Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Share
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7363
    Points : 7457
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:59 am

    Singular_Transform wrote:.......

    That can be used to overload the US economy.

    As soon as there are operative unrestricted carrier groups ( the chinese is restricted due to the island chains) the US has to start to make a lot of expensive systems, like sensor network, radar network, usable air defence, usable coastal defence and so on.

    As it looks like the US either bankrupt itself, or withdraw all forces back to protect the motherland.


    There is no way they (or anyone else) can bancrupt USA. They are ones who get to print money and get away with it. Entire economic system of this planet is based around that premise.

    Expensive systems you just listed will add to amount of cash USA has, not decrease it.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1352
    Points : 1352
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:55 pm

    The Ekranoplan aircraft carrier by Robert Bartini
    http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2018-06-15/8_1000_bartini.html?print=Y

    Can operate in sea state 9, has enough a/c to do what GarryB said!
    For the price of 1 CVN, several of them could be had, & it won't need as many escort ships, which could also be smaller ekranoplans!


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Jun 16, 2018 2:21 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 Sat Jun 16, 2018 1:07 am

    PapaDragon wrote:

    There is no way they (or anyone else) can bancrupt USA. They are ones who get to print money and get away with it. Entire economic system of this planet is

    was

    based around that premise
    .

    The change is in making. Chin and Russia ar gradually doing this. Perhaps technology (like blockchain) can help a bit too.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Jun 16, 2018 4:13 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:.......

    That can be used to overload the US economy.

    As soon as there are operative unrestricted carrier groups ( the chinese is restricted due to the island chains) the US has to start to make a lot of expensive systems, like sensor network, radar network, usable air defence, usable coastal defence and so on.

    As it looks like the US either bankrupt itself, or withdraw all forces back to protect the motherland.


    There is no way they (or anyone else) can bancrupt USA. They are ones who get to print money and get away with it. Entire economic system of this planet is based around that premise.

    Expensive systems you just listed will add to amount of cash USA has, not decrease it.


    The US can run the global economy The US currency accepted everywhere because the USA can guarantee the international trade and shipping lanes.

    So, it can keep open the shipping lanes , means if you own USA dollars then you can always get something as exchange for it.

    As soon as the USA lose its dominance over the world oceans ( or only over the south chinese sea) the whole economical system collapse, and from a strategical standpoint it loose best part of its resources AND it has to start to spend real money for military.


    The USA east-west coast shipping lanes are extremely sensitive, if they forced back to the north american continent then the cost of the protection of those lanes will go up extremely.

    Just a question, what you can get for your Iranian dinars?
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7363
    Points : 7457
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:52 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:.....
    The USA east-west coast shipping lanes are extremely sensitive, if they forced back to the north american continent then the cost of the protection of those lanes will go up extremely.

    Just a question, what you can get for your Iranian dinars?

    Cutting shipping lanes is done with submarines​, not aircraft carriers (which USA will always have more of regardless of their obsolescence)

    As for Iranian dinars, I am not Iranian but still I'm pretty sure you can have jack shit for them and they're about to be worth even less once screws start to tighten.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1352
    Points : 1352
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:18 pm

    As soon as the USA lose its dominance over the world oceans ( or only over the south chinese sea) the whole economical system collapse, and from a strategic standpoint it loose best part of its resources AND it has to start to spend real money for military.
    No, it will transform. The S. China Sea closure will cost only 0.3% extra in fuel of the total volume of tanker traffic (the lion's share) to Japan currently going through it. China wants to secure it against closure by others to ensure her "freedom of navigation" there & to outflank Taiwan from the South. http://www.atimes.com/china-and-the-south-china-sea-dispute-the-5-trillion-lie/
    http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2017/06/04/is-china-really-a-threat-to-maritime-trade/

    The Arctic Ocean is dominated by Russia & with more icebreakers she & China will use the transpolar route, NSR & NWP to bypass the S. China, Red & Med. Seas, Indian & Pac. Oceans while shipping between Asia, Europe & Canada. The OBOR will help in that too.
    The US allies incl. India have enough ships & planes between them to patrol the ice free SLOCs by themselves. Last year, for 2 months, the Arabian Gulf was w/o a USN CVN; the world didn't end as we know it! https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/05/politics/no-aircraft-carrier-persian-gulf-iran/index.html
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:20 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:.....
    The USA east-west coast shipping lanes are extremely sensitive, if they forced back to the north american continent then the cost of the protection of those lanes will go up extremely.

    Just a question, what you can get for your Iranian dinars?

    Cutting shipping lanes is done with submarines​, not aircraft carriers (which USA will always have more of regardless of their obsolescence)

    As for Iranian dinars, I am not Iranian but still I'm pretty sure you can have jack shit for them and they're about to be worth even less once screws start to tighten.

    Aircraft hit submarine, submarine hit destroyer, destroyer hit aircraft : )
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:25 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    As soon as the USA lose its dominance over the world oceans ( or only over the south chinese sea) the whole economical system collapse, and from a strategic standpoint it loose best part of its resources AND it has to start to spend real money for military.
    No, it will transform. The S. China Sea closure will cost only 0.3% extra in fuel of the total volume of tanker traffic (the lion's share) to Japan currently going through it. China wants to secure it against closure by others to ensure her "freedom of navigation" there & to outflank Taiwan from the South. http://www.atimes.com/china-and-the-south-china-sea-dispute-the-5-trillion-lie/
    http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2017/06/04/is-china-really-a-threat-to-maritime-trade/

    The Arctic Ocean is dominated by Russia & with more icebreakers she & China will use the transpolar route, NSR & NWP to bypass the S. China, Red & Med. Seas, Indian & Pac. Oceans while shipping between Asia, Europe & Canada. The OBOR will help in that too.
    The US allies incl. India have enough ships & planes between them to patrol the ice free SLOCs by themselves. Last year, for 2 months, the Arabian Gulf was w/o a USN CVN; the world didn't end as we know it! https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/05/politics/no-aircraft-carrier-persian-gulf-iran/index.html

    No one know what will happens, but It is about shipping lanes between countries.

    Means if China control the Chinese sea, then the countries about it has to be friendly with China.

    Means China will have many new ally ,and bigger control above the world politics

    At the same time it will decrease the USA power.

    And step by step China can get the south chinese sea, the north , taiwan, north korea, finally japan.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1352
    Points : 1352
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:46 pm

    Great, let them have them all as allies or neutrals! They'll eventually colonize all of SE Asia & then perhaps Australia. The Thais & Laotians themselves originated in C. China before migrating South. There r already large #s of ethnic & assimilated Chinese, Koreans & Japanese.
    Japan's & Korean 2 main teachings/religions- Confucianism & Buddhism came from China.
    Unlike the Brits in Asia, they won't starve & kill Ms!
    In a symbiotic US-China relations, it's not like they'll come & kill us in our beds! So, what's the problem? They r not about to invade Europe, Africa or the Americas! If they produce most of the goods & need raw materials it's only natural they'll want to protect their coasts & SLOCs by securing China Seas, colonizing & make friends around their perimeter to "keep the wolves (i.e. outsiders) away".
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 934
    Points : 928
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:18 pm

    So, given that the discussion about carriers revolves always about the assumption that fully-loaded aircraft cannot take off from STOBAR, I've done a little research and found a small ski-jump simulator:

    http://cppcms.com/files/skijump/

    Taking the aero parameters from the existing F-18 E/F simulation and 30 knots wind over deck speed and changing takeoff length, thrust and weight:

    > A MiG-29K (2x92.2kN take-off thrust, 22400 kg MTOW) could take off fully loaded from the longest launch position (ca. 200 m) but not from the shortest (ca. 100 m)
    > A PAK-FA with AL-41F1(2x147 kN, ca. 35000 kg MTOW) could take off fully loaded from the longest launch position but not from the shortest.
    > A PAK-FA with Izd. 30 engines (assuming 2x170 kN) could take off fully loaded both from the longest and shortest positions
    > A light fighter with 1xIzd. 30 could take off from both launch positions up to a TOW of 19 T

    This is a rough approximation that could be improved with accurate aero values, which could be available at least for the MiG-29. But nevertheless makes one point clear:

    Planes with T/W ratio according to the capacities of 5G engines are not limited by the fact of using STOBAR launching.


    This is IMO a major conclusion that would allow for smaller and cheaper carriers without catapults with full fighter combat capability. I have not checked still how it would look like for AEW and tanker planes but they would be probably limited by their notably smaller T/W ratio, so modified fighters should cover their roles

    “In our simulation, we discovered that not only could the Super Hornet take-off from a ski-jump, but could do so with a significant weapons load.” (Boeing’s campaign manager for the Indian F-18 E/F deal Michael E. Rietz)
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1352
    Points : 1352
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:59 pm

    China is now building the Type 075 amphibious assault ship, a 40,000-ton vessel with a length of 820 feet, or 250 meters.
    This compares closely the the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship which also weighs in at 40,000 tons and has a length of 844 feet, or 257 meters. Today they are primarily designed to haul helicopters and troops, which is what the Wasp-class is designed to do. But if China get hold of the F-35B’s engine technology and apply it to its own stealth aircraft program, then the Type 075 would be a significant force multiplier for China equipped with stealth aircraft and a bigger factor in China’s regional power projection strategy. http://www.atimes.com/article/why-china-could-be-after-the-f-35b/
    https://thediplomat.com/2016/11/type-075-watch-chinas-navy-may-soon-be-second-to-the-us-navy-in-amphibious-assault/
    Although RFN CVNs, if built, will be bigger, they & UDKs/LHDs could use STOVLs. As I mentioned, they may be well suited for their defense of Arctic & Kurils.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7363
    Points : 7457
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:31 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    China is now building the Type 075 amphibious assault ship, a 40,000-ton vessel with a length of 820 feet, or 250 meters.
    This compares closely the the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship which also weighs in at 40,000 tons and has a length of 844 feet, or 257 meters. Today they are primarily designed to haul helicopters and troops, which is what the Wasp-class is designed to do. But if China get hold of the F-35B’s engine technology and apply it to its own stealth aircraft program, then the Type 075 would be a significant force multiplier for China equipped with stealth aircraft and a bigger factor in China’s regional power projection strategy. http://www.atimes.com/article/why-china-could-be-after-the-f-35b/
    https://thediplomat.com/2016/11/type-075-watch-chinas-navy-may-soon-be-second-to-the-us-navy-in-amphibious-assault/
    Although RFN CVNs, if built, will be bigger, they & UDKs/LHDs could use STOVLs. As I mentioned, they may be well suited for their defense of Arctic & Kurils.

    Here is size comparison with Laoning. It's obvious that pursuing anything other than STOVL for Russian Navy is total waste. Something like this is more than enough:


    hoom

    Posts : 1417
    Points : 1407
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  hoom on Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:33 am

    A MiG-29K (2x92.2kN take-off thrust, 22400 kg MTOW) could take off fully loaded from the longest launch position (ca. 200 m) but not from the shortest (ca. 100 m)
    Interesting. GarryB has argued this is the case for Su-33 as well.
    Its a logical design choice but I've not found any reference to it being actually the case, so interesting to see some maths supporting it.

    I've been trying to work out how you could layout a ~K size deck to enable using 2* long runs simultaneously/1* long run & simultaneous landing, not really come up with a successful idea though.
    Inspired by Vikramaditya I feel part of the solution is to actually extend the long run further so that the setup is aft/to port of the landing run, would also want an aft port lift.
    I like to think the extra length could enable a 2-seat AEW or something.

    I had thought with extra thrust of new-gen engines & experience with ski-jump planes it should be relatively easy to design-in a little ski-jump optimisation for a new-gen plane compared to messing around with complex, expensive, heavy dedicated VTOL version or outright completely different plane.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 934
    Points : 928
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:35 pm

    hoom wrote:
    A MiG-29K (2x92.2kN take-off thrust, 22400 kg MTOW) could take off fully loaded from the longest launch position (ca. 200 m) but not from the shortest (ca. 100 m)
    Interesting. GarryB has argued this is the case for Su-33 as well.
    Its a logical design choice but I've not found any reference to it being actually the case, so interesting to see some maths supporting it.

    I've been trying to work out how you could layout a ~K size deck to enable using 2* long runs simultaneously/1* long run & simultaneous landing, not really come up with a successful idea though.
    Inspired by Vikramaditya I feel part of the solution is to actually extend the long run further so that the setup is aft/to port of the landing run, would also want an aft port lift.
    I like to think the extra length could enable a 2-seat AEW or something.

    I had thought with extra thrust of new-gen engines & experience with ski-jump planes it should be relatively easy to design-in a little ski-jump optimisation for a new-gen plane compared to messing around with complex, expensive, heavy dedicated VTOL version or outright completely different plane.

    Yeah, for me the STOVL issue is essentially dead after checking numbers. It simply does not make sense anymore to deal with such a problematic issue if a Kuz-sized ship can launch fully loaded 5G fighters even from the short runs. This is supported not only by this simulation site but also basic dynamics and including drag /rolling friction effects. The numbers are reasonably consistent for a rough approach in my opinion. What I want to check now is how this would look for a E-2 type plane, but even in case it does not work without catapults, I think for the early warning role nowadays is not mandatory to have a different airframe. Side bays of a 5G fighter could be adapted for carrying a big side-looking AESA antenna and that would take care of threats below the radar horizon of the ship. So the catapult requirement may be removed as well.

    So, with the proper T/W ratio of the aircraft, the two existing launch positions would be fully usable and you don't need to create additional long ones. If you want to match the take-off rate of a supercarrier (one plane every twenty to thirty seconds with four catapult crews) you could maybe use smaller planes and re-arrange the deck, but I don't know if this is considered an important requirement

    avatar
    Singular_Transform

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Jun 27, 2018 2:17 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    hoom wrote:
    A MiG-29K (2x92.2kN take-off thrust, 22400 kg MTOW) could take off fully loaded from the longest launch position (ca. 200 m) but not from the shortest (ca. 100 m)
    Interesting. GarryB has argued this is the case for Su-33 as well.
    Its a logical design choice but I've not found any reference to it being actually the case, so interesting to see some maths supporting it.

    I've been trying to work out how you could layout a ~K size deck to enable using 2* long runs simultaneously/1* long run & simultaneous landing, not really come up with a successful idea though.
    Inspired by Vikramaditya I feel part of the solution is to actually extend the long run further so that the setup is aft/to port of the landing run, would also want an aft port lift.
    I like to think the extra length could enable a 2-seat AEW or something.

    I had thought with extra thrust of new-gen engines & experience with ski-jump planes it should be relatively easy to design-in a little ski-jump optimisation for a new-gen plane compared to messing around with complex, expensive, heavy dedicated VTOL version or outright completely different plane.

    Yeah, for me the STOVL issue is essentially dead after checking numbers. It simply does not make sense anymore to deal with such a problematic issue if a Kuz-sized ship can launch fully loaded 5G fighters even from the short runs. This is supported not only by this simulation site but also basic dynamics and including drag /rolling friction effects. The numbers are reasonably consistent for a rough approach in my opinion. What I want to check now is how this would look for a E-2 type plane, but even in case it does not work without catapults, I think for the early warning role nowadays is not mandatory to have a different airframe. Side bays of a 5G fighter could be adapted for carrying a big side-looking AESA antenna and that would take care of threats below the radar horizon of the ship. So the catapult requirement may be removed as well.

    So, with the proper T/W ratio of the aircraft, the two existing launch positions would be fully usable and you don't need to create additional long ones. If you want to match the take-off rate of a supercarrier (one plane every twenty to thirty seconds with four catapult crews) you could maybe use smaller planes and re-arrange the deck, but I don't know if this is considered an important requirement


    Well said.

    The steam/electromagnetic catapult was a mandatory equipment prior of the high power aircraft engines.

    I think it is quite safe to say the unmaned aerial vehicles are more fit for early warning purposes.

    kumbor

    Posts : 195
    Points : 193
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  kumbor on Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:27 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    LMFS wrote:
    hoom wrote:
    A MiG-29K (2x92.2kN take-off thrust, 22400 kg MTOW) could take off fully loaded from the longest launch position (ca. 200 m) but not from the shortest (ca. 100 m)
    Interesting. GarryB has argued this is the case for Su-33 as well.
    Its a logical design choice but I've not found any reference to it being actually the case, so interesting to see some maths supporting it.

    I've been trying to work out how you could layout a ~K size deck to enable using 2* long runs simultaneously/1* long run & simultaneous landing, not really come up with a successful idea though.
    Inspired by Vikramaditya I feel part of the solution is to actually extend the long run further so that the setup is aft/to port of the landing run, would also want an aft port lift.
    I like to think the extra length could enable a 2-seat AEW or something.

    I had thought with extra thrust of new-gen engines & experience with ski-jump planes it should be relatively easy to design-in a little ski-jump optimisation for a new-gen plane compared to messing around with complex, expensive, heavy dedicated VTOL version or outright completely different plane.

    Yeah, for me the STOVL issue is essentially dead after checking numbers. It simply does not make sense anymore to deal with such a problematic issue if a Kuz-sized ship can launch fully loaded 5G fighters even from the short runs. This is supported not only by this simulation site but also basic dynamics and including drag /rolling friction effects. The numbers are reasonably consistent for a rough approach in my opinion. What I want to check now is how this would look for a E-2 type plane, but even in case it does not work without catapults, I think for the early warning role nowadays is not mandatory to have a different airframe. Side bays of a 5G fighter could be adapted for carrying a big side-looking AESA antenna and that would take care of threats below the radar horizon of the ship. So the catapult requirement may be removed as well.

    So, with the proper T/W ratio of the aircraft, the two existing launch positions would be fully usable and you don't need to create additional long ones. If you want to match the take-off rate of a supercarrier (one plane every twenty to thirty seconds with four catapult crews) you could maybe use smaller planes and re-arrange the deck, but I don't know if this is considered an important requirement


    Well said.

    The steam/electromagnetic catapult was a mandatory equipment prior of the high power aircraft engines.

    I think it is quite safe to say the unmaned aerial vehicles are more fit for early warning purposes.

    @Papadragon. F-35B concept was initially projected in USSR for Yak-141 STOVL jet, as well as its engine layout. In 1994 Russia sold the whole technical documentation to Americans. So, F-35 STOVL concept has russian roots.
    If Russians wanted to proceed with STOVL concept, they would have not sold the documentation. Yak-141 was a good plane, but couldn`t match capabilities of Su-33 or MiG-29K, not to mention Su-57! So, it`s time to proceed with CATOBAR and get fully capable carrier.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7363
    Points : 7457
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:36 pm

    kumbor wrote:......
    @Papadragon. F-35B concept was initially projected in USSR for Yak-141 STOVL jet, as well as its engine layout. In 1994 Russia sold the whole technical documentation to Americans. So, F-35 STOVL concept has russian roots.
    If Russians wanted to proceed with STOVL concept, they would have not sold the documentation. Yak-141 was a good plane, but couldn`t match capabilities of Su-33 or MiG-29K, not to mention Su-57! So, it`s time to proceed with CATOBAR and get fully capable carrier.

    Russians didn't pursue concept because they couldn't even afford to pay for food, not because it was inferior

    And they sold documentation because they were corrupt scum
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:44 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    kumbor wrote:......
    @Papadragon. F-35B concept was initially projected in USSR for Yak-141 STOVL jet, as well as its engine layout. In 1994 Russia sold the whole technical documentation to Americans. So, F-35 STOVL concept has russian roots.
    If Russians wanted to proceed with STOVL concept, they would have not sold the documentation. Yak-141 was a good plane, but couldn`t match capabilities of Su-33 or MiG-29K, not to mention Su-57! So, it`s time to proceed with CATOBAR and get fully capable carrier.

    Russians didn't pursue concept because they couldn't even afford to pay for food, not because it was inferior

    And they sold documentation because they were corrupt scum

    The sale of that documentation was a very good move from Russia.

    Without that the US probably would not consider the vertical take off as necessary requirement of the f35, and it would means that the F35 will become a usable airplane, instead of the current financial /technical disaster.

    Actually, the f35 is an improved yak141 + 500 billion $ wasted.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1352
    Points : 1352
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:25 pm

    If Russians wanted to proceed with STOVL concept, they would have not sold the documentation.
    That was then, but now they came a full circle, back to STOVL on UDKs, even if later they'll get CVNs with ST/CATOBAR. The USN has both CVNs & LHAs/LHDs- 1 doesn't exclude the other.

    kumbor

    Posts : 195
    Points : 193
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  kumbor on Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:46 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    If Russians wanted to proceed with STOVL concept, they would have not sold the documentation.
    That was then, but now they came a full circle, back to STOVL on UDKs, even if later they'll get CVNs with ST/CATOBAR. The USN has both CVNs & LHAs/LHDs- 1 doesn't exclude the other.

    Russia cannot obtain funding for both STOVL and dedicated carrier based fighter at the same time. No money!
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7363
    Points : 7457
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:55 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:....

    The sale of that documentation was a very good move from Russia.

    Without that the US probably would not consider the vertical take off as necessary requirement of the f35, and it would means that the F35 will become a usable airplane, instead of the current financial /technical disaster.

    Actually, the f35 is an improved yak141 + 500 billion $ wasted.

    Yes, yes, I am sure it was all part of a cunning plan to screw over USA 30 years later, 5D chess right there... Rolling Eyes

    They sold tech for peanuts and 30 years later they will still be doing LHD/STOVL approach Japan style (if they are lucky to get even that done)
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1352
    Points : 1352
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:09 pm

    Russia cannot obtain funding for both STOVL and dedicated carrier based fighter at the same time.
    1st they'll get UDKs, then perhaps CVNs, so don't worry, it won't be at the same time $ crunch!
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 934
    Points : 928
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:43 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:Well said.

    The steam/electromagnetic catapult was a mandatory equipment prior of the high power aircraft engines.

    I think it is quite safe to say the unmaned aerial vehicles are more fit for early warning purposes.
    Hey, I think that is an interesting idea. Today's electronically scanned radars do not need the traditional AWACS dish antenna, see below this proposal for a Russian naval AWACS:



    This could be placed in the leading and trailing edges of such a UAV as the X-47 or similar, where aerodynamic surfaces are not compromised:



    Together with this function, reconnaissance, attack, EW, tanker roles can be covered by such a plane complementing the manned fighters with a disposable and low footprint platform. PLAN and US Navy already walking this path and Russia will most probably follow soon

    The take-off issue could be managed on a ski-jump carrier with a reasonably powered engine, high lift, low stall speed aerodynamic design and using the whole length of the deck, at least in case the number of such aircraft on board is small and their endurance high they would not affect excessively the landing operations.

    @kumbor: the numbers indicate that CATOBAR is not needed, STOBAR is more than enough for 5G fighters (unless you ruin a monster engine as in the case of the F-35 Very Happy )
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1352
    Points : 1352
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:07 pm

    What about CODs? Helos may not be enough, so tiltrotors will need to be developed! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_onboard_delivery
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 934
    Points : 928
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:18 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:What about CODs? Helos may not be enough, so tiltrotors will need to be developed! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_onboard_delivery
    There is a solution also for that, no tiltrotors (apparently very complex and costly) needed:

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7577p425-russian-naval-aviation-news#228298



    These are helicopters with capacity for 30 people @ 550 km/h. So roughly equivalent to a tiltrotor and much simpler Cool

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:13 pm