Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2437
    Points : 2435
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:23 am

    The QE can have 33 aircraft topside & 24 below:
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mCUlW6pRbzM/TaDAovrP_4I/AAAAAAAAAEc/cdnxMKEwHno/s400/cvf-delta-av1.jpg

    Most of the time more aircraft r parked topside, since it's not easy & takes time to bring them down & back up again.
    Which means they will suffer more from the salted water, sun and probably snow during winter.
    They can use protective tarps/foil, just like the USN does in the ME against blowing sand/dust, even inside the hangar. The lift doors r open most of the time anyway, so as much moisture enters the hangar bay as on the topside.
    Snow/ice buildup will also be prevented by tarps &/ maintenance crews.
    The hangar bay will still be big enough to do maintenance, its main function.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2437
    Points : 2435
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:03 am

    The Yak-141 may be a dead end, but not a death sentence to the STOVL concept:
    http://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2019-03-29/8_1039_future.html?print=Y
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:40 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:The Yak-141 may be a dead end, but not a death sentence to the STOVL concept:
    http://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2019-03-29/8_1039_future.html?print=Y
    The article looks interesting but I don't manage to understand much of the proposals and analysis they are making with machine translation... even by the comments section it is not clear even for Russian speakers. If somebody makes a translation let me know please.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2437
    Points : 2435
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:17 pm

    Post the original paragraphs u need better translated.
    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 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:33 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:The Yak-141 may be a dead end, but not a death sentence to the STOVL concept:
    http://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2019-03-29/8_1039_future.html?print=Y


    True, since there is program to restart that  direction ;-)  Of course until we see primary results of proposed impersonations we can endlessly keep  guessing  only how it looks like?

    Tome most interesting question is " will it be kind of light "front fighter" , using (V)STOL advantages it can reduce needs for long and expensive airfields close to front. Similarly less strains of shipbuilding.
    Or rather heavy one something like Su-57 counterpart?



    LMFS wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:The Yak-141 may be a dead end, but not a death sentence to the STOVL concept:
    http://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2019-03-29/8_1039_future.html?print=Y
    The article looks interesting but I don't manage to understand much of the proposals and analysis they are making with machine translation... even by the comments section it is not clear even for Russian speakers. If somebody makes a translation let me know please.


    in the meantime I've found " anime CV (?)". Cool lookign but IMHO pretty useless unless part of netcentric warfare where all data is from outside and it is only heli-vstol-pad . Apparently the real proposal of Severny Design Bureau from 80s. Called Dolphin.


    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 8f894ddaba218594c7f62729275d6fac
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:56 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Post the original paragraphs u need better translated.
    I will, thanks!

    Gunship wrote:in the meantime I've found " anime CV (?)". Cool lookign but IMHO pretty useless unless part of netcentric warfare where all data is from outside and it is only heli-vstol-pad . Apparently the real proposal of Severny Design Bureau from 80s. Called Dolphin.
    The Playmobil carrier?? lol1 lol1

    Looking beyond the surface, it would not be a bad idea. Wide hull for hangars and landing equipment, but IMO a trimaran is much better thumbsup
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:05 am

    LMFS wrote:

    Gunship wrote:in the meantime I've found " anime CV (?)". Cool lookign but IMHO pretty useless unless part of netcentric warfare where all data is from outside and it is only heli-vstol-pad . Apparently the real proposal of Severny Design Bureau from 80s. Called Dolphin.
    The Playmobil carrier?? lol1 lol1

    Looking beyond the surface, it would not be a bad idea. Wide hull for hangars and landing equipment, but IMO a trimaran is much better thumbsup


    Trimaran will be form Krylov with similar size lol1 lol1 lol1

    BTW this palymobil is the way Russian Design Bureaus were making model mockups ...

    Priboy

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 11780_NPKB_2004_01
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:51 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Trimaran will be form Krylov with similar size lol1 lol1 lol1
    The Shtorm-KM is already a "simplified" trimaran, with one keel at the bow and two at stern thumbsup
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:58 am

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Trimaran will be form Krylov with similar size lol1 lol1 lol1
    The Shtorm-KM is already a "simplified" trimaran, with one keel at the bow and two at stern  thumbsup

    "Patience you must have my young padawan" till competition is over...
    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 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:32 am

    Su-33 ceiling is like 17km, then radar horizon is like 550km to see the ship. Of course if radar station has that range pirat pirat pirat




    Aircraft one Mach: fighters induce hypersonic missiles


    Navy pilots will be taught to share information about potential targets with each other, ships and headquarters in real time

    The latest Russian missiles "Zircon", "Onyx" and "Caliber" will be aimed at the target deck fighters. Su-33 and MiG-29KR in real time will be able to transmit information about the likely enemy ships, ground bases and higher headquarters, as well as receive information from them, told "Izvestia" in the Ministry of Defense. Thanks to the new system, pilots will not only be able to hit air, sea and land targets on their own, but also direct cruise missiles to these objects. One fighter jet missile volley is capable of sending an enemy aircraft carrier to the bottom. The first phase of work will be completed at the end of this - the beginning of next year.

    After the introduction of a new aviation system, sea fighters will become effective reconnaissance aircraft: they will be able not only to warn ships and air defense systems in advance about the appearance of an air enemy, but also to provide target indications for cruise missiles, S-400, S-500 air defense systems and naval anti-aircraft missiles. MiG-29KR and MiG-29KUBR have already received information exchange systems, the Su-33 is currently preparing for modernization, told “Izvestia” in the military department.
    {}
    Modified MiGs and "drying" will be able to report the coordinates of the enemy in real time to ships, higher headquarters and ground bases. All information from fighter radars will fall into the integrated control system (ESU) of the Navy, which online forms an interactive map of the area where fleet, coastal forces or army units operate.

    If necessary, the summarized information received by the ESU from other aircraft, ships, air defense systems and reconnaissance will be sent to the pilots making the sortie. This will allow pilots to choose the optimal tactics of action when solving combat missions.

    In fact, the modernized aircraft will be included in the information space of the fleet, says military expert Dmitry Boltenkov.

    - The new system will help you choose the right attack tactics used by the ammunition. In the absence of ammunition, transfer the target to another aircraft, “highlight” it for cruise missiles, ”Dmitry Boltenkov told Izvestia.

    The new system will seriously increase the effectiveness of strikes of cruise missiles and the actions of aircraft, ships, submarines in solving combat missions, says former chief of the Navy General Staff Admiral Valentin Selivanov.

    “Any opportunity to properly classify targets and accurately determine their coordinates means a lot - it allows the command to make a decision that ensures the guaranteed destruction of the ships of a potential enemy,” said Valentin Selivanov.2

    https://iz.ru/855829/aleksei-ramm-bogdan-stepovoi/avianosetc-odnim-makhom-istrebiteli-navedut-giperzvukovye-rakety
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2437
    Points : 2435
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Apr 13, 2019 7:40 am

    US Marines turned a warship into an F-35 'Lightning carrier' in a test to boost US power
    Russian UDK task force consisting of 2-3 of them + escorts can act as light carriers the same way, before bigger TAKRs/CVNs r built.
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:44 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:US Marines turned a warship into an F-35 'Lightning carrier' in a test to boost US power
    Russian UDK task force consisting of 2-3 of them + escorts can act as light carriers the same way, before bigger TAKRs/CVNs r built.
    Whaaat? US doing war 'on the cheap' as if they were Russians? Laughing

    Lightning carriers armed with F-35s could theoretically take over operations in low-end conflicts, freeing up the "supercarriers" to focus on higher-end threats such as Russia and China.

    It is the same proposal I made, only they are sending such ships far from home, maybe because the huge network of bases and installations they have around allow them to protect the ships also far from CONUS. In the Russian case this would not apply due to the lack of assets in other geographical areas and also due to the huge reach of the Russian territory, that allows to have the whole Eurasia in check.

    Only I hope US don't pretend like they can use the bigger carriers against China and Russia proper, but only against their interests abroad. The first would be a notably flawed strategy...
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1833
    Points : 1823
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  hoom on Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:04 pm

    https://flotprom.ru/2019/%D0%9E%D1%81%D0%BA10/
    The construction of larger landing ships, including helicopter carriers, is still being postponed. They were planning to build them at the Severnaya Verf, but the timeframe for the modernization of the enterprise, in particular, the commissioning of the new shipbuilding complex, was shifted to the right . The contract with the contractor, Petersburg Metrostroy, terminated: the company did not cope with the work.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3421
    Points : 3417
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Isos on Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:25 pm

    What do you guys think of my carrier design ?

    It is an idea for a light carrier not exceeding 50kt. Don't compare it with supercarriers.

    250m long and 75m wide. Can be changed just for the idea I took that numbers.

    Not a real catamaran. Very stable at sea. Right part is made apart and welded to the main part. Used for take off, storage of weapons and aircraft fuel. Can act as a protection against anti ship missiles from the right and be changed by building a new one. Only piece of metals so not expensive.

    Main part is only 55m wide and 250 long similar to Mistral design that russia knows how to build but not as tall as mistral and with nuclear propulsion.

    Red square for uksk ~24 cells. Green for redut ~36. Red circles for pantsirs and tors.

    200m take off run with 3 positions. Yak-44 on steroides could take off from it too. Mainly for use with medium and small fighters. The drawing is not scaled but IMO the deck could carry 18 mig-29k (and not on landing trip). A yak 130 with folding wings takes 2 times less space than mig-29k so can carry 2 for 1 mig.

    Full mig-35, I would say 32 can be carried with 2 yak-44 and some ka-62 for ASW.

    If mig make a naval 5th gen mig would even be better.

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Sans_t11
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20866
    Points : 21420
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:04 am

    The whole idea behind the angled deck is so that you can land planes at any time and also launch aircraft or even just have aircraft sitting on the deck, because the angled deck means incoming aircraft are trying to land on one corner of the deck so even if they burst in to flames other aircraft sitting on the deck or lined up for take off would not get hit or damaged.

    Aircraft generally spend most of their time on the deck on most carriers as they can't move aircraft rapidly from deck to hangar and back, so having an area on the deck where they can be prepared... ie fuelled up and armed is a necessity.

    Personally I like the previously shown design with the wide hull and the even wider flat top.

    A decent new CVN can expect to be operational for at least 50 years, so it might start out with aircraft x or y but before it is scrapped it will have operated an enormous variety of aircraft types.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2437
    Points : 2435
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri May 10, 2019 3:25 am

    The Russian Navy will still get an atomic aircraft carrier
    Or maybe not. we will need to wait longer to see.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1833
    Points : 1823
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  hoom on Fri May 10, 2019 3:50 pm

    What do you guys think of my carrier design ?
    Still on the CVA-01 style I see.
    Thats a ramp launch on separate hull on the starboard side & arrestor landing area on port?
    I like that you're keeping separate take-off/landing ops.

    Plane lift in the bow is presumably intended to bring down freshly landed planes (and a parking/handling area behind it) but that location is problematic in terms of weather/water tightness & most carriers don't have hangar anywhere near that far forward.


    Close coupled heavy proa hullform like that is not exactly known to work well.
    Much as I'm a fan of proas in smaller sail-powered iterations I'd go for either a proper cat, tri or more probably a conventional monohull for a carrier.

    Major point for a Carrier aside from deck area is displacement to carry the planes, fuel & armament.
    Multihulls don't like being heavy for a given length so for a given deck area it should be a lot lighter displacement (and so less capable) than an equivalent dimensioned monohull.
    For big ships multihulls are also problematic in that they have a quick roll rate while ships are generally designed to have a slow roll.

    I like that cat one up-thread because its pretty small & simple, obviously not trying to do very much with only 6 planes worth of hangar all in the Island (no lift) for a fairly small aircraft compliment & practically no armament so might actually be practical to be light enough to work right.
    Fairly small & simple so could be built in quite large numbers, have 1 constantly available & surge several of them for more serious issues.
    But on the other hand would need very many to generate a sortie able to deal with the sort of firepower NATO could put out from land/a CVN.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13245
    Points : 13728
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  George1 on Mon May 27, 2019 4:08 am

    Construction of the Navy: fermentation in the minds. Part 5. SVUVP
       .
     Not so long ago (05/09/2019), Y. Borisov confirmed that plans to build a new aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy remain in force (link 2). A couple of days before this, information had passed that R & D on such a ship with a displacement of about 70 thousand tons with a nuclear power plant was included in the existing LG and would begin in 2023 (reference 3). Despite the fact that what has been said causes purely positive emotions, there are serious concerns about some harmful thoughts about the composition of the air group of the prospective AV.

    At the MAKS-2017, as a bolt from the blue, a statement was made by Deputy Defense Minister Yu. Borisov that "The plans of the Ministry of Defense (we are discussing this with our aircraft manufacturers) are to create a promising aircraft of shortened takeoff and landing, and possibly vertical takeoff and landing. ... "This is the development of the Yakovlev line, which was discontinued ... including, perhaps, these areas will be implemented for a promising aircraft for aircraft-carrying cruisers" (ref. 4). Again TAVKR, again SVUVP ...

    At the end of the same 2017, from the same Y. Borisov, it became known that the work on SVUVP was included in the draft of new HPV 2018-2027: “Of course,” said Borisov, answering the question whether the aircraft is taking off on a vertical takeoff for an aircraft carrier. It is logical to assume that during this time, the MiG-29 and Su-33 will become morally obsolete and in 10 years will require the creation of a new aircraft. The Deputy Minister said that we are talking about the creation of aircraft with a shortened takeoff and landing, and aircraft with vertical takeoff. He added that for the time being these are only plans, “because we are talking about the LG project, and [these] events are planned there” (Ref. 5). It was then that it became clear that things had gone too far.

    The suspicions were confirmed on "Army-2018", when Y. Borisov, now in the position of deputy prime minister (deputy chairman of the Government), told the press that on behalf of the President, the project was included in the LG. "Now we are working on a conceptual model, prototypes. Of course, this is the future. For all types of aircraft carriers, a new fleet of aircraft will be needed. For this purpose, various technologies are used that allow for short takeoff and landing, or just vertical takeoff. Conceptually such works are underway to the Ministry of Defense since last year "(reference 6).

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 77795_original


    Quotes

    1. “It became obvious to most specialists as early as the mid-1960s that no matter how advanced the VTOLPs would be, they would not be able to achieve the perfection of conventional aircraft [horizontal take-off and landing]” (V. Kuzin, V. Nikolsky ”1945 Soviet naval fleet -1991 ", 1996 p. 465).

    Note. In the course of the following abbreviations of aircraft of this type: VTOL - vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, SVETS / SVUVP - vertical / short (shortened) takeoff and landing aircraft.

    2. "As a result, in a directive signed by the General Staff signed in early 1980, D. Ustinov proposed to reduce the displacement [TAVKR av. 11435] by 10,000 tons, including by abandoning the catapults and reorienting the composition of the air group" mainly " on the VTOL ... Later, an instruction was given to ensure that the Yak-41 was launched using the WRC method [take off with a short run] (contemporaries attribute this to the opportunistic statement of the Yakovlev Design Bureau, who in 1980 hurried to inform the Minister of Defense about the creation of a new VTOL aircraft, allegedly superior to all existing and promising e foreign fighters. The reassessment of the role and effectiveness of VTOL aircraft in the naval air defense system and missile submarine patrolling area, as well as the ability of the Soviet aircraft industry to create naval supersonic fighter with high LTH, cost the country dearly and led to a delay in creating full-fledged aircraft carriers, allowed by Ustinov. ships "(S. Balakin, V. Zablotsky" Soviet aircraft carriers ", 2007, p. 154).

    3. "The Americans met the appearance of the Kiev-type ships arrogantly - that this is not a ship, but it is not known what. The" Phantoms "avoided meeting in the air with our Yak-38 aircraft. They were afraid of colliding with them, because they saw that it was practically" heavenly shelves "(as they called them), and Soviet pilots perform circus acts on them" (A. Morin, chief designer of TAVKR avenue 11435). "The Americans were not far from the truth. The plane left much to be desired. The range of the Yak-38 was very limited. Most of the fuel was spent on take-off and landing" ("Thunder over the deck. Fate of the aircraft carrier", channel "Russia", "Wings of Russia ", 2008, 23:40).

    4. "The concept of combat use of the Yak-38 air group of light attack aircraft in the system of the Kiev-type TAVKR strike weapons adopted in the Navy of the USSR during the 1970-1980s ensured the overwhelming superiority of our ship group over typical enemy ship groups, with the exception of American A mix of two or three ship groups with a Kiev-type TAVKR could pose a serious threat to the American AUG [a very dubious statement, but even if taken for granted, to ensure parity with the US Navy, e had in 1980 13 attack aircraft carriers, we had to have an incredible amount of 1,143 (26-39 units) - A.Sh.] "(V. Abidin" From Harrier "to" Forger ". Part 2", "Wings Motherland ", №7 / 2009, p. 41).


    Yak-141

    Originally, the Yak-141 was called the Yak-41M (product "48M") and was intended for basing on TAVKR (TAKR) av. 11433, 11434, 11435 (the notorious directive of the General Staff of 1980, initiated by D. Ustinov, on the reorientation of the "five" air group on SVUVP), as well as pr. 1143 "Kiev" and "Minsk" after their modernization, and was a multi-purpose aircraft designed to intercept air targets, conduct a maneuverable air combat and attack sea and land targets.

    If we compare the Yak-141 and Su-33 (airplanes of the same generation), first of all it should be noted that they belong to different weight categories: the first is a light fighter, the second is heavy. Creating a heavy SVUVP is hardly possible in principle. In addition, an important advantage of the Su-33 is an integrated aerodynamic scheme (a single bearing body), as well as static instability at subsonic speeds, significantly improving maneuverability. The payload (full fuel in the internal tanks and two tons of armament) in the WRC mode (run 120 m) at the Yak-141 is 6400 kg - half the load of the Su-33 (12700 kg - the full fuel in the internal tanks [9500 kg] and full-load air-to-air missiles - 8xR-27ET and 4xR-73 [3200 kg] during takeoff from the 3rd launch position, 195 m run - link Cool. The combat radius of the Su-33 with 1150 km, Yak-141 - 690 km (60%). The large range of run-up, in the presence of catapults on an aircraft carrier of dimension 11437, which the fleet selected (reference 9), does not play a special role. Finally, the share of the payload in the take-off mass (weight return on the payload) for the Su-33 is 39%, for the Yak-141 it is 33%.

    The Yak-141M LTH is slightly better. The plane is very similar to the F-35 - they say that the Yakovlev Design Bureau transferred to the Americans technical documentation for it. It never went up in the air, but, apparently, it should serve as a prototype of the new SVOUP, despite the statement that the latter is being developed from scratch (ref. 11) - this is practically not the case with technology. The combat radius of the Yak-141M was increased to 900 km with a payload of 8,000 kg (6,000 kg of fuel in internal tanks and two tons of combat load), and the payoff weight of the payload was increased to 37%.

    Note. The origin of data on the Yak-141 and Yak141M: V. Kolnogorov "The Last Aircraft of the Soviet Union", Aviamaster, No. 7/2003, p. 11.

    The maximum that the new Russian SVUVP can give us is parity with the F-35, however, taking into account the fact that in the carrier-based version of Lightning II (F-35C) the traditional scheme was used (taking off with the help of a catapult, landing on aerofinishers), and In the best case, the Russian Navy will have six aircraft carriers (half as many as the US Navy), we will get deck aircraft equipped with a SSOLPA, much weaker than the American one. At the same time, having put the ship version of the Su-57 (let's call it Su-57K) on the decks of the aircraft carriers of the new project, we will gain superiority over the seemingly stronger opponent.


    Su-57

    Let us try to compare the Su-57 with the Yak-141M, since it is not necessary to count on the combat capabilities of the new SVUVP to be significantly higher than its intended prototype (most likely, their LTH will be close to each other). Due to the acute shortage of official technical information on the Su-57, the main sources were the article from the Russian-language Wikipedia (link 12), materials from the military.tomsk.ru resource (link 13), paralay.world (link 14) and the aviation Internet encyclopedia Sky Corner (airwar.ru - link 15).

    The data on the number of suspension points and its composition are very contradictory, so we can only assume that, most likely, guided missiles and adjustable bombs can be suspended at 14 points - 8 internal (4 in two main cargo compartments inside the fuselage between engines for large-sized ammunition, and 4 in two lateral conformal compartments, repeating the contours of the root parts of the wing, for small-size air-to-air missiles of short range and 6 outer (2 under the engine air intakes and 4 under the wing).

    According to the author of the blog, the composition of weapons for air combat may be as follows - 4 x RVV-BD (510 kg for each - reference 16), 6 x RVV-SD (for 190 kg each - reference 17) and 4 x RVV-MD (106 each kg - link 18), total 3600 kg. The variant of the composition of weapons against ground targets - 4 x KAB-500Kr (520 kg for each - reference 20), 4 x X-38M (for 520 kg each - reference 22), 2 x X-58USHK for (650 kg - reference 23) and 4 x RVV-MD, total about 5900 kg.

    An approximate calculation shows that in the first case, the total mass of the equipped aircraft (18,800 kg) and payload (14,600 kg), consisting of a full supply of fuel in the internal tanks (11,000 kg) and combat load (total 334,400 kg), fits into the maximum take-off weight Su-57 (35,500 kg), and in the second (about 35,700 kg with the same fuel supply) exceeds it by only 5% (which can be explained by an error that is quite acceptable with such significant uncertainty of the initial data). At the same time, the combat radius of the "fifty-seventh" at a subsonic cruising speed should be about 2150 km, at a supersonic cruising speed (2.0 M) - 1000 km.

    It is necessary to add that the Su-57 thrust-armed with the second stage engine (“type 30”) with a maximum take-off weight should reach 1.01 (instead of 0.72 for the Yak-141M), which is one of the reasons for the high maneuverability of the Sukhoi. In conjunction with what was said in the two previous paragraphs, this fact demonstrates the overwhelming superiority of the Su-57 over the prototype of the SSOLVP, which is not yet available.

    Findings

    We are not so rich and, I hope, not so foolish as to re-embark on an adventure with a "vertical line" - an airplane of an architecturally-constructive type that compromised itself in the Soviet Navy and continued today in the US Navy and the International Maritime Directorate, reducing their combat potential there is only a power plant with a single main engine, sharply reducing the combat stability of the F-35 and not meeting the requirements of flight safety over the sea). Instead of a SVUVP, we need to focus on the deck ("sealed") version of the Su-57. Moreover, this outstanding aircraft has the ability to perform short take-off and landing (link 24), and it may very well be that this will greatly facilitate the performance of take-off and landing operations on a prospective aircraft carrier. I would like to believe in the correctness of A. Egorov, the author of the program “Military Acceptance” of the TRC Zvezda (From T-50 to Su-57. Part 2, release November 18, 2018 - reference 25, 37:33), who suggested that "the new machine [Sukhoi"] is ahead of not only the military-space, but also the naval future. "

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 77090_original

    https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/204151.html
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed May 29, 2019 5:38 pm

    George1 wrote:Construction of the Navy: fermentation in the minds. Part 5. SVUVP

    Pretty one sided text. This guy is referring to Yak-141 (almost 50 years old design) and comparing to Su-57 with II stage engine? The new deck fighter (either 57 derivative of a new, light one) will be something like 5+, 6G . What if this will be a light fight yer optionally manned? Why is should be like F-35B without same requirements? dunno dunno dunno

    BTW The new CVN will have 70kton - not necessarily. This was said only by "source", but nothing o officially though. We need to wait till any of solutions is chosen then offcialized. Good to know there will be one. Unfortunately is large and expensive then looks like 1 ;/




    And here Rakhmanov about drones:
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/20195171215-apQtR.html

    USC Head: UAVs may become the main striking force of the Russian aircraft carrier of the future


    UAVs will be based on the ship, but not all of them will return to base.
    The Russian aircraft carrier of the future can become a base for unmanned aerial vehicles. About this in an interview with radio "Star" said the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation Alexei Rakhmanov.

    “It may not be an aircraft carrier at all, maybe it will be called differently, because not every UAV will return to the base, you can continue to fantasize. But instead of fantasizing, it is better to wait for a conceptual solution, and then apply intellectual and technical knowledge to put all this into the most acceptable solution for the Ministry of Defense, ”said Rakhmanov.

    Rakhmanov also said that the last ship repair enterprise of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation in Crimea will be part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation.
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  flamming_python on Wed May 29, 2019 11:22 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    And here Rakhmanov about drones:
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/20195171215-apQtR.html

    USC Head: UAVs may become the main striking force of the Russian aircraft carrier of the future






    UAVs will be based on the ship, but not all of them will return to base.
    The Russian aircraft carrier of the future can become a base for unmanned aerial vehicles. About this in an interview with radio "Star" said the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation Alexei Rakhmanov.

    “It may not be an aircraft carrier at all, maybe it will be called differently, because not every UAV will return to the base, you can continue to fantasize. But instead of fantasizing, it is better to wait for a conceptual solution, and then apply intellectual and technical knowledge to put all this into the most acceptable solution for the Ministry of Defense, ”said Rakhmanov.

    Rakhmanov also said that the last ship repair enterprise of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation in Crimea will be part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation.

    They're going to keep fantasizing about these new ideas every year, and never actually get anything done.

    "oh oh I know, how about a VSTOL aircraft like the F-35!"
    "no, look the Americans are obviously going to put UCAVs on their carriers soon, we need to get one up on them and design our whole carrier around UCAVs!"

    If they want a carrier, then they have to create it with today's technology in mind, but of course with scope for modernization in the future.
    The Su-57 is a thing, and the naval version has been talked about for years. It's a perfectly sound concept with the capabilities that Russia currently has. Later on the Su-57 will be developed into an unmanned version and with it the naval Su-57 can be turned into an unmanned model too.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu May 30, 2019 12:05 am

    Let's be honest here, the only reason anyone is talking about VTOL/STOVL is being discussed is because there's very little chance the Russian Navy will get any proper carriers anytime soon.
    So the VTOL concept is looked at again for the upcoming smaller Carriers.

    As for UCAVs, it's more a pipe-dream, against some insurgency sure no prob, but against a Peer-Opponent their usefulness almost go's out the window.
    I just don't see them doing well in a hostile electronic environment.
    Unless maybe as a strike aircraft, but they'd just use Cruise missiles for that.

    Although, they might be useful as a defensive force with EW support withing Russia itself.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2437
    Points : 2435
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu May 30, 2019 12:13 am

    Let's be honest here, the only reason anyone is talking about VTOL/STOVL is being discussed is because there's very little chance the Russian Navy will get any proper carriers anytime soon.
    So the VTOL concept is looked at again for the upcoming smaller Carriers.
    Including the planned UDKs. they'll be more useful than pure CV/Ns/TAKRs for which there r not enough escorts & will cost le$$.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20866
    Points : 21420
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 30, 2019 12:17 am

    Pretty one sided text. This guy is referring to Yak-141 (almost 50 years old design) and comparing to Su-57 with II stage engine? The new deck fighter (either 57 derivative of a new, light one) will be something like 5+, 6G . What if this will be a light fight yer optionally manned? Why is should be like F-35B without same requirements?

    Unless there is some technology breakthrough what else are you expecting him to compare it with?

    He did describe a Yak-141M that never actually flew which the F-35 is based upon, are you expecting something better than the F-35?

    The Yak-141 was not the aircraft it was described as... it was never fully developed so all its performance figure were estimates and optimistic ones at that...

    The cost of spending money developing a new light 5th gen fighter make sense because an alternative to the land based Su-57 would be useful, though I think non stealthy aircraft will be much much cheaper than any light stealthy design and therefore vastly more affordable, but to demand it has vertical landing capacity just makes it too expensive and fragile and complicated... you can ruin a potentially good design and a clever idea by trying to do too much... example for the jury is the F-35... if they just tried to replace the land based CTOL aircraft they would have been fine but they added the Harrier and a vertical landing component that screwed the entire design and made it even more eye wateringly expensive...

    If they are talking about 70K ton carriers, or even that multi hull 45K ton design they don't need vertical landing... so why waste the time and effort and money trying to fix something that isn't broken.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2437
    Points : 2435
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu May 30, 2019 12:58 am

    I wonder why they even don't consider building an Adm. K follow on like the Chinese CV-17 which a modified Liaoning (CV-16) with 30m longer deck & a different island? They want to jump ahead of themselves with CVNs & will end up with nothing for years to come.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 270
    Points : 272
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Thu May 30, 2019 11:39 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:I wonder why they even don't consider building an Adm. K follow on like the Chinese CV-17 which a modified Liaoning (CV-16) with 30m longer deck & a different island? They want to jump ahead of themselves with CVNs & will end up with nothing for years to come.
    Actually CVN refers only to the propulsion that have to be nuclear. As an example the french carrier is a CVN but it is smaller than kuz (about 42000 tons).

    And Russia has already modern marine nuclear reactors to be used in the artika and lider nuclear icebreakers.

    The problems are others.

    Anyway did you read that trump want to pull the plug on EMALS catapult for carriers?


    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/trump-steamed-over-delays-pulls-plug-on-electric-carrier-catapults/

    Sponsored content

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 36 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:06 am