have been operational about a year and a half... they will be fine for the next 20 years or so... especially with new photonic radars and next gen AAMs.

    Wasent  it what Boriosv said? Su/Mig are in ~10 years obsolete ...Im not sure if VSTOL has to be stealthy or better to what weight in characteristics should stealthiness have. It's just better use of resources you got.

    Stealth is not really a weight issue... more a purchase and operational cost issue...  a bit like the capacity to take off and land vertically... weight and cost issues...

    nope you are talking  lol1  lol1  lol1  I am talking about Russian way - bettter use os smaller (and cheaper ) ships. More universal but for [/b] different set of tasks

    A smaller carrier is not better... ever.

    They went from the Kiev class to the Kuznetsov class... the next step was the bigger Ulyanovsk class with cats... so they were pretty much right all along... and no they don't and will never need a 100K ton vessel, but 70-90K ton is a good size with room for growth and extended operations...

    First of all you should be able to afford it.  

    If they don't develop a strong navy they will be landlocked and limited in growth to their neighbours whim... most of their current neighbours have them under sanction, so little to no growth or chance of improvements there any time soon.

    The UK and US didn't get wealthy and become global powers and then build powerful navies... you need a powerful navy to secure your access to the global market. Modern technology means they don't need to be huge navies, which means the more capability you can pack into each ship the fewer ships you will actually need to use.

    If you don't want carriers you can go for picket destroyers to operate some distance from your fleet to detect threats and targets... but the risk of losing a destroyer is expensive compared with possibly losing a few fighters... your AWACS platform can remain within the air defence ring around your ships and does not need to risk itself in combat.

    Over the 15 years it will take to make these carriers it wont actually be all that expensive, yet the capabilities it adds to your navy is rather more valuable than any other option. The Russian Army is very well equipped for air defence and could operate on its own, but operating with an air force that cooperates compliments and adds capabilities nothing else could add... an Air Force is not cheap either... all those big vulnerable expensive airfields...

    Second use funds efficiently within limits you have, instead of  copying US solutions and US strategy.

    Who said this is US strategy or solutions?

    How many fighter only carriers does the US have?

    Hmm  and how does it relate to size of carrier?

    A 90K ton carrier off the coast of Africa that could carry 90+ fighters plus fuel and ordinance to operate for 2 months without resupply could probably double that with 40 fighters. A 90K ton carrier will be nuclear powered... some 30K ton light carrier is more likely to be gas turbine powered... which means it is burning fuel too... so even less persistence.

    again where size of carrier matters? in cale of full scale war you are dead in both cases.

    So you keep saying, but you show no evidence to support this claim.

    A Russian group of ships with no AWACS platform would certainly be vulnerable to a mass attack, but with a large carrier able to detect that attack earlier and provide aircraft to help blunt such an attack is vastly more capable of surviving, and providing information to destroy the attackers too.

    orbital bombers with global range for example?

    Hey Vann... did you hack an account?

    Are you suggesting that an orbital bomber can provide the support needed for a group of Russian ships to operate in the South Atlantic or South Pacific?

    Time stands still in US right? there will be F-35 (or improved one) with AAD lasers, F-X (also as drones) and US hypersonic missiles.

    The alternative is to accept US hegemony and just be the bitch of the west... a supplier of resources that has Hilary Clinton drooling...

    The US likely wont accept giving up power and is going to do something really stupid... Invade Iran or Turkey or China or Russia... either way I rather doubt the US will be able to support a trillion dollar yearly budget and the US Navy is really going to suffer when they start slashing and burning...

    Squeal like a pig Boeing and Lockheed Martin...  Twisted Evil

    Is anybody mentioning Yak-41 here ?!

    Because that is currently the peak of Russian VSTOL fighters.


    I'm not sure about offensive armament (although it would be nice) but ~40ktons should be ok with this + 24 fighters+helos.


    It is a Russian carrier... it will have UKSK launchers and Poliment-redut, and it will have S-500 too.

    Hermes is unlikely I bet on ~40 isk kind of ship. But we both dont know which approach will be chosen. I am not sur w hy do they need 2 types of deck fighters on tho.

    MiG is already making the MiG-35 carrier compatible... folding wings and a tailhook can be used for landing on sections of motorway... and it is a good backup in case the STOVL is shit... which it most likely will be.

    like size of carrier then matters? either you have one ~24-30 fighters and helps. If not 50 wont change much wither. Their fighters will be there too. Only in bigger numbers.

    Since when has having too many aircraft been a problem?

    Having quite a few CAP aircraft is a good thing.

    yup, you're entitled to you own opinion what doesn't change objective reality.

    They pretty much admitted it... the early model US VSTOL aircraft were going to have lift jet engines, but went for lift fans and cold air screens to prevent hot gas ingestion issues... leading to chunky, overweight aircraft more akin to overweight strike aircraft than nimble fighters.


    Very bad. And ka-31 just isn't awacs but send data to the ship which then send it back to fighters which in the future will have a far better radar tha ka-31.

    Yet vastly better than nothing... even the Russian Army are apparently buying some for battlefield surveillance...
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3056
    Points : 3050
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Isos on Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:01 am


    Yet vastly better than nothing... even the Russian Army are apparently buying some for battlefield surveillance...

    A ka-31 traveling 100km/h with a radar that can see 250km away and probably for targets with 5-10 m2 rcs will have hard time coordinating fighters going almosta mach 1 against fighters it can't see with actual radar.

    For battlefield surveillance it is more than enough. It can be covered by SAM and can hide from aviation in the mountains or land until the enemy fighters go away. If it has the ability to link with SAM missiles then it is a must. The thing will send s-400 missile to any approching target, even those flying very low.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4882
    Points : 4922
    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 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:14 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    After Brexit we Europeans dont take lessons from loyel subjects of Her Majesty

    Yes... the Americans don't respect rules either... from the language they speak to the countries they invade/occupy/bomb/bully.

    I would expect better standards from colonial Europe... not the first time I have been disappointed though. Smile

    bold statement from somebody living so far from "meridian prime:  lol!  lol!  lol!








    I mean you want to fly this thing high for max range so low flying targets will be blocked in the rear area by the main wing...
    1) bulge in nose
    2) for Israeli it works so it not that bad I guess
    3) it was just nexample that you can have similar functionality in different ways



    Missiles need carriers anyway. If they use stealth LARSM in massive salvo your AWACS wont help you much.

    An AWACS platform can carry a range of sensors including EO... long medium and short range IR, as well as a large aircraft can have a variety of radar antenna sizes optimised to detect a range of targets...

    +

    Ka-31 radar can see 250km in every case. Just duration sucks. That's why tiltrotor  suggestion. More efficiency.

    2 hours 30 minutes at 3.5km altitude at 100km/h with the antenna deployed is not that bad when it can operate from any ship with a helipad... including Frigates if need be, but I agree more endurance would be much more valuable.



    E-2A has ~5 tons payload and 3 AWACS crew (+2 pilots). Ceiling 9000m.

    Radar horiozn up to 435km.

    In fact 3 payload Fregat  with over 8000m ceiling. With such parameters can have ~412 km range. Thus can do such job without problem. crew can sit on ship. Links via microwave links (i.e.narrow beams)

    Fregat is VSTOL Very Happy:D:D



    You really want have symmetrical answer? that's the game you cannot win  US.

    You keep talking about the US... it wont be the carrier that defeats any fleet the Russian carrier group comes up against... the carrier is just for defence from external attack... land or sea based air threats and anti ship missiles.

    Any enemy surface vessels or land based targets will be engaged with missiles using carrier based recon platforms, plus ship and sub based platforms, and of course space based assets as well as special forces assets on the ground...

    No you do talk about US approach. You wan t huge CVNs I just dotn see their added value in sea denial strategy.


    So US is not using C4I?
    The only way they can get away with inferior aircraft on their smaller carriers...

    inferioa only in your head, we are talking about realm of reality here  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup



    MiG-29k is paid and outta service soon too.
    They have been operational about a year and a half... they will be fine for the next 20 years or so... especially with new photonic radars and next gen AAMs.

    photonic radars to fighters designed in 1988 and ugraded in 2007? it is like painting a dead girlfriend.




    Wasent  it what Boriosv said? Su/Mig are in ~10 years obsolete ...Im not sure if VSTOL has to be stealthy or better to what weight in characteristics should stealthiness have. It's just better use of resources you got.

    Stealth is not really a weight issue... more a purchase and operational cost issue...  a bit like the capacity to take off and land vertically... weight and cost issues...

    to

    and bullring 1 billion $ EMALS in one max 2 pieces is cheap?  affraid  affraid  affraid  and 10-15 billions difference on fleet spending is cheaper?!  affraid  affraid  affraid
    Well you like it or not VSTOL is better option regarding cost/effort allocation for Russia.  They will make new fighter anyway. To develop more technology also VTOL.fighters that better can use smaller ships.





    nope you are talking  lol1  lol1  lol1  I am talking about Russian way - bettter use os smaller (and cheaper ) ships. More universal but for [/b] different set of tasks

    A smaller carrier is not better... ever.


    12 blns for CVN vs 1,5-2 for smaller? right especially that  to realization of doctrine they have similar abilities.

    They went from the Kiev class to the Kuznetsov class... the next step was the bigger Ulyanovsk class with cats... so they were pretty much right all along... and no they don't and will never need a 100K ton vessel, but 70-90K ton is a good size with room for growth and extended operations...

    you are again talking about US fleet please start to talk about Russian approach and doctrine.



    First of all you should be able to afford it.  

    If they don't develop a strong navy they will be landlocked and limited in growth to their neighbours whim...

    +

    The UK and US didn't get wealthy and become global powers and then build powerful navies...
    +
    If you don't want carriers you can go for picket destroyers to operate some distance from your fleet to detect threats and targets... but the risk of losing a destroyer is expensive compared with possibly losing a few fighters... your AWACS platform can remain within the air defence ring around your ships and does not need to risk itself in combat.

    So your house is small but buy first Mercedes then get you get rich? it doesnt work this way. You buy Mercedes then after you get rich. US/UK were basing their expansion on countless wars and genocides .  Why not carriers? 20-30 fighteris more than Kuz is carrying now.  Carriers , destroyers or LHDs but within your means. Otherwise you'll bankrupt economy or overspend military and remain on level of North Kores with obsolete tech but with large useless CVNs.






    Over the 15 years it will take to make these carriers it wont actually be all that expensive, yet the capabilities it adds to your navy is rather more valuable than any other option. The Russian Army is very well equipped for air defence and could operate on its own, but operating with an air force that cooperates compliments and adds capabilities nothing else could add... an Air Force is not cheap either... all those big vulnerable expensive airfields...

    VSTOL doesnt need big airfields  lol1  lol1  lol1  You want to spend billions more for 20-30 fighters extra? assumign you'll never meet any US ships? if you do you're dead anyway.


    Second use funds efficiently within limits you have, instead of  copying US solutions and US strategy.
    Who said this is US strategy or solutions?
    How many fighter only carriers does the US have?


    75+: Ford




    Hmm  and how does it relate to size of carrier?

    A 90K ton carrier off the coast of Africa that could carry 90+ fighters plus fuel and ordinance to operate for

    this is US strategy tell me about Russian one.





    again where size of carrier matters? in cale of full scale war you are dead in both cases.
    So you keep saying, but you show no evidence to support this claim.


    so do you  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup




    A Russian group of ships with no AWACS platform would certainly be vulnerable to a mass attack, but with a large carrier able to detect that attack earlier and provide aircraft to help blunt such an attack is vastly more capable of surviving, and providing information to destroy the attackers too.


    lol1  lol1  lol1  lol1  lol1  lol1  lol1  lol1  lol1

    with an enemy on same or higher tech level and numerical superiority you're dead in every case.  You have on elarge CVN? good they sen 3 after her. You're dean anyway.



    orbital bombers with global range for example?

    Are you suggesting that an orbital bomber can provide the support needed for a group of Russian ships to operate in the South Atlantic or South Pacific?

    14Ma - your in Wellingoton in 40 minutes? or even can orbiter like X-37. Better to invest in this tech.





    The alternative is to accept US hegemony and just be the bitch of the west... a supplier of resources that has Hilary Clinton drooling...

    The US likely wont accept giving up power and is going to do something really stupid... Invade Iran or Turkey or China or Russia...

    I fail to understand how size of 1 (in wet dreams 2 )  carrier is gonna stop that?!




    Is anybody mentioning Yak-41 here ?!
    Because that is currently the peak of Russian VSTOL fighters.

    technically Soviet one  lol1  lol1  lol1  well and what was paramount of Soviet stealth fighters at that  time? any models that were flying?







    Im not sure about offensive armament (although it would be nice) but ~40ktons should be ok with this + 24 fighters+helos.

    It is a Russian carrier... it will have UKSK launchers and Poliment-redut, and it will have S-500 too.


    Then it wouldn't be Carrier but TAKR  russia  russia  russia




    Hermes is unlikely I bet on ~40 isk kind of ship. But we both dont know which approach will be chosen. I am not sur w hy do they need 2 types of deck fighters on tho.

    MiG is already making the MiG-35 carrier compatible... folding wings and a tailhook can be used for landing on sections of motorway... and it is a good backup in case the STOVL is shit... which it most likely will be.

    MiG-35 is dead , ok can be kept undead until 6gen appears at the gate. VSTOL can be something between 5 and 6 gent to me.




    like size of carrier then matters? either you have one ~24-30 fighters and helps. If not 50 wont change much wither. Their fighters will be there too. Only in bigger numbers.

    Since when has having too many aircraft been a problem?

    couple billions of USD that might be spent otherwise on space weapons?

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20240
    Points : 20794
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:30 am

    A ka-31 traveling 100km/h with a radar that can see 250km away and probably for targets with 5-10 m2 rcs will have hard time coordinating fighters going almosta mach 1 against fighters it can't see with actual radar.

    You are joking right?

    The Ka-31 is AEW, not AWACS... it feeds radar data to a nearby ship that processes the information and generates information collated with other sources like fighters and other ships and subs and satellites.

    Why do you think there will be a problem coordinating fighters on CAP... and if these aircraft are radar invisible then all the ships will be sunk whether there is a carrier there or not.

    In the real world of course there is no such thing as radar invisible... and the 6 metre wide radar antenna should have very good ability to detect all sorts of aircraft and munitions... rather better than any fighter aircraft whose radar is less than one metre wide...

    For battlefield surveillance it is more than enough. It can be covered by SAM and can hide from aviation in the mountains or land until the enemy fighters go away

    Are there no land based stealth aircraft? And most fighters can hit ground targets just as easily as air targets...

    If it has the ability to link with SAM missiles then it is a must. The thing will send s-400 missile to any approching target, even those flying very low.

    But ships don't need to shoot down very low flying missiles????

    bold statement from somebody living so far from "meridian prime

    Middle Earth... thank you very much... and I notice you didn't say I was wrong...  Twisted Evil

    1) bulge in nose
    2) for Israeli it works so it not that bad I guess
    3) it was just nexample that you can have similar functionality in different ways

    Really didn't work for the British... look up Nimrod AEW.

    E-2A has ~5 tons payload and 3 AWACS crew (+2 pilots). Ceiling 9000m.

    Radar horiozn up to 435km.

    Who cares about merican shit? Why do you keep bringing up that crap?

    You wan t huge CVNs I just dotn see their added value in sea denial strategy.

    Why are you talking about sea denial? The carrier is to support international trade for Russia and any international partners beyond the range of Russian land based air power...

    And it is the Russian Navy that has a K and wants something bigger.

    inferioa only in your head, we are talking about realm of reality here

    Vapourware is inferior until order is made and serial production starts...

    photonic radars to fighters designed in 1988 and ugraded in 2007? it is like painting a dead girlfriend.

    So new technology can only be put in brand new designs... you do work for the US MIC...
    When photonic radar enters service all radar stealth technology will be useless, so wasting money putting it in an expensive 5th gen stealthy shell is a dumb thing to do isn't it?

    and bullring 1 billion $ EMALS in one max 2 pieces is cheap?

    EMALS technology includes lots of breakthrough technology that can be applied to high speed trains, and EM weapons and a broad range of other new areas of technology... and each new carrier will use at least two EMALs most likely and your stupid little dinky helo carriers would benefit from a couple of cats to get heavier aircraft airborne from a very short strip.

    Well you like it or not VSTOL is better option regarding cost/effort allocation for Russia.

    It is not cheaper if it results in ineffective products.

    To develop more technology also VTOL.fighters that better can use smaller ships.

    Their experience with the Kuznetsov tells them they need a bigger carrier and not a smaller one.

    12 blns for CVN vs 1,5-2 for smaller? right especially that to realization of doctrine they have similar abilities.

    Are you suggesting a small carrier for 1.5-2 billion... if you are not going to be serious there is no point in discussing it.

    And even your bullshit 12 billion figure for the full sized carrier is acceptable when you add the 20 billion to develop a STOVL 5th gen fighter that will cost 200 million dollars each and crash all the damn time.



    you are again talking about US fleet please start to talk about Russian approach and doctrine.

    Russia wont be building 10 CVNs... they don't have the support ships... they will likely have a max of 3 carriers likely including the Kuz until about 2035, so it is likely they will have perhaps one or maybe two carriers to cover the entire planet... of course they will need large carriers, but filled with fighters and AWACS platforms... not bombers like US carriers.

    So your house is small but buy first Mercedes then get you get rich? it doesnt work this way.

    I never said it did. When you live in a tough neighbourhood you don't buy a big screen TV and a Merc for the driveway first... you put up a good high strong fence... good locks on the door... a big loyal dog and a rifle... and then you go to work to increase your wealth... because you now have the capacity to defend it.

    Otherwise you'll bankrupt economy or overspend military and remain on level of North Kores with obsolete tech but with large useless CVNs.

    And the alternative is to not bother with the navy and hope that the west will let you get wealthy with open and fair trade... how do you think that is going to work out?

    A strong military means you can defend your own interests... that does not mean invasion or colonisation... we have seen what that turned the west into...

    VSTOL doesnt need big airfields

    Of course it does... anyone who tells you different is a liar.

    You want to spend billions more for 20-30 fighters extra? assumign you'll never meet any US ships? if you do you're dead anyway.

    Hang on... you are the one pushing the VSTOL aircraft crap... it will cost 10 billion plus to develop a VSTOL 5th gen fighter that would be good enough to take on an F-35 on better than equal terms. 12 on each helicopter carrier... so maybe you want 36 fighters?

    I am talking about a navalised Su-57, which would not even cost half a billion... and already cream any F-35 it gets near... let alone two CVNs worth (90 each) plus another 40 or so for the K CV to carry... 220 should be fine...

    75+: Ford

    F/A-18 is by design a fighter bomber and the F-35 is a strike aircraft... so no.


    this is US strategy tell me about Russian one.

    The difference is that the Russian carrier is there to protect the Russian ships there... a US carrier would be there to bomb the country.

    so do you

    It is simple logic that a larger vessel is better able to defend itself... and it is clear that they are more useful in non WWIII situations.

    If they weren't more useful they certainly are more expensive, so why would anyone want big carriers if there is no value in having a larger one?

    with an enemy on same or higher tech level and numerical superiority you're dead in every case. You have on elarge CVN? good they sen 3 after her. You're dean anyway.

    First of all I am never Dean.

    Argentina had a similar tech level to the UK... why wasn't the Hermes sunk... it is a sitting duck isn't it?

    Whatever force you send they will always try to send a force able to defeat it, but that assumes they are not underestimating you, and that you play their game by their rules....

    14Ma - your in Wellingoton in 40 minutes? or even can orbiter like X-37. Better to invest in this tech.

    Already have mach 23+ ICBMs... why invest?

    I fail to understand how size of 1 (in wet dreams 2 ) carrier is gonna stop that?!

    The west only respects power.. a group of ships is more limited in air defence and would be on the defensive in almost any engagement... with air power it can detect an attack earlier... meaning no matter what the attack is they will be better able to defend themselves.

    The British lost several ships because they had really cheap VSTOL carriers and no AWACS... possibly save one or two billion over what it would have cost to have a real carrier, but it cost them quite a few ships they likely would not have lost with proper air control with real AWACS.

    paramount of Soviet stealth fighters at that time? any models that were flying?

    None at that time, but now one entering serial production.

    To be honest I don't think much of US stealth fighters... an Su-35 or MiG-35 with the appropriate jammer pod should be able to defeat AMRAAM models and of course Sidewinder can be defeated with DIRCMS... so it is gun against gun... and my money on on the Russian aircraft in that regard...

    Then it wouldn't be Carrier but TAKR

    TAKR is a carrier... or do you think US terminology applies?

    Is an Arleigh Burke a TAKR? It could carry an F-35...

    MiG-35 is dead , ok can be kept undead until 6gen appears at the gate.

    It is probably the best and most practical and affordable carrier fighter available today... the Rafale is French and too expensive for what it is, and the F-35 is American and far too expensive for what it is... and it is shit.

    couple billions of USD that might be spent otherwise on space weapons?

    Russia doesn't need weapons in space.

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3056
    Points : 3050
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Isos on Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:46 pm

    In the real world of course there is no such thing as radar invisible... and the 6 metre wide radar antenna should have very good ability to detect all sorts of aircraft and munitions... rather better than any fighter aircraft whose radar is less than one metre wide...

    250 km range against LO fighters means the ka-31 will be in range of the AMRAAM before it sees the fighters. And flying 100km/h with very bad acceleration means it is dead for sure.

    A modern yak 44 could have 600km range with L band radar and it would fly some 800km/h and could get away of an approaching threat while sending interceptors to it.

    Above the ground the helicopter can survive more because there are also A-50/100 that will take care of enmy air force. There won't be above sea where a carrier has to go, dar away from home. Unless you plan to use the carrier near your shores.


    But ships don't need to shoot down very low flying missiles????

    Then no need for carrier. Just put a ka-31 on a new destroyer with 2 helicopter hangars and develop a very good data link between the heli and missiles.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20240
    Points : 20794
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:15 am

    250 km range against LO fighters means the ka-31 will be in range of the AMRAAM before it sees the fighters. And flying 100km/h with very bad acceleration means it is dead for sure.

    Of course... a Ka-31 flying above several capital ships and an aircraft carrier is totally vulnerable... nothing can save it from an AMRAAM... except it is flying above several capital ships that have the air defence performance of about 10 S-300 batteries with about 8 batteries of TOR to support it... totally a sitting target.

    And by the way AMRAAM has nothing like a range of 250km launched from LOW ALTITUDE.

    If it is launching from medium or high altitude to improve range then it will be detected at 400km+ and shot down with an S-300 missile when it gets within range...

    A modern yak 44 could have 600km range with L band radar and it would fly some 800km/h and could get away of an approaching threat while sending interceptors to it.

    A Yak-44 does not exist and even if it did it would be in no better condition to be dodging AAMs, but are you trying to tell me AWACS is better than AEW?

    Perhaps you need to reread what I have been posting on this forum because your attention to detail is very poor.

    Above the ground the helicopter can survive more because there are also A-50/100 that will take care of enmy air force.

    Are you even reading what I am posting?

    The Ka-31s are being bought by the Russian Army... A-50s and A-100s operate with the Aerospace Defence Forces (that is Air Force and Space Defence Forces combined).

    Very simply the A-50 and A-100 will fill the gaps in ground radar coverage to detect low, medium, and high altitude attacks on Russian territory.

    The Ka-31 will provide low level coverage around specific areas the Army wants coverage from low level attacks from... medium and high level threats will be covered by medium and long range SAM batteries and their extensive radar systems... but their ground based low level radar can't see through mountains, or down into valleys, so the Ka-31 will provide localised low level radar coverage... and I would suspect they would also have airships dong the same job in some places where long term coverage is needed.

    When Russia starts building its large carriers and develops carrier based AWACS platforms, then that aircraft will likely then be adopted by the Army that wants low level radar coverage over the battlefield in Russia but also where ever the Russian Army deploys (Syria or Afghanistan etc)... a fixed wing AWACS will be much more useful than a helicopter based system, but for now something is better than nothing.

    There won't be above sea where a carrier has to go, dar away from home. Unless you plan to use the carrier near your shores.

    The Ka-31 does not require carriers and can land on any corvette or destroyer or cruiser with a helicopter landing pad. In fact it could easily operate from one of the support ships with a helicopter pad if they wanted it to.

    Then no need for carrier. Just put a ka-31 on a new destroyer with 2 helicopter hangars and develop a very good data link between the heli and missiles.

    And when 300 missiles are detected at 250km wouldn't it be nice to be able to launch 12 fighters... each with ten AAMs to blunt that attack... hell if the targets are subsonic cruise missiles they don't need super AAMs... Manpad based SAMs would be fine... four on each main weapon pylon and twin launchers on the outer pylons... that would be 4 x 6 plus 4 times two, so 32 targets per aircraft plus cannon...

    Equally their ability to fly out and track the targets with their own radars means missiles like the S-300 could be used over the horizon... and S-400 missiles would be even more effective.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4882
    Points : 4922
    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 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Oct 20, 2018 11:53 pm

    Isos wrote:

    Yet vastly better than nothing... even the Russian Army are apparently buying some for battlefield surveillance...

    A ka-31 traveling 100km/h with a radar that can see 250km away and probably for targets with 5-10 m2 rcs will have hard time coordinating fighters going almosta mach 1 against fighters it can't see with actual radar.

    For battlefield surveillance it is more than enough. It can be covered by SAM and can hide from aviation in the mountains or land until the enemy fighters go away. If it has the ability to link with SAM missiles then it is a must. The thing will send s-400 missile to any approching target, even those flying very low.

    you forgot - 250km is for surface targets (radar horizon) .

    For fighter radar horiozn sys on 1500m - 400km. And most important question: why do you stick for 80s radar and compare rto 2020s tech? dunno dunno dunno
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20240
    Points : 20794
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:41 am

    Indeed the proliferation of AESA radar technology, and indeed improvements in computer technology could allow a Ka-31 to be developed with side mounted AESA antenna and onboard processing to greatly reduce the amount of datalink traffic required for an AWACS role... two crew positions on board to put human processing into the loop and it could send tiny encrypted millisecond long burst transmission signals to aircraft and ships... and then the issue is really only flight duration...

    To be clear... no matter what they eventually make, whether it is called VSTOL or STOVL or whatever... even if it can take off and land vertically in practice it almost never will... it will use a rolling landing and a rolling take off to increase the allowable weights it can operate at.

    Vertical takeoffs and vertical landings are emergency and airshow only... even with aircraft like the Harrier.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3056
    Points : 3050
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Isos on Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:56 pm

    you forgot - 250km is for surface targets (radar horizon) .

    For fighter radar horiozn sys on 1500m - 400km. And most important question: why do you stick for 80s radar and compare rto 2020s tech? dunno dunno dunno

    I compare what exists. Russia operates only old ka-31 and US is introducing f-35. You can compare to future project s or projects that don't exist if you want but the reality would be ka-31 against low rcs fighters like f-35 or rafale, so detection range would be very low for the ka-31 while those fighters will see it far away and will have meteor and amraam to fire aat it from very long distance.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4882
    Points : 4922
    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 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:31 pm

    GarryB wrote:Indeed the proliferation of AESA radar technology, and indeed improvements in computer technology could allow a Ka-31 to be developed with side mounted AESA antenna and onboard processing to greatly reduce the amount of datalink traffic required for an AWACS role... two crew positions on board to put human processing into the loop and it could send tiny encrypted millisecond long burst transmission signals to aircraft and ships... and then the issue is really only flight duration...

    with better faster electronic would actually make possible to have enough light electronics that payload of platform is not that important. There will couple of bottlenecks remain tho:
    1) physical limitation of antennas'  size
    2) platform service ceiling
    3) flight duration

    (1)  the one of approaches is using of conformal antennas.
    (2) +(3) Since in the air will be only AEW component thus IMHO the best option here using long duration drones. They dont need crew to rest, train... can  fly for a long time. Will it be helo or tilltrotor dunno.  I am sure tho that it will be a UAV vstol platform.  Simly 2-3 tons of payload + tltrotor give flexibility and saves costs.



    To be clear... no matter what they eventually make, whether it is called VSTOL or STOVL or whatever... even if it can take off and land vertically in practice it almost never will... it will use a rolling landing and a rolling take off to increase the allowable weights it can operate at.
    Vertical takeoffs and vertical landings are emergency and airshow only... even with aircraft like the Harrier.

    you're soooo sweet thinking that Harrier's level of technology (developed in 60/70)  didn't progress over a half of century! it soooo romantic  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup

    OK now let get back to reality: if V in VSTOL would not be needed then there is no need to design it. Like Typhoon/Tiger  are always driving reads in Syria thus their off road capabilities is never used? BTW new Russian light VSTOL transport has one  interesting requirement: to be able to both land and takeoff form a strip of 50m (max) to and form height 15m. In so called off-aerodrome mode.


    .................|
    .................| 15m high barrier
    .................|____________________| 50m takeoff-landing strip
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4882
    Points : 4922
    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 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:55 pm

    Isos wrote:
    you forgot - 250km is for surface targets (radar horizon) .

    For fighter radar horiozn sys on 1500m - 400km. And most important question: why do you stick for 80s radar and compare rto 2020s tech? dunno dunno dunno

    I compare what exists. Russia operates only old ka-31 and US is introducing f-35. You can compare to future project s or projects that don't exist if you want but the reality would be ka-31 against low rcs fighters like f-35 or rafale, so detection range would be very low for the ka-31 while those fighters will see it far away and will have meteor and amraam to fire aat it from very long distance.


    Radars (after fr and ru  wiki)..........max.tracking air target.......................engaging
    Rafale..............................................100km.............................................80km  

    Ka-31..............................................150-100km........................................N/A


    Well data says that Rafale wouldn't have chance to accomplish mission + high chance to to return to base.
    French fighter can engage at max 80km. At this distance is clearly seen and tracked by S-300F (150km range) . I wouldn't bet on Rafale there.

    IMHO any attack would be standoff weapons/drones.  In both directions. That's why US is developing 1,600km stealth missiles and Russian GZURs and Kh-50. French have SCALP or something right?
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3056
    Points : 3050
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Isos on Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:19 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    you forgot - 250km is for surface targets (radar horizon) .

    For fighter radar horiozn sys on 1500m - 400km. And most important question: why do you stick for 80s radar and compare rto 2020s tech? dunno dunno dunno

    I compare what exists. Russia operates only old ka-31 and US is introducing f-35. You can compare to future project s or projects that don't exist if you want but the reality would be ka-31 against low rcs fighters like f-35 or rafale, so detection range would be very low for the ka-31 while those fighters will see it far away and will have meteor and amraam to fire aat it from very long distance.


    Radars (after fr and ru  wiki)..........max.tracking air target.......................engaging
    Rafale..............................................100km.............................................80km  

    Ka-31..............................................150-100km........................................N/A


    Well data says that Rafale wouldn't have chance to accomplish mission + high  chance to to return to base.
    French fighter can engage at max 80km. At this distance is clearly seen and tracked by S-300F (150km range) . I wouldn't bet on Rafale there.

    IMHO any attack would be standoff weapons/drones.  In both directions. That's why US is developing 1,600km stealth missiles and Russian GZURs and Kh-50. French have SCALP or something right?

    A rafale fighter said new aesa has 200km range against fighter size target ...

    Rafale is 1m2, ka-31 is huge and not stealthy at all. With meteor it will destroy ka-31 easily. S300FM is deployed only on PtG. S-300F has smaller range if I'm not wrong 90km with 5V55 missiles.

    Anyway I was talking about ka-31 being not well suited for AWACS role because it will face new fighters which are much faster and stealthy while its own radar is from soviet era. Having it with new radar above your fleet to extend radar coverae against missile could be usefull but not for a real AWACS role.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20240
    Points : 20794
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:54 am

    I compare what exists. Russia operates only old ka-31 and US is introducing f-35. You can compare to future project s or projects that don't exist if you want but the reality would be ka-31 against low rcs fighters like f-35 or rafale, so detection range would be very low for the ka-31 while those fighters will see it far away and will have meteor and amraam to fire aat it from very long distance.

    AAMs have pathetic range when launched from low altitude... if you launch them from medium or high altitude the ships the Ka-31 is operating with will shoot them down out to 400km.

    The Ka-31 is only for detecting low flying targets the ships have problems detecting because of the height of their radars from the sea surface.

    And a Ka-31 would be totally safe as it would be practically operating above several dozen S-400/S-350/S-500/TOR/Pantsir and other systems that could easily protect it from pretty much anything.

    1) physical limitation of antennas' size

    It could extend out after the helo is airborne to pretty much any size you want.

    2) platform service ceiling

    It will spot low flying targets out to extended ranges...

    3) flight duration

    Could land on the back of any ship in the carrier group to refuel if needed...

    (1) the one of approaches is using of conformal antennas.
    (2) +(3) Since in the air will be only AEW component thus IMHO the best option here using long duration drones. They dont need crew to rest, train... can fly for a long time. Will it be helo or tilltrotor dunno. I am sure tho that it will be a UAV vstol platform. Simly 2-3 tons of payload + tltrotor give flexibility and saves costs.

    If it is going to be a UAV then HALE makes more sense.... with inflight refuelling from carrier based fighters...

    Rafale is 1m2, ka-31 is huge and not stealthy at all.

    Ka-31 will be scanning for low flying targets continuously... why waste money making it stealthy?

    With meteor it will destroy ka-31 easily.

    How will it get past the S-300 and S-400 and S-500 missiles on the ships below the Ka-31... and more importantly how will get get passed the Russian fighters launching missiles at it?

    S300FM is deployed only on PtG. S-300F has smaller range if I'm not wrong 90km with 5V55 missiles.

    Of course... Ka-31 will be operating with Corvettes only... but even then S-350 can easily shoot down an AAM...

    Anyway I was talking about ka-31 being not well suited for AWACS role because it will face new fighters which are much faster and stealthy while its own radar is from soviet era. Having it with new radar above your fleet to extend radar coverae against missile could be usefull but not for a real AWACS role.

    They will hardly keep it as is forever... it is already on the Kuznetsov carrier so they already have them in service in that mission, but the EMALs for the new CVN means they will likely have another aircraft for the AWACS role for their next gen ships... and they will also have a few fighters there too that could also defend any AWACS platforms they might be operating.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3056
    Points : 3050
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Isos on Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:58 am

    Again, your ships witg S-400/500 don't exists. The only one could be Nakhimov.

    Fort-M could engage at 250km away but there are only 48 missile on only PtG.

    Just like you I said a ka-31 above your fleet is good.

    But as an awacs to coordinate flankers against f-35 or rafales, it's useless. Those fighters can fly at 10km altitude at mach 1 and launch their AAM at max range easily without being detected.

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4882
    Points : 4922
    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 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:57 am

    Anyway I was talking about ka-31 being not well suited for AWACS role because it will face new fighters which are much faster and stealthy while its own radar is from soviet era. Having it with new radar above your fleet to extend radar coverae against missile could be usefull but not for a real AWACS role.



    Of course comparing 80 teh with 2020s western makes little sense. Same as you'd compare western 80s AWACS against Su-57 /R-37M.
    vv
    I m not sure hat is ship-borne "real" AWACS? Besides US and French (US built) remaining navies use AEW on helo platform. And C on ship. If we take a look on history ti is concept form IIWW. Refined by 50years and now virtually reached its peak. Im nto sure if with decentralizes drones, sensor fusion and first of all netcentric warfare you need existing AWACS. It would be like cavalry among mechanized troops.



    I agree helos are not perfect platforms due to ceiling and duration. Drones are much better.




    Isos wrote:
    A rafale fighter said new aesa has 200km range against fighter size target ...Rafale is 1m2, ka-31 is huge and not stealthy at all. With meteor it will destroy ka-31 easily.
    +++
    S300FM is deployed only on PtG. S-300F has smaller range if I'm not wrong 90km with 5V55 missiles

    You said no future tech just existing. French wiki says 100kmtracking/80km engagement. Why do you assume that Ka-31 would not fly over Kuz w.o escort?


    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4882
    Points : 4922
    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 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:02 am

    Isos wrote:

    But as an awacs to coordinate flankers against f-35 or rafales, it's useless. Those fighters can fly at 10km altitude  at mach 1 and launch their AAM at max range easily without being detected.


    how do you know they wont be detected? Syrian S-300 proves otherwise. Did Rafale ever fight against technologically advanced opponent? never heard about it.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4882
    Points : 4922
    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 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:30 am

    GarryB wrote:
    1) physical limitation of antennas'  size
    It could extend out after the helo is airborne to pretty much any size you want.

    meh crosswind not necessarily helps, size antenna cannot be



    2) platform service ceiling
    It will spot low flying targets out to extended ranges...

    extended comparing to ship true. But unless you have OTH radar - radar horizon is for everybody. And this depends on ceiling...




    3) flight duration
    Could land on the back of any ship in the carrier group to refuel if needed...

    But why?!



    (1)  the one of approaches is using of conformal antennas.
    (2) +(3) Since in the air will be only AEW component thus IMHO the best option here using long duration drones. They dont need crew to rest, train... can  fly for a long time. Will it be helo or tilltrotor dunno.  I am sure tho that it will be a UAV vstol platform.  Simly 2-3 tons of payload + tltrotor give flexibility and saves costs.

    If it is going to be a UAV then HALE makes more sense.... with inflight refueling from carrier based fighters...

    As long as you can lauch HALE form your ships it would be a good idea. Or airship ;-)




    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3056
    Points : 3050
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Isos on Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:32 am

    Of course comparing 80 teh with 2020s western makes little sense. Same as you'd compare western 80s AWACS against Su-57 /R-37M

    Su-57 developed is finished it will enter service very soon and r-37M is supposed to be used by it. So it makes sense to compare it to actual AWACS used by NATO.


    You said no future tech just existing. French wiki says 100kmtracking/80km engagement. Why do you assume that Ka-31 would not fly over Kuz w.o escort?

    Rafales are geting their new radars. What wiki says is for older pesa radar. You should look fir more soyrces than only wiki.


    how do you know they wont be detected? Syrian S-300 proves otherwise. Did Rafale ever fight against technologically advanced opponent? never heard about it.

    Not be detected by ka-31 radars. S-300 are sitting ducks once you know where they are. You either launch cruise missile or anti ship missiles in this case from safe distance or don't go in their engagement zones.

    Like I said if you only use it above your fleet, then it's ok (even if they should prove that it can track reduced rcs nmissiles...).

    But if you want to use it against f-35 or rafales a little bit farther of your fleet and coordinate flankers it won't help. First because its radar is old and then because it's an helicopter.

    A drone will face hard jaming on its communication, radars, hacking attempts ... a human factor is needed to coordinate all that. And it is also slow.

    BTW syrian s-300 proved nothing.

    m not sure hat is ship-borne "real" AWACS? Besides US and French (US built) remaining navies use AEW on helo platform. And C on ship. If we take a look on history ti is concept form IIWW. Refined by 50years and now virtually reached its peak. Im nto sure if with decentralizes drones, sensor fusion and first of all netcentric warfare you need existing AWACS. It would be like cavalry among mechanized troops.

    They use helo instead of real awacs because they don't have the money for real carrier and real awacs. India is already looking for naval awacs for its future carrier. China will probably try to buy yak-44 data. Russia if they choose something like shtorm will make a brand new yak-44.

    Sponsored content

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 10 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:16 am