Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Share
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6878
    Points : 6978
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:55 am

    '
    When I want to explain to kids in class why smoking crack cocaine is bad for you I just show them eehenie's fantasies on this tread   lol1

    Previous lesson: Lider already under construction

    Next lesson: ships can move easily between Black and Caspian sea

    Don't​ smoke crack kids, it causes brain damage     study
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:39 am

    About the first paragraph tt seems that you consider without value the current ships of the Russian Navy. Russia has now enough ships to make a decent escort for 2 aircraft carrier. They are 313 combat ships, of them:

    The Russian Navy has already visited Venezuela and other places, so of course it can send a carrier group on such expeditions... the problem or question is why do that? You don't just spend that sort of money for fun... there have to be goals and objectives to achieve... and right now it would be empty rhetoric that would mean producing vessels before they are needed... it would stunt the growth of the baby to have aircraft carriers before you produced destroyers or cruisers.



    About the second paragraph, the main Russian commerce lines are with Asia and Europe. It means commerce by land, air or sea following the coast. As you can see in the following link less than a 10% of the exports of Russia today are out of Europe or Asia, and this will not change. Nothing that requires blue water fleets with aircraft carriers for protection.

    Russia has spent time and money and is getting itself into a position where it offers a land route and a northern sea route that is shorter and cheaper than the traditional route from Asia to Europe, so that will be good for them economically. In the future however they need to look beyond just being a transit stop to europe and asia and look to Africa and south and central america for partners economic and military and for that they will need a solid navy.... not a huge navy... not a 10,000 ship navy but a good high tech capable navy that can look after itself.

    CV/Ns can't get in & out the Caspian Sea!

    WTF would Russia want a CVN in the Caspian sea? Land based air power could do anything a CVN could do in such a lake... why would the USN want CVNs in the great lakes?

    Garry, u or some1 else said earlier that Su-34 could be navalized- i never said "it was navalized".

    No it could not... it is a long range strike aircraft... the Russian Navy does not need long range strike aircraft... new model Kalibr missiles based on the new engines of the Kh-101/102 give the missiles a range of 5,500km so why would you need an Su-34?

    On the Su-57, I didn't like the tone of that article myself but it had some good points. I doubt Russia will have a CVN for it before 2030, if at all, but China may be interested in the navalized Su-57. It doesn't make sense to spend $ on it before the start of construction of a CV/N large enough to accomodate more than a dozen of them, since it's of similar size as the Su-33, & only 12 of them r carried on the Adm.K:

    The Su-57 is smaller than an Su-33... so why would you not strengthen its undercarriage and make its wings fold and cheaply turn it into a carrier based aircraft?

    The Su-33 and MiG-29K didn't break the bank.

    The Kuznetsov can carry more than 12 planes... it can carry up to 32 or so.

    So, let's say 3 medium CV/Ns r built, capable of supporting up to 12-15 Su-57s; that's =only 36-45 navalized Su-57s. Is it worth it, per unit? OTH, more smaller TAKRs/UDKs (aka helo carriers) can be built for le$$ & carry more STOVLs (i.e. SHORT TAKEOFF, VERTICAL LANDING, not VTOVL) per ship. And since they r now going to build them, will they have enough escorts for both classes? 5 warships for medium CV/Ns, with only 1 ready 24/7+ another 12 (3 per each) warships for at least 4 TAKRs/UDKs- 1 in BSF, 1 in BaltF, 1 in NF, & 1 in PacF ready 24/7, to be very modest- that's 17 warships total ready for escort duty 24/7. But to get that number, ideally at least 3x of that is needed, or 15+36=51 warships, to allow for repairs, refit, & training.

    You are being silly... a bit of structural strengthening of the Su-57, plus a tail hook and folding wings cannot be compared with developing from scratch a 5th gen STOVL fighter... and having to land vertically even if it does not need to take off vertically seriously limits its weapons options... are you going to tell the Russian taxpayer why it costs 20 million dollars to fly a STOVL fighter because all the weapons need to be ditched to get the weight low enough for a vertical landing each time?

    Not to mention the promises that it will only cost x billion and then the bill comes it is x+10 billion... but you have no choice but to pay it now because there were no alternatives allowed in case they proved cheaper and killed the deal.

    When will Russia have 51 corvettes, FFGs, DDGs, & CGs, in the right combination, to form all those groups, even if all the Caspian Flotilla ships r included as they can transfer to the BSF?

    Their new ships will be vastly more capable than their old ships so they wont need dozens of support ships... in fact I suspect their carriers will be rather well armed and able to defend themselves against many threats.

    As I said, since the Yak-141 exists, a new STOVL won't be developed from scratch,

    They will need to develop a new engine from scratch... that will take 10 years on its own. The Yak-41 is not suitable for the engine they are talking about using... a version of the NK-32 upgraded in the PD-35 version for the Tu-160M2 and the PAK DA.


    Peŕrier

    Posts : 291
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:48 pm

    For the Yak-141 to become "real", It would be needed far more than anche engines.

    Most of the electronics would have to be replaced with new generation ones, the airframe itself would have to be reengineered to allow a manteinance per condition approach instead of the old school maintenance per schedule.

    We are speaking basically of a complete redesign of the aircrafts just to get It to present standards.

    About a CVN escorts, unfortunately corvettes have no file because lacking the needed persistente.

    Frigates are give or take the minimum as escorts, but destroyer size vessels are the optimum.

    And any CVN will need a good escort task force even if loaded with AAW and ASW weapons itself.

    You will need ASW escorts sailing ahead and in flanks. of the main Force, and you would like to have one or two AAW ships scanning the surroundings with their long range radars instead of the carrier doing by itself.

    Whatever people could think, a Carrier sailing in high Sea, with most or all of its Active sensors shut down or kept idle is not that easy to identify and track, the more so when sailing with escorts performing the surveillance duties.

    Any enemy's platform would surely catch escorts' EM emissions, but in order to identify what really they are, they will have to risk both escorts' engagement through AAW, ASW or AShW weapons, and carrier's own aircrafts engagement, all' together without still not knowing positively where the carrier is and what its course is.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 476
    Points : 510
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:17 pm

    I think I just found the reason that the naval forum is infested with people who are fixated on LHDs and VTOL fighters...



    South Front does not seem to have very good naval coverage as they seem to only agree with a design of ship when Russia or China does as clearly shown in the following videos.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl4qKcIQVzc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChAeaMZ49vk

    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 528
    Points : 528
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:47 am

    Even if Adm.K could get into Caspian, the N. section next to RF coast is only 6m deep on average - too shallow for its 10m draft, & it's icy in winter! https://www.lakepedia.com/lake/caspian-sea.html

    In the Central & S. Sectors, there r many oil wells & heavy merchant/ferry/fishing traffic, so those deeper areas (Iran even has mini-subs there) r bad for training. The USN had small unarmed training carriers in the Gr. Lakes in the 1940s. But for Russia, the Black Sea & the Seas of Japan & Okhotsk (in summer) would be ideal to train in. In the meantime, Russian pilots may be sent to train on the Chinese CV-16; is as well armed, but still need 2 big DDGs to protect it: http://www.atimes.com/article/powerful-destroyers-protect-chinas-aircraft-carriers/

    Can any1 tell me why a Tu-160 engine isn't suitable for Yak-141?
    Bomber engines were used by fighters before:
    In many cases, the same basic engine was used in both fighters and bombers. https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/aircraft-engines-world-war-ii/
    The STOVLs will be used by both the Navy & Marines, like in other militaries- so their #s r not going to be determined only by the # of ships that'll carry them. On TAKRs/CVs, they can use the STOBAR.
    But, I wouldn't worry about them dumping their ordinance before VLs: those can be disarmed & jettisoned in designated areas ashore/shallow water, to be picked up later by EOD teams, & reused. In any case, attack helos don't have that problem, so most precision weapons won't be wasted, IMO.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:39 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1438
    Points : 1601
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:44 am

    Why can't Russia build carriers in the Crimean Zaliv shipyard? The tonnage limit there is 115000tons AFAIK.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 976
    Points : 978
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:35 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Why can't Russia build carriers in the Crimean Zaliv shipyard? The tonnage limit there is 115000tons AFAIK.

    Long story short the dry dock is not big enough it sounds big enough on paper but in reality, it isn't.

    For EXAMPLE let us say they did go "Hey let's build Skorm"

    That ships estimated 330 m long that shipyards drydock is not that long and it's only 365 m wide this gives them no room to work on it. Simply put it's not deep enough and long etc wide and it's not really wide enough

    The shipyard is also old and was neglected by Ukraine, they are restoring it kinda.

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2679
    Points : 2719
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:38 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Well it seems there will perhaps be helicopter carriers in the near future: role.

    Having invested all that money and time that they wont get back from the Frogs it makes sense for them to build replacements... they have full systems blueprints of Mistrals and have had time to decide on modifications to match more accurately their own special interests... ie make them more arctic friendly and likely better armed and more robust.

    Things like this need lots of planning... even making sure there are enough qualified and trained people to operate the ships and shipyard space for maintainence etc.


    Agreed however now lets wait if ships will have well-deck =. If so then  their LHD is pretty much their main one. If not then a light / ASW carrier more probably?




    GarryB wrote:
    R&D work for the helicopter carriers will kick off in 2018, the construction of the lead ship is expected to start in 2020 and in 2024 it will join the fleet.

    So they clearly have not totally defined its design yet... personally I hope they use Nuke propulsion as a test for later larger projects/upgrades and try independent electric pod drive...
    +
    More importantly they need somewhere to go with it... they need strong international commerce that they need to protect with an ocean going fleet of ships... they wont have that until late 2020s if not early 2030s.


    I hope as well, especially that Northern Route seems to be the first area to defend





    It appears they are working on VSTOL aircraft, but they are also working on cats and an upgrade of a light 5th gen fighter would make an excellent carrier aircraft... with 5th gen systems it does not need to carry 10 tons of bombs over enormous distances... for an air defence role it just needs to get airborne with max fuel and a few AAMs... it could simply be an airborne eye that detects threats at long range and directs ship launched missiles to intercept them, with a few AAMs to defend itself... or it could carry an air launched hypersonic antiship missile... or super fast hypersonic AAMs that can chase down and catch hypersonic anti ship missiles from behind....


    They also work on 20t heavy UCAV (Sukhoi), tilt-rotors both drones and maned. It looks interesting future then. But  I seriously doubt that MiG-29/35 will have anything to do with a new fighter. Perhaps scaled down  MiG-1.44  or whatever MiG (less likely  Yak) proposed to LFMS with new redesign of course.

    And of course I hope VSTOL will be a chosen variant  Razz Razz Razz
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2679
    Points : 2719
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:43 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Why can't Russia build carriers in the Crimean Zaliv shipyard? The tonnage limit there is 115000tons AFAIK.

    []

    The shipyard is also old and was neglected by Ukraine, they are restoring it kinda.

    True  however no 1 Montreaux convention and no 2 then lack of qualified  of workforce/ design capabilities in Zaliv. 

    BTw

    Under Article 11, Black Sea states are permitted to transit capital ships of any tonnage through the straits, but Annex II specifically excludes aircraft carriers from the definition of capital ship. In 1936, it was common for battleships to carry observation aircraft. Therefore, aircraft carriers were defined as ships that were "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea." The inclusion of aircraft on any other ship does not classify it as an aircraft carrier.[17]

    To take advantage of this exception, the Soviet Union designated its Kiev-class and Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers as "aircraft carrying cruisers." The aircraft carriers were armed with P-500 and P-700 cruise missiles, which were also found on the Slava-class cruiser and the Kirov-class battlecruiser. The result of this is that the Soviet Navy could send its aircraft cruisers through the Straits in compliance with the Convention, while at the same time the Convention denied access to NATO aircraft carriers, which exceeded the 15,000 ton limit.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1438
    Points : 1601
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:59 am

    Then just slap a few UKSKs and call it an aircraft carrying cruiser, especially if its gonna carry these STOVL fighters. Also I'm not saying zaliv can build a 100kt carrier, I'm talking more like like 75-80kt. Zaliv should be able to build it since unlike zvezda it exists and isn't occupied by civilian orders. BTW the montreaux convention is really hurting Russia and it has outlived its usefulness. In case a US carrier enters the black sea it will be easily destroyed by ground based weapons so there's no need to keep it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17753
    Points : 18315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:32 am

    Most of the electronics would have to be replaced with new generation ones, the airframe itself would have to be reengineered to allow a manteinance per condition approach instead of the old school maintenance per schedule.

    More to the point they want new aircraft not upgraded old ones... if a Yak-41 is acceptable then the MiG-29KR and Su-33 are already in service... why bother even replacing them?

    If they are not going to be good enough in 10-20 years then the Yak-41 wont be good enough either.

    And any CVN will need a good escort task force even if loaded with AAW and ASW weapons itself.

    All their new designs will be multirole... if you want an AAW destroyer then load up extra SAMs in the UKSK launcher bins.... ASW then just load ASW missiles in the UKSK and don't bother with land attack missiles... etc etc.

    The point is that whether you go for a carrier on the cheap with a tiny helicopter carrier or a medium carrier you are going to need big ships to support them like Cruisers and destroyers... which they simply don't have and wont have for some time so there is no rush... and if there is no rush then take the time to develop real carriers that can sail around the world... not carriers that have to stop every three weeks to refuel and rearm because Russia does not have access to friendly ports world wide... look at NATO/EU ports during their short hop to Syria... they need nuke powered carriers and nuke powered destroyers and cruisers...

    But for Russia, the Black Sea & the Seas of Japan & Okhotsk (in summer) would be ideal to train in. In the meantime, Russian pilots may be sent to train on the Chinese CV-16; is as well armed, but still need 2 big DDGs to protect it

    Why would Russia send navy pilots to train in China?

    They have the naval training base in Sevastopol and the one they created in Russia when the Ukrainians said they couldn't use the one in the Crimea... so they have two land based training facilities... WTF would they train in China for?

    Can any1 tell me why a Tu-160 engine isn't suitable for Yak-141?
    Bomber engines were used by fighters before:

    Because it is not even developed for the bombers yet... to use it on a STOVL aircraft it will need to be adapted for vertical flight... which is not something that will take days or even weeks to do.

    But, I wouldn't worry about them dumping their ordinance before VLs: those can be disarmed & jettisoned in designated areas ashore/shallow water, to be picked up later by EOD teams, & reused. In any case, attack helos don't have that problem, so most precision weapons won't be wasted, IMO.

    What? Are you joking? Seriously?

    why not build little speed boats that sail around the place so STOVL planes can drop their unused ordinance on them before they land... WTF are you smoking buddy?

    What do you think the cost of sending EOD teams to search the sea floor for ordinance would be?

    Do you think NATO forces would like a good look at state of the art operational Russian weapons in disabled form?

    The STOVLs will be used by both the Navy & Marines, like in other militaries- so their #s r not going to be determined only by the # of ships that'll carry them. On TAKRs/CVs, they can use the STOBAR.

    For fucks sake if you are going to use them as STOBAR what the fuck is the point in spending money making them VTOL in the first place?

    Just spend money on EM cats, which they are spending anyway, and use real fighter planes and get heavier aircraft like AWACS as a bonus...

    EM cats could also be used to launch UAVs from helo carriers that would not otherwise get airborne...

    The shipyard is also old and was neglected by Ukraine, they are restoring it kinda.

    There is no reason why it could not be upgraded... they will need shipyards to build larger vessels pretty soon now.

    Agreed however now lets wait if ships will have well-deck =. If so then their LHD is pretty much their main one. If not then a light / ASW carrier more probably?

    They chose the Mistrals for a reason and likely developed infrastructure and planned unit structures based on their capabilities and performance... I doubt anything they end up building is much different except better armed...

    But I seriously doubt that MiG-29/35 will have anything to do with a new fighter. Perhaps scaled down MiG-1.44 or whatever MiG (less likely Yak) proposed to LFMS with new redesign of course.

    The next gen light 5th gen fighter from MiG will likely be a MiG-35 with the goal posts moved forward a bit... ie stealthy from core start design but otherwise twin tail twin engine not that much different from the MiG-29 in the same way the PAK FA is not that much different from the Su-35/27 in basic layout.

    The MiG-35 is as good as they can get the MiG-29 without major structural design changes.... the same could be said for the Su-35 regarding the Su-27 design.

    The PAK FA is a fundamental upgrade of the Su-27 design but the old design layout is still there and it will be the same with the LFS and MiG-35... I really don't think they will go for anything super radical.

    The MiG-41 on the other hand might be interesting and a serious design change from the MiG-25/31 design.

    And of course I hope VSTOL will be a chosen variant

    I understand why you want that... it would be cool to see what clever design solutions they adopt to make it effective and capable... it is just that all the hype behind such craft has been debunked and it just seems to me to be a money hole to get an aircraft inferior to a 5th gen MiG-21.... which is actually what they really need.

    Just like the US needed the F-35 to be a 5th gen F-16 but it appears to be a 5th gen F-117/Buccaneer light strike aircraft...

    Then just slap a few UKSKs and call it an aircraft carrying cruiser, especially if its gonna carry these STOVL fighters. Also I'm not saying zaliv can build a 100kt carrier, I'm talking more like like 75-80kt. Zaliv should be able to build it since unlike zvezda it exists and isn't occupied by civilian orders. BTW the montreaux convention is really hurting Russia and it has outlived its usefulness. In case a US carrier enters the black sea it will be easily destroyed by ground based weapons so there's no need to keep it.

    The Northern Fleet shipyards are being upgraded and the far east Zvezda shipyard can build large ships too... an upgrade to build destroyers and cruisers would be useful but they don't need more than one or two shipyards to build carriers... they don't need more than 2-4 helicopter carriers and 1 or 2 new CVN carriers to support an upgraded Kuznetsov...

    Then just slap a few UKSKs and call it an aircraft carrying cruiser, especially if its gonna carry these STOVL fighters

    BTW all their major new ships will have UKSK launchers... even for a carrier having 40km range mach 2 rockets that deliver torpedos into the water in a few minutes where the sub gets no warning it is under attack until the torpedo splashes into the water close by and starts up its engines is very useful.

    Having land attack cruise missiles and hypersonic anti ship missiles would also be very useful and it is likely that the UKSK tubes could be adapted for very large SAMs intended for anti ICBM or anti satellite use in the future so such systems would also be useful.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 476
    Points : 510
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:00 pm

    How about creating landing destroyers with 1 helipad at the back such vessels will be much more capable of lading things than an over expensive mini carrier.

    Scrap the VTOL for more cruise missiles,air defence systems and artillery to help perform a landing maybe some 152mm dual mount turrets and 300mm Smerch rockets in pop up launchers.

    WTF is the point of combining a long range stand off attack ship (aircraft carrier) with a very close range ship (landing ship) that is like putting a bayonet on a sniper rifle.

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2679
    Points : 2719
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Can any1 tell me why a Tu-160 engine isn't suitable for Yak-141?
    Bomber engines were used by fighters before:

    Because it is not even developed for the bombers yet... to use it on a STOVL aircraft it will need to be adapted for vertical flight... which is not something that will take days or even weeks to do.


    because it is still cheaper and quicker then developing a new engine of this class of thrust form scratch? 


    GarryB wrote:
    EM cats could also be used to launch UAVs from helo carriers that would not otherwise get airborne...



    That's one way to look at it but development of EM catapult in US got to 1 blns USD mark and is not finished yet. And US had vast experience in building and designing both carriers and catapults. Again US will use (if design is completed) EM catapult on many ships Russia on 1? 2? would it justify spending such budget? (30x22800 ships)


    GarryB wrote:

    But  I seriously doubt that MiG-29/35 will have anything to do with a new fighter. Perhaps scaled down  MiG-1.44  or whatever MiG (less likely  Yak) proposed to LFMS with new redesign of course.

    The PAK FA is a fundamental upgrade of the Su-27 design 


    PAK FA as upgrade of Su-27? hmm so F-22 is an upgrade of F-14? But anyway if you look as LMFS thsi way then agreed.








    And of course I hope VSTOL will be a chosen variant  

    I understand why you want that... it would be cool to see what clever design solutions they adopt to make it effective and capable... it is just that all the hype behind such craft has been debunked and it just seems to me to be a money hole to get an aircraft inferior to a 5th gen MiG-21.... which is actually what they really need.

    Just like the US needed the F-35 to be a 5th gen F-16 but it appears to be a 5th gen F-117/Buccaneer light strike aircraft...



    Hmmm but still this F-35B crap for some reason woks fine in RAF and should be ordered in like 500 units. Why so many countries want to buy it in VSTOL configuration ? Why UK? Why Spain, why Italy? They didnt have to buy this version but still did. Why Japan considers is to its carriers? perhaps not so bad in its role after all?

    If -35 is underperforming because  too many requirements to fin in one machine.  If stealth and catobar are removed it could be much better and cheaper plane.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2337
    Points : 2325
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:55 pm

    Key feature of vtol is that you don't need catapaults and fact you can fit more jets in tighter spaces. Also as seen before, even transport ships can be repurposed for an AC were such jets can take off from.

    It's good Russia is investing in a vtol.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1438
    Points : 1601
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:00 pm

    I think russian carrier aircraft should only be designed for air superiority to escort T-22Ms. Land and ship attack can be done by UKSKs and bombers.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 528
    Points : 528
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:01 pm

    Thanks to others for good answers to GarryB, & here r mine to these:
    GarryB wrote:
    More to the point they want new aircraft not upgraded old ones...
    ... and if there is no rush then take the time to develop real carriers that can sail around the world... not carriers that have to stop every three weeks to refuel and rearm because Russia does not have access to friendly ports world wide... look at NATO/EU ports during their short hop to Syria... they need nuke powered carriers and nuke powered destroyers and cruisers...Why would Russia send navy pilots to train in China? They have the naval training base in Sevastopol and the one they created in Russia when the Ukrainians said they couldn't use the one in the Crimea... so they have two land based training facilities... WTF would they train in China for?
    Because it is not even developed for the bombers yet... to use it on a STOVL aircraft it will need to be adapted for vertical flight...
    What do you think the cost of sending EOD teams to search the sea floor for ordinance would be?

    The STOVLs will be used by both the Navy & Marines, like in other militaries- so their #s r not going to be determined only by the # of ships that'll carry them. On TAKRs/CVs, they can use the STOBAR.
    For fucks sake if you are going to use them as STOBAR what the fuck is the point in spending money making them VTOL in the first place?
    CVs can be resupplied with fuel, food & ammo. at sea by specialized ships, NP in the Med. isn't that essential now- like the Kiev class TAKRs had done: http://merelinc.com/images/048-soviet-naval/marine23.jpg https://dxczjjuegupb.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Russian-NAVY-Syria.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-g1citWAAA9NoF.jpg

    After NITKA training, they'll still need to go to sea for real world ops, & there's no other TAKR while the Adm. K is laid up for 3 years, if not longer!  
    TVC on Yak-141 (it & MiG-1.44 were still in development then, so   not "used", i.e r still new even after upgrading) take ages to adopt to a bomber engine. STOVLs will be primarily used on LHA/LHD ships & may go on STOBARs for added flexibility they offer, &/ if need to recover in emergencies, rearm, repair, etc.
    MAD on helos/UAVs can be used to locate bombs on the ground &/ in the water, EODs then drop in & salvage them.
    I'm not a smoker, period, & drink only at dinner time, after getting off line!

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 291
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:05 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Can any1 tell me why a Tu-160 engine isn't suitable for Yak-141?
    Bomber engines were used by fighters before:
    In many cases, the same basic engine was used in both fighters and bombers. https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/aircraft-engines-world-war-ii/
    The STOVLs will be used by both the Navy & Marines, like in other militaries- so their #s r not going to be determined only by the # of ships that'll carry them. On TAKRs/CVs, they can use the STOBAR.
    But, I wouldn't worry about them dumping their ordinance before VLs: those can be disarmed & jettisoned in designated areas ashore/shallow water, to be picked up later by EOD teams, & reused. In any case, attack helos don't have that problem, so most precision weapons won't be wasted, IMO.

    It's quite easy and simple:
    An engine designed for STOVL operations (obviously the qualifying feature is the vertical landing) works in a completely new way in the landing phase.

    It should swivel its nozzle downward around 90 degrees, at the very same time it has either to provide thrust for additional vertical jets, or should be coordinated with additional turbojets.

    It means both heavy and deep mechanical modifications and a rewritten FADEC.

    The whole system should then pass the whole testing and certification procedure, just like any new engine.

    Because during a vertical landing a really strict and near real time control of actual thrust is mandatory to provide the required control of the aircraft, deep modifications to the engine's hot section as well could not be discarded.

    A little hiccup during spooling up or a little deviation from expected thrust, lastind some tenths of second, are not mortally dangerous during conventional take offs and landings: as long as the aircraft has already (or still) enough speed its aerodynamic controls are effective and the wing still provides the gliding properties to keep it in the air.

    In a vertical landing, the engine is both responsible of thrust and controls: any deviation from expected performances results in an alteration of the controls, or in a loss of control.

    So adapting any existing engine to STOVL operations will have costs and time, give or take, the same of developing a new engine.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 291
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:19 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Thanks to others for good answers to GarryB, & here r mine to these:
    GarryB wrote:
    More to the point they want new aircraft not upgraded old ones...
    ... and if there is no rush then take the time to develop real carriers that can sail around the world... not carriers that have to stop every three weeks to refuel and rearm because Russia does not have access to friendly ports world wide... look at NATO/EU ports during their short hop to Syria... they need nuke powered carriers and nuke powered destroyers and cruisers...Why would Russia send navy pilots to train in China? They have the naval training base in Sevastopol and the one they created in Russia when the Ukrainians said they couldn't use the one in the Crimea... so they have two land based training facilities... WTF would they train in China for?
    Because it is not even developed for the bombers yet... to use it on a STOVL aircraft it will need to be adapted for vertical flight...
    What do you think the cost of sending EOD teams to search the sea floor for ordinance would be?

    The STOVLs will be used by both the Navy & Marines, like in other militaries- so their #s r not going to be determined only by the # of ships that'll carry them. On TAKRs/CVs, they can use the STOBAR.
    For fucks sake if you are going to use them as STOBAR what the fuck is the point in spending money making them VTOL in the first place?
    CVs can be resupplied with fuel, food & ammo. at sea by specialized ships, NP in the Med. isn't that essential now- like the Kiev class TAKRs had done: http://merelinc.com/images/048-soviet-naval/marine23.jpg https://dxczjjuegupb.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Russian-NAVY-Syria.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-g1citWAAA9NoF.jpg


    After NITKA training, they'll still need to go to sea for real world ops, & there's no other TAKR while the Adm. K is laid up for 3 years, if not longer!  
    TVC on Yak-141 (it & MiG-1.44 were still in development then, so   not "used", i.e r still new even after upgrading) take ages to adopt to a bomber engine. STOVLs will be primarily used on LHA/LHD ships & may go on STOBARs for added flexibility they offer, &/ if need to recover in emergencies, rearm, repair, etc.
    MAD on helos/UAVs can be used to locate bombs on the ground &/ in the water, EODs then drop in & salvage them.
    I'm not a smoker, period, & drink only at dinner time, after getting off line!

    But without NPP, you won't have neither steam for catapults, nor enough electrical power for EM catapukt.

    So it is a moot point, NPP is the best even if most expensive propulsion system for a carrier.

    As a side note, providing a carrier with more than 150 MW of propulsive power only would require what? From six to eight gas turbines  with related space requirements, and a hell of fuel tanks.

    A nuclear powered carrier not only spare a ridiculously huge amount of space, it could even act as a replenisher for its escorts: US carriers have used in the past their ballast tanks to store fuel to be offloaded to the escorts during long routes, replacing step by step the fuel with sea water.

    In other words, not only a nuclear powered carrier has no limitations about the kind of aircrafts and/or UAV it launches, because it could have catapults, not only has a far greater endurance because it doesn't need to refuel while underway, not only has far larger spaces for stores, ammunitions, warhouses and so on because the whole propulsive system is far far more compact and requires a fraction of volumes compared to gas turbines and their fuel tanks.

    It could even, at least while on transfer voyages through safe areas, provide some fuel to its escorts increasing their endurance too.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 291
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:31 am

    miketheterrible wrote:Key feature of vtol is that you don't need catapaults and fact you can fit more jets in tighter spaces. Also as seen before, even transport ships can be repurposed for an AC were such jets can take off from.

    It's good Russia is investing in a vtol.

    Well, with VTOL you could even spare weapons expenses, because VTOL aircrafts can barely take off at all, not to mention landing with some payload.

    The only way to take off with some meaningful payload is Short Take Off, period.

    And the only option to land with some payload still hanging from the wings or within the weapon bays is at least a rolling landing.

    A pure vertical landing requires even in the F-35B, today the most modern STOVL combat aircraft existing and the reference mark in STOVL performances, to have fairly little fuel onboard and almost no weapons at all.

    But I keep forgetting the truth: Russia will spend only a tiny fraction compared to the US, to develop a STOVL (or maybe even a VTOL) combat aircraft that will outperform in any conceivable parameter any other STOVL aircraft in the world, not to mention F-35B itself.

    It will be so successful that it will defy Phisic's laws, and hordes of CiC of Air Forces around the world will hurry to concur first in funding its development, and then to order it by the hundreds.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 291
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:33 am

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:I think russian  carrier aircraft should only be designed for air superiority to escort T-22Ms. Land and ship attack can be done by UKSKs and bombers.

    So the future russian carriers will be able to cruise at more than 400 knots?

    WOW!
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2679
    Points : 2719
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:48 am

    Peŕrier wrote:


    It's quite easy and simple:
    An engine designed for STOVL operations (obviously the qualifying feature is the vertical landing) works in a completely new way in the landing phase.

    It should swivel its nozzle downward around 90 degrees, at the very same time it has either to provide thrust for additional vertical jets, or should be coordinated with additional turbojets.

    It means both heavy and deep mechanical modifications and a rewritten FADEC.

    The whole system should then pass the whole testing and certification procedure, just like any new engine.

    []

    So adapting any existing engine to STOVL operations will have costs and time, give or take, the same of developing a new engine.

     
    Nobody says it is simple but for some reason Yak-43 (STOL) was plane to use NK-32. If you compare size and thrust NK-32 is more less counterpart to F135 family.  You need rework but nobody says you have to start from scratch.  Nk-32  can have thrust 245kN what is about right for such fighter to land vertically.

    Not sure about how deep modifications have to go since F135 is  basically one engine.


    BTW what kind of certifications do you mean for Russian military engines ?




    I think russian  carrier aircraft should only be designed for air superiority to escort T-22Ms. Land and ship attack can be done by UKSKs and bombers.

    So the future russian carriers will be able to cruise at more than 400 knots?

    WOW!


    respekt respekt respekt
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2679
    Points : 2719
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:56 am

    Peŕrier wrote:


    But without NPP, you won't have neither steam for catapults, nor enough electrical power for EM catapukt.

    So it is a moot point, NPP is the best even if most expensive propulsion system for a carrier.

    As for autonomy and endurance fully agreed NPP rulez. But why Russian should spend  2x Mistral costs to build 1 max 2 EM catapults alone?! Royal Navy resigned from catapults for a reason. And the reason was costs. Thus preferred  VSTOL fighters as cheaper variant instead. Why Russians should not learn of examples? 

    New fighter will be developed anyway, Russians never built catapults, catapult costs helluva money (US EM cat costs 30x Karakurts), perhaps ensuring new fighter is STOL and eventually has VSTOL variant cost just less?

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 291
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:14 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:


    It's quite easy and simple:
    An engine designed for STOVL operations (obviously the qualifying feature is the vertical landing) works in a completely new way in the landing phase.

    It should swivel its nozzle downward around 90 degrees, at the very same time it has either to provide thrust for additional vertical jets, or should be coordinated with additional turbojets.

    It means both heavy and deep mechanical modifications and a rewritten FADEC.

    The whole system should then pass the whole testing and certification procedure, just like any new engine.

    []

    So adapting any existing engine to STOVL operations will have costs and time, give or take, the same of developing a new engine.


    Nobody says it is simple but for some reason Yak-43 (STOL) was plane to use NK-32. If you compare size and thrust NK-32 is more less counterpart to F135 family.  You need rework but nobody says you have to start from scratch.  Nk-32  can have thrust 245kN what is about right for such fighter to land vertically.

    Not sure about how deep modifications have to go since F135 is  basically one engine.


    BTW what kind of certifications do you mean for Russian military engines ?






    It's quite easy: any engine not designed for vertical landings, will have to be heavily modified, and the results will have to be carefully tested and certified.

    That means both a lot of money and a lot of times, because it is not like designing a new low pressure stage or a new fan for an existing engine. it means redesigning an engine adding brand new and additional parts, and modifying/adapting its performances on very specific conditions that were not foreseen in the original engine designing.

    Than all the parts, and the performances in those new working regimes, should be tested and certified for military operational use: an engine, as any other complex item, could be accepted in service only if fulfilling not only required performances in terms, by example, of dry thrust or specific fuel consumption, but requirements about what storage provisions should be arranged for it, what are the precautions about employment of different oils, greases and fuels, what are the precautions about possible contaminations from chemicals, oils and any other substance that could be present in a military workshop located in an operational area and so on.

    It takes months or years, only to demonstrate that the new item not only provide the expected performances, but is actually employable in the real world the way the military  expects it.

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    As for autonomy and endurance fully agreed NPP rulez. But why Russian should spend  2x Mistral costs to build 1 max 2 EM catapults alone?! Royal Navy resigned from catapults for a reason. And the reason was costs. Thus preferred  VSTOL fighters as cheaper variant instead. Why Russians should not learn of examples?

    New fighter will be developed anyway, Russians never built catapults, catapult costs helluva money (US EM cat costs 30x Karakurts), perhaps ensuring new fighter is STOL and eventually has VSTOL variant cost just less?

    Because mistrals are amphibious ships, and the latter is an aircraft carrier. It's like comparing an An-72 to a Su-35, more or less.

    Catapults don't cost a dramatic amount of money, but it's a heavy task to design reliable catapults, that's true.

    Still catapults are the best option, whoever discarded them, did it because of the costs of nuclear propulsion, not the costs of catapults per se.

    Any STOVL underdog will cost a magnitude higher amount of money to develop, and will anyway have less range, less payload, more development and building costs of a conventional fighter.

    By the way, what a VSTOL is?

    Very Short Take Off and Landing?

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2679
    Points : 2719
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:57 am

    Peŕrier wrote:
    It's quite easy: any engine not designed for vertical landings, will have to be heavily modified, and the results will have to be carefully tested and certified.

    That means both a lot of money and a lot of times, because it is not like designing a new low pressure stage or a new fan for an existing engine. it means redesigning an engine adding brand new and additional parts, and modifying/adapting its performances on very specific conditions that were not foreseen in the original engine designing.


    It takes months or years, only to demonstrate that the new item not only provide the expected performances, but is actually employable in the real world the way the military  expects it.
    [/quite]

    True but you didnt write anything was snot actually done in f35 programme. My question is different however.  So wheres the problem?  you got engine and VSTOL fighter that you can manufacture both for your navy, air force and sell it + technology of VSTOL for other possible planes/drones







    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    As for autonomy and endurance fully agreed NPP rulez. But why Russian should spend  2x Mistral costs to build 1 max 2 EM catapults alone?! Royal Navy resigned from catapults for a reason. And the reason was costs. Thus preferred  VSTOL fighters as cheaper variant instead. Why Russians should not learn of examples?

    New fighter will be developed anyway, Russians never built catapults, catapult costs helluva money (US EM cat costs 30x Karakurts), perhaps ensuring new fighter is STOL and eventually has VSTOL variant cost just less?

    Catapults don't cost a dramatic amount of money, but it's a heavy task to design reliable catapults, that's true.

    Still catapults are the best option, whoever discarded them, did it because of the costs of nuclear propulsion, not the costs of catapults per se.


    By the way, what a VSTOL is?

    Very Short Take Off and Landing?


    You are intelligent guy but for some reason you dont want to answer my questions just wonder why  Razz Razz Razz

    I compare pure cost / benefit = catapult what benefit? 

    a) nobody besides USA builds catapults now. For a reason isnt it?

    b) Investing billion or so in catapult having to produce 1 max 2 examples iand even more to navalize fighter is surely right investment? Remember that USA hast vast experience and real AC testing abilities for catapult and Russia none of above. This makes costs /time overruns  even more probable. 

    c) ACs are never gonna be built in large numbers Russian Navy. Those built in 2030s will serve well after 2050. Then unlikely any catapults will be in use  as no battleships are now.

    d) navalizing land fighter was almost never practiced by US or British navy. There is always considerable cost of doing thatwith not always good results For decent numbers and large AC fleet it might have sense though.




    Perrier wrote:
    Any STOVL underdog will cost a magnitude higher amount of money to develop, and will anyway have less range, less payload, more development and building costs of a conventional fighter.




    a) They are gonna build light fighter  in LMFS programme anyway. In decent numbers. Its already assumed that V/STOL option is seriously considered.  Which variant is to be chosen we need to live and see.

    b) please show me "underdogness"  of parameters between F35B and Rafale M ? which exactly parameters make F35 so much worse? 
    It's worth to mention that F35B is panned to ~500 units and Rafale so far how many ordered / produced =160 ?) 

    c) V/STOL is trade off some parameters worse some unique. And actually those make it so much valuable for fleet where place is very expensive. 

    BTW V/STOL is now better?   Laughing Laughing Laughing
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1438
    Points : 1601
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:59 am

    I made a sketch of a possible STOVL  carrier borne fighter fitting the requirements of the Russian navy, the MiG-49. I know the profile looks a lot like the Su-57, but there are only so much stealth shapes that suit Russian requirements. Also my drawing skills aren't good.


    My goals were to make the aircraft with spaced twin engines in order for it to use 3D TVC. However this configuration would be difficult to combine with STOVL capability. I was thinking whether for the two engines to have 2 separate lift fans, but I understood that this was impractical since:

    -It would disrupt the air flow for the 2 engines
    -It would be heavier than having 1 lift fan



    However I couldn't think of a gear arrangement for the 2 engines to power the 1 lift fan, so instead of the lift fan the frontal lift would be done by a small independent turbofan jet engine that would be fed air from the main intakes.  The turbofan wouldn't need to be as powerful as the F-35B's lift fan since the Russian fighter would only use it for landing. The lack of a gear shaft would also save weight.

    The back vertical thrust would be done by the thrust being diverted down through a lower door as you can see on the sketch. I however don't know if the engines should be moved forward so the final exhaust can be used for thrust or if the doors can open in the middle of the engines. I hope its the latter.

    As with the Su-57, the MiG-49 lacks S-Ducts and  uses radar blockers instead to save weight. The sheer size of the aircraft isn't a problem since the carriers it should be used on would be around 70-80kt and just be without catapults. Also, its about as large as the Su-57 so
    Since it has a lifting turbofan, the MiG-49 has room for only 1 belly weapons bay, but its enlarged compared to the Su-57's and can carry 4 K-77Ms. It also has 2 bays for WVR missiles. Its not much, but at least better than the F-35 and equal to the J-31. The Mig-49's range is also quite short due to the bulk of the turbofan, but its not much of a roblem since its not designed for long range strikes and air superiority. That's the job for Kalibrs and S-500s.
    The Mig-49's only task is to provide short range interception of US carrier aircraft while outperforming the J-31 and F-35.

    BTW the things on its wingtips are jammers.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Jul 22, 2018 3:08 am