Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2393
    Points : 2391
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:41 am

    They r too independent & proud to buy American or British fighters when they can design their own & also sell them.
    And they planned to have 2 US-style flattops, even if smaller. But they had trouble with it, incl. the catapults. Classic example of biting more than they could chew.
    Most, if not all, combat missions that they flew off the deck in recent years could be as well done by STOVLs, if they had them.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20798
    Points : 21352
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:24 am

    b]The only official statemen[/b]t so far was: we replace Su-33 and MiG-29k by VSTOL fighter for our carriers.

    Of course it could just mean they will be calling the Su-33 and MiG-29KR something else when their latest versions enter service in 10 years time... and these imaginary VSTOL will simply be cancelled again.

    Since EMALS r adjustable, they can be used even with CATOBAR compatible French Rafales. I doubt the future Chinese CVNs will be much different/bigger than the future Russian CVNs, assuming they'll be built at all.
    The Chinese didn't use any old Soviet technology to develop their EMALS. Nor did they needed to

    Russia cannot rely on China or Europeans for EMALS technology... they can develop their own.

    They have been working on it for quite some time and probably already have prototypes they are working with...

    Will Russian planners require catapults and sending billions Rubles in near useless product after 1 installation? I seriously doubt

    They are spending billions on equally useless VSTOL fighters so why not?

    then at most $200m is cost of new fighter programme.

    A VSTOL 5th gen fighter design will cost as much as their current 5th gen fighter project at least.

    So far 300?350 F-35 are in line? Russia has how many fielded 5g fighters?

    Russian budget = .$46bn........Su-57.....$60m
    USA Budget......= $700bn.......F-35.......$90m

    Thank you... you clearly prove at the very same time that the US can afford to waste money on bullshit and the Russians cannot. Case proven.


    gen Bondaryeev

    " There are other arguments, in some respects opposite. Like, why do we need the fifth generation, if the fighters of the 4 ++ generation are flying fine, for example, the same Su-35. On this occasion, I will say: fourth-generation fighters, even those upgraded to the “++” version, are already outdated and do not meet new challenges. [/b.

    But you know better then Bondaryev. Kudos. [/quote]

    He over rates the 5th gen US fighters and under estimates the Russian 4++ gen fighters.

    If the F-35 is a representative of the US 5th gen fighter, and Su-35 is representative of the Russian 4th gen then Russian 4th gen is all you need.

    But clearly as he says they need a 5th gen carrier fighter... and the easiest quickest path to that is a naval Su-57.

    interesting then why Russians want to cooperate with India,and India with Russia.

    It is not a reason not to cooperate... just don't plan on ending up with anything any time soon.

    All that work on the Su-30MKI and they ended up with an aircraft not even as good as the Su-35.

    Brahmos is based on Yakhont, but because of export rules its performance does not approach the Onyx the Yakhont is based upon.

    I am not saying things from the Flanker and Brahmos didn't improve the domestic models, but if you want a real case where a foreign partner helped greatly improve a system look at Pantsir and UAE.

    “Of course, it was logical to assume that during such a time those models, meaning the MiG-29, Su-33, they
    will become obsolete morally, and in 10 years, of course, will require the creation of a new aircraft,
    such plans exist: shortened takeoff and landing and vertical takeoff, "Borisov told reporters.

    Yeah, and 40 years ago someone probably said the same thing with the Yak-41 going to replace both aircraft.... and guess what.

    In 15 year time when experience has shown that new VSTOL aircraft to be a dog they will upgrade their MiGs and Sus and things will carry on as normal.

    But as soon as Russian VSTOL is to replace it we can return to talking about parameters, shall we?

    Sure... if you never want to discuss it... that is fine. Twisted Evil


    175ft is lets say -ish number of course but this IMHO a good illustration that every vSTOL is intrinsically better in takeoff/landing distances.

    They are also better at crashing too.

    According to some sources the Soviet Yak-38 “Forger” jets could perform rolling landings on carrier decks but required the use of a safety barrier net; however, it’s not clear whether actual tests were conducted at sea.

    For years "Western experts" claimed the Forger couldn't perform a rolling landing or a landing take off... it was not until such operations were seen and filmed that they actually gave them credit for that capacity... which is why I don't think much of so called western experts.

    Also on the Defense Ministry’s plans that we are discussing with our aircraft manufacturers is the creation of a short takeoff and landing (STAL) aircraft. [b]Possibly, it will be a vertical takeoff and landing plane," Borisov said.

    Can we ever trust a certain persons posts again if they are going to use such fake quotes that omit rather critical information...

    STAL sounds rather like what MiG are discussing for MiG-35 and Sukhoi are talking about with Su-57...

    So, we will see but I admit there is a support for your claim that they plan to substitute the existing STOBARs with STOVL

    Not on the Kuznetsov...

    this all is crap, let me say. Future transportation needs all, electronics, advanced electric propulsion, new aerotech and likely hightemp superconductors. What here is not needed is emals.

    How do you know that technology developed for EMALS wont be applicable to other areas?

    You don't.

    Tell me how much US industry advanced due to EMALS tech? you seem to be expert in power electronics. At least you say so in this post.
    Then which precisely branches did US developed because of it? and why only USA/China invested in EMALS is useful and cheap?
    Can Germany, UK, Japan or France invest in EMALS? if it was useful yes, but they prefer to invest in future tech without.

    You have things arse about as usual... you seem to be suggesting that because only the US and China are developing EMALS technology and Germany and Japan and the UK and France are not then it can't be worth doing... I guess Russia should just give up its space programme because most of those countries you listed have not invested in rocket technology to get into space...

    you can put money is useful tech (like VSTOL, materials, radars, sub/flying drones) or military useless, in Russian's case, economicallywise wasteful but cool magazines and forums like EMALS. Was it so useful why no official statements are about this?

    Still waiting for you to outline how VSTOL is useful tech and EMALS is a useless waste of money... Russia already spent money on the Yak-36, The Yak-38, The Yak-38M, and the Yak-41... which were all expensive and totally useless... if real war had broken out not a single VSTOL aircraft would have done more than either crashed or been shot down.


    you private opinion doesn't match reality: Russian and Chinese mod decided invest billions in VSTOL fighter tech.
    In Russia's case is clear: VSTOL fighter is going replace obsolete Su-33 and MiG29

    Chinese and Russian MOD also both decided to develop EMALS technology too.

    GDP PPP China $24,000bn,US $20,000bn, Russia's $4,200bn. Only first 2 countries only invested in EMALS.

    Liar.

    Russia is spending money developing EMALS and you know it you lying bitch.

    If France had it's own STOVL fighter, I bet they wouldn't plan on building & keeping a CATOBAR CVN. They tried to build it but failed, & decided not to buy Harriers from the British.

    The Americans also failed miserably with their VSTOL fighter designs and ended up buying British.

    When it came time to develop a 5th gen stealthy VSTOL fighter they failed as well... with their own design... one company went with their own design and it lost the competition. The other company knew they needed an after burning engine that could rotate 95 degrees and they knew the only company on the planet with that experience was Yakovlev... They bought the engine nozzle technology and looked at their research and experience with separate lift engines and decided to go with Yakovlevs lift fan design... notice how they tell everyone all about that... but then the F-35 is probably the closest the Yak company will get to an in service VSTOL fighter in this century...

    Since EMALS r adjustable, they can be used even with CATOBAR compatible French Rafales. I doubt the future Chinese CVNs will be much different/bigger than the future Russian CVNs, assuming they'll be built at all.
    The Chinese didn't use any old Soviet technology to develop their EMALS. Nor did they needed to:
    Breakthrough announced in South China Morning Post by China in developing its own Improved EMALS technology which was done by use of advanced insulated-gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) chips. This sudden development of in house EMALS technology by China was only made possible due to acquisition of semiconductor companies-WeEn, Ampleon and Nexperia, which were acquired via sale of Freescale Semiconductors (NXP)'s Bipolar Power Division, RF Power division and Standards Products Division respectively and also by acquisition of some other European semiconductor companies.

    You don't buy brand new untested technology... almost no one sells that anyway...

    They are better off developing the technology themselves which will be sanction proof and they will make the components themselves rather than import them from a country that the US will likely target with sanctions to stop them.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2393
    Points : 2391
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:22 pm

    Russia already spent money on the Yak-36, The Yak-38, The Yak-38M, and the Yak-41... which were all expensive and totally useless... if real war had broken out not a single VSTOL aircraft would have done more than either crashed or been shot down.
    No, the USSR spend $ on them, & they weren't totally useless. They gained experience in VTOL design & carrier fixed wing flight ops.

    The F-35B that uses Yak-41 TVC won't be useless either.
    EMALS isn't a proven technology yet. The ocean environment is unforgiving. The Ford CVN may have many a/c crashes making it unfit for use. EMALS development may be stopped; it doesn't mean they'll succeed & adopt it on a flattop CVN that may or may not be built.
    The US is developing space weapons, longer range AShMs & hyper-sonic missiles that will make any Russian CVNs as vulnerable as theirs r to Russian missiles; they'll be ready by the if/when they put to sea.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:15 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:37 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:If France had it's own STOVL fighter, I bet they wouldn't plan on building & keeping a CATOBAR CVN. They tried to build it but failed, & decided not to buy Harriers from the British.
    It is exactly the other way around. Navies with money use CATOBAR, the others settle for lesser capacity solutions, period. Or is it that China and US are the poor guys that have super-CVNs because they cannot afford a STOVL-only fleet? What logic is this? France knows what is the best and try to stick to it, they are managing quite decently until now. Royal Navy wanted their new carriers with EMALS too, but was too expensive so they got the F-35B and will have them doing rolling TO and landings on a huge deck to save no space in the end... it is a curious solution that may work for them, but RAF has already said they want more capable planes than the F-35B. So to me it is pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim, sorry for having to point it out.
    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 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:50 am

    LMFS wrote: France knows what is the best and try to stick to it, they are managing quite decently until now. Royal Navy wanted their new carriers with EMALS too, but was too expensive so they got the F-35B and will have them doing rolling TO and landings on a huge deck to save no space in the end... it is a curious solution that may work for them, but RAF has already said they want more capable planes than the F-35B. So to me it is pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim, sorry for having to point it out.

    France can afford barely 1 CVN without VSTOL because they cannot afford them, instead they use Rafle-M with same level of performance but sliglty less expensive than F-35B only with much worse avionics and poor stealth capabilities. + US fylly designed and made tech.

    wiki €79m in 2011
    http://www.in2013dollars.com/2011-euro-in-2018


    today $97m vs $115.5m


    RN has 2 with bigger displacement, but France knows better only because you like it. Is this your only proof? not convincing , Sir.
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:10 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Chronology, Sir. Slyusar's statement, from  OAK, statement was dated in July 2017. Was he saying anything like that ever since?
    Dont try to make up a discussion. I just stated the facts, until that date at least there were no firm requirements. My point is that they are at the earliest stage of development, at best. Not even a name for the project, no carrier decision, no number of units. What you call a clear and firm program basis.


    If you check future Aircraft carriers thread - I quoted an interview with admiral: he expects that between 20221-2030 there will be new Perspective Aviation Complex of Deck Aviation (looks like PAK PA to me ;-)  
    Yeah, the news where they say they plan to buy that dead plane MiG-29K??
    LMAO, big time thumbsup

    of course  not, MiG-29k is by no means STOL fighter. Otherwise no BARpart would be needed, besides cannot start below 110m with min load, and 195m with reasonable one,without skijump.
    Use your knowledge of Russian and translate for us the meaning of MiG-29KVP please
     
    your opinion based on simple extrapolation of MiG-35 experiences is just false.
    Lying again. 7-10 years to series, not to first flight. PAK-FA, taking lessons from MFI, in the works since 2002 at least and still not in service. Look the rest of fighter programs, longer even. That is the reality. Bet something on having the STOVL in series in 2025/2028 if you have the guts

    "The timeframe is defined by the technological cycle of the [plane’s] creation. Normally, this takes 7-10 years, if this goes into serial production," the vice-premier added.

    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/1018022

    Simply MiG-29k requires 195m to take off on Kuz in short. I presume with any useful payload not empty on Vikiramedia with 125m.
    Check the damn simulation, come up with improvements if you can and stop making up crap. That's pretty much it.

    wait, so you never said about damaged runway surface by V landing? shall I search in this thread?
    I said I saw in front of my eyes a Harrier destroying the runway. Said nothing about Yak, you made it up.

    No MiG has been made since 2015. So 4 years.Simply it is dead.
    Your mouth turned to arse in less than a day, brilliant performance! lol1 lol1 lol1

    "This relates to replacing special aviation aircraft with new models and arming the Navy with shipborne fighter jets (MiG-29K/KUB), attack, transport and landing helicopters (Ka-52K) and drones," Kozhin said.

    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/1035224
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:24 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Tell me how much US industry advanced due to EMALS tech? you seem to be expert in power electronics. At least you say so in this post.  
    Then which precisely branches did US developed because of it? and why only USA/China invested in EMALS is useful and cheap?
    Can Germany, UK, Japan or France invest in EMALS? if it was useful yes, but they prefer to invest in future tech without.
    It is you pulling claims from nowhere who has the burden of proof. Tell us how EMALS is preventing US from making progress in other fields of power management... it is the other way around my friend. I am not an expert in EMALS but sadly for you I happen to know a thing or two about power electronics, at least enough to call out elementary crap.

    Russian and Chinese mod decided invest billions in VSTOL fighter tech.
    You have no clue how much they are investing
    GDP PPP China $24,000bn,US $20,000bn, Russia's $4,200bn. Only first 2 countries only invested in EMALS.
    GB already called you out on that so no more comments thumbsup
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:33 am

    GarryB wrote:
    So, we will see but I admit there is a support for your claim that they plan to substitute the existing STOBARs with STOVL
    Not on the Kuznetsov...
    Given we need to rely on publicly available info and official quotes (sometimes apparently more than in common sense), the opinion can be defended, even when I don't agree.
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:44 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:France can afford barely 1 CVN without  VSTOL because they cannot afford them,  instead they use Rafle-M with same level of performance but sliglty less expensive   than F-35B only with much worse avionics and poor stealth capabilities. + US fylly designed and made tech.
    Oh my, you are setting the bar very high today lol1 lol1 lol1
    So they decide to develop a plane because it is a cheaper endeavour than buying off-the-shelf and not because they want to keep their industry alive and be as independent as possible, despite the sacrifice it means... third world countries needed to know this authentic revelation of yours to kick-off cutting edge aerospace industries of their own instead of buying shitty planes abroad. Even the last monkey on Earth will buy F-35s but France cannot afford them cheers cheers

    As to F-35B having same performance of Rafale-M... really, give us a break lol1 lol1 lol1
    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 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:55 am

    GarryB wrote:
    b]The only official statemen[/b]t so far  was: we replace Su-33 and MiG-29k by VSTOL fighter for our carriers.

    Of course it could just mean they will be calling the Su-33 and MiG-29KR something else when their latest versions enter service in 10 years time... and these imaginary VSTOL  will simply be cancelled again.

    like MiG-29k in 90s? no, not really.  So far the only argument against new deck fighter is your opinion. Im afraid this is not enough for Russian MoD.


    GB wrote:
    Will Russian planners require catapults and sending billions Rubles in near useless product after 1 installation? I seriously doubt

    They are spending billions on equally useless VSTOL fighters so why not?

    well, I was actually askignabout real not imaginary argument. AWACS can be STOL or VSTOL (if tiltrotor) so what would be argument for money for emals besides?


    GB wrote:
    then at most $200m is cost of new fighter programme.

    A VSTOL 5th gen fighter design will cost as much as their current 5th gen fighter project at least.

    c'mon you are really intelligent guy. Why do you pretend to be moron? try to be serious.

    BTW PSK-FA cost ~₽60bn so $1bn to to days prices (wiki says in 2010 ~$3bn). Of course now you have to pay people more but Engines, avionics, stealth "skins" all is there. to be reused. Factories have specialists and are up and running.

    SO both time and costs can be reasonable.



    GB wrote:
    So far 300?350 F-35 are in line? Russia has how many fielded 5g fighters?

    Russian budget = .$46bn........Su-57.....$60m
    USA Budget......= $700bn.......F-35.......$90m

    Thank you... you clearly prove at the very same time that the US can afford to waste money on bullshit and the Russians cannot. Case proven.

    i assume you understand written language. Then read an interview with gen. Bondaryev.



    GB wrote:

    gen Bondaryeev

    " There are other arguments, in some respects opposite. Like, why do we need the fifth generation, if the fighters of the 4 ++ generation are flying fine, for example, the same Su-35. On this occasion, I will say: fourth-generation fighters, even those upgraded to the “++” version, are already outdated and do not meet new challenges. [/b.


    But you know better then Bondaryev. Kudos. [/b]


    He over rates the 5th gen US fighters and under estimates the Russian 4++ gen fighters.
    If the F-35 is a representative of the US 5th gen fighter, and Su-35 is representative of the Russian 4th gen then Russian 4th gen is all you need.[/quote]

    wow, not every day I can talk about guy knowing better Russian AF then its former Commander-in-Chief RuAF. Now is SovFed in security , who joined RuAF in 1977 and in 2015 retired. In 2016 gave a nice MiG-29 show in advanced fighter skills. 400 cobat sorties, commanding RuAF in Syria. 3000 hours flight experience.

    PhD in technology.

    So you know better diagnose?  dude what are you smoking after weekend?! or it as after wild night  in "Blue Oyster" ?  lol!  lol!  lol!


    Let's return to facts: Irbis N035 X-band so doesnt "see " stealth that far. English wiki says 0,01m RCS is 90km while F-35 can see him form at least 240km.





    GB wrote:But clearly as he says they need a 5th gen carrier fighter... and the easiest quickest path to that is a naval Su-57.


    yo yo expert! yes and for adding a hook they need special programme,name Perspektivny Aviastionny Kompek Palubny Aviatsyi? PAK PA (vide: recent interview  chief of naval AF) and 7-10 years?

    lol1  lol1  lol1  



    GB wrote:
    Yeah, and 40 years ago someone probably said the same thing with the Yak-41 going to replace both aircraft.... and guess what.
    In 15 year time when experience has shown that new VSTOL aircraft to be a dog they will upgrade their MiGs and Sus and things will carry on as normal.


    MiGs you meant those 4 on Kuz that were actually flying? dont bother, risks?  leave this to Russian MoD/OAK. They have real knowledge  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup



    GB wrote:
    But as soon as Russian VSTOL is to replace it we can return to talking about parameters, shall we?
    Sure... if you never want to discuss it... that is fine.  Twisted Evil

    but till VSTOL is up and running lets talk about famous, however never seen by anybody except you,  "damaged runway" shall we?  lol1  lol1  lol1




    GB wrote:
    175ft is lets say -ish number of course but this IMHO a good illustration that every vSTOL is intrinsically better in takeoff/landing distances.
    They are also better at crashing too.[/b]


    MiG-29k, 4 crashes, 3 pilots killed. 65 built in total.
    F-35b has what record again? till June 75 built.




    GB wrote:
    this all is crap, let me say. Future transportation needs all, electronics, advanced electric propulsion, new aerotech and likely hightemp superconductors. What here is not needed is emals.
    How do you know that technology developed for EMALS wont be applicable to other areas?

    You don't.  

    damn,  Germany and Japan are technologically backwards in magnetic trains or power electronics? dont be shy tell me which precisely emals tech is useful in civil life?
    You know right?




    GB wrote: because most of those countries you listed have not invested in rocket technology to get into space...

    Germany,France = ESA
    Japan = Jaxa

    yo yo expert.


    GB wrote:Still waiting for you to outline how VSTOL is useful tech and EMALS is a useless waste of money...

    dear expert, VSTOL is tech chosen by Russian MoD fora reason. I am still waiting for "damaged runway" , so when will I see those damages?
    santa  santa  santa  ho ho ho




    GB wrote:Chinese and Russian MOD also both decided to develop EMALS technology too.
    +++
    Russia is spending money developing EMALS and you know it you lying bitch.

    tell me exactly when MoD said about Russian EMALS programme? I  must have missed somehow.
    Dont be so shy and gay in one, share with us!

    thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup
    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 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:27 am

    LMFS wrote:
    Dont try to make up a discussion. I just stated the facts, until that date at least there were no firm requirements. My point is that they are at the earliest stage of development, at best. Not even a name for the project, no carrier decision, no number of units. What you call a clear and firm program basis.

    I dotn cal anything stop making up stories. "damaged runway".

    PAK far took 7 years form start till first flight. We are no after ~ 1,5 years from start, measuring for SLyusars interview.  
    OK but you know better. Again. Better then Russian MoD. Kudoa!







    LMAO wrote:
    your opinion based on simple extrapolation of MiG-35 experiences is just false.
    Lying again. 7-10 years to series, not to first flight. PAK-FA, taking lessons from MFI, in the works since 2002 at least and still not in service. Look the rest of fighter programs, longer even. That is the reality. Bet something on having the STOVL in series in 2025/2028 if you have the guts

    "The timeframe is defined by the technological cycle of the [plane’s] creation. Normally, this takes 7-10 years, if this goes into serial production," the vice-premier added.

    "Сроки определяются технологическим циклом создания, как правило, это 7-10 лет, если выходить в серию", - отметил вице- премьер.
    Genius he actually could also  say " when it goes to series (= production ready).  

    Dont be moron, VSTOL in series? 2028 is fairly possible. After 11 years with engines and radars and factories  ready? So again how mahy fighters did you design and build so far?



    LMFS wrote:
    Simply MiG-29k requires 195m to take off on Kuz in short. I presume with any useful payload not empty on Vikiramedia with 125m.
    Check the damn simulation, come up with improvements if you can and stop making up crap. That's pretty much it.

    video game about F-18 is you only proof? wow genius  must you be



    LMFS wrote:
    wait, so you never said about damaged runway surface by V landing? shall I search in this thread?
    I said I saw in front of my eyes a Harrier destroying the runway. Said nothing about Yak, you made it up.

    wow and only you nobody else? never filmed too? so how large those slabs were?



    LMFS wrote:
    No MiG has been made since 2015. So 4 years.Simply it is dead.
    Your mouth turned to arse in less than a day, brilliant performance! lol1  lol1  lol1

    "This relates to replacing special aviation aircraft with new models and arming the Navy with shipborne fighter jets (MiG-29K/KUB), attack, transport and landing helicopters (Ka-52K) and drones," Kozhin said.


    perhaps you mouth and ass get bigger after reach visit to the "Blue Oyster" nevertheless Kozhin said:

    Речь также идёт о замене воздушных судов специальной авиации на новые образцы, включение в боевой состав подразделений корабельной истребительной авиации (МиГ-29К/КУБ) штурмовых и транспортно-десантных вертолётов корабельного базирования (Ка-52К), корабельных беспилотных летательных аппаратов.



    bolded:
    We are also talking about the replacement of special aircraft with new types of models/samples, [b]the inclusion in the combat composition of ship fighter aviation units (MiG-29K / KUB), assault and transport-assault ship-based helicopters (Ka-52K), ship-borne unmanned aerial vehicles [/quote]

    from when genius Ka-52k and drones are new MiGs?! yo yo so no MiG-29k is pretty much dead. Yo yo yo

    check with natives , feel free  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:50 am; edited 1 time in total
    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 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:48 am

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:France can afford barely 1 CVN without  VSTOL because they cannot afford them,  instead they use Rafle-M with same level of performance but sliglty less expensive   than F-35B only with much worse avionics and poor stealth capabilities. + US fylly designed and made tech.
    Oh my, you are setting the bar very high today lol1 lol1 lol1
    So they decide to develop a plane because it is a cheaper endeavour than buying off-the-shelf and not because they want to keep their industry alive and be as independent as possible, despite the sacrifice it means... third world countries needed to know this authentic revelation of yours to kick-off cutting edge aerospace industries of their own instead of buying shitty planes abroad.

    so French preferred to invest $63bn and yet flyaway cost is $100m and whooping ~165 units were built, not to rescue own noncompetitive industry but because it was cheaper? lol1 lol1 lol1 math is really in your strengths? Really Rafale is ~$480m


    LMFS wrote: Even the last monkey on Earth will buy F-35s but France cannot afford them cheers cheers

    of course they can, bu only after they afford to built second CVN. None on horizon tho.



    LMFS wrote:As to F-35B having same performance of Rafale-M... really, give us a break lol1 lol1 lol1

    dotn tell me about your impressions of feelings. I care only about facts. Range, speed, radar, RCS, takeoff/landing without catapult.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2393
    Points : 2391
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:16 am

    The French could have at least 2 ST/CATOBAR CVs for the price of 1 CATOBAR CVN which is now in it's midlife. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle#Future_replacement

    By time & if a new CV/N goes to sea, the R91 will have ~10-15 years of life left, & the FN again will have only 1 carrier after that.
    Canadian, Argentinian, Indian & Australian navies couldn't keep CATOBAR CVs; the PLAN & the USN needs STOVLs to save on having to build more CATOBAR CVNs to support their marines, as the video I posted explained.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale#Specifications:
    Performance  Maximum speed:
    High altitude: Mach 1.8 (1,912 km/h, 1,032 knots)
    Low altitude: Mach 1.1 (1,390 km/h, 750 knots)
    Range: >3,700 km (>2,000 nmi)  with 3 drop tanks
    Combat radius: >1,852 km (>1,000 nmi) on penetration mission with two CFTs (2,300 L), three tanks (5,700 L), two SCALP-EG and two MICA AAMs.

    https://www.military.com/equipment/f-35b-lightning-ii:
    Armament: 2x AIM-120C air-to-air missiles; 2x 1,000-pound GBU-32 JDAM guided bombs Propulsion: F135-PW-600
    Speed: Mach 1.6 (1,200 mph) Range: 900 nm, or 1,666.8 km.
    https://www.calculateme.com/length/nautical-miles/to-kilometers/900

    They can be refueled in the mid-air & already crossed the Atlantic:
    https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/822251/marine-raf-team-bring-lightning-to-united-kingdom/

    The above data show that the Rafale's max. speed is over the F-35B's by 168 knots, while the combat radius is greater by ~100 nm.
    CATOBAR is very high priced indeed for such "superior performance"!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20798
    Points : 21352
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:25 am

    One of the key problems with the Yak-41M jet-lift system was the need to engage afterburner for vertical take-off or landing. At land bases this soon resulted in damage to the runway, while the Admiral Gorshkov was fitted with a special water-cooling system to absorb the heat from the jet blast. Hence, the Yak-41M was in no sense a Harrier-style go-anywhere aircraft.



    Literally crash and burn...

    You keep quoting the F-35 as being some reason for Russia to try to develop a VSTOL fighter.... I would say Russia does not have 1.5 trillion dollars to waste on a second rate piece of crap existing aircraft are superior to let alone something Russia could actually develop in 10 years time.

    And it has been shown the words of the guy making the decision sees STOL is what is wanted.. VSTOL could be an option if they can actually make it work... which I doubt considering their track record.

    You claim F-35 is better than Rafale... without any actual evidence of course, but don't explain why anything fitted to the F-35 that could make it better than the Rafale would not be the obvious fix rather than the French developing a new VSTOL aircraft from scratch...

    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:08 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:so French preferred to invest $63bn and yet flyaway cost is $100m and whooping ~165 units were built, not to rescue own noncompetitive industry but because  it was cheaper? lol1 lol1 lol1  math is really in your strengths? Really Rafale is ~$480m
    It is you saying they cannot afford STOVL and had to settle for CATOBAR instead, should I even comment how deranged this notion is? Of course Rafale and CVN are expensive, when did I say otherwise?
    BTW:
    276 Rafale have been ordered

    dotn tell me about your impressions of feelings. I  care only about facts. Range, speed, radar, RCS, takeoff/landing without catapult.
    Feelings? Give me a break man. You want to compare a plane with 7 g max overload and terrible acceleration with the Rafale M, really? Agreed, it is 20 years older and without comparable engines. So imagine what is the difference between the airframes or what could Rafale do with better propulsion.[/quote]
    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 570
    Points : 661
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  jhelb on Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:22 am

    GarryB wrote:All that work on the Su-30MKI and they ended up with an aircraft not even as good as the Su-35.

    Why ? Why do you think the Su 35 is far better than the Indian Su 30MKI ?


    GarryB wrote:but if you want a real case where a foreign partner helped greatly improve a system look at Pantsir and UAE.

    UAE ??? How did they improve the Pantsir ? They only use an export version which cannot be as high tech as the Russian one.
    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 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:36 am

    GarryB wrote:You keep quoting the F-35 as being some reason for Russia to try to develop a VSTOL fighter.... I would say Russia does not have 1.5 trillion dollars to waste on a second rate piece of crap existing aircraft are superior to let alone something Russia could actually develop in 10 years time.


    a) Yak-41 killed nobody as MiG-29k did. RIP pilots, good that this failed fighter is dead now.

    b) 14 years - 2017-2030.

    PAK FA -2003- start or work 2010, january first flight. 7 years. in 14 years is like 2016 for PAK FA. But nlw engines, radars, coating, materias and factories are ready


    GB wrote: And it has been shown the words of the guy making the decision sees STOL is what is wanted.. VSTOL could be an option if they can actually make it work... which I doubt considering their track record.

    he said actually "when it goes to series" = production ready.
    Su-57 you doubt too considering fail in MiG-29k?



    GB wrote:
    You claim F-35 is better than Rafale... without any actual evidence of course, but don't explain why anything fitted to the F-35 that could make it better than the Rafale would not be the obvious fix rather than the French developing a new VSTOL aircraft from scratch...

    again your made up stories from crypt? did you EVER bring ANY evidence to support your made-up claims? If ever I must have missed them, since I dont remember any.
    In your claims same pattern as famous "damaged runways"?

    Data after wiki (english, french) and LM, do you have better? dont be gay-shy

    ..........................................Rafale.M.....................................................................F-35B

    speed..................................1,930km/h.................................................................1,976 km/h
    internal fuel.........................4,700kg (4,400 2 seater)..............................................6,045kg
    Service ceiling.....................15,235 m (50,000 ft)....................................................15,240+ m

    Payload................................6,500kg...(M- MTOW-21500).........................................6,800kg

    helmet sipaly.......................none............................................................................yes
    radar..................................PESA..100km/fighter......................................................AESA/240km fighter (1m2)
    .........................................Frogs claim since 2014 AESA
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,that can use Meteor (180km range)


    Of course Rafale is better and made in bigger numbers ! you have no evidence but your gut feeling is ok.



    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 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:43 am

    LMFS wrote:
    276 Rafale have been ordered

    and over 300 F-35 delivered, so how many Rafale were delivered?



    LMFS wrote:
    dotn tell me about your impressions of feelings. I  care only about facts. Range, speed, radar, RCS, takeoff/landing without catapult.
    Feelings? Give me a break man. You want to compare a plane with 7 g max overload and terrible acceleration with the Rafale M, really? Agreed, it is 20 years older and without comparable engines. So imagine what is the difference between the airframes or what could Rafale do with better propulsion.

    pwnd dude, again tales from the crypt? same as Blue-Ouyster GB stuff?

    I made a compariosn based on LM, French and English wiki. G overload has what maning if Rafale sees never F-35 while F-35 kills easily Rafale?


    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2393
    Points : 2391
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:48 pm

    If Rafales were that good, by now India would've ordered many of them for her navy, esp. since they did for the AF!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale#India
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2393
    Points : 2391
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:48 pm

    If the Rafales were that good, by now India would've ordered many of them for her navy, esp. since they did for the AF!  
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale#India
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vishal
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikrant_(2013)

    The new Russian STOVL fighter'll be at least as capable as the F-35B.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:30 pm; edited 3 times in total
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3598
    Points : 3580
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  miketheterrible on Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:56 pm

    F-35 is a piece of shit.  And actually, only thing of Su-57 that isn't ready for mass production is the engines.  radar components have been in production since the mid 2000's. Reason why F-35 has so many orders is strong arming. And while many nations called quits on it, others foot more of a bill because of backroom deals. Even though all the problems with it are listed in a thick book.

    I can also mention that it isn't all that stealthy. If a Su-35 picked it up rather easy, then a Rafale would too.

    Problem with Rafale is it is too expensive for what you get.
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:27 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:F-35 is a piece of shit.  And actually, only thing of Su-57 that isn't ready for mass production is the engines.  radar components have been in production since the mid 2000's.  Reason why F-35 has so many orders is strong arming.  And while many nations called quits on it, others foot more of a bill because of backroom deals.  Even though all the problems with it are listed in a thick book.

    I can also mention that it isn't all that stealthy.  If a Su-35 picked it up rather easy, then a Rafale would too.

    Problem with Rafale is it is too expensive for what you get.
    Rafale is really expensive in international market and despite got almost 100 orders recently, that tells us how high its perceived value is. It has a very good airframe, right design philosophy, properly updated systems, among them a very effective ESM suite and quite big payload for the size. What it cannot do is compete with sheer size of US budgets and MIC scale for cutting edge technology or be more modern than new designs. And especially France cannot force countries to buy their planes as US does. Engines are a weak aspect, but nevertheless for a country that wants a good multirole plane it is one of the best options, no doubt.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20798
    Points : 21352
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:57 am

    I am still waiting for "damaged runway" , so when will I see those damages

    Yo yo nigger...

    Watch this from 1 minute onwards about your wonderful Yak-41 burning up the Farnborough runway... you wont see any footage of it taking off or landing vertically at Farnborough because it was not allowed to...



    Yeah... spend enormous amounts of money to make a plane take off and land vertically and then never use it except on specially designed surfaces on aircraft carriers... you know how to waste money like an American...

    Problem with Rafale is it is too expensive for what you get.

    If that were true only the French would buy it... no one else has to buy it... yet some did...

    Of course you could argue the only reason for all the orders of the F-35 was denial and lack of democracy in the countries ordering it and quite frankly the lack of any viable 5th gen alternative in the west.
    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 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:50 am

    GarryB wrote:
    I am still waiting for "damaged runway" , so when will I see those damages

    Yo yo nigger...

    Watch this from 1 minute onwards about your wonderful Yak-41 burning up the Farnborough runway... you wont see any footage of it taking off or landing vertically at Farnborough because it was not allowed to...

    as I thought, no evidence just word of mouth.  Well big black cock tv  didn't say anything about harriers nor F-35 landing vertically ? no? well, CNN did neither. But Ruskies are baad. Ergo: only Russian VSTOL are damging runways US/UK ones dont thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
    Case closed as for me.

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 MV5BM2M3YWRkN2MtZDg5OC00NmRmLTliNzctMTBkZjQzZTlkYmQ0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjE5MjUyOTM@._V1_




    GB wrote:
    Problem with Rafale is it is too expensive for what you get.

    If that were true only the French would buy it... no one else has to buy it... yet some did...

    Of course you could argue the only reason for all the orders of the F-35 was denial and lack of democracy in the countries ordering it and quite frankly the lack of any viable 5th gen alternative in the west.[/quote]

    the F-35B is the best et voila.

    BTW so how it goest with Rafale vs. F-35 intl sales comparison?  dobt be shy provide numbers


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Thu Dec 13, 2018 1:01 am; edited 1 time in total
    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 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:54 am

    LMFS wrote:Rafale is really expensive in international market and despite got almost 100 orders recently, that tells us how high its perceived value is.

    you mean and twisting and bribery ?  It India it ended up in big scandal. Arabs are more accustomed to palms greasing. But in every case it is easy to compare all Rafale history vs only F-35 made till now. Rafele is clear looser. An outdated looser good only in 3rd world countries bombing.




    miketheterrible wrote:F-35 is a piece of shit.  And actually, only thing of Su-57 that isn't ready for mass production is the engines.  radar components have been in production since the mid 2000's.  Reason why F-35 has so many orders is strong arming.  And while many nations called quits on it, others foot more of a bill because of backroom deals.  Even though all the problems with it are listed in a thick book.

    I can also mention that it isn't all that stealthy.  If a Su-35 picked it up rather easy,


    F-35 is perhaps overpriced (cost of programme) but is not as bad as many of you think. At least not for Russian chief-in-commander AF.
    Su-57 is very likely a better fighter but even if you can have 3 F-35 for 1 Su-57 Russians are on loosing side of business...

    Sponsored content

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 22 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:55 pm