Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2433
    Points : 2431
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Mar 06, 2019 4:22 am

    The USN saved $Ms on the E-2 COD replacement with the USMC V-22s used for COD. Later, the Navy variant will be inducted. Also, they now can land on deck at night, something those E-2s were restricted to do.
    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 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:38 am

    GarryB wrote:
    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.

    doesnt matter now, it is closed.



    GB wrote:
    You kinky bastard.
    Cancelled.

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Kisscc0-rainbow-flag-lesbian-lgbt-symbols-new-zealand-rainbow-new-zealand-flag-1-5b72acdb605cb4.9393587815342420113947




    GB wrote:...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...

    not really, program financing dried. Same with MFI/LFI. Was closed.


    1) wiki - closed
    Результатом всего этого стало прекращение к концу 1991 года финансирования программы, а затем и её окончательное закрытие в 1992 году.


    2) Borisov: "The plans of the Ministry of Defense ... in the distant, at the finish of the GPO [state armaments program] 2018-2025 - the beginning of the construction of a new aircraft carrying cruiser, and, of course, a new generation of aviation technology will fit by that time. are the basis for aircraft carriers, in particular, "Admiral Kuznetsov." The plans of the Ministry of Defense, we discuss this with our aircraft manufacturers - the creation of a promising aircraft short takeoff and landing, possibly vertical takeoff and landing, "- he said at the air show MAKS-2017 .

    "This is the development of the Yakovskaya line, which has been discontinued. There are such plans, we are discussing them, including, perhaps, these areas will be implemented for a promising aircraft for aircraft carrying cruisers," he said.

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4422663

    Later Borisov said it will be no "continuation yak-141 but new fighter" what is perfectly logical VSTOL trdition but not 50 years' old design. It would be same idiocy like investing in MiG-29k now



    GB wrote:
    that's why VDV has already ordered one
    Tiltrotors?

    VDV ordered flying BMP which can be tiltrotor. So fr they got Mi-35 for this function.

    1) Russins since 2017 (Bondryev) announced work on tilt-rotors

    2) VDV wanted to have own aviation nd "flying BMP"


    3) now they're evaluating helos or tilt rotors. Similarly in US, V-280 is not yet the winner.

    https://iz.ru/784712/denis-komarovskii/sheveli-vintami-zachem-vdv-mashina-kak-u-amerikantcev






    GB wrote:
    Russians re working on both approaches for some time already.
    yeah, just like they are working on VSTOLs too...

    true, and true that they neither work on emals nor Su-57k



    GB wrote:
    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...

    Not really, Rakhmanov in sources mentioned 4 functions. An aircraft carrier function was one of them. LHD + helo carrier + (command ship?) (Cruiser?)

    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201812031417-yt9y.htm

    https://ria.ru/20181203/1539124311.html




    GB wrote:
    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.

    strike aircraft in the age of drones? fighters are for fleet defenses not strikes. Russian doctrine is bout precision ammunition. 100-112 Zircons/Klibers-M from Lider + 32-48 form each Gorshkov-M are for strike capabilities.


    GB wrote:
    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?

    JSTRS? does itdo anything else drone relay cannot? In Syri 24 fighters? never.
    AWACS ? it is already planned regardless if conventional or tilt-rotor . Krylov 37k ton project didn't offer place for 24-30 fighters + 2 AWACS?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-8_Joint_STARS



    GB wrote:
    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.
    [/quote]
    Mi
    you yet need to convince MoD, VDV, Navy and Putin . Tell them you know stuff better then Su-57 and Mil/Kamov designers .


    Bonne Chance
    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 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:43 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:The USN saved $Ms on the E-2 COD replacement with the USMC V-22s used for COD. Later, the Navy variant will be inducted. Also, they now can land on deck at night, something those E-2s were restricted to do.


    its true that MC considers tiltrotors in AEW/attack craft / transport aircraft functions but isnt it that V-280 is one of prototypes for evaluation. tilt rotor vs helicopter?

    Not yet, necessarily the winner.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2433
    Points : 2431
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:24 am

    V-22 was also interested by the fleet aviation: they saw in it as more effective in ASW than helicopters. In addition, this platform is considered as a “flying radar” for universal landing craft
    [amphib.assault ships]
    .
    https://iz.ru/784712/denis-komarovskii/sheveli-vintami-zachem-vdv-mashina-kak-u-amerikantcev

    In Russia, FSB Border Guards & MVD/MChS (Emergency Situations Ministry) + ambulance services/firefighters may also be interested in them.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2433
    Points : 2431
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:10 am

    Even for the USN, If carriers have a future, it’s in STOBAR (“Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery”) ships. They’re smaller, cheaper, less vulnerable, and over the last 75 years aircraft have been developed that don’t need a thousand feet of deck to take off from or land on.
    https://original.antiwar.com/thomas-knapp/2019/03/05/aircraft-carriers-give-truman-and-ford-a-burial-at-sea/

    https://ria.ru/20190309/1551600571.html

    The VMF will have a mix of UDKs & STOBAR TAKRs before any NP EMALS equipped ship appears.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:15 am; edited 1 time in total
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:46 am

    Smaller is not less vulnerable... that is like saying having a fleet of 1,000 Corvettes is less vulnerable than a normal fleet because they are likely to escape all being destroyed, whereas bigger heavier better protected ships will all be destroyed.

    Well the honest facts of the matter is that nothing is invulnerable and everything can be destroyed, but during peace time which is the majority of its normal time in use a bigger ship will be vastly more useful than a smaller or several smaller ships.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2433
    Points : 2431
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Mar 07, 2019 7:24 am

    A smaller ship is a smaller target; the smaller the target, the harder it is to find, identify & hit it. No need to be a naval expert to understand this simple fact.
    Isos
    Isos

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Isos on Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:20 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:A smaller ship is a smaller target; the smaller the target, the harder it is to find, identify & hit it. No need to be a naval expert to understand this simple fact.

    Depend how you look for it. Radar waves can be detected at 2x max their detection range with passive radars. Then you'd prefere to be in a big ship with powerfull radars and weapons than in a corvette.
    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 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:39 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Well the honest facts of the matter is that nothing is invulnerable and everything can be destroyed, but during peace time which is the majority of its normal time in use a bigger ship will be vastly more useful than a smaller or several smaller ships.

    of course ! Yamato is the best example. Biiig is goooD
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2433
    Points : 2431
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Mar 09, 2019 1:55 am

    Regarding rifles, I failed to mention StG44:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44#Users



    The bigger they r, the harder they fall (sink). With more crew/planes, more casualties & losses. The last event was the sinking of Gen. Belgrano in 1982, killing 323 Argentine crewmen.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/9233976/Thirty-years-on-Argentine-survivors-of-the-Belgrano-sinking-recall-the-moment-Falklands-war-erupted-around-them.html
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 09, 2019 10:00 am

    A smaller ship is a smaller target; the smaller the target, the harder it is to find, identify & hit it. No need to be a naval expert to understand this simple fact.

    But also much less well armed and less well protected and therefore much easier to hit and destroy, and not really always worth hitting if there are more interesting targets to hit.

    A corvette might not be a more appealing target than a cruiser, but a cruiser is just a more useful and much much more powerful asset to the navy it operates with.

    Suggesting corvettes are some how superior is like saying the Iranian navy speed boats armed with HMGs 2,000 of those are better than a destroyer or a cruiser... that is a terrible argument... but I can understand a western military expert suggesting it, because it supports their ideas of swarm attacks with cheap simple drones... problem is that so far it all appears to be just talk.

    of course ! Yamato is the best example. Biiig is goooD

    It is proof that having impressive looking gear on paper is not good enough... repeated in Yemen with Saudi Soldiers in Abrams tanks getting their arses kicked by tribesmen in jandals...

    Regarding rifles, I failed to mention StG44:

    What has that to do with anything?

    Its basic mechanism is a rough copy of the SKS design which is also very similar to the FN FAL design... the SKS's design came from the PTRS-41 anti tank rifle of 1941 and was simply scaled down.

    The designs of many German weapons were taken directly from Soviet designs... the Tokarev was directly copied... the Panther tank is basically a German over engineered T-34... just look at the side profiles and reverse the angle of the rear engine deck...

    The bigger they r, the harder they fall (sink). With more crew/planes, more casualties & losses. The last event was the sinking of Gen. Belgrano in 1982, killing 323 Argentine crewmen.

    Of course... the WWII era Belgrano could have sunk that British SSN if only it was smaller...  Rolling Eyes 

    So if smaller vessels are so powerful and effective.... where are all the American corvettes?
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2433
    Points : 2431
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:13 pm

    By the same token, big USN CV/Ns were stalked within torpedo range by Soviet, Swedish & Chinese subs.
    The MIC won't profit as much from small ships. They got rid of their CGNs to avoid excessive operating/refueling costs & ordered CGs instead. The LCSs have their role:
    https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/

    However,
    ..the Littoral Combat Ship program has been a failure. The Navy needs to change course as soon as it possibly can and replace the design with a more capable and survivable frigate that features a potent area air defense capability.

    ..Nuclear supercarriers are also extremely costly to operate, and their availability is based around a highly rigid and complex timetable. The recent carrier gap has proven just how little elasticity there is in America's all supercarrier force. A mix of supercarriers and smaller carriers in the 65,000 ton class would allow for a more flexible overall aircraft carrier force, with greater strike capacity being able to be deployed on short notice. ..
    The Navy could still procure the F-35, but in the form of the B variant, alongside purchasing smaller America class derivative carriers as part of an overall revamp of the Navy's current carrier/carrier air wing force mixture. In fact, a supercarrier loaded with advanced UCAVs, Super Hornets, Growlers and Hawkeyes, paired with a modified America class "Lightning Carrier" loaded with F-35Bs, may represent the best of both worlds. Under such an arrangement, a full variant of the F-35 could be eliminated from production—and the most expensive one at that—the F-35C.

    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9224/7-revolutionary-hardware-changes-the-us-navy-should-make-in-the-trump-era

    The VMF doesn't need super CVNs & can accomplish its mission with UDK/TAKR hybrids.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:08 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add a quote)
    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 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:57 am

    GarryB wrote:
    of course ! Yamato is the best example. Biiig is goooD

    It is proof that having impressive looking gear on paper is not good enough... repeated in Yemen with Saudi Soldiers in Abrams tanks getting their arses kicked by tribesmen in jandals...

    true, especially that neither Shtorm nor Abrams were not designed to colonial wars.



    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:06 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Under such an arrangement, a full variant of the F-35 could be eliminated from production—and the most expensive one at that—the F-35C.
    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9224/7-revolutionary-hardware-changes-the-us-navy-should-make-in-the-trump-era

    Most expensive version of F-35 is the STOVL one
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:20 am

    LMFS wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Under such an arrangement, a full variant of the F-35 could be eliminated from production—and the most expensive one at that—the F-35C.
    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9224/7-revolutionary-hardware-changes-the-us-navy-should-make-in-the-trump-era

    Most expensive version of F-35 is the STOVL one

    yet still more F-35B is in plans then F-35C

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2433
    Points : 2431
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:59 am

    Most expensive version of F-35 is the STOVL one
    Not if u include EMALS & the 3 planned CVNs that will use it.
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:14 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Most expensive version of F-35 is the STOVL one
    Not if u include EMALS & the 3 planned CVNs that will use it.
    Nice try to internalize all those costs into the F-35C Razz
    USN strategy calls for creation of CVNs with EMALS as a way of their power projection capabilities not being overshadowed by any other nation. F-35C is just a plane going to use them, but far from being the only one needing catapults or the reason why USN does not use STOVL overall. F/A-18, NGAD, MQ-25, E-2D, X-47B all use or will use catapults too. Only LHA/LHD vessels of USMC meant to operate as support and under the CVN umbrella use F-35B. Not going to open the debate again about CV/STOVL capabilities, these are the simple facts.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2433
    Points : 2431
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Mar 10, 2019 5:48 pm

    Still, there'll be a lot more F-35Cs ordered than F-35Bs, so their overall costs r higher. If there were some STOBAR CVs, F-35C/Bs & all those other aircraft &/ tiltrotor versions of them could still be launched.
    To save $5.5Bs, they proposed to retire the USS Truman to help pay for the Ford class CVNs:
    https://www.richmond.com/opinion/our-opinion/editorial-an-early-retirement-for-uss-truman/article_e1293fab-b221-5785-84df-ddbbb0c9d5b2.html

    A few years ago, it was the same with the CVN-73.
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:03 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Still, there'll be a lot more F-35Cs ordered than F-35Bs,

    Gunship wrote:yet still more F-35B is in plans then F-35C

    Who should I believe?  Razz

    If there were some STOBAR CVs, F-35C/Bs & all those other aircraft &/ tiltrotor versions of them could still be launched.
    Suspect
    > Fighters and high T/W ratio planes can indeed be launched from springboard, even fully loaded, given they have very powerful engines. F/A-18 E/F can achieve it from long runs in a STOBAR carrier, F-35Cs T/W value is even lower so min speed should be better. NGAD should have very powerful engines but given they focus on long range it is not clear what T/W ratio will result.
    > The other planes have no chance from a springboard, so should be replaced with tiltrotor or STOVL versions
    To save $5.5Bs, they proposed to retire the USS Truman to help pay for the Ford class CVNs:
    https://www.richmond.com/opinion/our-opinion/editorial-an-early-retirement-for-uss-truman/article_e1293fab-b221-5785-84df-ddbbb0c9d5b2.html

    A few years ago, it was the same with the CVN-73.
    Not sure what is your point here
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2433
    Points : 2431
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:38 pm

    Who should I believe?
    It's less by 13 F-35Cs, but more by 1,750 if u unclude the F-35As:
    In total, the DOD plans to purchase 2,456 F-35s: 1,763 F-35As for the USAF; 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs for the Marine Corps; and 273 F-35Cs for the USN.
    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dod-reveals-f-35-multiyear-procurement-strategy-to-s-447785/

    The USAF & USN/MC budgets come from the $ allocated to the DOD.
    These plans may be revised & changed from year to year.
    The other planes.. should be replaced with tiltrotor or STOVL versions
    that's what I tried to say with &/ symbols.
    Not sure what is your point here
    The Ford class with EMALS,etc. is more expensive than the Nimitz class CVNs, & it haven't been proven yet with a lot things need fixing.
    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 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:00 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    In total, the DOD plans to purchase 2,456 F-35s: 1,763 F-35As for the USAF; 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs for the Marine Corps; and 273 F-35Cs for the USN.
    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dod-reveals-f-35-multiyear-procurement-strategy-to-s-447785/

    which is F35B 353 vs. 340 F35C in the USA


    + Royal Navy + RAF 138 (RAF is bitching but didn't hear anything they gave up yet)
    + Italian Navy 30
    + Japanese Navy (? 40? 50?)

    For UK && Japs  && Italians that would be then only type of deck fighter.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2433
    Points : 2431
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:52 am

    We should also add the cost of additional new & upgraded F-18E/Fs as they r heavier than F-18C/Ds & won't be able to use the STOBAR at full warloads.
    According to its latest budget request for the 2019 fiscal year and associated documentation, the Navy intends to purchase 110 new F/A-18E/F aircraft in the Block III configuration over a four year period. The service also plans to upgrade at least a portion of its 540 existing Super Hornets to the new standard as part of a service life modification program, or SLM, that will run through at least 2025. ..
    As it stands now, the Navy remains the primary Super Hornet customer and is set to operate the jets for years to come.
    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21045/here-is-boeings-master-plan-for-the-f-a-18e-f-super-hornets-future

    Altogether, the Navy intends to modify more than 500 Block II Super Hornets into the Block III configuration and build 116 new Block III aircraft by 2024, ..

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-navys-new-block-iii-super-hornet-could-crush-chinas-25964
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet#Specifications_(F/A-18E/F)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet#Specifications_(F/A-18C/D)
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:59 am

    By the same token, big USN CV/Ns were stalked within torpedo range by Soviet, Swedish & Chinese subs.

    Those same subs stalked any size carrier so I don't understand your point?

    Are you suggesting that the better policy of the US Navy would be to get rid of their 70-100K carriers and similar large through deck carriers and replace them each with half a dozen small carriers with VSTOLs and helos because Soviet subs would never be able to sink 60 carriers instead of 13.

    I find it amusing you would think more carriers would be cheaper than less, or that a smaller carrier would be as capable as a larger carrier.

    The MIC won't profit as much from small ships.

    I would say there would be even more profit in smaller ships if you have to make four or five or even six times more... getting to rip off the US military 4-6 times instead of 1 means much more opportunity for graft and corruption...

    The VMF doesn't need super CVNs & can accomplish its mission with UDK/TAKR hybrids.

    You keep suggesting that but it does not make it true.

    The Russians would be better off not making the same mistake the Americans made with the F-35B, which if you check is actually the most expensive F-35 model and removing that piece of crap from the inventory could have saved the whole programme because design and features were all skewed dramatically to cater for the Bs VSTOL capacity... they could have ended up with a tight little capable design... a stealthy F-16, but ended up with a dog.

    yet still more F-35B is in plans then F-35C

    Yeah, their stupidity knows no bounds...

    Not if u include EMALS & the 3 planned CVNs that will use it.

    If the US Navy wants to operate F-18s and Hawkeyes from their carriers they will need EMALS to do so as both types require assisted takeoffs.

    Russia is looking at EMALS so it can operate AWACS platforms from their ships but their fighter aircraft already operate without cat assistance and no doubt any future fighter that is based on a 5th gen design will not need it either.

    Still, there'll be a lot more F-35Cs ordered than F-35Bs, so their overall costs r higher.

    Doesn't change the facts that the B model is the most complicated, most fragile, lowest performing and most expensive model of the F-35.

    Buying extra of the cheaper type so you actually end up spending more money is just common sense, because you would get fewer if you bought the B model with the same amount of money and they would be crashing all the time too.

    > Fighters and high T/W ratio planes can indeed be launched from springboard, even fully loaded, given they have very powerful engines. F/A-18 E/F can achieve it from long runs in a STOBAR carrier, F-35Cs T/W value is even lower so min speed should be better. NGAD should have very powerful engines but given they focus on long range it is not clear what T/W ratio will result.

    Soviet planes are in a better position here because their payloads are for air to air combat and they don't have ridiculous figures for payload options as released by their marketing divisions like the F-35B...

    In total, the DOD plans to purchase 2,456 F-35s: 1,763 F-35As for the USAF; 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs for the Marine Corps; and 273 F-35Cs for the USN.


    So why are the US MC buying inferior F-35Cs?




    The Ford class with EMALS,etc. is more expensive than the Nimitz class CVNs, & it haven't been proven yet with a lot things need fixing.

    It is America... when was the last time they introduced new technology that was cheaper than the stuff it replaced?

    EMALS is a whole generation ahead of the steam punk steam cat system it is replacing... lots of new technology and lots of new lessons to learn... never going to happen over night... or even a couple of months.

    But then they haven't got supersonic anti ship missiles either... go figure...

    which is F35B 353 vs. 340 F35C in the USA


    + Royal Navy + RAF 138 (RAF is bitching but didn't hear anything they gave up yet)
    + Italian Navy 30
    + Japanese Navy (? 40? 50?)

    So lets put money on it... F-35B = 353 + 138 + 30 + 50 = 571

                                          F-35C = 340

    So price for the B model is $115.5 million per aircraft including engine, so that is almost 66 billion dollars on a fragile crash prone low performing piece of crap, and the C model is $107.7 million per aircraft including engine, so that is about 36 and a half billion... so WTF were you talking about cheaper option?

    Cheaper for whom?

    We should also add the cost of additional new & upgraded F-18E/Fs as they r heavier than F-18C/Ds & won't be able to use the STOBAR at full warloads.

    But that is the point they don't have any current AWACS platforms that can operate without CATOBAR, so there is no point in going for VSTOL everything because the only fixed wing carrier in their navy that doesn't currently have CATOBAR is the Ford. The other cat systems still work fine.
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:02 am

    All this bullshit about Americas navy is just that... their experience and situation mean nothing for Russia.

    American experience is meaningless for Russia.

    Russia is not an imperialist bully that wants to bludgeon its way to pursue its national interests at the expense of all others like the US of A is/does.
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:39 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:The Ford class with EMALS,etc. is more expensive than the Nimitz class CVNs, & it haven't been proven yet with a lot things need fixing.
    Let's wait to see what China (and eventually Russia) does in this regard. US' weapons development as of late is not a model of efficiency exactly. But the system will eventually be brought to maturity. Russia is in no hurry with EMALS, as their current fighters can operate from STOBAR carriers. They can start working on the carrier issue and take a look at catapults without hurrying up. Maybe there could be left reserve space and installation provisions on their eventual new carriers for later retrofit. Almost everything is possible if considered during design phase and correctly planed.

    We should also add the cost of additional new & upgraded F-18E/Fs as they r heavier than F-18C/Ds & won't be able to use the STOBAR at full warloads.
    E/F versions have coherently more powerful engines than C/D ones. Boeing said the plane could use the Vikramaditya at full load. Saying crap about STOBAR is reserved for criticising the Russians, when the game is about selling fighters to India then STOBAR is no problem you know...

    GarryB wrote:Soviet planes are in a better position here because their payloads are for air to air combat and they don't have ridiculous figures for payload options as released by their marketing divisions like the F-35B...
    And now Su-33 will apparently receive more powerful engines and improve TO performance further. On the other hand, it will be turned into multimode fighter, Russia is indeed interested too in being able to use their navy for strike roles. But as far as I know they don't have expectations of using them against the territory of peer countries as their deluded US "partners" still do Razz

    Sponsored content

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 29 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:11 am