Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Share
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:02 pm

    "What I disagree with you is need to be near US shores." The US, NATO & their allies have & use bases all over the E. Hemisphere & around RF perimeter - no need to go that far, & I didn't imply that.
    Yes, Kievs r history, but I meant modified Kiev-size TAKRs & UDKs with many common features to speed up their construction.  
    "The new Russian destroyers will be multipurpose and be capable of AAW, AShW, ASW and land attack missions..."
    Even Adm. K, with its ASHMs, had 5 other warships escorting it on the way to Med. Sea, & once there, was joined by others.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group#Russia
    Even with their new DDGs, at least 3-4 will be needed to provide combat sustainability in case something really bad happens.
    "2-3 years for a major overhaul is normal for a large ship. The only problem for the K is there is only one so when it is in dry dock there is nothing at sea to replace it. ..I rather suspect they will only build 2 new CVNs with one based in the Northern fleet and one in the Pacific fleet with the K moving between the two while the CVN is in overhaul.
    Over time overhauls in electronics and propulsion would allow upgrades of the K to add nuclear propulsion and eventually EM Cats etc etc and new electronics and systems..."
    Easier said than done! Even if theoretically possible, it'll be more expensive & time consuming to add CATs & nuclear reactors to Adm. K than to build a new CVN. By then, it'll have only few more years
    before another long yard period at best & decommissioning at worst. The Murphy's Law: a crisis can develop at any time; with only 1 CVN in each oceanic fleet, there's more than 50% chance neither will be combat ready. "Moving the K between the two" will add to its wear & tear; it's less costly to deploy to other's AOR instead, if need be. Sailing it from Kola to Kamchatka & back requires an icebreaker escort, even in summer; via the Suez or, worse, around Africa takes a lot longer & costs even more. That's why, if I was a RF Fleet Commander, I would advise not to have a CVN in the NF before there r at least 1/2 in the PacF & at least 1/2 TAKR types (aside the Adm.K) in the BSF.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:27 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 470
    Points : 502
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:35 pm

    medium carrier

    WTF is this garbage biuld a giga carrier with the ability to operate strategic bombers and for self defence and alst to show off equip it with a decent amount of every type of naval missile Russia equips on its new combat vessels.

    There do this and the americans will be wetting their pants and dying of panic left right and center.

    Kiev class is as utterly useless as all small carriers and is best left forgotten.

    Also Russia only has to worry about biulding carriers after it has built enough destroyers and cruisers to protect them so there is absoultely no need to rush ahead and create a floating turd that cannot even carry anything worthy of the small amount battery power used by the LTD of the scout calling the airstrike.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 01, 2018 7:50 am

    Ka-31 AWACS module was weighting 200kg + antenna . Really cannot you use drones?

    Ka-31 are AEW, not AWACS... they have no onboard processing power and no crew that monitor the information they collect... a ground (water based) station receives the data and processes it and communicates it to the fleet and aircraft.

    The Yak-41 never an operational aircraft so estimates on its performance will only ever just be that... estimates from a company relying on getting to make some for the Russian military...

    With the standardisation and modularisation of the sensors and weapons and systems in the Russian Navy a new medium sized carrier can carry some of the weapons a cruiser would carry to support its own operations so in the past where the K might have a Kirov and four or five destroyer sized vessels to support it a new carrier will only need a single new cruiser and perhaps 2-3 destroyers in support to keep it safe.

    the number of vessels needed will be dramatically decreased for most operations and their multi role load outs means they will be able to perform a much wider range of missions without having to send extra vessels to support them.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2420
    Points : 2437
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:51 pm

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201709051057099614-aircraft-carrier-zvezda-shipyard/

    More Details Revealed About Russia's New Aircraft Carrier Project

    ©️ Sputnik/ Sergey Mamontov
    MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE
    14:31 05.09.2017(updated 17:18 05.09.2017) Get short URL4291

    Russia's Far Eastern Zvezda shipyard with no limits on the tonnage of civilian maritime vessels and warships can be used for work on the new aircraft carrier, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russia's new aircraft carrier might be built at Russia's Far Eastern Zvezda shipyard, which will be ready by 2020, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said Tuesday.

    "We no longer have any limitations on the tonnage of civilian maritime vessels and warships that we can construct there [at Zvezda shipyard]… If we attempt to build the military's favorite ship, I mean, an aircraft carrier, then we can build it there [at the shipyard] as well," Rogozin said.

    At the same time, the deputy prime minister indicated that the site for the new aircraft carrier's construction would be decided upon by the Russian Defense Ministry.

    Rogozin also indicated that the dry dock would be 114 meters (374 feet) wide and would accommodate the construction of tankers with tonnages of up to 350,000 tons and of "Arctic gas carriers" which will have tonnages of up to 250,000 tons.

    As for today, the Russian Navy's only aircraft carrier is the Admiral Kuznetsov. The modernization of the aircraft carrier is scheduled for 2018. As for Russia's new aircraft carrier, its construction is planned to begin by 2025, when the state rearmament program terminates.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2518
    Points : 2512
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:58 am

    eehnie wrote:https://sputniknews.com/military/201709051057099614-aircraft-carrier-zvezda-shipyard/

    More Details Revealed About Russia's New Aircraft Carrier Project

    ©️ Sputnik/ Sergey Mamontov
    MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE
    14:31 05.09.2017(updated 17:18 05.09.2017) Get short URL4291

    Russia's Far Eastern Zvezda shipyard with no limits on the tonnage of civilian maritime vessels and warships can be used for work on the new aircraft carrier, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russia's new aircraft carrier might be built at Russia's Far Eastern Zvezda shipyard, which will be ready by 2020, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said Tuesday.

    "We no longer have any limitations on the tonnage of civilian maritime vessels and warships that we can construct there [at Zvezda shipyard]… If we attempt to build the military's favorite ship, I mean, an aircraft carrier, then we can build it there [at the shipyard] as well," Rogozin said.

    At the same time, the deputy prime minister indicated that the site for the new aircraft carrier's construction would be decided upon by the Russian Defense Ministry.

    Rogozin also indicated that the dry dock would be 114 meters (374 feet) wide and would accommodate the construction of tankers with tonnages of up to 350,000 tons and of "Arctic gas carriers" which will have tonnages of up to 250,000 tons.

    As for today, the Russian Navy's only aircraft carrier is the Admiral Kuznetsov. The modernization of the aircraft carrier is scheduled for 2018. As for Russia's new aircraft carrier, its construction is planned to begin by 2025, when the state rearmament program terminates.

    Nothing new ...
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:40 pm

    "The Yak-41 never an operational aircraft so estimates on its performance will only ever just be that... estimates from a company relying on getting to make some for the Russian military..."

    Those estimates r based on trials already conducted. If they r later found to be exaggerated, the loss of face & future contracts will be catastrophic, to say the least!
    Yak-141 combat radius
    351nm (650km) VTO range at sea level, no external weapons
    372nm (690km) with 4,409lb (2,000kg) weapon load and take-off run of 394ft (120m)
    755nm (1,400km) at 32,808-39,370ft (10-12,000m)
    1,133nm (2,100km) max range, with external fuel and short take-off
    755nm (1,400km) with vertical takeoff and internal fuel

    https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/yak-141.htm

    MiG-29K Combat radius: 850 km (528 mi; 459 nmi)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29K#Specifications_(MiG-29K)

    CTOL Su-33 Maximum Range: 1,987 nm
    [combat radius = ~1/2 of that, or 993.5 nm, lightly armed]
    https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=196

    F-35A [more capable than STOVL F-35B] Combat radius: 669 nmi interdiction mission on internal fuel, 760 nmi for internal air to air configuration  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Specifications_(F-35A)

    The U.S Marine Corps plans to disperse its F-35Bs among forward deployed bases to enhance survivability while remaining close to a battlespace, similar to RAF Harrier deployment late in the Cold War which relied on the use of off-base locations that offered short runways, shelter, and concealment. Known as distributed STOVL operations (DSO), Marine F-35Bs would sustain operations from temporary bases in allied territory within the range of hostile ballistic and cruise missiles, but be moved between temporary locations inside the enemy's 24- to 48-hour targeting cycle. This strategy accounts for the F-35B's short range, the shortest of the three variants, with mobile forward arming and refueling points (M-Farps) accommodating KC-130 and MV-22 Osprey aircraft to rearm and refuel the jets, as well as littoral areas for sea links of mobile distribution sites on land. M-Farps could be based on small airfields, multi-lane roads, or damaged main bases, while F-35Bs would return to U.S. Navy ships, rear-area U.S. Air Force bases, or friendly carriers for scheduled maintenance; metal planking would be needed to protect unprepared roads from the F-35B's engine exhaust, which would be moved between sites by helicopters, and the Marines are studying lighter and more heat-resistant products.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B
    [The RF could do similar things with her STOVLs]

    China is also developing new STOVL fighter for its Navy
    A STOVL fighter gives a significant edge to a military due to its capability to operate from small surfaces, like an amphibious warship or an helicopter carrier, which are comparatively low cost platforms as compared to an aircraft carrier. While China is operationalizing its first aircraft carrier, the CNS Liaoning, it will take considerable time before more such warships are put into operation.
    The PLA article explains that the STOVL aircraft will cover this gap in the Navy's combat capability and address the absence of such a weapon in the PLA's arsenal.
     https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/china-developing-new-stovl-fighter-for-navy-similar-to-americas-f-35b-aircraft/articleshow/47266118.cms

    Sounds familiar?!
    The Yak-141 has even better performance & can carry heavier war load than the MiG-29K; the Su-33 has bigger combat radius but can't do CTOL off STOBAR while armed with more than a few AAMs.
    Their new STOVL will likely perform = to Yak-141, if not better, so it's worth to go that route.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:59 am; edited 1 time in total

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:43 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:

    Sounds familiar?!
    The Yak-141 has even better performance & can carry heavier war load than the MiG-29K; the Su-33 has bigger combat radius but
    can't do CTOL off STOBAR while armed with more than a few AAMs.
    Their new STOVL will likely perform = to Yak-141, if not better, so it's worth to go that route.

    It's wrong.

    The "lightly armed" Su-33, takes off with a 120 run with full air-to-air armament, outperforming in range, dynamic performances and bring back capabilities the Yak-141 taking off with the same 120 meters run.

    The Mig-29K accomplish take or give the same, maybe some better payload.

    From ramp number 3 on Kuznetsov, with around 200 meters take off run, both Su-33 and Mig-29 outperform Yak-141 taking off with the same 200 meters run on every possible parameter.

    With added advantages given by commonalities with existing land based fighter aircrafts, and the always crucial parameter of the bring back payload factor.

    With a Yak-141, any sortie would end with the ditching in the sea of most if not all of the payload, having just huge costs even on peacetimes missions.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:56 am

    That may be so, but 1st they need to fix & test Adm.K arresting system & build its sister/follow on ship -neither is 100% guaranteed in a foreseeable future!
    http://www.aviastar.org/air/russia/yak-141.php:
    PERFORMANCE
    Max. speed 1850 km/h 1150 mph
    Ceiling 15500 m 50850 ft
    Range w/max.fuel 2100 km 1305 miles
    Range w/max.payload 1400 km 870 miles
    ARMAMENT 1 x 30mm cannon, 1000kg (VTOL) or 2650kg (STOL) of weapons on six hardpoints


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:11 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:08 am

    Peŕrier wrote:


    It's wrong.

    The "lightly armed" Su-33, takes off with a 120 run with full air-to-air armament, outperforming in range, dynamic performances and bring back capabilities the Yak-141 taking off with the same 120 meters run.


    Wrong, Yak -141 without ski jump Su-33 with. Yak 2400kg Su-33 3300kg 
    mass
    Yak ~ 16,000kg
    Su-33 ~  26000kh





    Perrier wrote:
    The Mig-29K accomplish take or give the same, maybe some better payload.


    Wrong. Start (with AFAIK ski jump) is ~ 200m for MiG. There are 24MiGs only produced and this is cheap?!



    Perrier wrote:
    With added advantages given by commonalities with existing land based fighter aircrafts, and the always crucial parameter of the bring back payload factor.


    Wrong, for fleet vertical landing and 120m or shorter take of is an important quality. It enables LHDs to be used as light ACs for example. 
    Thus USMC, Italian navy, Spanish Navy and Royal Navy and soon perhaps Japanese, Korean. Australian have chosen worse option? really? 

    perrier wrote:
    With a Yak-141, any sortie would end with the ditching in the sea of most if not all of the payload, having just huge costs even on peacetimes missions.



    Why you compare Yak 141 with current jets? Yak-141 and MiG-29k are relics of the past. Compare with F-35B because new Russian fighter will have similar class characteristics. F-35B payload is ~7tons. 

    Costs higher why? MiG is new and cheap?having separate ships for LDH, ASW helicopter carriers and pure AC is cheaper? 







    Tsavo Lion wrote:That may be so, but 1st they need to fix & test Adm.K arresting system & build its sister/follow on ship -neither is 100% guaranteed in a foreseeable future! 


    I still believe that cheaper is to have 2-3 universal smaller ships like 30-40ktons. As LHDs, Helicopter ASWs and light ACs (vide Juan Carlos or Wasp class). Then 2-3 LHDs, 2 pure ACs and some heli cruisers.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:29 am

    Thanks! The land-based Yak-43 would have
    The main engine ..based on the Samara NK-321 three-shaft augmented turbofan with a takeoff rating of 24,980 kg (55,077 lb). This same engine is used to power the Tu-160 Blackjack bomber.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-43

    For comparison, the Yak-141 main engine can give ~2x less:
    Dry thrust: 108 kN (24,300 lbf)  
    Thrust with afterburner: 152 kN (34,170 lbf)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141#Specifications_(Yak-41)


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:33 am; edited 1 time in total

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:32 am

    You are wrong, under any possible and conceivable reason.

    There is no russian F-35B.

    So unless the russians are going to purchase the F-35B, there is no comparison to make.

    The F-35B itself has almost no bring back capabilities when landing vertically, the british have been developing the so called "rolling landing" technique exactly to improve to some extent this crucial parameter, in order to avoid to ditch hundreds of thousands of dollars, or pounds, in armament every time the aircraft has to come back with some ordnance still on board.

    Mi-29K, exactly as Su-33, take offs either from ramp number 1 and 2 (both 120 meters take off runs) or ramp number 3 (200 meters take off run).

    Onboard of INS Vikramaditya the very same Mi-29-Ks use two ramps to take off, the forward one with 145 meters take off run, and the back one with around 200 meters take off run. Again, the forward is used mainly with Air-to-Air payloads, the back one with far heavier air-to-surface payloads.

    Vikramaditya by the way operates with mainly far worse meteorological conditions for jet aircrafts than in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean, with high temperatures and low air pressure prevailing most of the time.

    Mig-29K costed fairly little on development, and shares most of their electronics with last iterations of the Mig-29 family. In other words, it costed nuts compared to the development from scratch of a new type of aircraft, and it still enjoy the cost savings granted by commonality in terms both of support and future upgrades.

    Vertical landing are a niche feature, that to be somewhat useful requires a good number of suitable ships. Without such a good number of ships, it would be just a stunt without any meaningful practical application.

    Up to today, Russia has exactly zero ships able to deploy such wunderwaffe.

    In the future, maybe, Russia could have three or four such ships, provided they choice to build them large enough to be able to employ at least an handful of STOVL fighters. That would mean from around 30.000 tons upwards.

    Because a high performance fighter, designed from scratch, would cost on developement alone some billions dollars even in Russia, and with three or four LHD the highest number of aircraft required wouldn't exceed the 40 airframes mark, those aircrafts would cost some tens millions each on development alone.

    A very sensitive choice, isn't it?
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:44 am

    The F-35B engine can give less than the 1 on the Yak-43 (see my post above):
    Performance
    Maximum thrust: 41,000 lbf (182 kN) max, 27,000 lbf (120 kN) intermediate, 40,650 lbf (180.8 kN) hover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135#Performance
    They'll spend a lot less on their STOVL than the US had, & it will perform better, considering the above data.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:49 am

    Well, let's say they'll do an hell of a job, and will develop an high performance STOVL fighter with just 5 billions dollars.

    That still would account for around 50 millions dollars each airframe on development costs alone, even building 100 airframes, wouldn't it?
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:56 am

    Even if ur calculations r correct, who cares? RF interests & country's defence r worth a lot more, & they can just sell extra gold to Western &/ Asian banks to get extra $! Besides, they'll save more by not building CATOBAR CV/Ns!

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:08 am

    Those responsible for Russia's defenses should care.

    Money are always to be spent on the most effective way.

    How much to spend is a separate argument, but to spend wisey and effectively is a nobrainer.

    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 424
    Points : 426
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  ATLASCUB on Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:09 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Even if ur calculations r correct, who cares? RF interests & country's defence r worth a lot more, & they can just sell extra gold to Western &/ Asian banks to get extra $! Besides, they'll save more by not building CATOBAR CV/Ns!

    The judge is still out whether a Shtorm class carrier with navalized Pak-fa's would be significantly more expensive - since it's a clear superior solution. I mean you could adapt anything in the Russian air force to a carrier like Shtorm. Su-34's would be a good candidate as well for strike missions.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:20 am

    Even if it's not, by the time it sails, the RF may have lost something of greater value on the world stage that would cost even more to recover.
    Recall their loss of $Bs in Iraq & Libya contracts as a result of their weaker navy. In Syria they went to damage control in the nick of time!

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:34 am

    This also a good point.

    By the time a new STOVL aircraft would be operative, and the related ships built and inducted in service, it would take a couple of decades.

    Let's see: F-35 (as a whole) started it's development in 1992, the first flight demonstrator took off in 2000 and first real prototype took off in 2006, first operational aircrafts were built in 2017.

    But the russians, without doubt, will halve every timeframe.

    Let's say they start development of a new STOVL fighter in 2018, they will have a first flight demonstrator ready in 2022, the first prototype will take off in 2025 and first serial aircrafts will be built in 2030.

    It sound outstanding, isn't it?
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:41 am

    It'll take even less than 1/2 the time- the US didn't have STOVL & used
    Yakovlev help. STOBAR TAKRs/carriers will also take le$$ time to build.
    Otherwise, do u think they r idiots to have & announce STOVL plans?

    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 424
    Points : 426
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  ATLASCUB on Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:52 am

    You really expect them to build a new STOVL engine for a new airframe with supercruise reqs etc, etc.....in 5 years?

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:00 am

    Good luck, so spending far less they will develop a new aircraft in far less than half the time.

    Next step? Time travel technology?

    They are not stupid, just I do not believe they ever meant to really develop a STOVL fighter.

    Expecially they do not mean that "V" (that's for "Vertical, not for "Vendetta", of course).

    A VTOL drone, even a combat drone, yes.

    It could be, performances are not very critical in drones, because at last they could be regarded as expendables.

    Expendable, this is the magic word: an UAV lost in action is acceptable, a fighter with its crew is not.

    So a VTOL UAV, or even an UCAV, could be well within both rationality and feasibility.

    By the way, it could turn actually in a shared program between Army and Navy, and even the VKS, because each armed force is rushing to field UAVs and UCAVs for a moltitude of missions.

    A manned, high performances STOVL combat aircraft, no.

    it would be a waste of resources, there is simply no rational behind such a choice.

    Neither operational, nor economical.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7376
    Points : 7470
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:27 am

    ATLASCUB wrote:You really expect them to build a new STOVL engine for a new airframe with supercruise reqs etc, etc.....in 5 years?

    I expect them to do it in time it takes them to design and build LHD which is lot more than 5 years.

    They announced they will be developing STOVLs, they are allocating money, you think they are doing it for shits and giggles?

    STOVL is happening, decided by people who are actually at the top.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 726
    Points : 720
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:36 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    ATLASCUB wrote:You really expect them to build a new STOVL engine for a new airframe with supercruise reqs etc, etc.....in 5 years?

    I expect them to do it in time it takes them to design and build LHD which is lot more than 5 years.

    They announced they will be developing STOVLs, they are allocating money, you think they are doing it for shits and giggles?

    STOVL is happening, decided by people who are actually at the top.

    You mean those guys doesn't care about the engineering problems an the laws of nature, any decision by them is final and all natural law has to bend in accordance : )
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:41 am

    Those estimates r based on trials already conducted. If they r later found to be exaggerated, the loss of face & future contracts will be catastrophic, to say the least!

    It was never fitted with a full avionics suite... there were already plenty of exaggerated claims like it could take off from any field...

    Look at information about the F-35B... can take off from strips of road.... as long as you put down pieces of heat resistant metal to protect the roads.... in other words can take off from pre fabricated airstrips of special heat resistant metal...

    Their new STOVL will likely perform = to Yak-141, if not better, so it's worth to go that route.

    A Yak-41 today would be worse than a MiG-29K2.

    What they need now is a light 5th gen fighter... making it VTOL will make it weak and limited... and it is going to take 10 years to design and get even close to serial production level.

    MiG has a light 5th gen fighter design... that would be much quicker to get into service but I seriously doubt it is VTOL.

    That may be so, but 1st they need to fix & test Adm.K arresting system & build its sister/follow on ship -neither is 100% guaranteed in a foreseeable future!

    So you think developing a 5th gen VTOL fighter is cheaper than fixing a cable arresting system?

    They have land based cable arresting systems you realise?

    It was just something that couldn't be fixed off the coast of Syria... they didn't need to redesign the whole ship.

    Wrong, Yak -141 without ski jump Su-33 with. Yak 2400kg Su-33 3300kg

    Don't be a stats fanboi... the Yak-41 would have two R-77s and four R-73s, so we are talking about 350kgs for the two BVR missiles and about 450kgs for the four WVR missiles. The Su-33 will likely have 4 R-27ER missiles and 2 R-27ET missiles and four R-73s, so 350kgs for each R-27E and 450kgs of WVR missiles so the Yak-41 will have about 900kgs of payload and the Flanker will have about 2,2 tons of weapons.

    It is pretty clear which offers the best payload performance...

    There are 24MiGs only produced and this is cheap?!

    It only happened because it was cheap and it was cheap because set up production was paid for by the Indian order.

    No Indian order and no new MiGs for the Russian navy.

    It enables LHDs to be used as light ACs for example.

    You said in another thread they have no Zircon and no MiG-41... they also have no LHDs either.

    Why you compare Yak 141 with current jets? Yak-141 and MiG-29k are relics of the past. Compare with F-35B because new Russian fighter will have similar class characteristics. F-35B payload is ~7tons.

    Because it does not exist right now even on paper... the cost of developing a new VSTOL fighter will be enormous and take a lot of time... the Americans could not even afford it on their own and had to force most of their allies to buy into the programme of making the F-35 and it is still stupid expensive and not that impressive.

    Investing rather less money in a conventional take off light 5th gen fighter that can share all design and components with a land based equivalent that could be sold on the international market makes rather more sense. All that requires is slightly bigger carriers and EM cats which they are developing anyway.

    the bigger carriers will be more useful and only slightly more expensive.... operationally compared with the fleet of other ships they would operate the difference in cost is negligible and well worth spending to get real carrier capabilities.

    Costs higher why? MiG is new and cheap?having separate ships for LDH, ASW helicopter carriers and pure AC is cheaper?

    MiG-29K2s are paid for and can be used for the next 10 years... it will take that long to develop a VSTOL fighter anyway.

    There are no Russian ships able to carry VSTOL aircraft that don't already carry MiG-29ks anyway.


    I still believe that cheaper is to have 2-3 universal smaller ships like 30-40ktons. As LHDs, Helicopter ASWs and light ACs (vide Juan Carlos or Wasp class). Then 2-3 LHDs, 2 pure ACs and some heli cruisers.

    fair enough, but my opinion is that the money and cost (VSTOL aircraft crash a lot... look up the history of the Yak-38M) they would be better off keeping the helicopter carriers as helicopter carriers and have 2 proper medium carriers with the Kuznetsov also kept and upgraded with some of the stuff the new carriers will get just to test... ie EM cats and nuke propulsion.

    The Mistral type helicopter carriers will have landing capability and helicopter capability and would be ideal for emergency operations/disaster and goodwill visits as well as for landing forces to deliver troops to places around the world when needed.

    Aircraft carriers would be needed at the same time and for other purposes, so when landing forces you will need aircraft carriers too... not instead of.

    Having three ships means two will be available and one will be in overhaul... so having three Mistral type vessels means only one helicopter lander and one carrier with maybe 6 fighters.

    I would say two helicopter carriers and two real carriers means two ships landing vehicles and distributing supplies while one carrier offers air cover and support...

    Thanks! The land-based Yak-43 would have

    The Yak-43 is a paper project of a proposed design... I never saw anything remotely suggesting anything they could fit to balance that power at the front of the aircraft.

    And steel planking would not suffice for such thrust.

    There was a late model version of the M79 engine for the Yak that had 20-22 tons of thrust in a turbofan design.

    They'll spend a lot less on their STOVL than the US had, & it will perform better, considering the above data.

    If they use a development of the NK-32 engine for the VTOL role they actually have to develop it.

    They can't just rock up to a Tu-160 in a hangar and unbolt and engine and just fit it into the Yak-43 and it is all done.

    Even if ur calculations r correct, who cares? RF interests & country's defence r worth a lot more, & they can just sell extra gold to Western &/ Asian banks to get extra $! Besides, they'll save more by not building CATOBAR CV/Ns!

    If they bankrupt the country spending money on dead end projects then it is a problem.

    They are already developing EM cats they have said as much... having a naval fixed wing plane that is almost exactly the same as a land based model saves a lot of money and time and it means a light 5th gen fighter that can be sold on the international market to all Russias allies... or just to piss off the west.

    they could sell potent little fighters to Iran and Syria and North Korea... why would any of them buy a naval fighter with small payload and short range that destroys the ground it takes off from?

    It'll take even less than 1/2 the time- the US didn't have STOVL & used
    Yakovlev help.

    They had the AV-8II which was superior in every way to the Yak-38M.

    What they needed was help with the engine which they had no experience in developing... it was Rolls Royce all the way but even RR had no experience with afterburning engines and thrust vectoring nozzles.

    Otherwise, do u think they r idiots to have & announce STOVL plans?

    they will announce plans and they might even build prototypes but after testing will find again the VSTOL fighters and more expensive, more fragile, and less effective... once the EM cats are working they wont look back.

    EM cats on a Helicopter carrier would allow MiG-29s or new 5th gen CTOBAR fighters to operate from Mistral sized vessels...

    They announced they will be developing STOVLs, they are allocating money, you think they are doing it for shits and giggles?

    STOVL is happening, decided by people who are actually at the top.

    Yeah... every few years a newly elected government will start a work for the unemployment scheme where unemployed people do work to earn their unemployment payments.... problem is that there are not enough jobs and not enough people to manage all those people and it always goes tits up.

    The people in power will have people from Yak and MiG coming to them with all sorts of claims and schemes... the idea of a VTOL fighter is not new and has been going around for years... the problem is that it is BS and is becoming less likely every year because now a supersonic VTOL fighter needs even more engine power which makes VTOL even less likely to be safe.

    they will get to a prototype stage and it will be cancelled because it will be too expensive if the EM cats are successful they can use them on any sized ship to get aircraft airborne...

    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2518
    Points : 2512
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:00 am

    There was 0 official statement saying vstol will be used instead of mig 29k. Same, no one said they will build a carrier with vstol fighters.

    The vtol fighter development is probably for their future helicopter carier like japan is doing with f35.

    They will build proper carrier with most probably naval su-57 and mig-29k upgraded to 35 or a potentiel new mig.

    You are all saying it's one or the other.

    However this vtol will be expensive because they won't make a lot of them. The su57 is already ready and is easily navalizable with the work already made on su27/33. No need to wait 10 years for a mig.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:24 pm