Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Share

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 292
    Points : 292
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:05 pm

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

    As far as i know, France does not produce steam cats.if I a m not mistaken, the steam cats on their only carrier were provided by the US

    That's right: the Charles de Gaulle's catapults are merely a shortened version of the same catapults employed by the Nimitz class CVNs.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 399
    Points : 399
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:31 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:
    To make a long story short, India would need at very least to install four indigenous reactors in a 65.000 tons carrier to provide enough power generation capability, in turn escalating dramatically maintenance costs.
    And the beauty of Math is, it kills (in the literal term) always and again whoever dares to defy her.

    Using the same math, if they choose to build a smaller CVN that is = to Charles de Gaulle size, only 2, max 3 reactors, the same 1s powering future Aridhaman class will be needed. Alternately, with only 1-2 EM catapult & a skirump, less power will be needed even on a bigger CVN. The Indians will try to produce their own naval reactors before importing them.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 292
    Points : 292
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:49 pm

    Yes, using the very same math they could just adopt Rafale and build a Charles de Gaulle like carrier, i.e. the smallest carrier available able to employ rhe Rafale.

    Anything just a little larger and heavier than Rafale would need a larger carrier.

    And that is just the problem of the french: they would like to build a second carrier, but because they would like to have a larger and more flexible one than the present Charles de Gaulle, either they step up the nuclear power plants available to them, increasing management costs, or they give up nuclear propulsion and in turn steam catapults, losing any chance to employ naval Rafale.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 399
    Points : 399
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:22 pm

    Can u clarify, since there r conflicting opinions, how the French economy compares to Russia's? Pl. include references. I found that France's budget/revenue is 3x bigger:
    http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/Russia/Economy

    http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/Russia/Economy/Budget

    If PRC could develop EM catapults for her future CVs, I don't see why France or Russia can't do the same- then NP isn't crucial, whatever their size! The same goes for the steam option- together, the US, UK, India & France had them on dozens of conventional powered CVs long before building CVNs.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 292
    Points : 292
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:33 pm

    We were talking about a future indian carrier, weren't we?

    Whoever talked of french, russian or klingon economy? I mean whoever but you.

    India simply enough does not have powerful enough NPP to power a 65.000 tons carrier resorting to just two reactors for a single hull, neither has France up to now.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 399
    Points : 399
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:37 am

    If u bothered to look back, others replied on French Vs RF economy. Regardless, the INS Vishal project has:
    Propulsion: Integrated electric propulsion System(IEPS)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vishal
    .. gas turbines or diesel generators or both generate three-phase electricity which is then used to power electric motors turning either propellers or waterjet impellors.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_electric_propulsion

    New Delhi, Oct 27: India’s second indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vishal, which is under development, will not be nuclear-powered as country’s premier nuclear institution, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) has said that it would take 15-20 years to develop a nuclear reactor capable enough to propel the 65,000-70,000 tonne vessel. ..An Integrated Electric Propulsion System (IEPS) will replace nuclear reactor in the original plan. The gas turbine-based drive generators will produce electricity, which will rotate motors to give power to the propellers.In a nuclear-powered vessel, the electricity is generated by generators that are run by steam produced by the nuclear reactor.
    INS Vishal will have a capacity to house 55 aircraft and will also have the “electromagnetic aircraft launch system” (EMALS) to catapult aircraft off the carrier.
    http://www.india.com/news/india/ins-vishal-not-be-nuclear-powered-as-barc-says-15-years-will-be-needed-to-develop-reactor-2571054/
    Make sense to me! It'll also be cheaper & won't require nuclear refueling, extra infrastructure & personnel. The Russians may do the same for their CVs. NP icebreakers r different- they need extra power & endurance at sea. Investing in them makes more bang for the buck on the NSR!

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 292
    Points : 292
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:55 am

    You are right, I do not bother at all.

    I write about my opinions, and I rebut others' opinions when and if I deem worthy to do so.

    I don't care about any possible comparation between russian, nigerian and punics economies when speaking of future indian carriers, sorry.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 399
    Points : 399
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:25 am

    But I'm talking about the future Russian a/c carriers here, as this thread is intended for, & the other countries' carrier projects (& the economies needed to sustain them) being mentioned by me r purely for comparison purposes. Go to Indian Navy threads to discuss Indian a/c carriers only!
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t2068-ins-vikramaditya-ex-admiral-gorshkov-aircraft-carrier
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t4856-ins-vikrant-future-indian-aircraft-carriers
    Pl. refrain from making derogatory/offending comments, direct/implied character assassinations & lecturing me on any topics here again, as everything u wrote so far had nothing I (& 99% of other members) don't know already. So, leave ur stinky French attitude outside before entering. Thanks in advance!


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:33 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1522
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:19 pm

    From what i can see.
    STOVL carriers are simply not a good idea.
    On the financial side alone, you have not only the costs of the ship, but also the new aircraft, plus part and equipment to maintain said new aircraft.
    And the fact that these aircrafts aren't going to be as capable as the old ones, regardless of whether "Midways" happen anymore, bring the sanity of the decision into question.
    The only real benefit i can see here is more job opportunities opening up.

    Anyway, nothings for sure yet.

    Also India isn't going to buy a ship that only exists on paper, Russia needs to make at least one Shtorm to convince India, and we all know that ain't gonna happen.
    And honestly, IMO i don't expect any real carrier to be built till 2050.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2197
    Points : 2241
    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 Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:32 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:From what i can see.
    STOVL carriers are simply not a good idea.
    On the financial side alone, you have not only the costs of the ship, but also the new aircraft, plus part and equipment to maintain said new aircraft.
    And the fact that these aircrafts aren't going to be as capable as the old ones, regardless of whether "Midways" happen anymore, bring the sanity of the decision into question.

    That's why so many fleets have them Smile Place on ship is pretty scarce, tell me how capable were Su-25 and Su-24 used in Syria? but they did the jobs int it? Rafale and F-18 speed equals the one of F-35B. Payload? have you seen any of carrie based fighter with all nodes with ordnance? me neither

    BTW combat radius of F-18 super hornet is 390 miles...F-35B 505 miles


    https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f-35b-lightning-ii-joint-strike-fighter-stovl-variant/
    The aircraft can carry 6,803kg of weaponry payload. It is equipped with AIM-120C AMRAAM medium range air to air missiles, air to surface missiles, two GBU-32 JDAM guided bombs, six GBU-38 bombs and munitions dispensers.




    Of course catapults cost billions and in case of 1 max 2 installations makes no sense whatsoever. Yes time will tell. If you look on the real world outside forum you'll see drones, transport goes vertical or at least STOL. Guess why Smile



    Of course US Marines, Royal Navy, Italian Navy, Spanish Navy and soon Japanese Navy know nothing about how poor are VSTOL damn they should have read thsi forum and expert's opinion perhaps?
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1522
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:06 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:From what i can see.
    STOVL carriers are simply not a good idea.
    On the financial side alone, you have not only the costs of the ship, but also the new aircraft, plus part and equipment to maintain said new aircraft.
    And the fact that these aircrafts aren't going to be as capable as the old ones, regardless of whether "Midways" happen anymore, bring the sanity of the decision into question.

    That's why so many fleets have them Smile  Place on ship is pretty scarce, tell me how capable were Su-25 and Su-24 used in Syria? but they did the jobs int it?  Rafale and F-18 speed equals the one of F-35B. Payload? have you seen any of carrie based fighter with all nodes with ordnance? me neither

    BTW combat radius of F-18 super hornet is 390 miles...F-35B 505 miles


    https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f-35b-lightning-ii-joint-strike-fighter-stovl-variant/
    The aircraft can carry 6,803kg of weaponry payload. It is equipped with AIM-120C AMRAAM medium range air to air missiles, air to surface missiles, two GBU-32 JDAM guided bombs, six GBU-38 bombs and munitions dispensers.




    Of course catapults cost billions and in case of 1 max 2  installations makes no sense whatsoever. Yes time will tell. If you look on the real world outside forum you'll see drones, transport goes vertical or at least STOL. Guess why Smile  



    Of course US Marines, Royal Navy, Italian Navy, Spanish Navy and soon Japanese Navy know nothing about how poor are VSTOL damn they should have read thsi forum and expert's opinion perhaps?

    The broken english makes this hard to read, but i was not talking about the F-35, it's not really a problem for the U.S, since it can afford such luxury.
    And the carriers are already in service.

    Yes, F-18 fully loaded.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL2YkGxzA-M
    And, Su-33 fully loaded Air to Air.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3Dmhzu0mMg

    As for range, you are getting Nautical miles mixed up with Miles.
    The F-18SH is 450mi and the F-35B is 580mi, but they don't make it clear if the F-35 is in Stealth or Non-stealth config.

    Good, it will be a good target once external hard-points are used.

    Steam-catapult is expensive because of heavy maintenance, EM-catapult won't have this problem.

    Poor navies will be poor, beside they will get U.S support, Russia doesn't have that and should go for the best they can, without breaking the bank.
    And marines aren't the navy.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2197
    Points : 2241
    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 Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:11 am

    AlfaT8 wrote: i was not talking about the F-35, it's not really a problem for the U.S, since it can afford such luxury.
    And the carriers are already in service.

    so countries with 10x smaller budget can afford for normal more expensive carriers? BTW I mentioned F-35B just because of your opinion thas STOL is waste of money.


    AlfaT8 wrote:
    As for range, you are getting Nautical miles mixed up with Miles.
    The F-18SH is 450mi and the F-35B is 580mi, but they don't make it clear if the F-35 is in Stealth or Non-stealth config.


    1) radius, ok if you prefer in kilometers:

    F-35B:                   833km
    F-18Super Hornet:  722 km
    Su-33: ?
    Rafale: ?

    Whoa V/STOL with longer radius?




    Good, it will be a good target once external hard-points are used.

    We both know F-35B can have option to go stealth and neither F-18 nor Su-33 cannot. So they must be invisible right? Or maybe you dont know? Razz






    Steam-catapult is expensive because of heavy maintenance, EM-catapult won't have this problem.
    Although Trump was pissed that EM catapult costed already almost a billions USD but it is still cheap.




    Poor navies will be poor, beside they will get U.S support, Russia doesn't have that and should go for the best they can, without breaking the bank.

    Russian navy can spend 13 billions  USD on first and only like 8 on second CV? +1 billion on EM catapult?  
    Russian CVs are not built  not to fight US Navy.  Then for what precisely are to be built for, can you clarify ? Colonial wars like Syria? Or pirates in Somalia?




    And marines aren't the navy.
    According to you logic Royal Navy is not a navy either? how great!
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1522
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:00 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote: i was not talking about the F-35, it's not really a problem for the U.S, since it can afford such luxury.
    And the carriers are already in service.

    so countries with 10x smaller budget can afford for normal more expensive carriers? BTW I mentioned F-35B just because of your opinion thas STOL is waste of money.

    Yes, but these carriers aren't gonna be 100kT super-carriers.
    Yes it is a waste of money, for Russia, since they need to develop not only a new carrier, but also new aircraft for it and new part/equipment to maintain it.
    While they can just make the new carrier and use already developed and matured aircraft.

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    As for range, you are getting Nautical miles mixed up with Miles.
    The F-18SH is 450mi and the F-35B is 580mi, but they don't make it clear if the F-35 is in Stealth or Non-stealth config.


    1) radius, ok if you prefer in kilometers:

    F-35B:                   833km
    F-18Super Hornet:  722 km
    Su-33: ?
    Rafale: ?

    Whoa V/STOL with longer radius?

    Is it stealth radius or non-stealth radius, that is the question.
    Also it's 933km not 833km.


    Good, it will be a good target once external hard-points are used.

    We both know F-35B can have option to go stealth and neither F-18 nor Su-33 cannot. So they must be invisible right? Or maybe you dont know? Razz

    With it's limited internal load, what it can actually do remains to be seen.
    As for Stealth, also remains to be seen.


    Steam-catapult is expensive because of heavy maintenance, EM-catapult won't have this problem.
    Although Trump was pissed that EM catapult costed already almost a billions USD but it is still cheap.

    1) U.S manufactures love their high prices.
    2) Long term, it wont cost as much.

    Poor navies will be poor, beside they will get U.S support, Russia doesn't have that and should go for the best they can, without breaking the bank.

    Russian navy can spend 13 billions  USD on first and only like 8 on second CV? +1 billion on EM catapult?  
    Russian CVs are not built  not to fight US Navy.  Then for what precisely are to be built for, can you clarify ? Colonial wars like Syria? Or pirates in Somalia?

    Only fools spend so much, Russia isn't the U.S.
    To protect Russian Navy from hostile aircraft, and carry lots of long range missiles, plus AWACS.

    And marines aren't the navy.
    According to you logic Royal Navy is not a navy either? how great!
    Right now, they are barely a Navy.

    ___
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17736
    Points : 18330
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 08, 2018 6:03 am

    The biggest problem with steam cats is the amount of fresh water they need to operate properly...

    Another problem is that once they are set that is their setting... so if the person setting it up gets it wrong then the aircraft will either get its undercarriage pulled off or it will land in the water...

    It also generates an enormous IR signature during operations, and of course potentially causes problems in cold climates where the steam can freeze.

    In comparison, an EM cat does use a lot of power, but can give a smart boost that can be adjusted during a launch to prevent problems.

    Rather less IR signature, should be fine with design from the start allowing for cold weather operations.

    The technology involved includes useful stuff that can be applied to all sorts of EM weapons and equipment... an EM cat on the moon could be used to cheaply return material back to earth for instance because there is no atmosphere there... so even a gun horizontal along the ground can be used to accelerate things to escape velocity and it will leave the moon and be sent to earth or out into space...

    The presence of a cat system means heavier aircraft like AWACS aircraft can be deployed more easily and on smaller vessels if necessary.

    F-35B:                   833km
    F-18Super Hornet:  722 km
    Su-33: ?
    Rafale: ?

    Whoa V/STOL with longer radius?

    What sort of state are we talking about... what weapon payload, what flight profile, what is the bring back performance, are they going to have supersonic dashes or strictly all subsonic?


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 399
    Points : 399
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:56 pm

    From the economics angle, if France's 3x larger than Russia's & still at a loss of what/when 2nd CV/N to build, how can the latter build just 1, much less 2 or 3, CVNs?  Putin is not Stalin to force his country "to eat grass" but have 2-3 CVNs & all that goes with them! To defend it & its interests abroad, they r not essential. NATO, Japan, Israel & PRC can be deterred with nukes & the latest non-nukes; insurgents in ME, Afghanistan, C. Asia, Africa, & L. America can be dealt with by land based aircraft, ship based helicopters, STOVLs & A/SLCMs. Adm. K & its aiwing didn't make much of a dent in Syria, despite of what Russian propaganda may have implied.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 292
    Points : 292
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:33 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    1) radius, ok if you prefer in kilometers:

    F-35B:                   833km
    F-18Super Hornet:  722 km
    Su-33: ?
    Rafale: ?

    Whoa V/STOL with longer radius?

    Is it stealth radius or non-stealth radius, that is the question.
    Also it's 933km not 833km.


    ___

    It's all meaningless.

    The stated F-18 E/F combat radius of 722 Km is referred specifically to an air to ground mission, with 4 x 1000 lbs bombs, 2 Aim-9, targeting pod, FLIR pod, two external tanks and a Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi mission profile.

    Without any relations between configurations and mission profiles, the numbers about the other aircrafts are without any meaning.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 292
    Points : 292
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:51 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:From the economics angle, if France's 3x larger than Russia's & still at a loss of what/when 2nd CV/N to build, how can the latter build just 1, much less 2 or 3, CVNs?  Putin is not Stalin to force his country "to eat grass" but have 2-3 CVNs & all that goes with them! To defend it & its interests abroad, they r not essential. NATO, Japan, Israel & PRC can be deterred with nukes & the latest non-nukes; insurgents in ME, Afghanistan, C. Asia, Africa, & L. America can be dealt with by land based aircraft, ship based helicopters, STOVLs & A/SLCMs. Adm. K & its aiwing didn't make much of a dent in Syria, despite of what Russian propaganda may have implied.

    France is in nominal GDP almost 2 x Russia, but in PPP terms Russia is 1.5 X France.

    That gives a broad estimate about how much cheaper is to develop and build something in Russia compared to France, at least as long as all of the production cycle is 100% domestic.

    Russian population is more than twice than french population, and that means that taxes levied to finance Govt. expenditures, military expenditures as well, are spread amongst a larger base.

    Last but not least, it is far easier to not expand welfare and personal income, in order to drain resources for Govt. projects, than to reduce them.

    The second way usually end with the people getting very angry in the long run, sometimes even in the short run.

    France, better to say french government, has had and has a really hard time cutting any public expenditures at all, even if only to easier taxation, not to mention to get resources to increase military spending.

    So within past, present and foreseeable future defense budget, France has almost zero chances to get the funds to build and operate a second carrier.

    It is not that french economy wouldn't allow it, it is the social and political environment that bars any real chance.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2197
    Points : 2241
    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 Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:15 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:Yes, but these carriers aren't gonna be 100kT super-carriers.
    Yes it is a waste of money, for Russia, since they need to develop not only a new carrier, but also new aircraft for it and new part/equipment to maintain it.
    While they can just make the new carrier and use already developed and matured aircraft.



    Actually Russian fleet mentioned only 2 cases so far

    1) a light ~30k ?CV with newly developed V/STOL fighter. Will it be new MiG? who knows. Siulianov and Shoigu for sure Smile
    2) heavy 100t class with 90 pieces air-wing and navalized PAK-FA /Su-57

    In case B I can hardly see that More then 40 Su-57 is displacement is to be not more than 100,000tons. Ford class is 100k and is ot have 70 fixed wing aircrafts.
    Looks at size comparison Su-57 vs F-35. @x so much space needed?






    AlfaT8 wrote:

    radius, ok if you prefer in kilometers:

    F-35B:                   833km
    F-18Super Hornet:  722 km
    Whoa V/STOL with longer radius?

    Is it stealth radius or non-stealth radius, that is the question.
    Also it's 933km not 833km.

    https://www.f35.com

    Lockheed Martins stubbornly says > 833 km on interneal fuel. But what is the difference stealth or non stealth? is there any CV based stealth plane? no there's not.
    So why such worries if it will be stealth?

    My point is: there are no major differences neither speed, radius or payload justify opinion that V/STOL is useless. But their carriers cost cheaper much cheaper. Both in construction and maintenance.  





    Long term, it wont cost as much.

    Catapult? it costs a lot when created. In Russian case in 1 max 2 pieces. For a billion! ok half billion if you prefer.  





    Only fools spend so much, Russia isn't the U.S.
    To protect Russian Navy from hostile aircraft, and carry lots of long range missiles, plus AWACS.
    In Midway style fight? 1 CVSG form Russian vs 10 from USA? I bet on yanks then.
    Otherwise 20-30 V/STOL fighters is fair enough and many times cheaper (cost of carriers vs LHDs). Syria's experience IMHO proved no more then 30 fixed wing aircraft is enough to do the job in colonial style war,  40 Su-57 fighters in super carrier is never enough to fight against 300 form US CVSGs.  




    AlfaT8 wrote:
    According to you logic Royal Navy is not a navy either? how great!
    Right now, they are barely a Navy.
    ___


    Laughing Laughing Laughing
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2197
    Points : 2241
    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 Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:01 am

    Peŕrier wrote:
    It's all meaningless.

    The stated F-18 E/F combat radius of 722 Km is referred specifically to an air to ground mission, with 4 x 1000 lbs bombs, 2 Aim-9, targeting pod, FLIR pod, two external tanks and a Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi mission profile.

    Without any relations between configurations and mission profiles, the numbers about the other aircrafts are without any meaning.

    I'd say yes and no. Yes if you wan to know exact numbers to compare. No if you want just to check whether performance differences are closer to 10% or closer or order of magnitude.

    Unfortunately Lockheed didnt provide any data about profile or load then I assume hi profile and no external load. So close to fighter escort config


    https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm
    For F-18 did you mean this? then without external fuel and fighter escort config is 5% longer range with less load Smile












    GarryB wrote: The presence of a cat system means heavier aircraft like AWACS aircraft can be deployed more easily and on smaller vessels if necessary.


    or Russian can build AWACS drones which can be half lighter since no crew compartment is needed.  How heavy is Ka-32 AWACS radar+antenna  300kg? SO if you get deont to 8km you-with new electronic based radar

    you get like 380km range, with 12km 470 kn range...

    http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm






    GarryB wrote:What sort of state are we talking about... what weapon payload, what flight profile, what is the bring back performance, are they going to have supersonic dashes or strictly all subsonic?

    wiki says interdiction profile Lockheed is not mentioning profile at all. I guess it is easiest case and in case of F-18 subsonic. But point is there are not much differences between V/STL in terms payload/radius and speed.  

    Of course Su-57 in and config is better in everything but requires 2x more space, catapult (this bigger ship).
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17736
    Points : 18330
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:52 am

    They wont be importing many components for new CVNs, so building one puts Russians to work and also extends the reach and capability of the Russian Navy, which is good for exporting and importing material that does not go through europe.


    Russia needs to boost its international trade... there are lots of countries the west has screwed who want someone else to trade with... who don't already have perfect economies like the west does, but doesn't want to be preached to either.

    Markets in Africa and Asia and central and south america are new and offer huge potential to Russia to expand its trading partner base... they want to grow but also not to be stifled and controlled... the US likes investing in countries to produce goods for them cheaply... the west has been doing it for years big powerful companies that maximise profit by low wages workers in foreign countries with no worker rights... their problem is that when they shift work overseas their own populations can't afford to buy their cheaply made products no matter how cheap they can make them.

    Russia and China have the potential to step in and make trade deals where everyone wins and not just the 1% in both countries.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2197
    Points : 2241
    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 Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:25 am

    GarryB wrote:They wont be importing many components for new CVNs, so building one puts Russians to work and also extends the reach and capability of the Russian Navy, which is good for exporting and importing material that does not go through europe.

    Russia needs to boost its international trade... there are lots of countries the west has screwed who want someone else to trade with... who don't already have perfect economies like the west does, but doesn't want to be preached to either.


    Sir, I second that. The only difference is - Russian IMHO  doesn't need 10blns $ a piece CVN  then one for 2$blns will do the same job. Any attack on Russian ship means war regardless on size, isnt it?


    If Russian doctrine is not based on massive fleet air-air battles then for 20-30 fighters i wll do the job perfectly.  

    a) Syria like conflicts
    b) fending off smaller predators



    Of course there are pros and cons.
    Pros:

    a) light (V)/STOL fighter can be procured both by AF and Navy.
    b) French Rafale was in 20 years or so made in 185 units, this size including exports should be easily attainable
    c)  small = takes 1,5x less space as Su-57 (pls check F-35 vs Su-57n comparison) and requires much smaller ship


    Comns
    a) Su-57 can use kindzhal and THAT is the difference
    b) of course heavy fighter with long range is always better but F-18 replaced F-14 for a  reason,  and its successor F-35 is also small by requirements.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1522
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:36 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:Yes, but these carriers aren't gonna be 100kT super-carriers.
    Yes it is a waste of money, for Russia, since they need to develop not only a new carrier, but also new aircraft for it and new part/equipment to maintain it.
    While they can just make the new carrier and use already developed and matured aircraft.



    Actually Russian fleet mentioned only 2 cases so far

    1) a light ~30k ?CV with newly developed V/STOL fighter. Will it be new MiG? who knows. Siulianov and Shoigu for sure Smile
    2) heavy 100t class with 90 pieces air-wing and navalized PAK-FA /Su-57

    In case B I can hardly see that More then 40 Su-57 is displacement is to be not more than 100,000tons. Ford class is 100k and is ot have 70 fixed wing aircrafts.
    Looks at size comparison Su-57 vs F-35. @x so much space needed?



    Yes, it's very confusing.

    The 30kT CV is obviously a modified Lavina class, the idea is probly to invest everything in Lavina to save money, but the justification the Russian MoD is using is that the STOVL aircraft can also fulfill a fighter role, which is just nonsense, clearly there are too many official who's heads are still in the 1970s.
    There is also a problem that the Lavina doesn't have enough weaponry to defend itself, which also means more escorts.

    The 100kT carrier is just the other end of the extreme, although most of the aircrafts are ready, but we got no idea what the actual cost will be.
    Estimates, put its costs closer to the Nimitz carrier, not the Ford.

    There is serious lack of a middle ground here.
    Honestly, it seems like the traditional schizophrenia/phobia in the MoD for carriers is alive and well.

    That depends on a lot of things most importantly the carrier's design.
    And don't expect a Su-57 only carrier i see no more than 10 the rest will probly be Mig-29K.

    AlfaT8 wrote:

    radius, ok if you prefer in kilometers:

    F-35B:                   833km
    F-18Super Hornet:  722 km
    Whoa V/STOL with longer radius?

    Is it stealth radius or non-stealth radius, that is the question.
    Also it's 933km not 833km.

    https://www.f35.com

    Lockheed Martins stubbornly says > 833 km on interneal fuel. But what is the difference stealth or non stealth? is there any CV based stealth plane? no there's not.
    So why such worries if it will be stealth?

    My point is: there are no major differences neither speed, radius or payload justify opinion that V/STOL is useless. But their carriers cost cheaper much cheaper. Both in construction and maintenance.  

    That doesn't add up, Nmi->miles->km clearly add up to 933km, but if they say that, then fine.
    The F-35 has 2 configs stealth with internal munitions only, and non-stealth with both internal and external munitions, the difference in weight/drag will effect the radius.

    STOVL aircrafts are generally heavier and more critical points of failure, than conventional aircrafts, ergo their performance suffers with the extra weight as well as maintenance with extra components.
    Their carriers cost nothing because they're already built.


    Long term, it wont cost as much.

    Catapult? it costs a lot when created. In Russian case in 1 max 2 pieces. For a billion! ok half billion if you prefer.  

    Yes, the starting cost is always high.
    But a billion, really?
    Real problem is, we don't know what it will cost for Russia, or whether it will be built at all.

    Only fools spend so much, Russia isn't the U.S.
    To protect Russian Navy from hostile aircraft, and carry lots of long range missiles, plus AWACS.
    In Midway style fight? 1 CVSG form Russian vs 10 from USA? I bet on yanks then.
    Otherwise 20-30 V/STOL fighters is fair enough and many times cheaper (cost of carriers vs LHDs). Syria's experience IMHO proved no more then 30 fixed wing aircraft is enough to do the job in colonial style war,  40 Su-57 fighters in super carrier is never enough to fight against 300 form US CVSGs.

    What with this midway crap, carrier aircrafts are simply superior to STOVL, and cheaper.
    And i bet on Kinzhal.
    That is the question, which one is really cheaper, new LHD plus new STOVL or just new Carrier plus old fighters.
    IMO, the carrier is the obvious choice, way more firepower than the LHD and you don't need to waste money on making new STOVL, but the MoD clearly has other plans.
    Syria experience simply showed that Russia needs new carriers, that's it.
    30 Kinzhals should be enough for all 10.

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    According to you logic Royal Navy is not a navy either? how great!
    Right now, they are barely a Navy.
    ___

    Laughing Laughing Laughing

    Yes, it's very sad.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17736
    Points : 18330
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:47 am

    Sir, I second that. The only difference is - Russian IMHO  doesn't need 10blns $ a piece CVN  then one for 2$blns will do the same job. Any attack on Russian ship means war regardless on size, isnt it?

    If you are going to spend a large amount of money on a camper van do you buy a ute (a light truck not much bigger than an SUV) and cram everyone in for summer holidays, or do you get a custom made bus.

    That Ute is going to be 5 times cheaper than the custom made bus, but you are going to have to spend a minimum of 10 billion designing and building what will basically be an F-35 in the VSTOL version that will not be of any use anywhere else... the army and air force wont want them because there will always be 500m of motorway a conventional aircraft can take off from...

    A helicopter carrier simply wont be big enough... even an enlarged Mistral.

    If you are going somewhere to fight and you can only take 20-30 aircraft then you need the best... not some half assed wannabe.

    They have worked out that to have any sort of surface fleet able to defend itself it needs long range vision and long range reach... that means AWACS and aircraft, so if you need AWACS and aircraft why piss around with a dinky little helicopter carrier?

    If Russian doctrine is not based on massive fleet air-air battles then for 20-30 fighters i wll do the job perfectly.  

    a) Syria like conflicts
    b) fending off smaller predators

    The current main threat to Russian surface vessels is wave after wave of hundred or thousands of subsonic anti ship missiles... the best defence against that is air borne radar and airborne interceptors with AAMs.... the more the better.

    Pros:

    a) light (V)/STOL fighter can be procured both by AF and Navy.
    b) French Rafale was in 20 years or so made in 185 units, this size including exports should be easily attainable
    c)  small = takes 1,5x less space as Su-57 (pls check F-35 vs Su-57n comparison) and requires much smaller ship

    First of all a) is right off the money, the air force has no need for a VSTOL aircraft... the Yak-38 was tested in Afghanistan and rejected as too fragile, too short ranged, too low a payload.

    Second the UAE are paying for a 5th gen light fighter to be designed and built... lets see what that looks like first, but otherwise the naval version of the Su-57 it is.

    c) is not relevant... the Su-33 has a double folding main wing and actually takes up the same amount of space on the Kuznetsov as the much smaller MiG-29K does... they can be made as small as they need to be.

    a) Su-57 can use kindzhal and THAT is the difference

    It has already had structural strengthening... just add folding wings and a tail hook and it is ready to go as an already capable stealth fighter bomber.

    b) of course heavy fighter with long range is always better but F-18 replaced F-14 for a  reason,  and its successor F-35 is also small by requirements.

    The F-18 replaced the F-14 because at the time the F-14 was high maintainence and was an old aircraft design.

    In the early 1990s the new improved D model F-14 was actually an enormous improvement over the A model... the new engines were so much more powerful the F-14D could take off without using afterburner as the engines in the D model were as powerful in dry thrust as the older engines were in full AB.

    The F-14D could easily have been adapted to carry AMRAAM and the new model sidewinders and been every bit as capable as the F-18... the last model F-14Ds had an upgrade where the Tomcat could use LANTIRN to look for targets on the ground and transmit that image to the soldiers on the ground who could look at the airborne view... pick out the enemy and mark them so the aircraft they were linked to could then attack the targets...

    An F-22 like heavy fighter could easily have been developed, but it would have needed external weapons to be useful and that would have made it nonstealthy... which was bad in the US.

    Just like anywhere there are Tomcat supporters and there are Hornet supporters and the Hornet supporters won... some would say despite common sense suggesting the Tomcat Phoenix was not only needed but in need of an upgrade... now they know better.

    Russia isn't likely to build more than 2 new nuclear powered aircraft carriers... they have the propulsion sorted, they are working on EMALS cats, and they have the Su-57, but also a programme of light 5th gen fighter with UAE... either way they have a choice.

    The fact that they are talking about a 90 aircraft carrier suggests to me that they have looked at their experience with Kievs and Kuznetsovs and decided bigger is better.

    Even if they went small and cheap I doubt they would build more than 2 anyway.

    It is just my opinion, but I would expect the new CVNs to be in the 80-90K ton weight class, and that many of the 90 aircraft they talk about will be drones, including helicopter and fixed wing.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2197
    Points : 2241
    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 Mar 10, 2018 11:54 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Yes, it's very confusing.

    The 30kT CV is obviously a modified Lavina class, the idea is probly to invest everything in Lavina to save money, but the justification the Russian MoD is using is that the STOVL aircraft can also fulfill a fighter role, which is just nonsense, clearly there are too many official who's heads are still in the 1970s.
    There is also a problem that the Lavina doesn't have enough weaponry to defend itself, which also means more escorts.


    Nor Ford style carrier has. I am a big fan of Russian TAKR concept as an asymmetric answer to large CVSG but more fitting to Russian doctrine.

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    The 100kT carrier is just the other end of the extreme, although most of the aircrafts are ready, but we got no idea what the actual cost will be.
    Estimates, put its costs closer to the Nimitz carrier, not the Ford.


    True Russian costs are lower lest's say slash this by half. Still I believe that price ratio of 100kt/30-40kt remains at the same level ~1:4.
    Saved cost can be used for development of V/STOL version of new light fighter.




    There is serious lack of a middle ground here. Honestly, it seems like the traditional schizophrenia/phobia in the MoD for carriers is alive and well.

    respekt respekt respekt



    That depends on a lot of things most importantly the carrier's design. And don't expect a Su-57 only carrier i see no more than 10 the rest will probly be Mig-29K.

    Not sure if in 2030-50ss a fighter with 1970s developed frame is the best solution.




    The F-35 has 2 configs stealth with internal munitions only, and non-stealth with both internal and external munitions, the difference in weight/drag will effect the radius.

    also different flight profile affects range. We can only assume 833km was for lowest drag and profile combination Smile





    STOVL aircrafts are generally heavier and more critical points of failure, than conventional aircrafts, ergo their performance suffers with the extra weight as well as maintenance with extra components. Their carriers cost nothing because they're already built.

    What with this midway crap, carrier aircrafts are simply superior to STOVL, and cheaper

    Well F-35 is failed IMHO because 3 different fighter requirements were put in one plane. You cannot have a maneuverable fighter, stealth, VSTOL with carrier grade frame cheap, on time and without flaws Smile And yes it is complicated whts more all new gen fighters will be even more complicated. Biplanes were generally STOL and simple however were retired for a reason.

    Superior in what? you saw radius speed or payload are not really different. So in what precisely? Than F35ccan sustain 7g instead of 9g? how many pilots can survive 9g? VSTOL fighters likely will be just a situational aware command center for swarms of drones in 20-30years or platform for stand-off missiles then dog fighters.



    If Russia would focus on (V) STOL configuration maneuverable fighter with less emphasis on stealth perhaps you can have:
    a) VSTOL fighter for own navy
    b) V/STOL for AF
    c) export for smaller countries



    Pls note that Rafale was built in 180 units so far and Gripen 240 or so. So talking that 100-200 units is too little to build a fighter is really convincing.




    But a billion, really?
    Real problem is, we don't know what it will cost for Russia, or whether it will be built at all.
    Meh Bloomberg said that 936 mln (I provided linke some psots earlier on in this thread) of so, but still cannot catapult/'arrest F-18 with full load :-) That's why Trump was pissed off.
    EMALs was planned according to RuNavy for 100kt +Su-57 Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil







    And i bet on Kinzhal.That is the question, which one is really cheaper, new LHD plus new STOVL or just new Carrier plus old fighters.
    IMO, the carrier is the obvious choice, way more firepower than the LHD and you don't need to waste money on making new STOVL, but the MoD clearly has other plans.
    Syria experience simply showed that Russia needs new carriers, that's it.
    30 Kinzhals should be enough for all 10.

    any aggression against Russian huydrograpic vessel is war. Not to mention light carrier( either TAKR or LHD) and for this there are Sarmats/Rubezh or orbital bombing. For securing humanitarian ops, colonial wars unversal ship with marines or fighters or ASW config seems to be the best fit.


    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2197
    Points : 2241
    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 Mar 10, 2018 11:55 am

    GarryB wrote:

    Didnt forget about you but gotta go. Ill be back and respond with wrath and vengeance respekt respekt respekt

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:19 pm