Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Tue Feb 26, 2019 1:23 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:well not only Krylov is in Russia but true they have best PR so far Razz Razz Razz
    From what I know, Krilov is not a design bureau but a state research center. So, something like TsAGI or CIAM if I m not wrong. They should take a look at general aspects of shipbuilding sciences and engineering. They should not design any concrete vessel but will evaluate them at their facilities.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20805
    Points : 21359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:04 pm

    Before the 1st controlled airplane flight, many were saying that it wasn't possible.
    R u directly involved in their STOVL design? Perhaps u r an expert & a genius- in that case, pl. accept my apology & my hat is off to u. Just post copies of ur credentials for all to see- "trust, but verify".

    Not the same... there have been plenty of attempts at VSTOL fighters in the past and all claimed to have solved the problems and be better than conventional fighters because they will be the only ones still flying in WWIII because all airfields will instantly be destroyed.

    The fact is that they have nothing currently that is any better than the aircraft they already have.

    To develop a new aircraft makes perfect sense, and I am on record suggesting a new lighter cheaper 5th gen fighter would be a good idea... but a STOVL aircraft will be the opposite of that... the F-35 proves this... it will turn it into a more expensive more fragile more damage prone aircraft... and for what... so they can have slightly smaller aircraft carriers that would be less effective anyway.

    R u saying that the Brits r more stupid or not smarter than the French when it comes to naval & aviation matters? Why would they limit themselves to be inferior to French?

    Well the Russians have Su-33s and MiG-29KRs on their carrier... are the Russians more stupid than the Brits and the French and the Americans?

    Why would they limit their carriers to be inferior to everyone else?

    The Brits have little money to spend... if they did they would have EMALS cats and a naval version of Typhoon to use and export to anyone with an open chequebook... instead they took the "cheaper" quicker option of going with the very expensive F-35B... and over time as they crash and burn they might regret that decision... but we have to give them time.

    They saved on CATOBAR, N reactors, extra crews, & still got what they need to restore their glory on the high seas, at least in their minds.

    The cost of extra ships that recover those 120 billion dollar planes from the sea floor will make them think again perhaps?

    A nuclear reactor would improve their ship, and CATOBAR was normal for them with the Ark Royal and previous carriers...

    Even if it's not as good as a CVN with CATOBAR, they can send 2 of them instead of 1. Still cheaper & more flexible than 1 CVN.

    No it isn't.

    That is like saying having two motorbikes is more flexible for a couple than having one car... tell me about that when it rains and someone has to get the kids home from school and do the shopping.

    Once you buy the motorbike and all the leathers there are no air bags on a bike and if you get it wrong you are probably the one that is going to die. You can still get killed in a car but you are asking for it on a motorbike.

    The helmet is to protect your face for easier identification after a serious accident.

    “In one of our design bureaus, we made a universal vessel design that can serve four purposes, that is, an identical ship at the bow and below the waterline with specialized superstructures that are provided for various tasks,” said Rakhmanov.

    It says bow and below the waterline but the stern is modular and able to change... which makes sense for towed arrays or rear entry landing vessels etc... but that also suggests that the length could be extended or varied so you are not limited to small aircraft carriers that are the same size as your helo carriers.

    Besides this is an idea pitched by the ship makers... the navy might say that is fine for destroyer and cruiser/helicopter carrier sized vessels but we want bigger CVNs...

    The USN isn't experienced in the high latitudes won't risk sending CSGs there: they don't have big icebreakers & in any case the Arctic environment will decimate ships & AWs.

    They wont have enough tents for the ships on deck...

    and I believe I recall a case where they did take a carrier north and its steam catapult system froze and so no aircraft could get into the air because all of their aircraft needed cat assistance to get airborne... unlike Russian carriers.... where none of them do.... Twisted Evil

    Fighters for sure but I dotn think Russians will focus only on fighter function not on universal platform tho.

    New generation fighters are not going to be single role any more I suspect... the French are calling their Rafale Omnirole...

    But comparing the risk of sending a 30-60 million dollar fighter over enemy held territory to deliver a dumb bomb precisely on target, or firing off a 152mm barrage of 5-10 shells from 30km offshore to targets 30km inshore... well those guns are going to be sitting there anyway, so might as well get some use out of them... especially when naval infantry troops on the front line are probably marking enemy targets with lasers anyway...

    That was not answering my question you know ;-) BTW You can always refuel in the air right. I just dont see why radius comparable with MG_29k is that bad for you?

    When you are intercepting an incoming threat it does not help the F-35Bs case if it can just take off quickly if it has to then inflight refuel so it has enough fuel to get to the target and perhaps escort it or shoot it down after dogfighting with it for a few minutes... especially as it will practically be a subsonic plane most of the time to get to the radius of action they suggest.

    so? it still needs ~ 500m TO i 500m L, or 195m/100m with cables with skijump

    If it took 500m to land it would not be able to land on any Russian or any other carrier as there are no 500m long carriers anywhere.

    Stop blubbering crap translate yourself thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup

    либо просто is according to you? affraid affraid affraid remotely possible ?

    Безусловно, это - будущее всех авианесущих кораблей. Необходим новый парк летательных аппаратов, для этого используются различные технологии, которые позволяют укороченный взлет и посадку, либо просто вертикальный взлет. Концептуально работы уже ведутся в министерстве обороны с прошлого года», - заявил Борисов.

    In this context or simply refers to the easiest way for an aircraft to land on a carrier... simply conceptually, not in practise... because that requires a completely different aircraft design that has all of the problems and issues I have repeatedly pointed out ad nauseum on this forum...

    You also dotn listen to what MoD says just talking to yourself? this is gonna be s new design. Not based on any previous designs.

    Yes, and plans never change or are ever revised or adapted... that is why there are Yak-41s in service right now...

    Not based on any previous designs because all previous designs turned out to be CRAP.

    Shhhh i can tell you in secret that with almost 50 years technology has changed ! VSTOL will replace MiG-29k, there will be Mi-42 concept followed up by VDV.

    Ummm... that is what the Yak-41 was supposed to do and it failed... add another 30 years of technology and I am looking at the F-35B and thinking it is still not there yet...

    And the VDV also wanted the An-70... the lower speed of turboprops makes parachuting less violent... but how did that end up working out?

    And how many navies have Zircon, Avangard, Husky & Poseidon support?

    Indeed, its position is quite unique, moreso because it can expect no help from the major powers of the world... the UK, US, Canada, China, France, etc etc so having a decently powerful navy able to protect itself and able to operate inside the air cover of Russian ground based airpower but also beyond its reach is important.

    They had Kiev class dinky little VSTOL carriers.... the British had the Invincible and the Hermes... and now both Russia and the British are looking at 70KT designs... think that is an accident?

    You're talking to me or to yourself about Falkland war only?

    Well what examples of wars where carriers in remote locations had any influence would you suggest?

    1) IMHO with Russian missile based doctrine, building massive CSGs make little sense

    2) Russia needs not only CVs but also LHDs + ASW Ships + missile ships thus TAKR concept seem to be very appealing again

    Points one and two contradict themselves... if you need LHDs then you are landing forces, which means you will need a signficant surface group to force the landing, to support its operations and to keep it supplied despite any potential outside interference.

    Russias missile based doctrine on land does not mean they don't have an air force with fighter and interceptor aircraft... or AWACS platforms.

    3) VSTOL helps to keep reasonable small misplacement, help to build more universal ships then US, "clean CV" design

    No, you are wrong... the main point of a Russian carrier will be the AWACS platforms and for those these dinky little half carriers simply wont cut it.

    For a decent AWACs platform you need cats and so if you have cats you might as well have a bigger carrier than a smaller one and put more planes on it.

    They wont be needing 13 of them.

    4) yes 3-4 30-50k tons is much better then 2 x 80-100ktons. With 2 CVNs you actually have only 1 CVN operational.

    2 x 50KT carriers with VSTOL fighters will cost more to operate than one 80KT carrier with conventional designs on it.

    5) taking account Syrian experience looks like 24-30 ariwing for expeditionary wrs is enough

    Syria was a small conflict where the carrier had a very limited role.

    In a more realistic scenario the entire mission will be planned and implemented from the carrier.... it needs to be bigger and more capable.

    Where did I say 18ktons and 80s sea harrier is perfect size n tech?

    If you are saving money then smaller is more savings...

    Of course no carrier is cheapest of them all... but more costly when your navy doesn't need cruisers or destroyers either and you end up a green water navy.

    You say, Northern Fleet will be in Cuba and Indian Ocean but in North no battle ships remain. Is what you re saying?

    With Kinzhal and Zircon why does their need to be a big battleship in the north for?

    To fend off the British navy?

    Flexibly in what? what endurance? can you in explain on example ? Venezuelan one is unclear completely.

    The Kuznetsov went to Syria with nothing like a full load of aircraft or anything really. The extra free space could allow longer operational times... operating at lighter weights means the ship uses less fuel to move around, they could have the aircraft ordinance storage areas full and the aircraft fuel stores full... but with a small fraction of the normal aircraft inventory instead of lasting two weeks at a high operational tempo it might last them a month.

    A 80KT carrier could be sent to Venezuela and could be refuelled when it got there... if it had 24 aircraft then it could probably at most offload 12 to a land base for training or deep land based operations while the ship went for a sail somewhere to show the flag.

    If it had 60-70 aircraft on board it could land a much larger group of aircraft... including AWACS platforms that would be rather more effective and useful as a detached unit.

    A land based force of 6-12 VSTOL fighters might not strike fear into the neighbouring countries... 20-30 real fighters with AWACS support is something no one could ignore.

    Being a bigger carrier it could offload more ordinance too...

    Costs are also important right ? 1 fly hr on F-35 is like $50,000, pilot needs ~200 hrs/yr. SO one F-35 is like $10m for maintenance only. 50 more is $500m more.

    Yeah, they should have MiG-29KRs they are less than $4,000 per hour to operate... win another for the MiG...

    This should be the idea from the beginning right? I mean, Krilov assess the possibilities and broad design lines and for instance Nevskoye implements the technical design. Or am I wrong?

    Would greatly prefer it if there were Russian Navy people in that loop between the scientists and ship designers... some ship designer who just got out of art college could do a lot of damage after a magic mushroom session with a "scientist".

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2411
    Points : 2409
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:37 pm

    Well the Russians have Su-33s and MiG-29KRs on their carrier... are the Russians more stupid than the Brits and the French and the Americans? Why would they limit their carriers to be inferior to everyone else?
    The Soviet VMF  had a different doctrine & what they managed to deploy was "back to the future" event. Comparing a TAKR to a CV/CVN is like comparing apples with oranges. After the refit, the Adm. K will be similar to Liaoning but still retain her AshMs & CMs. Btw, China used the same but lengthened hull for the CV-17. The CV/N-18, -19, -20 & -21 will be flattops with similar hulls.  
    For a decent AWACs platform you need cats
    They don't need to revive the Yak-44, a V-22 size tiltrotor could be used for that & COD missions, as the USN/MC does now.
    There's also a concept of using air blowers on deck to help planes in taking off & landing- no need for CATOBAR. I posted it before.

    On its first combat deployment, the Marine Corps’ F-35 bombed both the Taliban and ISIS


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Feb 26, 2019 7:18 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20805
    Points : 21359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 27, 2019 7:34 am

    The Soviet VMF had a different doctrine & what they managed to deploy was "back to the future" event. Comparing a TAKR to a CV/CVN is like comparing apples with oranges. After the refit, the Adm. K will be similar to Liaoning but still retain her AshMs & CMs. Btw, China used the same but lengthened hull for the CV-17. The CV/N-18, -19, -20 & -21 will be flattops with similar hulls.

    You missed my point.

    Your claim was that STOVL fighters must be good because Britain are buying F-35Bs, so they must be as good as or better than the French choice of going for Naval Rafales.

    Using that same logic Russia has MiG-29KR and Su-33 so they must be as good as the F-35B and Naval Rafale... do you believe the Su-33 and MiG-29KR are better than a Naval Rafale or F-35B?

    If you do then there is no problem... Russia does not need a new naval fighter... if you don't then your logic is clearly wrong, and other factors might be true.... like the obvious... that the UK bought the F-35B because they are stupid blind US fanbois that are too cheap to upgrade the Harrier, so they are latching on to the US hybrid YakHarrier, because the alternatives would be to develop a VSTOL fighter... they did that with the original Harrier so they know what that is like and clearly are not interested in going down that road again, develop a catapult system for their new carrier and convert their Typhoon fighter to operate from carriers... clearly too cheap for that option too.

    They don't need to revive the Yak-44, a V-22 size tiltrotor could be used for that & COD missions, as the USN/MC does now.

    Why do you think the cost of developing a V-22 class aircraft from scratch would be cheaper, quicker or easier than developing a carrier based AWACS platform of a more conventional design... in this case conventional means less risk and less costs.

    There's also a concept of using air blowers on deck to help planes in taking off & landing- no need for CATOBAR. I posted it before.

    A hovercraft would benefit as it has the skirts to capture and utilise an air cushion... for most conventional aircraft it would make no difference at all... even if it could manage a consistent level of lift over the entire deck surface... all this air coming up... where is it coming from... what is replacing it?

    Suggests vortexes and currents and lots of issues of turbulence...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2411
    Points : 2409
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Feb 27, 2019 8:50 am

    Using that same logic Russia has MiG-29KR and Su-33 so they must be as good as the F-35B and Naval Rafale... do you believe the Su-33 and MiG-29KR are better than a Naval Rafale or F-35B?
    .. Russia does not need a new naval fighter...
    For typical missions, they r not better; if not worse, at least about the same. In spite of this, China also has J-15/-16s based on the Su-33 & still wants STOVLs for her LHA type carriers.
    By the same token, Japan has F-35s on order but wants F-35Bs as well for her de-facto carriers.
    Why do you think the cost of developing a V-22 class aircraft from scratch would be cheaper, quicker or easier than developing a carrier based AWACS platform of a more conventional design..
    They r going to develop them anyway for their Ground Forces & VKS.
    44(!) CV-22Bs r operated by the USAF for CSAR.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_Air_Force_aircraft

    Fixed wing AWACS will need a CATOBAR deck with extra crews & maintenance, increasing operating costs, wear & tear, & loss risk. China will have CATOBAR CV/Ns sooner, so she is developing it now.
    Russia has different needs than China & Japan, at least in the near term, while her CVN is only a distant possibility.
    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 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:57 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Rolling TO or landing it the reason behind this stuff. Especially for navy. No need for catapult nor arresters. Yet you still require 1/3 of runway.
    With more powerful engines &/ lighter airframe/weapons made of new materials, even less flight deck may be needed. With adequate training & maintenance, their accident rate will also be lower, making the STOVLs use safer than STOBAR/CATOBAR.

    with better avionics training will become less importnt...
    "
    BTW Soviets tried with Yak-141 "landing gear " arresting start - MTOW and 6m runway...
    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 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Feb 27, 2019 3:55 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    “In one of our design bureaus, we made a universal vessel design that can serve four purposes, that is, an identical ship at the bow and below the waterline with specialized superstructures that are provided for various tasks,” said Rakhmanov.

    It says bow and below the waterline but the stern is modular and able to change... which makes sense for towed arrays or rear entry landing vessels etc... but that also suggests that the length could be extended or varied so you are not limited to small aircraft carriers that are the same size as your helo carriers.

    Besides this is an idea pitched by the ship makers... the navy might say that is fine for destroyer and cruiser/helicopter carrier sized vessels but we want bigger CVNs...


    navy wanted many things instead of cruiser they got frigates too. All is in pocket of MoF navy has secondary role here.



    GB wrote:]
    Fighters for sure  but I dotn think Russians will focus only on fighter function not on universal platform tho.
    But comparing the risk of sending a 30-60 million dollar fighter over enemy held territory to deliver a dumb bomb precisely on target, or firing off a 152mm barrage of 5-10 shells from 30km offshore to targets 30km inshore... well those guns are going to be sitting there anyway, so might as well get some use out of them... especially when naval infantry troops on the front line are probably marking enemy targets with lasers anyway...

    30km away? so you men shore without any defenses like Somalia? 152mm only if Russians finally decide to navalize it
    For rest for strike mission you use drones with standoff weapons or Hermes-K system.





    GB wrote:
    That was not answering my  question you know ;-)  BTW You can always refuel in the air right. I  just dont  see  why radius comparable with MG_29k is that bad for you?

    When you are intercepting an incoming threat it does not help the F-35Bs case if it can just take off quickly if it has to then inflight refuel so it has enough fuel to get to the target and perhaps escort it or shoot it down after dogfighting with it for a few minutes... especially as it will practically be a subsonic plane most of the time to get to the radius of action they suggest.

    OK it is still not clear for me. Dotn tell me bout F-35B or MTOW, it doesn't matter in AA missions.
    Why radius of MiG-29k is bad to you?



    GB wrote:
    so? it still needs ~ 500m TO  i 500m L, or 195m/100m with cables  with skijump
    If it took 500m to land it would not be able to land on any Russian or any other carrier as there are no 500m long carriers anywhere.

    Perhaps because none o runways on land travel against the wing with 60km/h? + if fighter drops below ground level by 10-15 meters on ground, you got problem unlike on CVN.


    Yet still on land you have TO/L -> 500.600m for light fighter
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen



    GB wrote:
    You also dotn listen to what MoD says just talking to yourself? this is gonna be s new design. Not based on any previous designs.

    Yes, and plans never change or are ever revised or adapted... that is why there are Yak-41s in service right now...

    Not based on any previous designs because all previous designs turned out to be CRAP.

    Yes, yes plans even change. Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. So now you enter bargaining? still osme time till you accept inevitability of VSTOL s base Russian deck aviation.




    BTW it could be worse, there were morons in MoD who thought 29k is best option. Project started with decent MiG-29 ended up into non serviceable, crash prone CRAP called 29k brrr . MiG even erased 29k name for good. No wonder VSTOL concept is back.



    GB wrote:
    And how many navies have Zircon, Avangard, Husky &  Poseidon support?
    Indeed, its position is quite unique, moreso because it can expect no help from the major powers of the world... the UK, US, Canada, China, France, etc etc  so having a decently powerful navy able to protect itself and able to operate inside the air cover of Russian ground based airpower but also beyond its reach is important.

    what is air cover? And what ir cover you have from 50 fighters? close to US shores?


    GB wrote:
    You're talking to me or to yourself about Falkland war only?

    Well what examples of wars where carriers in remote locations had any influence would you suggest?

    OK so now we are talking about a colonial war? Vide Syria, Somali, CAR ? 20-30 fighters + drones is more then enough.
    Syria is best proof.




    GB wrote:
    ]1)  IMHO with Russian missile based  doctrine, building  massive CSGs make little sense

    2) Russia needs not only CVs but also LHDs + ASW Ships + missile ships thus TAKR concept seem to be very appealing again

    Points one and two contradict themselves... if you need LHDs then you are landing forces, which means you will need a signficant surface group to force the landing, to support its operations and to keep it supplied despite any potential outside interference.

    Russias missile based doctrine on land does not mean they don't have an air force with fighter and interceptor aircraft... or AWACS platforms.


    Wot contradictions? what interference you're talking bout? D-Day , Okinawa? Russian LHDs will be need for Syria/CAR kind of interventions.

    1 LHD can carry what less than 1000 marines. On long missions perhaps half of them enough to evacuate embassy or extract some important people from ground.



    GB wrote:
    3) VSTOL helps to keep reasonable small misplacement, help to build more universal ships then US,  "clean CV" design
    No, you are wrong... the main point of a Russian carrier will be the AWACS platforms and for those these dinky little half carriers simply wont cut it.

    none of CVN is big enough to carry your favorite a-100. Why do you trying to know better what Russian AWACS platform should be or size of CV?

    BTW Russian chief-commander of naval aviation side AEW not AWACS



    GB wrote:
    4) yes 3-4  30-50k tons is much better then 2 x 80-100ktons. With  2 CVNs you actually have only 1 CVN operational.

    2 x 50KT carriers with VSTOL fighters will cost more to operate than one 80KT carrier with conventional designs on it.

    you know and Russians dont?



    [quote=GB"]
    5) taking account Syrian experience looks like 24-30 ariwing for expeditionary wrs is enough

    Syria was a small conflict where the carrier had a very limited role.

    In a more realistic scenario the entire mission will be planned and implemented from the carrier.... it needs to be bigger and more capable.
    [/quote]

    and realistic scenario is? Okinawa? Normandy ?



    GB wrote:
    You say, Northern Fleet will be in Cuba and Indian Ocean but  in North no battle ships remain. Is what you re saying?

    With Kinzhal and Zircon why does their need to be a big battleship in the north for?

    Russians st they do need fighters just there mostly. No air will be there. Again 1000km from Russian shores in most important direction, Kizhal is ok but 5 thousands you need "real fighters" to scare US mainland?




    GB wrote:
    Flexibly in what? what endurance? can you in explain on example ? Venezuelan one is unclear completely.
    The Kuznetsov went to Syria with nothing like a full load of aircraft or anything really. The extra free space could allow longer operational times... operating at lighter weights means the ship uses less fuel to move around, they could have the aircraft ordinance storage areas full and the aircraft fuel stores full... but with a small fraction of the normal aircraft inventory instead of lasting two weeks at a high operational tempo it might last them a month.

    Longer are because of auxiliary/resupply vessels. Unless you plan 3 months bombing of Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya you tong need this spiace.



    [quote="GB]]A 80KT carrier could be sent to Venezuela and could be refuelled when it got there... if it had 24 aircraft then it could probably at most offload 12 to a land base for training or deep land based operations while the ship went for a sail somewhere to show the flag.

    If it had 60-70 aircraft on board it could land a much larger group of aircraft... including AWACS platforms that would be rather more effective and useful as a detached unit.
    [/quote]

    Russian CV will not be nuclear powered? affraid affraid affraid But Liders will be? to me it would be more than stupid.
    What would change 60 vs 24-30 fighters in case of Venezuela tell me. I fail to understand. For waving flag is more than enough. to incite panic fear in 1000 US CVN based fighters + 3000 land based in US. Sorry I dont see it.

    BTW detached CVN without auxiliary ships ? do I get your correctly?



    GB wrote:
    Costs are also important right ? 1 fly hr on F-35 is like $50,000, pilot needs ~200 hrs/yr. SO one F-35 is like $10m for maintenance only. 50 more is $500m more.

    Yeah, they should have MiG-29KRs they are less than $4,000 per hour to operate... win another for the MiG...

    and how much is when 29k does actually fly ?



    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20805
    Points : 21359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:06 am

    For typical missions, they r not better; if not worse, at least about the same. In spite of this, China also has J-15/-16s based on the Su-33 & still wants STOVLs for her LHA type carriers.

    In this case, who cares what China is doing... China has zero experience in developing carrier aircraft let alone STOVL aircraft... you can listen to all the bullshit marketing you want but at the end of the day Russia has tried the vertical jet aircraft stuff and it has always ended in expensive and costly results... if they really wanted VSTOL fighters they could have continued with the Yak-41... do you think it is an accident they have said the new design will have nothing to do with any previous design... is that not just a clear declaration that previous designs are f'ing useless dead end money pits?

    But what would Russia know... it could not possibly learn from its own experience...

    By the same token, Japan has F-35s on order but wants F-35Bs as well for her de-facto carriers.

    Well at least Japan is different in the sense that it had a strong history of carrier aircraft... but again... zero experience in development or use of VSTOL fighters.

    The countries with experience in VSTOL fighters are France... they are not touching VSTOL fighters, the British... are tied in to the new universal F-35 family of fighters and are too cheap to fund anything different... besides they could never say no to the US anyway... the US of course, which has invested 1.5 trillion dollars into this aircraft... even if it kills every Marine pilot that flys the plane they will keep it... and finally Russia... who had a VSTOL programme right up to the 1990s and then cancelled it.

    If Russia can create a vstol fighter where the lift is fully balanced but all the lifting engines can be also used in forward flight so they are not dead weight most of the time then that would be OK.

    Personally I think their biggest mistake with both the Yak-38/M and the Yak-41 was trying to make them too fast.

    The Yak-38 family had a tiny wing intended to allow for higher flight speed and the Yak-41 was intended to be supersonic... which resulted in tiny low lift wings that really didn't do that much at take off and landing except provide dead weight too...

    I think enforcing the rule that the new STOVL fighter needs to be subsonic would allow a much thicker much more efficient wing and also reduce issues with body shape allowing much more internal volume for fuel and weapons and engines of bigger thrust too.

    But they are not going to do that... they want a supersonic stealth fighter and what they are going to get will be crap.

    They r going to develop them anyway for their Ground Forces & VKS.
    44(!) CV-22Bs r operated by the USAF for CSAR.

    And how many thousand M4 rifles do they operate in the US military... so when is Russia going to introduce them into their inventory too?

    The US introduced the CV-22N because the Blackhawk is an overrated piece of shit. The Russians have the Mi-17 and soon the Mi-38... WTF do they need tilt rotor aircraft for?

    BTW it will be interesting when these tiltrotor aircraft actually get into a position where they have to operate under fire... they look like rather juicy targets to me...


    Fixed wing AWACS will need a CATOBAR deck with extra crews & maintenance, increasing operating costs, wear & tear, & loss risk.

    But a tiltrotor AWACS needs no deck or crew or maintainence... will pay its own operating costs... no wear or tear and will never suffer an accident?

    Come on... if CATOBAR is so desperately risky and dangerous and costly... why do USN carriers all use that method of operation... and the french for that matter... and why are the Russians working on catapults... why did the Soviets plan for cat systems on their next gen carriers?

    Russia has different needs than China & Japan, at least in the near term, while her CVN is only a distant possibility.

    Actually Russian needs will be closer to American needs in the sense that they need to face superpower level opposition to their actions anywhere on the globe. Not to say they will be fighting WWIII, but they will be opposed by NATO because America always takes her bitches when she whores for her own right to ignore international laws...

    Coalition of the sycophants... or should that be the Psychophants...

    You have read Aristide... it is his sort of attitude that rules in the US amongst the elite... or do you think the 1% are all really peace loving tree huggers?

    navy wanted many things instead of cruiser they got frigates too. All is in pocket of MoF navy has secondary role here.

    It makes sense to sharpen the skills of the Russian MIC on smaller boats... the systems they are installing are modular... the UKSK or UKSK-M launchers they are installing on Corvettes and Frigates are the same as on Destroyers and Cruisers and Carriers and Helicopter landing vessels... as are the radar and sonar and guns and other systems... it will just be on the bigger vessels larger sonar and larger radar and more modules of missiles will be fitted to each ship.

    If they started making cruisers first they would find they have rather more problems than they do now... WTF are they going to do with brand new state of the art cruisers... but no corvettes or frigates or destroyers... what sort of screwed up navy would that be?

    It is perfectly normal to replace the smaller ships first and build up numbers and upgrade some of the larger ships you still have and over time produce new larger ships too... there is no enormous hurry...


    30km away? so you men shore without any defenses like Somalia? 152mm only if Russians finally decide to navalize it

    Coalition was a joint Navy Army project... what do you mean navalise it?

    For rest for strike mission you use drones with standoff weapons or Hermes-K system.

    Of course drones would be used, but why carry Hermes missiles at 100kgs each to deliver a 30kgs payload, when the drone could simply find targets and lase them while the naval ship directing the drone could fire 152mm shells of 40kgs each to hit each targets with thousands of rounds ready to fire 24/7...

    OK it is still not clear for me. Dotn tell me bout F-35B or MTOW, it doesn't matter in AA missions.
    Why radius of MiG-29k is bad to you?

    MiG-29 radius is not that bad... at least it can climb to a reasonable altitude and dash to mach 2 and launch AAMs at the incoming threats and then fly back to the carrier to rearm and refuel.

    Not really something the F-35B would be very good at.

    Perhaps because none o runways on land travel against the wing with 60km/h? + if fighter drops below ground level by 10-15 meters on ground, you got problem unlike on CVN.

    Are you getting excited or are you using a cell phone with a fucked up spell checker because a lot of your posts are unintelligible...

    Landing on a carrier with arrester cables is the solution.

    I know, I know... the arrester cable system failed in Syria... but then VSTOL fighters have also failed... are you dumping them too?

    I would suggest the failure in Syria has been examined and worked on and is rather unlikely to fail again.

    So now you enter bargaining? still osme time till you accept inevitability of VSTOL s base Russian deck aviation.

    If they can eliminate all the obvious problems, but they have made such promises before and failed to deliver... new technology like powerful nuclear batteries and scramjet engines wont solve these problems... until they have proven they have overcome the problems there is no point in considering them for the job.

    BTW it could be worse, there were morons in MoD who thought 29k is best option. Project started with decent MiG-29 ended up into non serviceable, crash prone CRAP called 29k brrr . MiG even erased 29k name for good. No wonder VSTOL concept is back.

    Are you enjoying your little trip to egypt... I have heard De Nile is beautiful this time of year.

    Currently the best fighter on carriers they have is the MiG-29KR... whether you acknowledge that or not.


    what is air cover? And what ir cover you have from 50 fighters? close to US shores?

    The UK had aircover during WWII... doesn't mean they didn't get bombed or attacked... or are you one of these retards that think the US ABM shield protects America completely from ICBM and SLBM attack?

    And why would they ever go anywhere near US waters?

    They can fuck america with other tools... why waste surface ships in such a futile gesture?

    A carrier group off the coast of Venezuela would be a useful gesture right now actually...

    OK so now we are talking about a colonial war? Vide Syria, Somali, CAR ? 20-30 fighters + drones is more then enough.
    Syria is best proof.

    How about a civil war in Venezuela where Russia has decided it wants to support its allies rather than sit back and watch America do what it wants with impunity.

    Such a situation wont be over in a day or a week or a month... the carrier and support ships might need to operate there for a very long time because there are few other places Russia could base their operations from.

    Wot contradictions? what interference you're talking bout? D-Day , Okinawa? Russian LHDs will be need for Syria/CAR kind of interventions.

    Who knows what interference might be, but clearly in Syria... the US and other western forces didn't run away when the Russians arrived and remained to this day even though it is pretty clear they have lost, so we can assume Russian carriers arriving wont solve the problem either and that they need to accept any tin pot little assholes they end up fighting... whether they are ISIS head choppers or whatever that they will continue to get support from the western two faced censored .

    In such a situation a bigger better equipped carrier makes more sense.

    none of CVN is big enough to carry your favorite a-100. Why do you trying to know better what Russian AWACS platform should be or size of CV?

    Yeah, be a dick about it when you know you are wrong...

    BTW Russian chief-commander of naval aviation side AEW not AWACS

    You are the one claiming they can get AWACS into a fucking drone, and your argument against AWACS manned aircraft is this...

    Amazing... so you are saying drones and vertical take offs will do everything in the future, but EMALS and AWACS wont happen because current officials have not confirmed it... classy...

    you know and Russians dont?

    Of course they know... how many plastic models have you seen from Russian design bureaus that show carriers smaller than Kuznetsov with F-35Bs on them?

    We have seen exotic models with new hull designs that still weigh more than the kuz, but seem to have modified PAK FAs on them and also mini Hawkeye AWACS aircraft on them too... but WTF would they know?

    and realistic scenario is? Okinawa? Normandy ?

    No one knows... that is why having extra capacity is better than fitting what you know... the Soviet Union had an enormous aircraft and tank fleet before the start of WWII because the extrapolated their experience of mobile warfare on the eastern front during WWI for the times... their problem was that they got their experience in Spain too late and new technology like the Yak-1 and T-34 were only just entering production to replace the much greater volume of obsolete equipment like T-26 light tanks and LaGG-1 fighters.

    Decent radar coverage is a must, which means decent AWACS platform... they are developing EMALS and a decent sized carrier should cover that... and quite frankly that alone would make a group of ships near land or in the middle of the ocean much safer and much more dangerous to enemies.

    Add a new 5th gen fighter that is rather capable and preferably unified in design with a land based equivalent and you greatly increase the power of any Russian carrier group...

    I don't think that fighter being STOVL would make it any better... it would make it more expensive and fragile and prone to crashing and reduce its general performance... and did I mention make it more expensive too.

    Russians st they do need fighters just there mostly. No air will be there. Again 1000km from Russian shores in most important direction, Kizhal is ok but 5 thousands you need "real fighters" to scare US mainland?

    They don't need airfields to "scare" the US mainland... I doubt Americans give a shit about that. Russia is certainly building airfields in the arctic... so why not the far east too?

    Russian CV will not be nuclear powered? affraid affraid affraid But Liders will be? to me it would be more than stupid.

    Don't be such a dick head... the carrier will be carrying large numbers of jet aircraft and helicopters... they need fuel too don't you know...

    What would change 60 vs 24-30 fighters in case of Venezuela tell me. I fail to understand. For waving flag is more than enough. to incite panic fear in 1000 US CVN based fighters + 3000 land based in US. Sorry I dont see it.

    If they have 60 fighter aircraft on board when they arrive they could land 30 aircraft to a land base... Venezuela is not a 10km wide coastal country you know... having 30 fighters inland and 30 still on the carrier gives a lot more flexibility and depth... if you arrive with 30 aircraft you might send 14 ashore and be left with 14 to defend the carrier group operating off shore.

    Even an enemy drone attack could be dangerous in that sort of situation...

    BTW detached CVN without auxiliary ships ? do I get your correctly?

    So now it is nuclear again?

    I have said repeatedly that the purpose of Fighter planes on Russian carriers is to defence groups of Russian ships at sea why the fuck would they therefore send a carrier on its own anywhere.... EVER?

    and how much is when 29k does actually fly ?

    When they can get a big enough torch to fly up your ass... fortunately because of its size they wont even need to fold the wings and it is unlikely to touch the sides even when it does an Immelmann turn to leave. What a Face
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2411
    Points : 2409
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Mar 01, 2019 3:20 am

    ..if they really wanted VSTOL fighters they could have continued with the Yak-41... do you think it is an accident they have said the new design will have nothing to do with any previous design... is that not just a clear declaration that previous designs are f'ing useless dead end money pits?
    New or not, it will use the same principles. They may say it but stick to the old design to avoid disputing those who don't know how advanced it was & r against it.
    Well at least Japan is different in the sense that it had a strong history of carrier aircraft... but again... zero experience in development or use of VSTOL fighters.
    Every1 must start somewhere, by trial & error.
    And how many thousand M4 rifles do they operate in the US military... so when is Russia going to introduce them into their inventory too?
    The NKVD spetsnaz used German MP-40s & Russia imported British rifle scopes, etc. The Uzis & AK-47/AKMs r still widely used.
    The US bought Russian Mi-17s for the Afghan AF. So, don't be a dick!
    The US introduced the CV-22N because the Blackhawk is an overrated piece of shit. The Russians have the Mi-17 and soon the Mi-38... WTF do they need tilt rotor aircraft for?
    For increased range & speed. Although the Mi-26 has slower speed but 20T payload- essential in the North, Siberia & the FE, the tiltrotors can accomplish a lot more in less time than helos.
    BTW it will be interesting when these tiltrotor aircraft actually get into a position where they have to operate under fire... they look like rather juicy targets to me...
    They'll have attack versions to escort transports. The attack variant of the Mi-17 was the heaviest armed helo in the world. The USSR developed purely attack Mi-24s after the Americans did the AH-1 & the Mi-28 after the AH-64. R u suggesting they stop modernizing & developing new aircraft/ships just because the Americans were 1st to do it? Then they may as well give up on CVNs! If something is useful, no matter who invented, it's wise to adopt it!
    But a tiltrotor AWACS needs no deck or crew or maintainence... will pay its own operating costs... no wear or tear and will never suffer an accident?
    Not as much as with fixed wing & CATOBAR in which they have no experience...
    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 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:25 am

    GarryB wrote:

    If Russia can create a vstol fighter where the lift is fully balanced but all the lifting engines can be also used in forward flight so they are not dead weight most of the time then that would be OK.

    {}
    I think enforcing the rule that the new STOVL fighter needs to be subsonic would allow a much thicker much more efficient wing and also reduce issues with body shape allowing much more internal volume for fuel and weapons and engines of bigger thrust too.

    But they are not going to do that... they want a supersonic stealth fighter and what they are going to get will be crap.


    you have right to believe in whatever you like, even in MiG-29k is flying .  You seem to contradict your own opinions  every second post.

    Radius & payload is most important but  radius and payload 29k is just fine.  MiG-35 is stealthy but no  bomb-bays .  Can you make up your mind once? Since Russians decided to build  VSTOL fighter they will deliver.  Dont worry they know the stuff.




    GB wrote:
    30km away? so you men shore without any defenses like Somalia? 152mm only if Russians finally decide to navalize it

    Coalition was a joint Navy Army project... what do you mean navalise it?

    I was talking about Somalia/Syrian scenario . BTW did you see 152mm on any Russian current or projected ship? I didnt



    GB wrote:
    OK it is still not clear for me. Dotn tell me bout F-35B or MTOW, it doesn't matter in AA missions.
    Why radius of MiG-29k is bad to you?

    MiG-29 radius is not that bad... at least it can climb to a reasonable altitude and dash to mach 2 and launch AAMs at the incoming threats and then fly back to the carrier to rearm and refuel.

    And why now Russians could not build 2m+ VSTOL fighters? any real reason.





    GB wrote:
    Perhaps because none o runways on land travel against the wing with 60km/h? + if fighter drops below ground level by 10-15 meters on ground, you got problem unlike on CVN.

    Are you getting excited or are you using a cell phone with a fucked up spell checker because a lot of your posts are unintelligible...

    meh, I dont wank on forum it is your function here.



    GB wrote: Landing on a carrier with arrester cables is the solution.
    I know, I know... the arrester cable system failed in Syria... but then VSTOL fighters have also failed... are you dumping them too?
    I would suggest the failure in Syria has been examined and worked on and is rather unlikely to fail again.


    I dont  suggest anything. Russian MoD made their choice chosen VSTOL approach. IMHO much better. More demanding for fighters less for ships.





    GB dancing haka to scare da shit out of me bwahaha wrote: Currently the best fighter on carriers they have is the MiG-29KR... whether you acknowledge that or not.  

    29k you mean? of course it is the only one! poorly performing fighter is better then nothing. It is patiently waiting to be retired and replaced by something, technically perfect, cool and sexy.  

    The new VSTOL fighter  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup






    GB wrote:
    OK so now we are talking about a colonial war? Vide Syria, Somali, CAR ? 20-30 fighters + drones is more then enough.Syria is best proof.

    How about a civil war in Venezuela where Russia has decided it wants to support its allies rather than sit back and watch America do what it wants with impunity.

    Such a situation wont be over in a day or a week or a month... the carrier and support ships might need to operate there for a very long time because there are few other places Russia could base their operations from.

    still why 60 not 30?







    GB wrote:
    Wot contradictions? what interference you're talking bout? D-Day , Okinawa? Russian LHDs will be need for Syria/CAR kind of interventions.

    Who knows what interference might be, but clearly in Syria... {} In such a situation a bigger better equipped carrier makes more sense.

    of course best is the whole bunch of CVNs , unlimitd number of ships and military but money is limiting factor.  

    No worries this year Russian MoD wants to finalize CVN competition. Well learn soon.






    GB wrote:
    and realistic scenario is? Okinawa? Normandy ?
    {}
    Decent radar coverage is a must, which means decent AWACS platform... they are developing EMALS and a decent sized carrier should cover that... and quite frankly that alone would make a group of ships near land or in the middle of the ocean much safer and much more dangerous to enemies.

    Add a new 5th gen fighter that is rather capable and preferably unified in design with a land based equivalent and you greatly increase the power of any Russian carrier group...

    I don't think that fighter being STOVL would make it any better... it would make it more expensive and fragile and prone to crashing and reduce its general performance... and did I mention make it more expensive too.

    OK 2-3 thousands km from US shores not good. 2-3 thousands from Russian shored too close too. So where?
    what enemies? precisely? where give 2-3 locations?






    GB reveling the TRUTH wrote:
    What would change 60 vs 24-30 fighters in case of Venezuela tell me. I fail to understand. For waving flag is more than enough. to incite panic fear in 1000 US CVN based fighters + 3000 land based in US. Sorry I dont see it.

    If they have 60 fighter aircraft on board when they arrive they could land 30 aircraft to a land base... Venezuela is not a 10km wide coastal country you know... having 30 fighters inland and 30 still on the carrier gives a lot more flexibility and depth... if you arrive with 30 aircraft you might send 14 ashore and be left with 14 to defend the carrier group operating off shore.


    so THE ONLY reason to build larger, much more expensive and larger to build  CVN is to carry 30 fighters in Venezuela ? or similar exotic scenario?


    wow
    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 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:43 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    ..if they really wanted VSTOL fighters they could have continued with the Yak-41... do you think it is an accident they have said the new design will have nothing to do with any previous design... is that not just a clear declaration that previous designs are f'ing useless dead end money pits?
    New or not, it will use the same principles. They may say it but stick to the old design to avoid disputing those who don't know how advanced it was & r against it.

    c'mon GBs mind is beautifully closed in 80s. Only he can figure out the ultimate proof like not developing 80s tech . After 50 years fuuuuck why not Yak-3 also successful model? only 80 years old.

    affraid affraid affraid


    TS wrote:
    But a tiltrotor AWACS needs no deck or crew or maintainence... will pay its own operating costs... no wear or tear and will never suffer an accident?
    Not as much as with fixed wing & CATOBAR in which they have no experience...

    Me thinks this will be about not what i better technically but is then Navy more conservative or more "progressive".
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2411
    Points : 2409
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:18 am

    They can & will use land based training areas to develop skills in tilt rotor handling, just like with fighters on NITKA. It won't be that different from large helos.
    By the time a ship is ready, they'll also be ready.
    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 2766468-947x630
    https://news.usni.org/2016/08/17/21198_underway_uss_america

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 MV-22-Osprey-USS-John-C.-Stennis-1800
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20805
    Points : 21359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:47 am

    New or not, it will use the same principles.

    The laws of physics have not changed so they need to change their method of overcoming the problems involved in a vertical take off fixed wing jet fighter...

    They may say it but stick to the old design to avoid disputing those who don't know how advanced it was & r against it.

    If it was really that advanced the MiG-29K would be the programme cancelled and the Yak-41 programmed put on hold until money was available to restart it.

    The Yak-41 was cancelled.

    Every1 must start somewhere, by trial & error.

    Yeah, but how many times do you burn your hand before you realise fire is hot and don't put your hand in it or you will get burned.

    Normally you start by researching who has done what before and why it succeeded or why it failed.

    The Russians decided to make an anti tank missile that could be fired down a tank gun... they didn't look at the American and French programmes and think that is a waste of time dead end money pit... they looked at how they did it and did it differently and made reasonable requirements for the final system.

    They didn't want to make a missile carrying super tank... they already had vehicles that carrier ATGMs like the BRDM-2 with AT-3 and AT-4/5 missile options...

    The NKVD spetsnaz used German MP-40s

    What are you talking about?

    Russia imported British rifle scopes, etc.

    When?

    The Uzis & AK-47/AKMs r still widely used.

    Uzis? by whom? and the Russians made AK and AKMs why would they not use them now?

    The US bought Russian Mi-17s for the Afghan AF. So, don't be a dick!

    Because their own alternative... the Blackhawk can't operate most places in Afghanistan because it is too hot and too high and they wont even fly with a zero payload.

    Besides your argument was that the US has tiltrotor aircraft then the Russians will get them too... are the US Army going to introduce the Mi-17 into US service to operate in the US?

    Yeah... probably just before the Russians buy some US tiltrotor aircraft and put them in service...

    Who is being a dick?

    For increased range & speed. Although the Mi-26 has slower speed but 20T payload- essential in the North, Siberia & the FE, the tiltrotors can accomplish a lot more in less time than helos.

    So you claim but when you don't have any tiltrotor aircraft and you have a large number of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft then why bother developing a new aircraft type to fit in the middle... an AN-2 probably has better performance than the V22 and it is much cheaper to buy and to operate...

    They'll have attack versions to escort transports.

    But they don't right now...

    The attack variant of the Mi-17 was the heaviest armed helo in the world.

    Which pretty much detracts from its ability to land or pick up troops...

    The USSR developed purely attack Mi-24s after the Americans did the AH-1 & the Mi-28 after the AH-64.

    The Mi-24 is a modification of the Mi-8 family, and the Mi-28 is an Mi-24 with greatly reduced troop capacity... and the American AH-1 just copied the French in Vietnam who armed their helos first...

    R u suggesting they stop modernizing & developing new aircraft/ships just because the Americans were 1st to do it?

    The US needs tiltrotors because their helicopters are ordinary and they don't have any seriously large helos.

    High speed helos looks like a better option to pursue.

    Then they may as well give up on CVNs! If something is useful, no matter who invented, it's wise to adopt it!


    Russia wont ever make CVNs in the western sense, and large fixed wing carrier the Russians make will have the weapons of a destroyer as well as the aircraft of an aircraft carrier... the Russians never rely on air power alone for anything.

    Not as much as with fixed wing & CATOBAR in which they have no experience...

    EMALS is physics... they can do physics and it will offer new technology in useful areas like superconducting materials and high energy storage etc.

    Tilt rotors are for countries that can't make good helos...

    Since Russians decided to build VSTOL fighter they will deliver.

    They will pretty soon come to the conclusion that the V component of the design is slowing them down and making the aircraft too complicated, too fragile, and too expensive and dump it for STOL.

    BTW did you see 152mm on any Russian current or projected ship? I didnt

    No VSTOL fighters either...

    Often AWACS and Su-57 models though on the carrier models...


    And why now Russians could not build 2m+ VSTOL fighters? any real reason.

    Never done it before perhaps?

    It is patiently waiting to be retired and replaced by something, technically perfect, cool and sexy.

    technically perfect and cool and sexy is easy to achieve when it is imaginary... Neutral

    still why 60 not 30?

    If it has the capacity for 90 and only takes 60 it will have aviation fuel and supplies for 50% longer operations before needing resupply, so it is becomes a high tempo operation unexpectedly it will be able to cope.

    Ohhh, but of course... sending a carrier group to the other side of the world is supposed to be cheap... that is why everyone is doing it...

    If you have to spend money spend a bit more and get a decent more useful product.


    OK 2-3 thousands km from US shores not good. 2-3 thousands from Russian shored too close too. So where?
    what enemies? precisely? where give 2-3 locations?

    Hahahaha... so if I can't give you 2-3 precise locations where Russia will need a carrier then you win and they need tiny fucking useless pieces of crap that the UK and the US Marines love so much.

    The fact that neither of us are giving concrete examples of certain cases of definite intervention potential areas suggests it would be better to get the Russian Navy what they want when they ask for a ship with a larger air group that the current Kuznestov can manage.

    Your argument that the bean counters wont approve that and so they need to go for a smaller design unified with other ship types is amusing... especially when you claim the experts in Russia know how to make VSTOL supersonic 5th gen fighters.... what will the bean counters say about them then?

    so THE ONLY reason to build larger, much more expensive and larger to build CVN is to carry 30 fighters in Venezuela ? or similar exotic scenario?

    No you ignorant dick. Right now the world is changing from one dominated by the US and the west... they dominate the world economy and they crush anyone who opposes them, but their open and brazen use and abuse of power is going to be their undoing and pretty soon Russia and China and India and a few other countries are going to stop drinking the kool aide and contributing to the wests main power base... the mighty US dollar. When that goes tits up do you think international law will suddenly become respected? The Americans don't respect it now.

    Russias future is international trade, they have a lot of high tech know how and a lot of resources, but they need sea lines of communication with the world beyond Europe and Asia and they are not going to be able to open up those SLOC with Frigates and Corvettes and Subs... Subs are great for sneak attacks and for defence but can't be intimidating...

    Russia needs the global reach of a powerful navy... not necessarily a big navy, but it needs to have its own air power to protect it from enemy air power... and that is anywhere it needs to operate.

    They might even need to land troops in Antarctica for all we know, but in 10 years time when America is not in charge of all the international money transfer services, and does not have all the international orgs in its pocket, some growing country in africa or even central or south america might want to increase trade with Russia so that both countries grow and develop... obviously something the US would want to put a stop to... given their current form no surprise at all... Russia needs to be able to convince that small country that it can defend it from any colour revolution or US led coalition invasion to remove that government from power... please tell me this is an impossible sounding scenario...

    If the US overthrows every country on good terms with Russia and Russia has no power to stop them then the US will successfully enforce the economic and political isolation of Russia... how many trillion will that cost Russia... for the cost of a couple of carriers and aircraft.

    And the aircraft being small STOL 5th gen small fighters most likely could be used on land and exported widely... India might want some for its new carriers too...


    They can & will use land based training areas to develop skills in tilt rotor handling, just like with fighters on NITKA. It won't be that different from large helos.
    By the time a ship is ready, they'll also be ready.

    The area that tiltrotor is taking up they could have landed an Mi-26 there... what is that aircrafts payload?

    Just looking at the front on photo it just looks like the nose of a blackhawk helo with a fat arse for the wheels and a wing from a transport plane bolted on top with huge engines and huge propellers... is flight speed for carriers really that critical?

    Flight speed means nothing for an AWACS platform.

    Altitude and radar size are important, but not flight speed.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2411
    Points : 2409
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:30 pm

    The Yak-41 was cancelled.
    no, just suspended=temporary stopped.
    Besides your argument was that the US has tiltrotor aircraft then the Russians will get them too... are the US Army going to introduce the Mi-17 into US service to operate in the US?
    Ur logic stinks. They'll get them for SF,etc. The US Army now has Mi-8/-24 for adversary training but doesn't want them for the same reason the AKMs were/r not wanted- why put part of the MIC out of business & pay Russia license fees or being sued for illegal copying?
    Yeah... probably just before the Russians buy some US tiltrotor aircraft and put them in service...
    In case u r not aware/forgot, the US sanctions Russia & in any case, they can make their own for a lot le$$.
    ..an AN-2 probably has better performance than the V22 and it is much cheaper to buy and to operate..
    It can't do VLs & is slower. A tiltrotor doing CSAR can get to an LZ faster, however/land, do VTO, & escape & bring personnel/materials back fast. As air ambulances, they can save more lives.
    But they don't right now...
    Put a few MGs & rocket pods & u have them!
    The US needs tiltrotors because their helicopters are ordinary and they don't have any seriously large helos.
    They have CH-47/-53/-53Ks that can lift more than V-22s.
    They need them for what they failed to do in Iran in 1979, CSAR, & COD missions.
    Tilt rotors are for countries that can't make good helos...
    Then why Russia fields small recon. models?
    Decades ago they tried to develop a similar bird:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-22

    Their V-22 counterpart may be even larger for more cargo/fuel space.
    ..is flight speed for carriers really that critical?
    In some cases, if they need to evacuate or rescue some1 from the water/land & the CVN is 200-300+ miles away, or bring jet engines ASAP so the fighter air ops don't stop, or insert SF ashore.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-stole-night-inside-illegal-market-american-night-vision-technology-090013609.html
    Didn't find anything else on scopes, but did on rifles:
    http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/List_of_firearms_used_by_Russian_Armed_Forces#In_Service_7
    http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Accuracy_International_AW#AW
    https://www.sako.fi/en-us/rifles/sako-trg/trg-42
    http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Sako_TRG-22#Sako_TRG-22
    http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Steyr_SSG_08
    http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK_rifle_series#Heckler_.26_Koch_MR_762
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzi#Users
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20805
    Points : 21359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 05, 2019 2:02 am

    no, just suspended=temporary stopped.

    It was cancelled.

    There were fundamental problems with it... the main issue being hot air ingestion leading to engine stall... do you know what an engine stall a few metres above the ground does to 15 tons of aircraft?

    It rapidly stops being an aircraft.

    Ur logic stinks. They'll get them for SF,etc. The US Army now has Mi-8/-24 for adversary training but doesn't want them for the same reason the AKMs were/r not wanted- why put part of the MIC out of business & pay Russia license fees or being sued for illegal copying?

    Your logic is that the US has tiltrotors on their carriers so the Russians must have some on theirs... how does that smell?

    The fact that the CIA might use Soviet equipment so it can continue its criminal activity like shipping around ISIS head chopping teenage girl murdering terrorists, doesn't mean Russia will suddenly try to copy a V22 for an AWACS role on an aircraft carrier they don't even have yet.

    In case u r not aware/forgot, the US sanctions Russia & in any case, they can make their own for a lot le$$.

    That statement was the equivalent of the logic... statement x when statement y, where statement y is something that will never happen... often something like hell freezing over.

    It is a way of saying statement x is never going to happen in the first place.

    It can't do VLs & is slower.

    Sitting on the deck of a carrier doing 25 knots it could probably take off backwards...

    A tiltrotor doing CSAR can get to an LZ faster, however/land, do VTO, & escape & bring personnel/materials back fast. As air ambulances, they can save more lives.

    Can they fly 3,000km with a 7 ton payload?

    Are they 2 million dollars each?

    Put a few MGs & rocket pods & u have them!

    Mi-17 is already better equipped than that... Mi-28NM and Ka-52 are much better protected and better armed.... who cares if they are slower... they are fast enough to keep up with helicopter transports.

    Then why Russia fields small recon. models?

    UAVs come in all sorts of shapes and sizes that don't scale up very well...

    Decades ago they tried to develop a similar bird:

    That was never intended to be a tilt rotor... it was just a different rotor arrangement for a helicopter... if the wing tip engine pods rotated to turn the main rotor blades into the incoming air the jet engines beneath them that power them would be pointing straight down and would likely stall.

    Their V-22 counterpart may be even larger for more cargo/fuel space.

    Or it just might not exist... The Russians have a lot of design bureaus all working away on their little fields of interest, so tilt rotors might be a possibility, but high speed helos seem rather more interesting and useful and likely.

    In some cases, if they need to evacuate or rescue some1 from the water/land & the CVN is 200-300+ miles away, or bring jet engines ASAP so the fighter air ops don't stop, or insert SF ashore.

    A single case where it might be useful is hardly a reason to develop a whole new technology and aircraft type that is going to take up space and cost money.

    Any Frigate sized ship closer to the target can send their SAR Helix helicopter...

    Didn't find anything else on scopes, but did on rifles:

    Oh jeez... americans are such arrogant censored ...they steal american technology because they can't make it themselves... really?

    Or perhaps they want to use it in places where it is not publicly known they are operating so if they supply their stooges with American equipment and they get caught...

    Of course pure and innocent america would never do that.... btw america is looking for an american company to produce RPG-7s and PKMs and Utes HMGs so they can be provided to allies and terrorists where all the parts are interchangeable and replaceable... which the kit they buy from their new eastern european bitches are not...

    It is as amusing as Trump claiming the Chinese are stealing 5g technology Rolling Eyes

    Didn't find anything else on scopes, but did on rifles:

    Might come as a shock but special forces often buy batches of weapons from all over the place for evaluation and testing... you have said yourself the US has Mi-24s... when was the last time they used them in combat?

    If they don't actually use them operationally can you still say they actually use them?

    A while back most Russian special forces bought what they liked on the open market and used the equipment they wanted to use, but these days the Ratnik systems have largely fixed most of the gaps in their equipment, and being designed to work together as a system it will likely continue to be expanded and added to.

    And the BS about Russians using German SMGs... well when you capture shit loads of enemy stuff and have plenty of ammo why not use it against the enemy... the MP40 is totally inferior to the Soviet equivalents of the time, but it took a little while to make those 71 round drum mags so in the mean time they might have chosen to use a few inferior German bits of crap.

    The Germans also happily used Soviet SMGs they could capture and kept using it with their own 7.62x25mm ammo... they also used Soviet 120mm mortars and adopted Soviet practises of using them in enormous numbers because they were so effective.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2411
    Points : 2409
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:08 am

    Your logic is that the US has tiltrotors on their carriers so the Russians must have some on theirs... how does that smell?
    They built or tried to build counterparts for everything the West had, so it's not far fetched to predict that it'll happen again with V-22/-280.
    https://www.bellflight.com/military/bell-v-280
    ..doesn't mean Russia will suddenly try to copy a V22 for an AWACS role on an aircraft carrier they don't even have yet.
    True, but if they decide to have them for a simple reason of problems with CATOBAR, it's very possible. It gets around ur argument that only CATOBAR can accommodate fixed wing AWACS platform.
    That statement was the equivalent of the logic... statement x when statement y, where statement y is something that will never happen..
    There were plenty of 2nd hand Western aircraft USSR could get after the Vietnam war, like some C-130s & helos the Israeli arms dealer bought dirt cheap, but it wasn't worth it as parts were not easy to get. Sanctions can also be imposed at any time as we see with MC-21, etc.
    Sitting on the deck of a carrier doing 25 knots it could probably take off backwards.
    It won't be strong enough to have a radome.
    Can they fly 3,000km with a 7 ton payload? Are they 2 million dollars each?
    with midair refueling, it's possible.
    The cost for each CV-22 was $73 million in the FY 2014 budget.
    Unit cost: MV-22: US$72.1 million
    Capacity:
    24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded), or
    20,000 lb (9,070 kg) of internal cargo, or up to 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of external cargo (dual hook)
    Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary internal fuel tanks

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey

    A single case where it might be useful is hardly a reason to develop a whole new technology and aircraft type that is going to take up space and cost money.
    Their UAVs already use it, so it's not a new tech. They could also be better for ASW/Sea Control/mine laying/hunting- the list of potential applications is long.
    That was never intended to be a tilt rotor... it was just a different rotor arrangement for a helicopter... if the wing tip engine pods rotated to turn the main rotor blades into the incoming air the jet engines beneath them that power them would be pointing straight down and would likely stall.
    No, it had pull props, just like on a plane:
    The Ka-22 was in essence a fixed-wing aircraft with rotors fitted above the wing tips. An engine was mounted on each wing tip, with drive to both a four-bladed tractor propeller and a four-bladed main rotor. ..The fuselage contained three-seat cockpit above the glazed nose and a main cargo area large enough to contain 80 seats or 16.5 tonnes of cargo. The entire nose could swing open to starboard for loading bulky items. In helicopter mode, the propeller drive was disconnected, and the flaps were lowered to 90 degrees. In fixed-wing mode, the lifting rotors were free to windmill, and the aircraft was controlled by the ailerons and tail surfaces. The twin-wheel landing gear was fixed.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-22#Design

    ..the MP40 is totally inferior to the Soviet equivalents of the time, but it took a little while to make those 71 round drum mags so in the mean time they might have chosen to use a few inferior German bits of crap.
    They were lighter & more accurate. The Soviet partisans loved it.
    The NKVD use was mentioned in a Russian video I saw a few days ago. The US SF also used it. Others used it till recently:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP_40#Post-war_usage
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP_40#Operators


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:38 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 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:22 am

    GarryB wrote:
    They may say it but stick to the old design to avoid disputing those who don't know how advanced it was & r against it.

    If it was really that advanced the MiG-29K would be the programme cancelled and the Yak-41 programmed put on hold until money was available to restart it.

    was 29k good it wasnt stopped right after short series, Su-33 life extended and new VSTOL fighter ordered to replace it.



    GB wrote:The Yak-41 was cancelled.
    when you're repeating this bullshit @ nausea do you compulsively wank with kiwi peel? it is SOOOO GAY.
    You kinky bastard.

    lol1 lol1 lol1




    GB wrote:
    They'll have attack versions to escort transports.
    But they don't right now...

    that's why VDV has already ordered one



    GB wrote:
    R u suggesting they stop modernizing & developing new aircraft/ships just because the Americans were 1st to do it?
    The US needs tiltrotors because their helicopters are ordinary and they don't have any seriously large helos.

    High speed helos looks like a better option to pursue.

    Russians re working on both approaches for some time already.

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4432510




    GB wrote:
    Then they may as well give up on CVNs! If something is useful, no matter who invented, it's wise to adopt it!
    Russia wont ever make CVNs in the western sense, and large fixed wing carrier the Russians make will have the weapons of a destroyer as well as the aircraft of an aircraft carrier... the Russians never rely on air power alone for anything.

    what makes perfect sense in case you cannot field comparable no of CVNs but still have to counter them.



    GB wrote:
    Since Russians decided to build  VSTOL fighter they will deliver.

    They will pretty soon come to the conclusion that the V component of the design is slowing them down and making the aircraft too complicated, too fragile, and too expensive and dump it for STOL.

    Perhaps yes perhaps not. But this wont depend on number of your whispering or voodo spells just project decisions vs requirements. lol1 lol1 lol1



    GB wrote:
    BTW did you see 152mm on any Russian current or projected ship? I didnt
    No VSTOL fighters either...

    There were no any programmers either unlike Vstol. Or perhaps as eehnie you see things other dont?



    [quote="GB" in kinky gay mode" ]Often AWACS and Su-57 models though on the carrier models...
    [/quote]

    Sure plastic is fantastic thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Snp13_01


    GB wrote:

    And why now Russians could not build 2m+ VSTOL fighters? any real reason.

    Never done it before perhaps?

    so?






    still why 60 not 30?

    If it has the capacity for 90 and only takes 60 it will have aviation fuel and supplies for 50% longer operations before needing resupply, so it is becomes a high tempo operation unexpectedly it will be able to cope.
    Ohhh, but of course... sending a carrier group to the other side of the world is supposed to be cheap... that is why everyone is doing it...If you have to spend money spend a bit more and get a decent more useful product.

    [/quote]

    OK so there are no real military reasons ? only "your IMHO". Then OK




    GB wrote: The fact that neither of us are giving concrete examples of certain cases of definite intervention potential areas suggests it would be better to get the Russian Navy what they want when they ask for a ship with a larger air group that the current Kuznestov can manage.

    Your argument that the bean counters wont approve that and so they need to go for a smaller design unified with other ship types is amusing... especially when you claim the experts in Russia know how to make VSTOL supersonic 5th gen fighters.... what will the bean counters say about them then?


    Right. Kuznetsov carries 24 (max 30 fighters). Navy wanted to ask 70k or 100k CVN, yet USC is designing "universal ship" and Krylov 37kton one.





    GB wrote:
    so THE ONLY reason to build larger, much more expensive and larger to build  CVN is to carry 30 fighters in Venezuela ? or similar exotic scenario?

    No you ignorant dick. Right now the world is changing from one dominated by the US and the west... they dominate the world economy and they crush anyone who opposes them, but their open and brazen use and abuse of power is going to be their undoing and pretty soon Russia and China and India and a few other countries are going to stop drinking the kool aide and contributing to the wests main power base... the mighty US dollar. When that goes tits up do you think international law will suddenly become respected? The Americans don't respect it now.

    you talk lot yet can you focus on one simple question?! Answer, please, my question. What real advantage provides 30+ fighters in case of Russia?

    OK you named already one 30 to store on shore in Venezuela. Do you see any other? or that's it? unshaven unshaven unshaven




    GB wrote:Russia needs the global reach of a powerful navy... not necessarily a big navy, but it needs to have its own air power to protect it from enemy air power... and that is anywhere it needs to operate.

    And 1 30+ CSG makes it happen? not 3-4 groupings?

    BTW US didnt invade Syria when only 4 Su-30SM fighters were there (never to my knowledge 10 on ground max same time) remaining were Su-24/34 & 25 but now Russ ins need hundredths? OK you can believe in whatever you want. Nonetheless real life proves otherwise.

    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 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:28 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    ..doesn't mean Russia will suddenly try to copy a V22 for an AWACS role on an aircraft carrier they don't even have yet.
    True, but if they decide to have them for a simple reason of problems with CATOBAR, it's very possible. It gets around ur argument that only CATOBAR can accommodate fixed wing AWACS platform.


    The fact is that Russia has been working on tilt-rotors for some time. Will the one be the AWACS platform is yet to be seen.
    No official info about any EMALs project or even plans tho

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2411
    Points : 2409
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:02 am

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201809031067697093-russia-tiltroter-aircraft-airborne-forces/
    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4432510
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD#%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8B

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8-30

    http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/defense-security-exhibitions-news/air-show-2017/maks-2017-news-coverage-report/3636-maks-2017-russian-helicopters-group-exhibits-prototype-of-the-vrt30-unmanned-convertiplane.html

    Soon we may need to open a thread dedicated to them.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:05 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add links)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20805
    Points : 21359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:57 am

    They built or tried to build counterparts for everything the West had, so it's not far fetched to predict that it'll happen again with V-22/-280.

    Sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't bother... where is their Commanche equivalent?

    And don't say Ka-52 because that is not a stealth helo.

    Where is their F-117 equivalent?

    True, but if they decide to have them for a simple reason of problems with CATOBAR, it's very possible. It gets around ur argument that only CATOBAR can accommodate fixed wing AWACS platform.

    Well lets agree that it gets around the argument when a tiltrotor AWACS platform enters Russian service... until then a more conventional design is rather more likely.

    There were plenty of 2nd hand Western aircraft USSR could get after the Vietnam war, like some C-130s & helos the Israeli arms dealer bought dirt cheap, but it wasn't worth it as parts were not easy to get. Sanctions can also be imposed at any time as we see with MC-21, etc.

    The needs of the Soviets are not the same as the needs of the US... the Soviets wouldn't want to buy air conditioned hangars for all its aircraft for example, or tents for its main battle tanks that don't like really cold weather...

    It won't be strong enough to have a radome.

    It can operate with a 7 ton payload... that is better than the Ka-31 AEW helicopter they are using at the moment... by about 4 tons...

    A radome would just act as another wing and might improve its low speed flight performance further...

    with midair refueling, it's possible.
    The cost for each CV-22 was $73 million in the FY 2014 budget.
    Unit cost: MV-22: US$72.1 million

    And triple that price with a huge radar on its back and the electronic processing equipment on board...

    They could also be better for ASW/Sea Control/mine laying/hunting- the list of potential applications is long.

    They already have amphibious jets that are significantly faster and can land on the sea if need be...

    The Ka-22 was in essence a fixed-wing aircraft with rotors fitted above the wing tips. An engine was mounted on each wing tip, with drive to both a four-bladed tractor propeller and a four-bladed main rotor. ..The fuselage contained three-seat cockpit above the glazed nose and a main cargo area large enough to contain 80 seats or 16.5 tonnes of cargo. The entire nose could swing open to starboard for loading bulky items. In helicopter mode, the propeller drive was disconnected, and the flaps were lowered to 90 degrees. In fixed-wing mode, the lifting rotors were free to windmill, and the aircraft was controlled by the ailerons and tail surfaces. The twin-wheel landing gear was fixed.

    Was not successful. Clearly too complicated and over engineered...

    They were lighter & more accurate. The Soviet partisans loved it.

    Lighter only than the PPSh-41, not the PPS-43 and certainly not more accurate than either... watch these:







    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20805
    Points : 21359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:15 am

    was 29k good it wasnt stopped right after short series,

    The MiG-29K was based on the MiG-29M and didn't enter service... only a few prototypes were made.

    The MiG-29KR was based on the MiG-29M2/ MiG-35 design and has been produced and put in service for India and a modified version for the Russian Navy.

    You kinky bastard.

    Cancelled.

    ...well, not completely... parts of its design like the main engine nozzle that operates at about 20 tons thrust and can rotate the thrust in full AB was sold to the Americans so they could make their VTOL F-35B...

    that's why VDV has already ordered one

    Tiltrotors?

    Russians re working on both approaches for some time already.

    yeah, just like they are working on VSTOLs too...

    Right. Kuznetsov carries 24 (max 30 fighters). Navy wanted to ask 70k or 100k CVN, yet USC is designing "universal ship" and Krylov 37kton one.

    Universal design might just be for helicopter carriers and landing ships and cruisers, while the two fixed wing carriers they build are different... or are you suggesting this 40KT design will be used for all future Russian ships including frigate and corvette designs too...

    They are suggesting a universal base for larger ships... does not mean it has been accepted... they need to come up with some convincing models...

    you talk lot yet can you focus on one simple question?! Answer, please, my question. What real advantage provides 30+ fighters in case of Russia?

    OK you named already one 30 to store on shore in Venezuela. Do you see any other? or that's it?

    Let me turn the question around and ask what sort of aircraft will be operating on this carrier... just fighters or will there be strike aircraft, AWACS, refuelling, jammers, recon, transport, search and rescue... now if you only have 24 planes how many will be fighters and how many will be strike aircraft because being 5th gen they will have to work with internal weapons only so we are not talking about a large number of air to air weapons, let alone much in the way of a mixed payload capacity... in fact with stealthy aircraft you would need a lot more aircraft just to get more weapons in the air as the internal payload is generally very limited.

    BTW US didnt invade Syria when only 4 Su-30SM fighters were there (never to my knowledge 10 on ground max same time) remaining were Su-24/34 & 25 but now Russ ins need hundredths? OK you can believe in whatever you want. Nonetheless real life proves otherwise.

    So we are using Syria as an example... how many planes do they keep operational there most of the time... more than 24 I would say.... and including 2 AWACS platforms too and the Tu-214 version of JSTARS as well... how will you get all of those on a little 40K ton ship?

    But it is modular so that is OK then... Rolling Eyes

    The fact is that Russia has been working on tilt-rotors for some time. Will the one be the AWACS platform is yet to be seen.

    Tilt rotors are a waste of time... just like VSTOL fighters.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2411
    Points : 2409
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:39 pm

    ..where is their Commanche equivalent? ..Where is their F-117 equivalent?
    the 1st didn't go into serial production/service, the 2nd served a few years & mothballed after 1 was shot down & another damaged by Serbs, + Russia didn't need such a bird.
    As u wrote: "The needs of the Soviets are not the same as the needs of the US." To clarify: they did develop counterparts that they thought they needed.
    ..until then a more conventional design is rather more likely.
    IMO, its 50-50.
    It can operate with a 7 ton payload...
    with no landing gear in the front to hook up the launch bar & only 1 engine for over water ops? It's also slow to get from point A to point B fast.
    And triple that price with a huge radar on its back..
    It won't be huge, by any stretch! Compare:
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_44d3OT-xI3U/SkJ2X8eU70I/AAAAAAAAAxQ/ZkCutuFSJ3Q/s400/Osprey+AEW-2.jpg with
    https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.e6tdre_f9lj51feB9njmqwHaE6&pid=Api&P=0&w=248&h=165

    They can use the avionics from Ka-31, Il-38s & A-50/-100.
    They already have amphibious jets that are significantly faster and can land on the sea if need be..
    those won't be based on TAKRs/UDKs, & they have sea state limitations.
    Was not successful. Clearly too complicated and over engineered..
    if they kept working on it, it could be successful. Either way, they have some developmental experience, not less than in the West.
    Lighter only than the PPSh-41, not the PPS-43 and certainly not more accurate than either..
    Still, if they were all that inferior, they & others wouldn't have been using them. They r more compact with folding stock, thus more ergonomic & convenient in tight spaces.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20805
    Points : 21359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:57 am

    the 1st didn't go into serial production/service, the 2nd served a few years & mothballed after 1 was shot down & another damaged by Serbs, + Russia didn't need such a bird.
    As u wrote: "The needs of the Soviets are not the same as the needs of the US." To clarify: they did develop counterparts that they thought they needed.

    I know.

    But you are the one claiming they need a V-22 for their new carriers to mount a decent sized radar on board to provide AWACS support for naval forces... Russia does not need such a bird either.

    IMO, its 50-50.

    50-50 where one does not exist and is not even planned and the other appears in plastic form on their new carrier models?

    with no landing gear in the front to hook up the launch bar & only 1 engine for over water ops? It's also slow to get from point A to point B fast.

    with no landing gear in the front to hook up the launch bar & only 1 engine for over water ops? It's also slow to get from point A to point B fast.
    [/quote]

    Its stall speed is about 50km/h, it does not need a launch bar... it could probably operate of the kuznetsov as it is... without using the cable landing system.
    As an AWACS platform... where is it going that it needs to get there fast?

    They can use the avionics from Ka-31, Il-38s & A-50/-100.

    And a few billion to develop a tiltrotor aircraft to begin with because America wont sell them any...

    those won't be based on TAKRs/UDKs, & they have sea state limitations.

    They could have amphibious sea planes in the vehicle deck of a landing ship when the landing ship is not going to be used for landing forces...

    Everything has limitations.... For the Russians their biggest one that prevents your plan seeing the light of day is that they don't have any Tilt rotor aircraft in service.

    if they kept working on it, it could be successful. Either way, they have some developmental experience, not less than in the West.

    The result has to justify the expense... a Tiltrotor aircraft wont have a better flight ceiling than a conventional aircraft of similar size and flight ceiling is rather more important than flight speed or the ability to take off on your own.

    Still, if they were all that inferior, they & others wouldn't have been using them. They r more compact with folding stock, thus more ergonomic & convenient in tight spaces.

    The Soviets used MP40s for the same reason they used Shermans.... better than nothing. Given the choice they would have taken Soviet weapons because they were seriously superior. If they were capturing German weapons and being behind enemy lines where supply was unlikely it makes sense to use the German weapons against the Germans. Suggesting they had soviet weapons they could use and chose to use the German weapons is not true.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2411
    Points : 2409
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:54 am

    But you are the one claiming they need a V-22 for their new carriers to mount a decent sized radar on board to provide AWACS support for naval forces..
    It may be smaller, the same or bigger than the V-22 & it will fit well on a UDK that will be w/o CATOBAR. They may end up never building a pure TAKR again, much less a CVN. Just because they now work on EMALS doesn't mean with 100% certainty that they'll have it installed on any ship. At best, the max # they may have is ~ 4-6. Some may have it & some (or all) won't, if it shows to be immature & not reliable. IMO, they won't mess with a steam CAT either. Their needs & means r not the same as China's, India's, US', UK's, & France's.
    ..it could probably operate of the kuznetsov as it is... without using the cable landing system.
    As an AWACS platform... where is it going that it needs to get there fast?
    Under typical conditions, the take-off is complete within 170 m (560 ft) while the landing run requires 215 m (705 ft); these figures will vary dependent upon various factors, such as the aircraft's take-off/landing weight, the external air temperature, surface roughness, and headwind.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2#Design

    The Adm K. deck is 305 m (1,001 ft), but a heavier plane full of electronics, people, fuel + radome will need even more to take off. Its 18 kts max speed in calm weather won't generate enough headwind.
    It may need to get to certain area a long distance away & stay there for a few hrs before going somewhere else to land or do other patrolling.
    And a few billion to develop a tiltrotor aircraft to begin with because America wont sell them any..
    The VDV version development will pay for most of the VMF version. The investment is worth it, as it combines helo VTOL & hover ability with speed & range of a plane. They may also sell/barter dozens of them for a big profit, things they need &/ influence.
    They could have amphibious sea planes in the vehicle deck of a landing ship
    Those birds r too big to fit there, unless they build large floating bases or make artificial islands in areas they plan to deploy. Smaller planes will have more limitations & lower performance.
    ..a Tiltrotor aircraft wont have a better flight ceiling than a conventional aircraft of similar size and flight ceiling is rather more important than flight speed or the ability to take off on your own.
    Compromises in a hybrid aircraft r the fact of life. With IRPs, they could send them farther away to compensate for their lower max. ceiling.
    There is an antidote for anything, including ur arguments.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:56 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 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Mar 06, 2019 4:15 am

    GarryB wrote:Well lets agree that it gets around the argument when a tiltrotor AWACS platform enters Russian service... until then a more conventional design is rather more likely.


    And why?


    GB wrote:
    with midair refueling, it's possible.
    The cost for each CV-22 was $73 million in the FY 2014 budget.
    Unit cost: MV-22: US$72.1 million

    And triple that price with a huge radar on its back and the electronic processing equipment on board...

    yet, if tilt rotor will be developed for other application (VDV, AF, Army) will be by order of magnitude cheaper then creating completely new design for 10 pieces.



    Sponsored content

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 28 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:19 pm