Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 747
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

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

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


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

    Impractical and expensive.

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

    Posts : 3412
    Points : 3408
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

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

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


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

    Impractical and expensive.

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

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


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

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

    Posts : 747
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

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

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


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

    Impractical and expensive.

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

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


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

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

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3412
    Points : 3408
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 747
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

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

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

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

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

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

    These stuff was vertical take off.

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

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

    Posts : 20857
    Points : 21411
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

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

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

    Part of the problem is that everyone wants solutions now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Skyjump is more efficient the VTOL.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 1346
    Points : 1344
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

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

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

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

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

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

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20857
    Points : 21411
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

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

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

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

    This will make upgrades easier and cheaper and simpler.

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

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

    Posts : 3524
    Points : 3608
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  medo on Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:14 pm

    VTOL plane like Yak-141 could have good potential for special environments. The plane will be for NAVY and they could place them on those new LHDs. Simply put 2 or 4 for air protection. There is also another environment in NAVY hands, which could be protected by this jet. These are Arctic islands like Kotelny, which are too far away and building there concrete runways for classical jets is too expensive. They could still build smaller concrete platforms, from where plane like Yak-141 could take off nad land vertically. Vietnam could be as well very interested in them as they don't have that big island in South China Sea to place fighter jets there and Su-30 from mainland are too far for quick reaction. Helicopter sized concrete pads could be build there to place such jets there for guarding their islands there.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    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 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:38 pm

    Russia is developing hypersonic weapons and vertical takeoff aircraft


    https://iz.ru/674713/2017-11-23/rossiia-razrabatyvaet-giperzvukovoe-oruzhie-i-samolet-vertikalnogo-vzleta

    Russia is developing hypersonic weapons, this issue was discussed at meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Also, work is underway to create a vertical takeoff aircraft.

    This was reported by Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov, noting that these developments are taken into account in the draft new state arms program.

    So VTOL and aircraft carrying cruisers ?
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1755
    Points : 1750
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:12 pm

    The article seems a little odd, but that could just be the translation.
    But if true, then F, what a waist, looks like we're going back to the Kiev-class. No

    Garry is gonna be pissed.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20857
    Points : 21411
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:31 am

    Total waste of money and time.... VSTOL jet fixed wing aircraft as we know them are total pieces of rubbish.

    Limited performance, super fragile, super expensive, high loss rate for no real return except being able to make cheaper limited aircraft carriers that don't really stack up against decent modern aircraft.

    Total waste of time and money.

    The hope they might develop a design that fixes all the problems is tiny because their problems are enormous.... high pressure piping of air to the wing tips, nose and tail to enable a stable hover means lots of extra weight and complexity and of course vulnerability to damage or failure.

    The best thing they ever did was scale up to the K with conventional fixed wing aircraft also used by the Air Force.

    The Russian AF has no use for crappy short range expensive slow VSTOL aircraft.... even a basic generic MiG-29 shaped airframe with the radar and engine you put into the VSTOL aircraft will have better performance and be much cheaper and much safer.

    There was a famous photographer of aircraft a while back... he unfortunately died and I can't remember his name but the two seater of theYak-38M is the one aircraft he refused to fly in.... It did not have a high kill rate for its pilots but it had a high crash rate the pilots being saved by the automatic ejection system...
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3412
    Points : 3408
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Isos on Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:09 am

    The most weird is that a longer flight deck with a ski jump isn t expensive to build and they can upgrade easily mig 29k or design a new 5th generation mig based on mig 29k.

    I don t understand what they really want. They say they are planing a 100 kt supercarrier but also a vstol fighter which are made for really small carrier. They want one thing and its opposite.
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3469
    Points : 3553
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  flamming_python on Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:39 am

    Isos wrote:The most weird is that a longer flight deck with a ski jump isn t expensive to build and they can upgrade easily mig 29k or design a new 5th generation mig based on mig 29k.

    I don t understand what they really want. They say they are planing a 100 kt supercarrier but also a vstol fighter which are made for really small carrier. They want one thing and its opposite.

    It's really a mystery to me as well.

    First they said that they're going to develop a naval PAK-FA with the MiG-29K used as a stopgap in the meantime and Su-33s to be withdrawn.
    Then they wanted to put the Kuznetsov into deep modernization.
    Then they said they wanted to build some new carriers with catapults and all the rest of it.
    Then they said they'll keep the Su-33s after all and upgrade them, to provide a long-range air defence envelope.
    It's nearly 2018 and the Kuznetsov is still not undergoing that deep modernization.
    Somewhere in the midst of all this they developed the Ka-52K and started talking about helicopter carriers to replace the lost Mistrals, and about how versatile the Ka-52K can be including for anti-ship duties.
    And now they're talking about VTOL aircraft and carriers.

    The only way this VTOL stuff would make sense is if they bin the navalization of the PAK-FA, bin the modernization of the Kuznetsov (let it serve out 10 more years and then withdraw it), bin the idea of the helicopter carriers - and just use the VTOL aircraft and carriers to fulfill all these functions instead whether air-defence for the fleet, land-assault operations or anti-ship missions.
    In this way it would actually be a cost effective move.
    Different question is whether a VTOL aircraft would be able to fulfill all those functions acceptably. That's the engineering challenge.

    Or maybe it's all just a ploy to confuse NATO analysts.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8000
    Points : 8088
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:01 pm

    flamming_python wrote:...............

    The only way this VTOL stuff would make sense is if they bin the navalization of the PAK-FA, bin the modernization of the Kuznetsov (let it serve out 10 more years and then withdraw it), bin the idea of the helicopter carriers - and just use the VTOL aircraft and carriers to fulfill all these functions instead whether air-defence for the fleet, land-assault operations or anti-ship missions.
    In this way it would actually be a cost effective move.
    Different question is whether a VTOL aircraft would be able to fulfill all those functions acceptably. That's the engineering challenge.
    ...................

    I think that is precisely what they are going for. USS Wasp/America-class style ship that will do both jobs depending on aircraft complement at the time.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    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 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:45 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:...............

    The only way this VTOL stuff would make sense is if they bin the navalization of the PAK-FA, bin the modernization of the Kuznetsov (let it serve out 10 more years and then withdraw it), bin the idea of the helicopter carriers - and just use the VTOL aircraft and carriers to fulfill all these functions instead whether air-defence for the fleet, land-assault operations or anti-ship missions.
    In this way it would actually be a cost effective move.
    Different question is whether a VTOL aircraft would be able to fulfill all those functions acceptably. That's the engineering challenge.
    ...................

    I think that is precisely what they are going for. USS Wasp/America-class style ship that will do both jobs depending on aircraft complement at the time.

    Looks like US Marines/Spanish/UK and Italian navies opted for as Garry says mediocre expensive, fighters F-35 in STOVL version... Russian as well. Looks like some advantages are there.



    Chronologically there were announced by Russian top brass:

    1. We consider big AC 100,000 displacement and small about 30,000 tons displacement. Possibly unified with Liders (ekhm I guess this was referring to power reactors...)

    2. We restart vertical start fighter production for navy

    3. There could be Vgen fighter project coo-financed by UAE

    4. We are gonna build Aircraft Cruisers but by end of new program (i.e. ~2025) because first we need to have vertical take off fighter. (very recent interview with Bondarev)


    On Yak-43 (land based version -Efim Gordon as source in Wiki) they considered NK-32... and now surprise NK-32 is alive and kicking in new version.

    5. If you look at Ulyanovsk class drawings you can see then all missile launchers are vertical. If RuN is going for Aircraft Cruiser option my educated guess would be they use UKSK-M embedded in deck.



    BTW schema of group start for Yak-141s.
    http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/yak141.html


    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Yak141-5




    But of course life will tell . Only speculations.



    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3612
    Points : 3594
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:59 pm

    NK-32 would be ideal engine for the the jump jet. Huge engine though.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    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 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:09 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:NK-32 would be ideal engine for the the jump jet.  Huge engine though.

    If you compare F-35 STOVL engine PW with KH there are not so much differences...IMHO goo dsignt Kh-32 can go to Tu-160M2, PAK DA, Tu-22M3M and new ?Yak Smile))



    Specifications (F135-PW-600)[edit]
    Data from F135engine.com[44]
    General characteristics
    Type: Afterburning Turbofan with shaft driven remote lift fan
    Length: 369 in (937.3 cm)
    Diameter: 46 in (116.8 cm) maximum, 43 in (109.2 cm) fan inlet, 53 in (134.6 cm) lift fan inlet
    Dry weight:

    Performance
    Maximum thrust: 41,000 lbf (182 kN) max, 27,000 lbf (120 kN) intermediate, 40,650 lbf (180.8 kN) hover


    NK-32
    General characteristics
    Type: Three-spool low-bypass afterburning turbofan
    Length: 6,000 mm (20 ft)[4]
    Diameter: 1,460 mm (4.79 ft)[4]
    Dry weight: 3,400 kg (7,500 lb)[4]
    Components
    Compressor: 3-stage LP (fan), 5-stage IP, 7-stage HP
    Combustors: annular
    Turbine: 1-stage HP, 1-stage IP, 2-stage LP
    Performance
    Maximum thrust: Cruise thrust: 14 000 kgf (31,000 lbf, 137 kN)[5] Afterburning thrust: 25 000 kgf (55,000 lbf, 245 kN) [5]
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20857
    Points : 21411
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:27 am

    The obvious problems are its length... it is 6 metres long... so six metres behind where its front fans are there is 25 tons of thrust pushing down... what are you going to put up the front to balance that sort of force? Another one?

    The engine itself weigh 3.5 tons... what are they going to mount in the front that can match its lift and doesn't add another 3.5 tons of weight?

    The Tu-160 is an expensive aircraft to run... it burns through a lot of fuel per hour... even if the fuel consumption is dramatically reduced it is still going to need a huge amount of fuel to get any decent flight range...

    In comparison a cat assisted takeoff and arrested landing and you put this engine into an aircraft and it is going to be a very fast medium to heavy fighter.

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    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 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:55 am

    GarryB wrote:The obvious problems are its length... it is 6 metres long... so six metres behind where its front fans are there is 25 tons of thrust pushing down... what are you going to put up the front to balance that sort of force? Another one?


    similar to F-35 with one engine ? after wiki

    " The Lift System is composed of a lift fan, drive shaft, two roll posts and a "Three Bearing Swivel Module" (3BSM).[66] The 3BSM is a thrust vectoring nozzle which allows the main engine exhaust to be deflected downward at the tail of the aircraft. The lift fan is near the front of the aircraft and provides a counterbalancing thrust using two counter-rotating blisks.[67] It is powered by the engine's low-pressure (LP) turbine via a drive shaft and gearbox. Roll control during slow flight is achieved by diverting unheated engine bypass air through wing-mounted thrust nozzles called Roll Posts.[68][69]"



    GarryB wrote:

    The Tu-160 is an expensive aircraft to run... it burns through a lot of fuel per hour... even if the fuel consumption is dramatically reduced it is still going to need a huge amount of fuel to get any decent flight range...


    Garry Garry Garry, you're such a pessimist Cool Cool Cool

    NK-32 (before update model)
    Specific fuel consumption: (supersonic) 48g/kN/hour[6](subsonic): 0.72-0.73 kg/kgf/hour[6]

    For F-35 I've found something like 0,88 lb/lbf/hr but at thgsi time I am not going to calculate this respekt respekt respekt






    GarryB wrote:
    In comparison a cat assisted takeoff and arrested landing and you put this engine into an aircraft and it is going to be a very fast medium to heavy fighter.

    Heh I am not saying thet CATOBAR is bad but so fat I am still big fan of VTOL/STOVL fighters Smile

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20857
    Points : 21411
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:17 am

    The VSTOL fighter is a one trick pony that creates more problems than it solves.

    You end up with carriers that are too small to be useful for anything, with light weak aircraft that are as fragile as anything and not really more useful than a much simpler conventional aircraft.

    CATOBAR means normal aircraft but also much more capable AWACS support which is worth is weight in gold.

    BTW with 14 tons of dry thrust and 25 tons of max thrust that means at these power settings the aircraft.. even with no other lift engines as such will be burning

    0.72kgs of fuel per kg of thrust per hour... so at 14 tons dry thrust that is 10 tons of fuel per hour of flight in dry thrust.

    Use that afterburner and 18 tons of fuel get burned every single hour... how big is this fighter going to be?

    How do you feel about VSTOL elephants?
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    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 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:54 am

    GarryB wrote:The VSTOL fighter is a one trick pony that creates more problems than it solves.
    How do you feel about VSTOL elephants?

    F-35 engine/ NK 32 length comparison

    NK-32
    Length: 6,000 mm (20 ft)[4]

    F-35STVOL/CATOBAR
    Length: 369 in (937.3 cm) / Length: 220 in (559 cm)

    If F-35 is an elephant then yes I am talking about one.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20857
    Points : 21411
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:48 am

    Still a dog.
    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2408
    Points : 2565
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Cyberspec on Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:39 pm

    GarryB wrote:Still a dog.

    Very Happy
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20857
    Points : 21411
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Russia is developing vertical takeoff aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:58 am

    I am not saying with a lot of clever design choices that they can't make an adequate design... but I think they would be much better off not thinking about a tiny carrier with dinky little VSTOL aircraft... a medium sized carrier offers better endurance and a larger air fleet and when fitted with EM cats it can operate medium AWACS types that would greatly improve the situational awareness of the fleet, especially against low flying threats.

    Low flying cruise missiles are especially potent against targets on land because the land is not flat so there are lots of blind spots you can take advantage of when planning the attack route.

    At sea there are no mountains except near land or islands, but without carriers there is no air based radars so the problem is with the radar horizon.

    A carrier with AWACS capabilities means you can operate airborne radars that don't have blind spots against low flying threats and can see much further without giving away the location of the carrier and ships it is operating with, yet can pass information to those ships so they are not operating in the dark.
    They can also manage a group of interceptors and manage an interception so you get the best out of the air group you have.

    The enemy wont know how many ships you have, just that you have an AWACS aircraft so you have at least one carrier... everything else can operate radio silent so actually finding your SAG is not that easy and when you get within range with a full scale attack the entire fleet and all the fighters can light up and start taking you down.... not when you cross the radar horizon of the biggest ship... when you are in range of the AWACS aircraft that might be 500km away from the carrier and cruisers.

    It is a simple fact that once the carrier is paid for it is the SAG and operational costs that matter and a medium carrier wont cost that much more than a light carrier but will carry more aircraft and more ordinance and equipment and create a much bigger umbrella over the ships or subs.

    Sponsored content

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:16 am