Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    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 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:21 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:

    It's a horrible source buddy, but then again your recent claims of KKV interception vs Avantgarde is cited basically by a made up wiki musing, so this is par for the course for you.

    so basically duma is shit? , OK if you say so. Then do you have better estimates? dont be shy! enlighten all of us thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup




    As for Avangard, well it is alwasy great talking to THE expert, who knows Russian missiles better then gen Bondaryev. ! dont how long did you work on Avangard tech but Im sure you logn enough to know it all.  Keep you course buddy thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup


    MOSCOW, March 21 - RIA News. In order to intercept the Sarmat ICBM, at least 500 US antimissiles are needed, said Viktor Bondarev, chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security, told RIA Novosti

    .
    https://ria.ru/20180321/1516954239.html
    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 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:23 am

    LMFS wrote:
    You said the plan with the F-35 was to shoot before being seen and that was the rationale for renouncing to agility. But it so happens that Russia and others have means to detect the stealth planes and to stop their supporting assets and their communications. So in a potential conflict against Russia Western stealth fighters in all probability will not be able to play turkey shot guided by AWACS while they remain passive as they so often do against Third World countries. Without the possibility of shooting to unknowing opponents with impunity, they will have to switch on their radars and be detected. Against LO designs like Su-57 and J-20 they my not enjoy an advantage of many tens of miles for BVR combat and the encounter, especially when is many vs. many, can end up in the merge more frequently than not. Moreover, supported by OTH and other assets near their borders, the best possibility is that Russian planes (including non stealthy ones) can engage in passive long range BVR with their superior range missiles and payload. So the narrative behind that decision of abandoning agility for stealth is, IMHO, not solid.

    So I was not asking about who has more stealth fighters or if it makes sense to have them, but about your claim that they could down Russian planes unnoticed and abandon the rest of qualities of a fighter.



    lets agree on context, pls correct if i misunderstood something
    1) we were talking about MiG-29k vs F-35 and not Russia vs US
    IMHO MiG has no chances now. Check its Zhuk version vs F-35 available parameters



    2) You've mentioned now case when there are many Russian fighters and AWACS vs similar number of Us stealth numbers and then you state that you dont ask about numbers.

    IMHO - I dont think that F-35 was at first place designed in 90s (program started in 92 - after wiki) as advanced air supremacy fighter. Besides Russia, there are also other continues in the world without such level of radar tech. Russians in 90 had no stealth nor even on horizon. Economy was collapsing.

    If you compare 90s Soviet tech of 80s MiGs or Su-27 they had virtually little chance with F-35. Time passed and now F-35 has Su-57 and to some degree Su-35 and Su-30sm (if helped by low band radars). Yet still AFIAK its mode of application is to suppress AAD before entering any fight. F-35 to my understanding is more like element of network and likely will be accompanied with drones, external sources of information. I've read recently that US is pondering using drones as AAM trucks. F-35 has also advanced ERW for self defense.

    VLO is to me not meant to be invisible but that you can be seen when is too late. So instead of flying over AAD you use stand off from range where no radars can detect you yet.


    I recall words of Bondaryev as ok Su-57 is better than F-35 or F-22 but west in general has by order of magnitude more stealth fighters and none all 4++ fighters are obsolete in confrontation with technologically advanced adversary. So we need to keep eye on and make enough ours.

    So numbers do count for me.

    Does stealth count? IMHO yes it does, is it a silver bullet - no it is not. Like camo uniforms. You still can be seen in forest in camo uniform right? therwise why China and Russia are developing stealth tech?




    3) stealth must switch radars
    F-35 has AFAIK advanced IRST system so still passively can see in long ranges. can use radar data from drones/fighters.

    as for optical systems
    http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

    if both are fighters flying on 5000m then visual horizon is ~250km



    3) Russian fighters have bigger payload and range

    controversial to me. Su-30SM has 3,000km range on internal fuel? miG-29SM 1800 (on MiG avia afik) - F-35 has to available data 2,200km where with new "upgrade"of engine mgmt shall increase the range.


    Su-30 has 2 engines and ~9,600kg of fuel (wiki)
    F-35 1 engine and 8,900kg of fuel

    I'm not sure if ranges are that different

    Pzyload? Su-30sm ~8tons same as F-35





    LMFS wrote:
    if you have "more credible" sources be my guest, otherwise other members of this forum can expect more constructive critics from you.
    No I have no solid information about price of the Su-57. Nobody can expect me to provide that information if it is not publicly available. But I will inquire if someone provides supposed information that is unfounded upon scrutiny.

    a scrutiny like checking MiG take off on F-18 in videogame simulator? we exchange out best knowledge and sources if we have better lt's share. Or we can not tlak abputy topics at all.



    LMFS wrote:No, first contract was signed for two units this summerhttps://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5480249

    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201808231750-f2hv.htm

    and 13 more shall join them. But still 300 + already built F-35 and no serial Su-57 yet.



    LMFS wrote:
    there was nothing mentioned of anything else but fighters. If you want to know more please search, I look forward to seeing them from you. I would ask then does it contain fly away price only of including costs of programme? how calculate it for Su-35 as main amount was invested in USSR? how to calculate inflation?
    If I make claims you are of course entitled to question them, we are in a forum after all.

    fair approach, we might disagree on anything as long as we are attacking messages not messengers



    but if exact price is  relevant from military point of view then please search and provide members of this forum with relevant info. For me, personally,  ~2x price is enough to know.
    Only that estimation is just your guess. Ok for me if you believe it, but don't ask me to accept it just because you say. OK
    [/quote]

    You dotn have to believe me of course, but do you have any feasible explanation why only 2 Su-57 were ordered and 15 is planned?
    they are so cheap?






    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3316363.html
    no info that I know of, estimates were based on proposal of contract form MiG couple of years ago.  Prce was ~Rub 1 bn.
    Ok, this is unofficial and referred to armament program 2011-2020 so heavily affected by inflation.


    All is guessing here, and rough estimates, check point below. Besides with each contract/feature/update price grows, will be AESA? will be laser weapons?batch will be long or short? will it be deck version for Indians?




    LMFS wrote: taking into account that F-35 is about $120m ~40% is $48m which is... ~₽3,3bn welcome welcome welcome
    No, price of F-35 in its most representative version is 89.2 million. 2.5 times less is 35.7 million dollar or 2.47 billion ruble at the current rates. [/quote]

    90 is F-35A 115 B and 107 C if no in CNBC was form end of September. Duma dude was talking in beginning of July. Previously was $94.3 million, the Marine Corps jet at $122.4 million, and the Navy $121.2 million. To which version was referring duma dude? and which period do you know? I dont. Is 2,5 exact number? I dotn know either. What as exchange rate then? and what ill be next year?

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/f-35-fighter-jets-americas-most-expensive-weapons-system-just-got-a-little-cheaper.html
    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 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:31 am

    Isos wrote:

    Yeah but those ones still need expensive carriers like tu-160. Kalibr and iskander are launched from cheap trucks and can achieve same result. Kinzhal is a nice bonus against carriers however.

    Carriers are still less expensive than building CSGs and Iskander doesnt have range of GZUR + Tu. Putin and military said about ~4000 deial zone with precision weapons.
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:47 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:lets agree on context, pls correct if i misunderstood something
    1) we were talking about MiG-29k vs F-35 and not Russia vs US
    IMHO MiG has no chances now. Check its Zhuk version vs F-35 available parameters
    That discussion is rather meaningless to me and not fair to start with, don't know why the insistence. MiG-29K are a stop-gap measure. Nobody is saying they are 1 on 1 as capable as newly developed 5G fighter, that would be absurd unless the 5G fighter is a complete failure. MiGs are decently updated, operational naval fighters of which Russia has just bought 2 sqdn., so most probably they will use them at the K in the 20's, as main fighters until they have something better and in lesser roles until they are worn out. Since you defend Russia will not seek direct confrontation with USN and is ok with missiles as deterrent and low-profile posture in the high seas, I do not understand your problems with MiGs. They will be substituted in time so relax.

    BTW still confused about Zhuk A/AM since they have changed names so many times. Some sources indicate 250 km range for the radar. I guess it will not be frozen until they are ordered in numbers.

    controversial to me. Su-30SM has 3,000km range on internal fuel? miG-29SM 1800 (on MiG avia afik)  - F-35 has to available data 2,200km where with new "upgrade"of engine mgmt shall increase the range.


    Su-30 has 2 engines and ~9,600kg of fuel (wiki)
    F-35 1 engine and 8,900kg of fuel

    I'm not sure if ranges are that different

    Pzyload? Su-30sm ~8tons same as F-35
    Su-35 has 3600 km on internal fuel. F-35, at best, something above 2800. Considering size of airframe it is not the same for a Flanker to carry 8 tons than for a F-35, even when it could lift with them. Unclear in any case if max payload is compatible with max fuel.

    Flankers can carry more missiles, and some really long ranged ones that go beyond what is available to US fighters at all. F-35 loaded to max payload would be easily seen on radar and terribly slow so it would be worse than a F-15 for the role.

    a scrutiny like checking MiG take off  on F-18 in videogame simulator?
    Your apparent incapacity to check the physics behind a simulation tool is fortunately not enough to rule it out. Make the calculations yourself and prove the results are not valid, this is physics not statements from officials so they can be checked by any one, any time.

    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201808231750-f2hv.htm

    and 13 more shall join them. But still 300 + already built F-35 and no serial Su-57 yet.
    But nothing. Your source (a self discrediting article) could not be tracked to anything official and your statement about lack of Su-57 contracts was inaccurate, F-35 has nothing to do with that.

    You dotn have to believe me of course,  but do you have any feasible explanation why only 2 Su-57 were ordered and 15 is planned?
    they are so cheap?
    I rather tend to think they want, on the one hand, to be sure everything in the production goes well before ordering more units, and on the other, to wait for the 2nd stage engine. Price should not be a huge surprise to MoD at this stage of program.
    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 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:33 pm

    LMFS wrote: BTW still confused about Zhuk A/AM since they have changed names so many times. Some sources indicate 250 km range for the radar. I guess it will not be frozen until they are ordered in numbers.

    http://kaf401.rloc.ru/files/BRLSChars.pdf
    https://mai.ru/desktop.html


    here you have more recent one
    http://bastion-karpenko.ru/guk-me/
    http://www.missiles.ru/AESA_Phaz-2009.htm

    even 300km -destroyer size, front - 120 km 5m2. In wiki there is table where up to 200km fighter but in last link here this fighter is 5m2 and "was to be" later 1m2.




    LMFS wrote: Su-35 has 3600 km on internal fuel. F-35, at best, something above 2800. Considering size of airframe it is not the same for a Flanker to carry 8 tons than for a F-35, even when it could lift with them. Unclear in any case if max payload is compatible with max fuel.

    Flankers can carry more missiles, and some really long ranged ones that go beyond what is available to US fighters at all. F-35 loaded to max payload would be easily seen on radar and terribly slow so it would be worse than a F-15 for the role.

    max flue and max payload are EXOR operations to me. Su-34 with max payload radius is 700km? feel free to check, Im not sure how long Su-35 can go with full payload but again, airfields network is not so dense in Russia and Su-35 with max payload unlikely will make those 1600km radius as in wiki. And u-35 is also slower with 12 pylons with missiles.

    Su-35 radar can see (wiki) 1m2 form 400km but how long can see 0,01m2? IDK. In order to use all BVR missiles you need to see hwere to shoot, and missile has to be in "guaranteed destruction range". So IMHOit is not so easy.

    Of course Su-35 is air superiority fighter unlike F-35 but my point is that Su-35 vs, F-35 would no be a piece of cake. BTW recent dada I hae is 320 F-35 and 70 Su-35.



    LMFS wrote:
    a scrutiny like checking MiG take off  on F-18 in videogame simulator?
    Your apparent incapacity to check the physics behind a simulation tool is fortunately not enough to rule it out. Make the calculations yourself and prove the results are not valid, this is physics not statements from officials so they can be checked by any one, any time.
    [/quote]


    physics behind vid game? well so which formulas does this game use? Please not mix vid games unless you can calculate with precision this. Can you elaborate in detail which formulas
    you used for your calculations? Thnaks in advance. thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup



    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201808231750-f2hv.htm

    and 13 more shall join them. But still 300 + already built F-35 and no serial Su-57 yet.
    But nothing. Your source (a self discrediting article) could not be tracked to anything official and your statement about lack of Su-57 contracts was inaccurate, F-35 has nothing to do with that.[/quote]

    ok do deputy MoD is not reliable but old vid game for kids with is + flying concrete runways ? as you wish. And yes F-35 number DOE have a lot to do with Su-57 procurement. That's and other Vgen programes are the main driving force behind it.




    LMFS wrote:
    You dotn have to believe me of course,  but do you have any feasible explanation why only 2 Su-57 were ordered and 15 is planned?
    they are so cheap?
    I rather tend to think they want, on the one hand, to be sure everything in the production goes well before ordering more units, and on the other, to wait for the 2nd stage engine. Price should not be a huge surprise to MoD at this stage of program.

    so wjy MiG-35 was ordered in 6 pieces in 2018 till 2023 (so one per year)? it it is so cheap and so good and money is in full supply?
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2441
    Points : 2439
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Jan 20, 2019 6:52 am

    4,500 Marines, F-35 Squadron on Standby in Middle East as U.S. Mulls Syria Exit
    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 4714153-945x630
    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 1000w_q95-12
    Can any1 see flight deck damage?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20877
    Points : 21431
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:19 am

    Can any1 see flight deck damage?

    Trying to be a dickhead?

    That is clearly not taking off vertically... and it is pretty clear to see it is not in full AB.

    Rolling takeoffs take advantage of wing lift to add more weight in fuel and weapons to operational payload and mean full take off thrust is not needed.

    Vertical takeoffs require full AB and restrict weights because there is no additional lift from the wings.

    Besides... they haven't used that carrier to support operations... it is their running away carrier to take things as they are leaving in case they have to do it under fire in a hurry... hardly a good reference for buying such equipment.

    Regarding the other bollocks... GD... get over it... they have MiG-29KRs in service and odds are they are not going to get any replacements for the next 10 years at least even if this new STOL aircraft design is fully funded.

    You admit the MiG-29KR against US F-35s is a pointless discussion, and even if it wasn't why are you comparing existing stats when they wont go on a sea deployment for the next 4-5 years anyway... which is plenty of time to develop their new photon based radars which will make US F-22s, F-35s and B-22s all obsolete overnight.

    They could put these new radars on helicopters and they would still be better off than with a VSTOL fighter aircraft.

    BTW Stop mixing the numbers... you keep using the range and fuel weight figures for the land based conventional F-35 when it is supposed to be for the VSTOL F-35...

    You also keep bullshitting on about max weights when no fighter aircraft anywhere EVER operates at max weights except for marketting photos.

    With only having 6 internal weapon stores positions the F-35 could not even carry its full weapon payload... they use the same bullshit with the B-1B claiming it can carry x amount of weapons but that includes external weapons which dramatically shorten range and reduce speed and have never been fitted.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2441
    Points : 2439
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:32 pm

    That is clearly not taking off vertically... and it is pretty clear to see it is not in full AB. Rolling takeoffs take advantage of wing lift to add more weight in fuel and weapons to operational payload and mean full take off thrust is not needed. Vertical takeoffs require full AB and restrict weights because there is no additional lift from the wings.
    Absolutely! That's why they'll seldom use the VTOL mode; the deck will be made heat resistant & last a long time.

    Besides... they haven't used that carrier to support operations... it is their running away carrier to take things as they are leaving in case they have to do it under fire in a hurry... hardly a good reference for buying such equipment.
    UDKs will be the 1st in to show the flag & "to kick the door" & the last out when the crisis ends. 1 doesn't exclude the other!
    MEU stands for Marine Expeditionary Unit- its mission include humanitarian assistance, naval diplomacy, emergency evacuations, special ops, Intel gathering, assault, power projection, & SAR, to name a few:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_operations_capable#Conventional_operations
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_operations_capable
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20877
    Points : 21431
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:50 am

    Absolutely! That's why they'll seldom use the VTOL mode; the deck will be made heat resistant & last a long time.

    SO IF THEY ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE OFF VERTICALLY OPERATIONALLY THEN WTF IS THE POINT OF DEVELOPING AIRCRAFT THAT CAN TAKE OFF VERTICALLY IF THEY WILL ONLY EVER DO IT AT AIR SHOWS?

    10 billion dollars to develop a new light 5th gen fighter that will have a high thrust to weight ratio and internal weapons storage meaning low drag... so the new plane they talk about it more likely to be the F-35A and F-35C without the complication and costs of the vertical takeoff F-35B will make it a much better aircraft, a much cheaper aircraft, a much simpler aircraft, and a much more capable aircraft...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2441
    Points : 2439
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:59 am

    The VTOL capability gives the more optimal STOL option; VTOL can be used as a backup.
    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 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Jan 21, 2019 1:20 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Can any1 see flight deck damage?
    That is clearly not taking off vertically... and it is pretty clear to see it is not in full AB.
    Rolling takeoffs take advantage of wing lift to add more weight in fuel and weapons to operational payload and mean full take off thrust is not needed.
    Vertical takeoffs require full AB and restrict weights because there is no additional lift from the wings.

    1) no deck was damaged, even though full AB w used
    2) vertical TO is not needed in most of cases , why if VSTOL can take off 300% shorter runway then any MiG?


    Kiwi-guy wrote: they have MiG-29KRs in service and odds are they are not going to get any replacements for the next 10 years a.

    This ws already stated countless of times by Russian MoD, nd for you this is news? lol1 lol1 29s re gonn to were out slowly but surely adequate fighters.


    Of course Su-35 is air superiority fighter unlike F-35 but my point is that Su-35 vs, F-35 would no be a piece of cake. BTW recent dada I hae is 320 F-35 and 70 Su-35.

    And Tie fighters and Star Destroyers too, right? WTF are you talking about? so far NONE of Russian operational fighter has AESA. Perhaps part of 13 new Su-57's will receive one (or not). You clearly live in parallel universe.



    GB wrote: Just have the Su-35s operate over the IADS of the surface fleet and those pansy F-35s wont go anywhere near... and besides those Su-35s could carry 1,500km range Gzur missiles.... or should I say the Su-57K will...

    And how Su-35 will reach this location from shore? affraid affraid affraid affraid
    higurashihougi
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2243
    Points : 2336
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  higurashihougi on Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:43 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Of course Su-35 is air superiority fighter unlike F-35 but my point is that Su-35 vs, F-35 would no be a piece of cake. BTW recent dada I hae is 320 F-35 and 70 Su-35.

    And Tie fighters and Star Destroyers too, right?  WTF   are you talking about? so far NONE of Russian operational fighter has  AESA.  Perhaps part of 13 new Su-57's will receive one (or not).   You clearly live in parallel universe.

    Personally I don't think having an AESA is very critical if we just put it on the nose and not make full use of AESA advantages, for example putting the radar and the wingtips or coating the radar on aerodynamic surface of the aircraft.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20877
    Points : 21431
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:31 am

    The VTOL capability gives the more optimal STOL option; VTOL can be used as a backup.

    The officials that have been quoted properly say the new plane for carrier use will be STOL with a remote possibility of STOVL.

    Some Harrier fans have read this to mean the Russians are building an F-35... at a time when they are barely building Su-57s and Su-35s.

    1) no deck was damaged, even though full AB w used

    So you are saying they turned the AB off for that photo?

    2) vertical TO is not needed in most of cases , why if VSTOL can take off 300% shorter runway then any MiG?

    Vertical takeoffs never happen because they make the aircraft useless in terms of payload and fuel load and they damage the runway... that is why they call them STOVL aircraft.

    The Harrier was called VSTOL... but after some time of operational experience they called them STOVL too.

    This ws already stated countless of times by Russian MoD, nd for you this is news? lol1 lol1 29s re gonn to were out slowly but surely adequate fighters.

    Your reading dyslexia means it needs to be repeated to you over and over... they are planning to make a replacement... but odds are it will take a decade to get it into operational service...


    And how Su-35 will reach this location from shore?

    Thought the hint was in the comment about the Su-57K... the naval model.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2441
    Points : 2439
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:42 am

    Some Harrier fans have read this to mean the Russians are building an F-35... at a time when they are barely building Su-57s and Su-35s.
    They r designing/evaluating a cheaper STOVL, but apparently the Chinese r alreday building it. They'll join their forces to reduce costs & time in a win-win for both.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20877
    Points : 21431
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:41 am

    They are developing a light 5th gen fighter... it might have the ability to land vertically but I doubt it is worth the effort...

    It is more likely they will drop the vertical component as it is just not worth the extra cost and complexity, and make a nice little stealthy MiG-21 with a bit more range and a bit more payload...

    BTW after the Chinese have built their STOVL aircraft they will realise what the Russians knew all along... fragile reduced performance pieces of crap.

    And that is not a dig at the Chinese or the Russians or the Americans or the British.

    Build the worlds best tank... lots of countries can make something rather competitive... the problem is when you demand that it can fly... so you take a well armoured well armed highly mobile tank and to get it to fly to take away most of the protection and the fire power and end up with something that can arrive without warning, but against enemy ground based tanks you are in trouble unless they are a third world country with no IADS and no decent air force to speak of.

    In the early 1980s the Soviet equivalent of the Sea Harrier was the MiG-29, but even if the Argentines had MiG-23s they would have had an enormous advantage over the Sea Harriers because like the F-16 of the time it was a sidewinder armed aircraft so the Argentines could have used their superior speed zipped in and launched BVR missiles and then flown home to rearm and refuel and do it again and there is really not much the Harriers could have done about it.

    Without air control things would have gone quite differently...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2441
    Points : 2439
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:10 pm

    BTW after the Chinese have built their STOVL aircraft they will realise what the Russians knew all along... fragile reduced performance pieces of crap.
    still they r a lot better than attack helos & can help their marines to secure a beachhead & conduct CAPs!
    ..if the Argentines had MiG-23s they would have had an enormous advantage over the Sea Harriers

    The RN didn't have anything else to use, so they were pressed to engage enemy land based NAF. So yes, they were lucky.
    By the time the VMF & PLAN get STOVLs, there may be STOL UCAVs, & in any case for the fleet & target beach AD/AD, long/short range SAMs r better & cheaper option than CTOL fighters.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20877
    Points : 21431
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:51 am

    still they r a lot better than attack helos & can help their marines to secure a beachhead & conduct CAPs!

    Actually that is a good analogy... developing STOVL aircraft from scratch is like trying to modify an attack helo to use it as a cheap fighter so you can operate it from smaller cheaper ships.

    If you want to be such a tight  censored  why bother making anything at all... it will be even cheaper and need no ships to operate from.

    The fact is that if you want to operate globally then there is a minimum size these ships need to be to be effective.

    To land on a beach head the Russian naval infantry will need a landing ship like Mistral... which has helicopters... but can you honestly say... hand on heart that that landing will be successful if they make four extra Mistral sized ships and put 12 STOVL fighters on each?

    And at over 1 billion dollars each, plus 10 billion to make the new STOVL fighters to operate from it... how is that saving money when you could get two fixed wing REAL aircraft carriers that actually are worth taking to a fight for less.

    Looking at operations in Syria, I would say an AEW aircraft like Ka-35 could scan for low flying threats while the support ships can scan for medium to high threats... do they even need fixed wing support for a landing?

    The Ka-52s have dual use missiles in the form of Vikhr, and soon Hermes which would be effective air to air weapons as well as able to hit point ground targets from significant ranges, and with radar they would be able to detect incoming missile and munition threats too.

    The RN didn't have anything else to use, so they were pressed to engage enemy land based NAF. So yes, they were lucky.

    The Argentines didn't dare invade when the Brits had the Ark Royal with Buccaneers and Phantoms and proper AEW aircraft... it would have been much easier and much safer for the British forces...

    in any case for the fleet & target beach AD/AD, long/short range SAMs r better & cheaper option than CTOL fighters.

    When even their Frigates have 130mm guns I rather suspect their destroyers and cruisers should have something like a 152mm gun for naval gun support operations, and the forces themselves have their own artillery and direct fire weapons to support the landing... plus of course attack helos...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2441
    Points : 2439
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:13 am

    ..if they make four extra Mistral sized ships and put 12 STOVL fighters on each?
    Their planned UDK/TAKR hybrid will be ~1.5-2 x bigger than Mistral, with more aircraft space on deck & in hangars.
    They never built a direct copy/replica of anything in the West, & their future ships will be no exception.
    If u really want to understand Russians, go to Russia & spend a few years there; anything else would be a waste of time!
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2441
    Points : 2439
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:03 am

    It should be noted that an experimental model of a promising vertical take-off aircraft is being developed by the presidential decree in our country, Deputy Prime Minister Y. Borisov told the press. According to him, the project is included in the state rearmament program. ... "Conceptually, the project was launched last year. If you stick to the plan, in 8-10 years the machine will go into production."
    https://zen.yandex.ru/media/derjava/kakaia-sudba-ojidaet-otechestvennyi-avianesuscii-kreiser-admiral-kuznecov-5c6025e5facd8f00aef3679b

    By then, they should have at least 1 UDK.
    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 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:40 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:

    Personally I don't think having an AESA is very critical if we just put it on the nose and not make full use of AESA advantages, for example putting the radar and the wingtips or coating the radar on aerodynamic surface of the aircraft.

    Im not a radar engineer but (AFAIK) AESA can detect objects with longer range then any other radar with same power. Not to mention different frequencies in the same time. Thus even w/o "distributed " antenna radar will have advantage.

    My text you've referred to was an answer to some previous GB own production about of "optonic radars with L band antennas on Su-35 in middle of the ocean " to see F-35. So the world that is parallel to rest of us.
    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 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:45 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:It should be noted that an experimental model of a promising vertical take-off aircraft is being developed by the presidential decree in our country, Deputy Prime Minister Y. Borisov told the press. According to him, the project is included in the state rearmament program. ... "Conceptually, the project was launched last year. If you stick to the plan, in 8-10 years the machine will go into production."
    https://zen.yandex.ru/media/derjava/kakaia-sudba-ojidaet-otechestvennyi-avianesuscii-kreiser-admiral-kuznecov-5c6025e5facd8f00aef3679b

    dotn worry, he wont red it with understanding s he never was on this topic - GB when hears the VSTOL word is like trigger to another personality.  He sees Su-35 in the middle of the ocean, he sees destroyed runways but provides no videos, he knows better vSTOL is not needed. However due to some strange reason  none of navies r listening ot him continuing working on  or using VSTOL.



    Tsavo Lion wrote: Their planned UDK/TAKR hybrid will be ~1.5-2 x bigger than Mistral, with more aircraft space on deck & in hangars.
    They never built a direct copy/replica of anything in the West, & their future ships will be no exception.
    If u really want to understand Russians, go to Russia & spend a few years there; anything else would be a waste of time!

    its not bout replicating anything but matching own doctrine/requirements. Whether it will be mix udk/takr or more classic CVN none of us knows yet. We need to wit which project will be approved.

    However I gree with you bout such mix. Why:

    1) costs - procurement +l maintenance

    2) December's interview with chief-commander of naval aviation + Russian chief-navy-officer looks like missiles will be min asset, not an air-wing, there will be 2-3 (afair) CSGs around "aircraft carrying ships"
    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 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:20 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The VTOL capability gives the more optimal STOL option; VTOL can be used as a backup.

    The officials that have been quoted properly say the new plane for carrier use will be STOL with a remote possibility of STOVL.

    there were no "remote possibility" words there. There were for sure " STOL or even VTOL"




    GB wrote:
    2) vertical TO is not needed in most of cases , why if VSTOL can take off 300% shorter runway then any MiG?

    Vertical takeoffs never happen because they make the aircraft useless in terms of payload and fuel load and they damage the runway...

    with so how many examples did you take into consideration to draw such conclusion? Why to protect ship groupings you need thousands kilometers of range and tons of payload ? Su-33 in AA config hs ~50% of max paylod, if this applies to MiG-29lkthen 2,300kg is in AA mission. You can easily have this range in VTO mode.

    VSTOL STOVL is technically the same. All gays prefer fancy names as STOVL




    GB wrote:
    This ws already stated countless of times by Russian MoD, nd for you this is news? lol1 lol1 29s re gonn to were out slowly but surely adequate fighters.

    .. they are planning to make a replacement... but odds are it will take a decade to get it into operational service...

    so?




    GB wrote:
    And how Su-35 will reach this location from shore?
    Thought the hint was in the comment about the Su-57K... the naval model.

    sure thing
    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Image_5a9cac379fec57_55975701





    GB wrote:. don't spook him... you never know what he might do...
    road rage?

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 4391175597_4170850038
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20877
    Points : 21431
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:00 am

    Their planned UDK/TAKR hybrid will be ~1.5-2 x bigger than Mistral, with more aircraft space on deck & in hangars.

    You can speculate all you like... the design they paid for was the Mistral design... are you suggesting they have gone for a plan to build a 5th gen STOL that might possibly have STOVL characteristics and are redesigning a proven design (Mistral) to an untested and unproven design (twice as big) on the off chance the STOVL aircraft might be a STOVL aircraft that actually works... unlike all their previous STOVL designs which have been failures?

    They have stated that their plans for a CVN involve a carrier slightly bigger and with more capacity for aircraft than the Kuznetsov... which does not sound like a STOVL carrier to me. But whether the STOVL succeeds of fails it would have no problem operating from such a carrier... you could not say the same if they built a 30K ton mini carrier and the STOVL aircraft was a failure or just ordinary and no better than the MiG-29KR of todays navy.

    They never built a direct copy/replica of anything in the West, & their future ships will be no exception.

    Not strictly true in the sense that when they bought the Maxim Machine Gun design... it was called a Maxim in the Soviet Army, when they bought the DC-3 transport aircraft design as the Li-2 they didn't change the design very much at all, and when they had the chance to copy the B-29 and the Sidewinder, the products they produced were not totally different from the original... the Tu-4 had rather better cannon defensive armament, and engines that had less tendency to burst into flames, while the R-13 and R-3 used Soviet IR sensors and rocket motors they were basically just Russianised weapons with modifications based on practicality.

    By then, they should have at least 1 UDK.

    And if it turns into a failure like the Yak-41 they have a big fucking useless ship... and no replacement possible.

    Their plans will likely include a fixed wing carrier slightly bigger than Kuznetsov, so whether the new fighter is a STOVL or a more conventional STOL type it will be able to operate from their new CVNs.

    Their replacement helicopter carrier wont need V takeoff fighters... it would be rather more useful to have V takeoff support aircraft like transports and attack helos.

    Amusing you are suggesting that half a dozen VSTOL fighters on a ship would make it better when it is supposed to be a landing ship... perhaps making it a battle ship to provide its own naval gun support could help too... make it three times bigger than Mistral and put 6 jet fighters and 6 heavy gun turrets for ground support... of course that means no room for Russian naval infantry troops or vehicles and therefore no landing capacity at all but it will be much cheaper than a fixed wing carrier and that is what is important isn't it?

    Shocked

    Im not a radar engineer but (AFAIK) AESA can detect objects with longer range then any other radar with same power. Not to mention different frequencies in the same time. Thus even w/o "distributed " antenna radar will have advantage.

    An X band or Ku band AESA cannot scan in L band or VHS frequency ranges... the L band AESA radar on the Russian stealth hunting fighters seems to suggest better performance than the Ku or X band radars they have fitted in their noses.

    Russian development in detecting stealth targets of all types from fighters and bombers to UAVs seem to be based on different radar frequencies combined together with processing and intelligent algorithms to sort out a much clearer view of the air space...

    My text you've referred to was an answer to some previous GB own production about of "optonic radars with L band antennas on Su-35 in middle of the ocean " to see F-35. So the world that is parallel to rest of us.

    Of course... future Russian naval fighters will be equipped with radars from the 1970s and weapons from years before that so there can be no consideration regarding any systems they are working on today... that sort of thing wont be fitted to anything for 100 years or more...

    I mean why plan to develop new types of radar when you have no intention of ever using it?

    dotn worry, he wont red it with understanding s he never was on this topic - GB when hears the VSTOL word is like trigger to another personality.  He sees Su-35 in the middle of the ocean, he sees destroyed runways but provides no videos, he knows better vSTOL is not needed. However due to some strange reason  none of navies r listening ot him continuing working on  or using VSTOL.

    It is a dead end street... it is like Ekranoplans... sounds like a great idea and on paper makes a lot of sense... but in practical terms the advantages are not actually what is promised, and the drawbacks are enormous...

    Ekranoplans sound like a great idea... greatly reducing drag so the planes can become enormous... almost like ships but with the speed a large fraction of an aircraft... but then comes the but... Ekranoplans have to operate very near sea level where jet engines are terrible and real high speed flight... ie 800-900km/h that most airliners can manage is just too fast for an aircraft of any size at near sea level... so they might be low drag but they are slower and much less efficient than an aircraft...

    VSTOL aircraft can operate anywhere so they will be the only aircraft flying in WWIII... well in actual fact they can't and have serious FOD issues even on normal airfields and of course the new ones that are supposed to be supersonic need really big powerful AB engines that destroy anything but specially heat resistant runways... it was the main reason the Chinese spent all that money buying the ex Kiev class carriers... they wanted that heat resistant surface material...

    At full fuel and weapon load there is not going to be any vertical take off of anything.

    If there is a problem and they have to land straight away they will need to dump all weapons and as much fuel as they can dump before it would be safe to land vertically...

    2) December's interview with chief-commander of naval aviation + Russian chief-navy-officer looks like missiles will be min asset, not an air-wing, there will be 2-3 (afair) CSGs around "aircraft carrying ships"

    The Russians have never been super hot on aircraft only providing air defence... an EMALS along with a AWACS platform offers early warning about attacks and warnings about low flying threats... even an airship could provide that...

    The Soviets created nuclear power sources 40 years ago... TOPAZ weighed about 350kgs and generated 5Kw for about 3-5 years... a dozen of those with improved design and performance in a removable block module could easily be attached to an airship with electric motors and flown around following Russian surface ships... new technology in the area could make it even more efficient and effective... it does not need to be enormous... and it would be a hell of a lot more useful than a piece of crap F-35B.

    there were no "remote possibility" words there. There were for sure " STOL or even VTOL"

    The quotes you gave properly quoted by LMFS clearly showed the speculative nature of the comments... there was nothing certain about them.

    with so how many examples did you take into consideration to draw such conclusion? Why to protect ship groupings you need thousands kilometers of range and tons of payload ? Su-33 in AA config hs ~50% of max paylod, if this applies to MiG-29lkthen 2,300kg is in AA mission. You can easily have this range in VTO mode.

    Interception is improved with range and speed... neither of which is a strong point of any VSTOL aircraft that ever served operationally...

    VSTOL STOVL is technically the same. All gays prefer fancy names as STOVL

    VSTOL suggests both vertical takeoffs and vertical landings... which as I said is inaccurate because vertical takeoffs limit fuel and weapon loads and put stress on the engine shortening its operational life.

    Even aircraft able to take off vertically almost never do operationally because it is safer and easier to take off in a rolling takeoff mode.

    Even helicopters like the Hind and Hip use rolling takeoffs to improve transitional lift...

    so?

    So in ten years time the abysmal failure of the F-35B and the problems getting the new light 5th gen fighters to reach requirements without being able to fake it like the US did with the F-35 will have forced the cancellation of the V component of the programme...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2441
    Points : 2439
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:44 am

    untested and unproven design (twice as big)
    Not 2x, ~1.5-1.75 x!
    And if it turns into a failure like the Yak-41 they have a big fucking useless ship..
    They could make into a helo/tiltrotor/UAV carrier, tender/supply/command ship or add a ski rump for STOBAR ops.
    I'm sure they could re-purpose a ship with so much volume or in the worst case, mothball it for later use.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20877
    Points : 21431
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 20, 2019 11:12 am

    Not 2x, ~1.5-1.75 x!

    The point is that a bigger helicopter carrier to potentially be able to carry some STOVL fighters that might eventually become available is not a great gamble as it will not make it more effective in its primary role as a landing ship... it will just make it more expensive for what it is.

    Frankly there is no situation where Russia would use a helicopter landing ship and NOT use a fixed wing carrier, so if there is a fixed wing carrier there then why would you reduce the capacity of your helicopter carrier to put fighter planes on there?

    If the idea is that by making VSTOL fighters you can somehow magically make airsupport for ships and landings cheap and simple then you are dreaming... building 10 helicopter carriers instead of four so that you can have 6 spare that can be filled with fighter planes to some how compensate for the fact that you don't have a fixed wing carrier... well why not take that logic a step further and save even more money and use a container ship instead of an expensive helicopter carrier for those VSTOL fighters... it was something the British were thinking about in the 1980s before they actually had real combat experience with a dinky little VSTOL carrier... so what happened there?

    I believe if you check the cash strapped British military that cuts its budget every time it goes to war and finds it can still get the job done seems to be making carriers that are a bit bigger than 30K tons you are talking about.... in fact the carriers they have built are pretty damn close in size to the carriers the Russians want... the 70K ton weight.... ie slightly bigger than the Kuznetsov... the difference is that the Brits have committed to buying STOVL aircraft from the Yanks... they started thinking about a carrier in the 40-50K ton weight range and revised it up... simply because bigger carriers are better in many ways.

    They didn't even think of American sized 100K ton carriers because that is just wasteful and silly... but they clearly wanted something bigger than the Invincible... just like the Russians experience told them that the Kiev class VSTOL carriers were limited, and the Kuznetsov was a step in the right direction but a slightly bigger carrier... which they were planning all along and what got sold to China in an incomplete form is what they really needed... now they can look to innovation and engineering skill and design a brand new design from scratch... a carrier bigger than the Kuznetsov could still operate STOVL aircraft, but could carry conventional aircraft too...

    They could make into a helo/tiltrotor/UAV carrier, tender/supply/command ship or add a ski rump for STOBAR ops.
    I'm sure they could re-purpose a ship with so much volume or in the worst case, mothball it for later use.

    I would think it would be very irresponsible to tie up a shipyard with such a gamble... there is no point in having any carriers without support ships too, so make a couple of those and think about things some more if that is what is needed.

    Sponsored content

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 26 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:17 am