Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Share
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 822
    Points : 816
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:09 pm

    Funny that I, among all people in the forum, post this news, but it is what it is:

    Russia developing new launch catapults for aircraft carriers


    An electromagnetic catapult is a mechanism, which accelerates an aircraft by linear induction motors instead of steam shuttles

    Russia’s United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) is developing new launch systems for warplanes based on aircraft carriers, USC President Alexei Rakhmanov told TASS on Wednesday.

    "We closely follow developments in shipbuilding in the leading sea powers and do not sit idle. Work is currently underway to develop systems that can also be used on modern aircraft carriers. For example, we are working on special modifications of new aircraft launch systems," he said.

    The United Shipbuilding Corporation president did not specify the characteristics of these systems or the timeframe of their creation.

    Catapults for aircraft carriers

    Then-CEO of the St. Petersburg-based Nevskoye Design Bureau Sergei Vlasov earlier told TASS that Russia had started work to create an electromagnetic aircraft launch system (an electromagnetic catapult) for aircraft carriers.

    An aircraft launch system (a catapult) aboard an aircraft carrier is needed to accelerate radar surveillance aircraft or planes with the thrust/weight ratio insufficient for taking off from the ski-jump ramp on the carrier’s fore end.

    A steam catapult is a mechanism driven by high pressure steam. A special channel is arranged under the deck for a shuttle to move along it. The shuttle takes hold of the aircraft’s nose gear and pulls the plane. The catapult gives the plane the necessary speed for the take-off.

    An electromagnetic catapult is a mechanism, which accelerates an aircraft by linear induction motors instead of steam shuttles. This principle is used on monorail railroads.

    The work on creating a steam catapult was carried out in the Soviet Union. The new device was expected to be installed on the 7th Soviet heavy aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk that was under construction at the Nikolayev Shipyard (Ukraine). The creation of this warship was halted in 1992 and it was cut up and junked as metal scrap.

    An electromagnetic catapult is being tested aboard the US most advanced aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford. A deck-based plane was for the first time launched from it on July 28, 2017.


    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/1011912
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2340
    Points : 2357
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Sat Jul 14, 2018 11:19 pm

    LMFS wrote:Funny that I, among all people in the forum, post this news, but it is what it is:

    Russia developing new launch catapults for aircraft carriers




    An electromagnetic catapult is a mechanism, which accelerates an aircraft by linear induction motors instead of steam shuttles

    Russia’s United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) is developing new launch systems for warplanes based on aircraft carriers, USC President Alexei Rakhmanov told TASS on Wednesday.

    "We closely follow developments in shipbuilding in the leading sea powers and do not sit idle. Work is currently underway to develop systems that can also be used on modern aircraft carriers. For example, we are working on special modifications of new aircraft launch systems," he said.

    The United Shipbuilding Corporation president did not specify the characteristics of these systems or the timeframe of their creation.

    Catapults for aircraft carriers

    Then-CEO of the St. Petersburg-based Nevskoye Design Bureau Sergei Vlasov earlier told TASS that Russia had started work to create an electromagnetic aircraft launch system (an electromagnetic catapult) for aircraft carriers.

    An aircraft launch system (a catapult) aboard an aircraft carrier is needed to accelerate radar surveillance aircraft or planes with the thrust/weight ratio insufficient for taking off from the ski-jump ramp on the carrier’s fore end.

    A steam catapult is a mechanism driven by high pressure steam. A special channel is arranged under the deck for a shuttle to move along it. The shuttle takes hold of the aircraft’s nose gear and pulls the plane. The catapult gives the plane the necessary speed for the take-off.

    An electromagnetic catapult is a mechanism, which accelerates an aircraft by linear induction motors instead of steam shuttles. This principle is used on monorail railroads.

    The work on creating a steam catapult was carried out in the Soviet Union. The new device was expected to be installed on the 7th Soviet heavy aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk that was under construction at the Nikolayev Shipyard (Ukraine). The creation of this warship was halted in 1992 and it was cut up and junked as metal scrap.

    An electromagnetic catapult is being tested aboard the US most advanced aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford. A deck-based plane was for the first time launched from it on July 28, 2017.


    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/1011912


    Good news. thumbsup Russia moving forward.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1176
    Points : 1176
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Jul 15, 2018 12:12 am

    The United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) is probably not a good choice to do it, unless they hire outside experts. In the US, CVN builders r not involved in it, but the General Atomics is: http://www.ga.com/electromagnetic-aircraft-launch-system



    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 721
    Points : 715
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Jul 15, 2018 12:15 am

    It takes six-ten years to develop this catapult.

    It is more likely ten years.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1176
    Points : 1176
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Jul 15, 2018 12:36 am

    They won't have a CVN built by 2025 anyway, if ever.
    Interestingly, China had full access to old steam catapults on HMAS Melbourne but decided not to build them for her 1st CV:
    Prior to the ship's departure for China, the RAN stripped Melbourne of all electronic equipment and weapons, and welded her rudders into a fixed position so that she could not be reactivated. However, her steam catapult, arresting equipment and mirror landing system were not removed. ..The ship was not scrapped immediately; instead she was studied by Chinese naval architects and engineers as part of the nation's top-secret carrier development program. ..The PLAN subsequently arranged for the ship's flight deck and all the equipment associated with flying operations to be removed so that they could be studied in depth. ..It has also been claimed that the Royal Australian Navy received and "politely rejected" a request from the PLAN for blueprints of the ship's steam catapult.The carrier was not dismantled for many years; according to some rumours she was not completely broken up until 2002.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne_(R21)#Decommissioning_and_fate

    In 2015, media reports stated that both an EMALS and a steam-powered catapult were constructed at the Huangdicun naval base for testing; this is thought to indicate that the Type 002 class as well as future PLAN carriers could possibly be CATOBAR carriers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_programme#Type_002
    https://www.popsci.com/chinas-new-carrier-gets-ski-ramp
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12222
    Points : 12701
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  George1 on Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:10 pm

    Russian Navy should operate at least four aircraft carriers, expert believes

    The US Navy currently operates 11 aircraft carriers

    MOSCOW, July 26. /TASS/. The Russian Navy should operate at least four aircraft carriers, Scientific Head of the Krylov State Research Center Valery Polovinkin told TASS on Thursday.

    The Russian Northern and Pacific Fleets "should have aircraft-carrying ships by definition," the expert noted.

    "Simple arithmetic shows that a ship cannot constantly stay in operation and should undergo various types of maintenance, repairs and so on. So, even theoretically, there should be at least two ships per region," Polovinkin said.

    Speaking about the US Navy, which currently operates 11 aircraft carriers, the expert noted that the United States had an excessive number of carrier-led groups but the availability of only one aircraft carrier was a "deadlocked situation."

    This ship "won’t be able to accomplish the entire range of missions and a half of the fleet will only have to deal with protecting it," the expert said.

    "As for the displacement of the future Russian aircraft carrier, I would give the figures of 60,000 to 100,000 tonnes. This range is easy to explain: the displacement choice directly depends on the type of the ship’s powerplant and the lineup of aircraft," the Krylov Center scientific head said.

    Aircraft carriers in Russia

    The Russian Navy currently operates the sole medium-sized conventional aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov (the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser under the Russian classification). The Russian Navy has said it expects to get the promising nuclear-powered aircraft carrier by late 2030 and its displacement should be no less than 70,000 tonnes.

    The Krylov State Research Centre has developed and presented to the public at large the conceptual design of an aircraft carrier for foreign customers, which was earlier offered for the domestic fleet as well. The Project 23000 was called Shtorm (Storm). The conceptual design envisages the aircraft carrier to displace 80,000-90,000 tonnes and feature a combined powerplant (a nuclear reactor and a gas turbine engine). The ship’s air group should comprise up to 60 aircraft.


    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/1014893
    avatar
    Nibiru

    Posts : 84
    Points : 86
    Join date : 2018-05-22

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Nibiru on Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:40 pm

    Russia to build new aircraft carrier no sooner than 2030



    "The Russian factories’ technological potential allows solving any assigned task. But from my viewpoint, a new aircraft carrier won’t be built sooner than 2030-2035," Polovinkin said, adding that "no less than a decade will be required to build it, given favorable conditions."

    However, "it is inadmissible" for the Russian Navy to have a small aircraft carrier because in this case it would be able to accomplish partial missions only, lacking reconnaissance, radar surveillance and target acquisition planes, attack and air support aircraft, the expert said.

    "At the same time, I don’t support the viewpoint that Russian aircraft carriers should necessarily have their displacement similar to the displacement of US warships: 100,000 tonnes and more. The UK aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth in its gas turbine version has a displacement of about 60,000 tonnes and all the required aircraft," Polovinkin said.

    The comparatively small displacement of future Russian aircraft carriers "can be offset through radical changes in their hull’s shape," the scientist added.

    According to forecasts of Russia’s Economic Development Ministry, the construction of promising blue-water surface ships, including aircraft carriers, may be postponed until 2035 under the conservative scenario of the Russian economy’s development and a shortage of funds.

    http://tass.com/defense/1014931
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2452
    Points : 2446
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:06 pm

    Nibiru wrote:Russia to build new aircraft carrier no sooner than 2030



    "The Russian factories’ technological potential allows solving any assigned task. But from my viewpoint, a new aircraft carrier won’t be built sooner than 2030-2035," Polovinkin said, adding that "no less than a decade will be required to build it, given favorable conditions."

    However, "it is inadmissible" for the Russian Navy to have a small aircraft carrier because in this case it would be able to accomplish partial missions only, lacking reconnaissance, radar surveillance and target acquisition planes, attack and air support aircraft, the expert said.

    "At the same time, I don’t support the viewpoint that Russian aircraft carriers should necessarily have their displacement similar to the displacement of US warships: 100,000 tonnes and more. The UK aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth in its gas turbine version has a displacement of about 60,000 tonnes and all the required aircraft," Polovinkin said.

    The comparatively small displacement of future Russian aircraft carriers "can be offset through radical changes in their hull’s shape," the scientist added.

    According to forecasts of Russia’s Economic Development Ministry, the construction of promising blue-water surface ships, including aircraft carriers, may be postponed until 2035 under the conservative scenario of the Russian economy’s development and a shortage of funds.

    http://tass.com/defense/1014931

    Whi is this guy ? Does he know what "100kt and more" means ?

    UK carrier doesn't have awacs or elint planes on it. It is just an updated Kiev class.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1673
    Points : 1668
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Jul 26, 2018 8:09 pm

    Isos wrote:Whi is this guy ? Does he know what "100kt and more" means ?

    UK carrier doesn't have awacs or elint planes on it. It is just an updated Kiev class.

    Goliath class?


    Design bureaus aren't decision makers,  it's all talk.

    Sh%t British designs don't mean a damn thing to future Russian designs, besides wasn't the F-35 suppose to double as some sort of AEW aircraft?
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2452
    Points : 2446
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Thu Jul 26, 2018 9:09 pm

    Sh%t British designs don't mean a damn thing to future Russian designs, besides wasn't the F-35 suppose to double as some sort of AEW aircraft?

    Do you really think you can do the work of a big plane full of antennas and elecronics with a crew of many people with a small f-35 and 1 pilot ?
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1132
    Points : 1130
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:01 am

    That is indeed correct have said that day 1.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 822
    Points : 816
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:47 am

    The comparatively small displacement of future Russian aircraft carriers "can be offset through radical changes in their hull’s shape," the scientist added.

    Interesting! I wonder what the guy is meaning exactly but a trimaran would be much more capable than a single hull in terms of deck and hangar optimization... Razz
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:58 am

    Whi is this guy ? Does he know what "100kt and more" means ?

    UK carrier doesn't have awacs or elint planes on it. It is just an updated Kiev class.

    The real problem is not size but presence or otherwise of a catapult system.

    As you point out the current UK carrier is just a large heavy Kiev class carrier, minus the extra weapons of course.

    The Russians are developing EM cats however which will make fixed wing AEW aircraft an option... and to be honest the primary reason for a catapult system is for AEW and AWACS types, as well as inflight refuelling aircraft to extend range and increase weapon capacity where needed.

    Interesting! I wonder what the guy is meaning exactly but a trimaran would be much more capable than a single hull in terms of deck and hangar optimization...

    Most of the pitches for trimarans that I have seen suggest one straight strip on one side for takeoffs and one straight strip on the other side for landings, but actually having conventional angled decks on each side would enable much faster take off and recovery cycles... and with EM cats the reduction in takeoff run the angled deck creates would not be significant...

    Of course it would look a little funny and the angled decks would need to be angled away from the ship so the incoming flight paths would overlap a short distance from the ship...

    The Russians have shown they are not stuck to western doctrine and have their own ideas, so I look forward to seeing what they eventually do come up with.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 822
    Points : 816
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Fri Jul 27, 2018 1:11 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Most of the pitches for trimarans that I have seen suggest one straight strip on one side for takeoffs and one straight strip on the other side for landings, but actually having conventional angled decks on each side would enable much faster take off and recovery cycles... and with EM cats the reduction in takeoff run the angled deck creates would not be significant...

    Of course it would look a little funny and the angled decks would need to be angled away from the ship so the incoming flight paths would overlap a short distance from the ship...

    The Russians have shown they are not stuck to western doctrine and have their own ideas, so I look forward to seeing what they eventually do come up with.

    An advantage of double strips is you don't actually need angled deck to take off and land at the same time. This angled landing is BTW one of the most difficult feats pilots execute routinely and not having to perform it would be a major improvement in terms of safety, training needs and pilot availability.

    Angled decks both sizes would push the size of the vessel into extreme values, since you need 300 m length at least, but double width. You would go well over 100 kT. The idea would be to use the alternative layout to make smaller ships competitive with bigger, conventional ones.

    There are many possibilities and different configurations possible with the alternative layout that would beat bigger-scaled conventional ones:

    1. Take off from one strip, landing on the other.
    2. High-speed take off, with four take-off lanes at the front (sky jump) and a queue of aircraft forming after them
    3. High speed landing with both dedicated strips
    4. Long take-off runs available for lower T/W ratio aircraft (full deck length) without interfering in the landing. This would allow for a more economical approach to tankers and AEW based on fighters and/or drones. Don't know 100% if a turboprop could take off without catapult this way but I think it should be possible with sky jump, high lift design and run in excess of 250 m.
    5. Landing could be done on a longer run, reducing stress to the airframes. Additionally, using the full deck length with a sky jump in the end would significantly help to recover after failed landing attempts in two senses: if no cable gets caught, the speed and angle sends the aircraft airborne safely. If the braking is not sufficient, the sky jump adds its significant inclination to keep the aircraft on the deck.
    6. For expeditionary forces, one deck could be configured for small number of CTOL aircraft and the other reserved for helicopters
    7. Middle section of the ship could host hangars and increased number of missiles

    It would be a major endeavour to reform CVs in such way but I think it is worth every effort. Just a (admittedly) very rough proposal:

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 27, 2018 2:28 pm

    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.

    They sold it because the americans were prepared to pay money for it.

    The Americans wanted engine technology that allowed a 90+ degree engine nozzle deflection angle with an engine operating in full AB... something they didn't have.

    (The AV-8 does not have AB).

    BTW that image posted with the carrier showing three red rings is misleading. The bottom two with the MiGs in front of them are the short take off run positiions but the long takeoff run is much further back level with the rear of the island. The rectangles in the deck for the blast deflectors for jet engines shows where the rear take off position is. It is raised to protect other aircraft on the deck from jet wash, so you put an aircraft on all three positions with all three jet deflectors up... launch the front two aircraft and drop their jet deflectors so the rear aircraft can take off, then reload the three launch positions... or just the front two if you have planes to land.

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

    They dropped the concept because VSTOL aircraft are complicated, expensive, fragile, and offer lower performance compared with a fixed wing equivalent.

    If they had to have 20K ton ships then VSTOL is the only option. They went for 50K ton plus which makes MiG-29s and Su-27s an option.

    They tested it... the biggest problem was that a huge powerful jet engine blowing hot air down on the surface of a ship means when you get low enough and that hot air enters the engine intakes you get a sudden loss of power because the hot air has already had much of the oxygen burned out of it and it is already hot and thin so it generates an instant engine stall... the absolute last thing you want in a vertical landing.

    A rolling landing was the only real solution with relatively high forward speed to keep the intakes clear of hot air... and vertical takeoffs were pointless because they also burn too much fuel and limit payload.

    So the result is a rolling high speed takeoff and a rolling moderate speed landing... so WTF is the point making a VTOL aircraft if it never lands vertically.

    The vertical landing attempt caused an engine stall and crushed the rear fuselage spewing aviation fuel all over the deck and causing a big fire....

    VSTOL is dead in a fixed wing fighter jet.

    And they sold documentation because they were corrupt scum

    The money they made kept them afloat at a time when no one was getting paid... and has led to the west building a serious white elephant and spending trillions to do it.

    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.

    Without that internal lift fan and all the internal piping for stability jets the F-35 would be a much better aircraft... potentially a 5th gen F-16... light and nimble and relatively cheap but with high performance.

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

    They probably could... but they should not.

    I suspect for helicopter carriers they will use the Ka-52K for air defence and attack roles, but for proper air support they are better off with a Kuznetsov or larger carrier with fixed wing fighter bombers.

    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)

    They also sold them an incomplete SA-12 battery and Tunguska...

    The money they made they created S-300VM and Tunguska-M1, which are significant improvements that would otherwise not have been funded.

    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:

    Actually I was thinking that if the PAK DA is a flying wing then two large arrays on the wing leading edge and a large array along the trailing edge could be used as an AWACS platform. Further the bomber model could use such an enormous array for jamming and ESM functions.

    For AWACS use a simple flying wing design (folding of course) with radar antenna embedded in the aircraft skin in the leading and trailing surface edge for 360 degree scanning.

    What about CODs? Helos may not be enough, so tiltrotors will need to be developed!

    Cats will make the AWACS platform able to be quite heavy... a version for air to air refuelling that could also be converted to the transport role is fairly straight forward.

    Different roles and he was talking about resupply.

    Except that it is much more efficient to simply put resupply material in a ship that sails alongside the carrier and passes material over via crane rather more rapidly and cheaply no doubt...

    Those doubting STOVL in the Russian service should see this:

    Can't do anything a fixed wing aircraft can't do, and slower.

    Much cheaper and much less vulnerable to the biggest killer in the world of aircraft... IR guided missiles.

    (the Harrier was a seriously crappy plane by most accounts...)

    It is not a bad plane but it seriously handicapped by its propulsion... it is better than a Helo.

    It is not better than most contemporary fighters.

    A few S/VTOVL UAVs + KA-31s/tiltrotors controlling them can do the job of 4 AWACS planes normally carried on CVNs.

    No.

    A radar is all about altitude and distance... a Ka-31 operating within 200km of the Kuznetsov gives away its position... a Yak-44 can operate 500km away from the carrier and process all the information on board so it can beam information to ships and aircraft... the Ka-31 beams the information to a ship for processing and the ship then sends the information to other ships and aircraft... revealing its position...

    the Ka-31 will be visible and the ship processing its data will be visible.

    A Yak-44 could operate higher see further and process its own data.

    I doubt their new STOVL will be much different from the Yak-141, saving them years & a lot of $ in development.

    Yak-141 never entered service... those specs are estimates and projections.

    If enemy air-power is coming after your ships then nuclear war is 5 minutes away.

    Waste of money for obsolete PR bullshit...

    Yeah, because only NATO and the US have air power.

    They won't have a CVN built by 2025 anyway, if ever.
    Interestingly, China had full access to old steam catapults on HMAS Melbourne but decided not to build them for her 1st CV:

    Steam cats are high maintenance and fiddly... if you don't know what you are doing you will lose aircraft... which are expensive.

    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1176
    Points : 1176
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Jul 27, 2018 7:58 pm

    They'll need a new, bigger drydock for that. Or connect 3 separate hulls after they r built. Not sure if it could be done though with existing methods.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2452
    Points : 2446
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Fri Jul 27, 2018 8:25 pm

    I was thinking of that also. A normal ship with the parking for fighters and the landing strip about 250m long that takes all the length of the ship. Another much smaller part to connect to the main ship that consist of the take off strip and the ski-jump also 250m long that could even be used by yak-44 derivated to take off because it is much longer than the K take-off strip.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:44 am


    An advantage of double strips is you don't actually need angled deck to take off and land at the same time.

    The problem with with two separate strips is... which is take off and which is landing... having one straight landing strip means a total waste of the deck because it is used for taking off or landing... and after a few cycles one side is going to have all the aircraft and the other side will have none.

    The angled deck means you can have aircraft getting ready for takeoff or just being stored on deck to free up space in the hangar while landings can continue.

    Remember you don't want to load bombs in the hangar so all that takes place on the deck.

    Certainly with a take off deck you could use the full length to get maximum performance from your aircraft... but both sides would need catapults so you could change the landing side if needed and the takeoff side.

    In fact with high performance 5th gen fighters with all internal air to air weapons and a full fuel load you could have the entire rear deck covered in deck based jet deflectors that fold up and you could have 8 planes ready to take off at a time each side... once they are launched one side could convert to landing ops while the other side keeps launching planes as needed... and then when the battle is under control you might have both sides landing aircraft with central lifts down to full width hangars so you don't end up with planes all on one side.

    This angled landing is BTW one of the most difficult feats pilots execute routinely and not having to perform it would be a major improvement in terms of safety, training needs and pilot availability.

    The whole point behind the angled landing strip is that if you miss the cable you can continue and fly around and have another go without having to clear the entire deck if you crash or have a problem.

    Angled decks both sizes would push the size of the vessel into extreme values, since you need 300 m length at least, but double width. You would go well over 100 kT. The idea would be to use the alternative layout to make smaller ships competitive with bigger, conventional ones.

    Wait what?

    If you want a catamaran design then it is going to be wide anyway... in fact take an image of a current carrier and make a copy and reverse it and then overlay the two carriers where the island is and that is pretty much what you would be looking at...

    With cable arresting gear you would not need the full length of the deck for landing so the front of that side could be used for other things like storing aircraft...

    Don't know 100% if a turboprop could take off without catapult this way but I think it should be possible with sky jump, high lift design and run in excess of 250 m.

    With the carrier sailing into the wind at 20-30 knots it should be able to manage, but cats make things easier and safer by adding extra margins for safety.

    Additionally, using the full deck length with a sky jump in the end would significantly help to recover after failed landing attempts in two senses: if no cable gets caught, the speed and angle sends the aircraft airborne safely. If the braking is not sufficient, the sky jump adds its significant inclination to keep the aircraft on the deck.

    The ski jump is just like throwing something up in the air... if it is not moving fast enough to generate its own lift it will just fall back down and crash.

    In fact the ski jump will slow an aircraft down so if it not going fast enough to take off when it hits the ski jump that will slow it down even further below its stall speed and it will likely just drop like a rock.

    It would be a major endeavour to reform CVs in such way but I think it is worth every effort. Just a (admittedly) very rough proposal:

    I agree with what you are saying... the current standard design came after decades of experience and experimenting, but this is the 21st C and new technology and concepts might have created new possibilities for new designs and new ways of operating that better suit what the Navy wants from its carriers and they would be fools not to explore those options.

    They'll need a new, bigger drydock for that. Or connect 3 separate hulls after they r built. Not sure if it could be done though with existing methods.

    There will be quite a few places such a vessel could not operate because of its width, which is also worth looking in to too.

    I was thinking of that also. A normal ship with the parking for fighters and the landing strip about 250m long that takes all the length of the ship. Another much smaller part to connect to the main ship that consist of the take off strip and the ski-jump also 250m long that could even be used by yak-44 derivated to take off because it is much longer than the K take-off strip.

    By making it shorter (Kuznetsov is 305m long) but much wider it changes your options, both in design and operations... for instance it wont go through the Suez or Panama canals most likely... so long journeys for some missions...
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 822
    Points : 816
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Jul 29, 2018 2:56 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:They'll need a new, bigger drydock for that. Or connect 3 separate hulls after they r built. Not sure if it could be done though with existing methods.

    Yeah, manufacturing would be a major challenge I guess. Independence Class is already 130 m long / 30 m width but in terms of displacement a CVN would be many times the size of those, which are aluminium IIRC.

    Isos wrote:I was thinking of that also. A normal ship with the parking for fighters and the landing strip about 250m long that takes all the length of the ship. Another much smaller part to connect to the main ship that consist of the take off strip and the ski-jump also 250m long that could even be used by yak-44 derivated to take off because it is much longer than the K take-off strip.

    That would be another option. Trimarans are very stable and fast so I think they would be better but in the end it all depends on what is found optimal during design phase. Don't know the parameters of the Yak-44 but it is indeed possible that it could take off from a strip with sky jump and 250 m length as far as its power to weight is not very inferior to the E-2 and the aerodynamics are optimized for the task.

    GarryB wrote:
    The problem with with two separate strips is... which is take off and which is landing... having one straight landing strip means a total waste of the deck because it is used for taking off or landing... and after a few cycles one side is going to have all the aircraft and the other side will have none.

    Idea would be to have lifts at the stern and then after the landing run, to remove planes very fast from the deck. If you can handle them in any direction in the hangar with wheeled robotic skids from prow to stern you could store and service them very compact, like a manufacturing line. Nevertheless you need some spare place on the deck (central stern area i.e.) to park planes in especial cases. And also the configuration of the decks needs to be changed according to the situation in a clear way (i.e.. with red / light signalling)

    GarryB wrote:The angled deck means you can have aircraft getting ready for takeoff or just being stored on deck to free up space in the hangar while landings can continue.

    Yes, I agree. It is simply not that optimal IMO. A ship with more than one hull could have significantly bigger hangars apart from separate strips. Would be more organized and flexible.

    GarryB wrote:Remember you don't want to load bombs in the hangar so all that takes place on the deck..
    True, that is an issue. But see above. If you have a specific sequence for the planes to be received from the deck at the front of the hanger, be serviced (within the line for short procedures or outside the line for longer ones) and prepared for take-off at the end, it may be thinkable to have special, separated / protected / equipped rooms for installing weapons and starting engines.

    GarryB wrote:Certainly with a take off deck you could use the full length to get maximum performance from your aircraft... but both sides would need catapults so you could change the landing side if needed and the takeoff side..

    Still unclear for me regarding catapults. From the last calculations I got, they would not be needed for fighters at full A2G load if the run is close to full deck or T/W ratio is very high. On the other hand, it seems Russia is indeed researching on them. I would simply not use them if they are not mandatory since they seem to be expensive, complex and difficult to maintain. And also slower for the take-offs. But their advantages are obvious yes.

    GarryB wrote:In fact with high performance 5th gen fighters with all internal air to air weapons and a full fuel load you could have the entire rear deck covered in deck based jet deflectors that fold up and you could have 8 planes ready to take off at a time each side... once they are launched one side could convert to landing ops while the other side keeps launching planes as needed... and then when the battle is under control you might have both sides landing aircraft with central lifts down to full width hangars so you don't end up with planes all on one side..

    Yes, a more extreme and expensive version of the 4 parallel take-off lanes I commented. But doable since the take-off strip can be covered with planes all the length, without interfering with landings...

    GarryB wrote:The whole point behind the angled landing strip is that if you miss the cable you can continue and fly around and have another go without having to clear the entire deck if you crash or have a problem..

    Yes I am aware. In this double-strip layout that would not be necessary so would make landing much simpler. Could even make use of a CV feasible for AF pilots without the intensive training / practice today's navy pilots need.

    GarryB wrote:Wait what?

    If you want a catamaran design then it is going to be wide anyway... in fact take an image of a current carrier and make a copy and reverse it and then overlay the two carriers where the island is and that is pretty much what you would be looking at...

    With cable arresting gear you would not need the full length of the deck for landing so the front of that side could be used for other things like storing aircraft....

    A trimaran design would be 80-100 m wide probably, so very big indeed. But not twice a 70-80 m width conventional carrier.

    With arresting cable and all you cannot put a straight landing strip and park aircraft in front of that because of safety. Rather make it 250 m long or so and try to save as much displacement as you can compared to a 300 - 330 m long CV

    GarryB wrote:With the carrier sailing into the wind at 20-30 knots it should be able to manage, but cats make things easier and safer by adding extra margins for safety..

    Yeah, see comment above about catapults

    GarryB wrote:The ski jump is just like throwing something up in the air... if it is not moving fast enough to generate its own lift it will just fall back down and crash.

    In fact the ski jump will slow an aircraft down so if it not going fast enough to take off when it hits the ski jump that will slow it down even further below its stall speed and it will likely just drop like a rock..

    Depends on the scenarios you consider. I took two: first one is you fail to catch the cable. Since engines are revving 100% and you are very fast, take off would be completely safe. Second one is you catch the cable but the gearing mechanisms or any other issue prevent a successful detention of the plane. I assume a low residual speed can be neutralized by the sky jump. Of course in a pathological case in between the sky jump could do more harm than good but that should not be the most frequent situation

    GarryB wrote:I agree with what you are saying... the current standard design came after decades of experience and experimenting, but this is the 21st C and new technology and concepts might have created new possibilities for new designs and new ways of operating that better suit what the Navy wants from its carriers and they would be fools not to explore those options.

    That is exactly what I mean. For instance:
    - Modern T/W ratio allow fully loaded fighters with a smaller deck
    - Electronics allow AEW planes with a fraction of equipment's size of older AWACS
    - U(C)AVS can have reasonable T/W ratios and optimized aerodynamics to perform many missions from small carriers even w/o catapults
    - Cost of equipment and electronics force navies to optimize and make vessels and aircraft more multifunctional.
    - Tighter budgets and modern AShM make smaller escorts and more self-reliant ships necessary

    I was very surprised that a scientific head of a major design bureau acknowledged that radical changes in the hull design where a real possibility, so many decades after the CV layout has been essentially frozen in most militaries.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:57 am

    Idea would be to have lifts at the stern and then after the landing run, to remove planes very fast from the deck.

    Having them at the stern is a bad idea because that is where you will be landing and taking off with planes...

    Often lifts have been placed on the outer edge of the deck up the side, but I suspect up the centre in front of the island would be the best place... it is close to where landed aircraft would end up anyway and lowering them in the centre means you could put them in the left or right side hangar no matter which side they landed on. It would also be useful to have aircraft coming up there because that would be near where your fighters launch from for quick launches (ie urgent launches during surprise attacks).

    Yes, I agree. It is simply not that optimal IMO. A ship with more than one hull could have significantly bigger hangars apart from separate strips. Would be more organized and flexible.

    The point of the angled deck is to allow landings on a deck but to allow setting up other aircraft for launch on that same deck.

    If you just use a straight landing on one deck then you are using up way to much deck for that landing... the aircraft will either catch the cable and land in a quarter of the deck length or it will miss... if it misses there still wont be enough room to land anyway so they will land with full thrust and if they catch the cable shut down the engines... if they miss they will hit AB and lift the nose and reduce flap from landing settings to take off settings and take off again.

    They don't need an entire deck for that... the angled deck design means you can land planes and have then sitting waiting to be positioned for launch on the landing side and the take off side.

    It means you can launch a large number of aircraft at once, but if you adapt the setup with lots of aircraft already in the air for both sides to recover aircraft then you can land planes faster too.

    If you use the double deck design to launch 2-3 aircraft from each side that is getting a lot of aircraft in the air very quickly... being able to recover them two at a time... one on each deck will be important for getting them back on deck.

    it may be thinkable to have special, separated / protected / equipped rooms for installing weapons and starting engines.

    You don't arm or load weapons under deck, and why run engines under the deck?

    All that has to happen above deck where there is fresh air and the ability to shunt things off the deck into the sea if there is a problem...

    Still unclear for me regarding catapults. From the last calculations I got, they would not be needed for fighters at full A2G load if the run is close to full deck or T/W ratio is very high.

    They wont be needed for fighters with an A2A load... full A2G loads are much higher and might require assistance, though the long run on the K and therefore also this cat ship would mean EM cats would not be that valuable.

    The critical thing however is your AEW or AWACS platform... even 250m is not enough without a catapult system.

    Having a big powerful radar in the air is critical to effective carrier operations... you only get by without it if it is not an option.

    Ka-31 is nice but a medium size fixed wing light transport aircraft that could also act as an inflight refuelling/cargo carrying model would also be very valuable.

    (Note I don't mean AWACS and inflight refuelling and cargo all at once... a platform with AWACS gear and another aircraft of the same type that could either carry cargo or fuel for inflight refuelling duties.)

    Having a fixed wing aircraft that can see 360 degrees with a big powerful radar antenna that sees high altitude to sea level that can fly at 600km+ away from the ship and still detect targets and pass data to ships and other aircraft without revealing the position of those ships or aircraft is invaluable.

    If there were AWACS aircraft and F-14s operating near the USS Liberty when the Israelis attacked... they would not have attacked.

    If the AEGIS class cruiser in Iranian waters had asked the local carrier to determine the correct ID of the F-14 that was flying towards them it would have told them it was an Airbus and hundreds of people would not have been murdered.

    If a real attack was taking place they would have been able to identify it as an attack several minutes before the ship worked it out itself... and minutes of warning during war are of infinite value.

    Also the EM cats means that AWACS airframe can have an inflight refuelling model, so that when all the defending fighters are launched you can launch the inflight refuelling aircraft so that on their way back to the carrier to reload they can top up so the ring of aircraft waiting to land don't run out of fuel and ditch... if you have a problem on deck you can deal with it properly... if you can't fix it you can ferry the aircraft to a land base... and you can keep your AWACS platform operating longer and further from the carrier so the enemy can't just find your AEW aircraft and quickly work out where your carrier is... Ka-31s can't operate enormous distances from their carriers...

    On the other hand, it seems Russia is indeed researching on them. I would simply not use them if they are not mandatory since they seem to be expensive, complex and difficult to maintain. And also slower for the take-offs. But their advantages are obvious yes.

    The technology they use is exactly the same as monorail maglev trains... why would developing that sort of technology be a waste of money?

    EM propulsion technology can be used in a range of weapons including artillery. A maglev system on the moon would be a really cheap way of sending minerals and material back to earth... there is no air so no air friction... have a flat rail along the ground to accelerate the material above the 2km/s or so needed to escape the moons gravity... is moves along the ground but because it is moving at escape velocity... there is no air to slow it down so instead of falling around the moon it keeps going straight as the surface of the moon curves away and out into space into orbit... rendevous with an orbital station and send it back to earth...

    Maglev trains all over the place in russia would be a good thing.

    Powerful magnets are really cool BTW.


    Yes I am aware. In this double-strip layout that would not be necessary so would make landing much simpler.

    It would be necessary... if you are going to line up twice as many planes for take off you need to be able to land more than just one plane at a time or you will find you have some trouble.

    Could even make use of a CV feasible for AF pilots without the intensive training / practice today's navy pilots need.

    The Soviets had some amazing software and systems for automatically landing VSTOL aircraft... I really think they will be automating a lot of the landing skill required... remember 5th gen fighters are already highly automated to make operations easier...

    A trimaran design would be 80-100 m wide probably, so very big indeed. But not twice a 70-80 m width conventional carrier.

    A three hull ship the same with as a normal single hull carrier... is that what you are saying?

    Why?

    I thought the whole point was the extra width makes alternative options possible...

    Depends on the scenarios you consider. I took two: first one is you fail to catch the cable. Since engines are revving 100% and you are very fast, take off would be completely safe. Second one is you catch the cable but the gearing mechanisms or any other issue prevent a successful detention of the plane. I assume a low residual speed can be neutralized by the sky jump. Of course in a pathological case in between the sky jump could do more harm than good but that should not be the most frequent situation

    The two scenarios are also dealt with using an angled deck design... and leave the front of the deck for normal operations because as the aircraft landing are landing at an angle even if they flight right through they would never fly into things on the front of the deck... that is the purpose of the angle.

    Missing the cable is very common, but cable system failure is rare and no really worth changing the entire design for.

    Angled deck makes the most sense even with two separate landing strips.

    That is exactly what I mean. For instance:
    - Modern T/W ratio allow fully loaded fighters with a smaller deck
    - Electronics allow AEW planes with a fraction of equipment's size of older AWACS
    - U(C)AVS can have reasonable T/W ratios and optimized aerodynamics to perform many missions from small carriers even w/o catapults
    - Cost of equipment and electronics force navies to optimize and make vessels and aircraft more multifunctional.
    - Tighter budgets and modern AShM make smaller escorts and more self-reliant ships necessary

    I was very surprised that a scientific head of a major design bureau acknowledged that radical changes in the hull design where a real possibility, so many decades after the CV layout has been essentially frozen in most militaries.

    Personally I think a ship the size of the K or slightly bigger is fine and to get AWACS support an airship with a tether would be the simplest and cheapest option... you could tether it to the carrier or a much smaller vessel... it could provide power and collect all the data and process it and then transmit it via the airship so no one could tell what it is tethered to. In fact the vessel it is tethered to could be filled with lots of SAMs so anyone tries to attack the airship itself will have an enormous AESA array of such power as to melt the tiny little radar brain of any missile sent to destroy it, and dozens of cruise missiles could be launched at the air base the aircraft that fired the missile at the airship to deal with that sort of threat, or anti ship missiles if the missile was launched from an aircraft and of course plenty of S-400 and S-500 based naval missiles on the tether ship can knock down any other aircraft threatening the airship.

    A collapsible semi rigid design could be stored on most Russian ships above a certain size in case an attack is successful.

    Of course EM cats would be useful... AWACS aircraft of that size would be a good export earner and would make airforces much more capable of filling holes in their ground network of radar, and most high altitude long range UAVs have small low power fuel efficient engines so they would not have the thrust to weight ratio of getting off even a 250m deck without assistance... once airborne their low thrust would allow them to loiter for days instead of hours.

    (Note forget the Hindenberg... with modern composite materials light strong fire resistant structures, and fuel cells able to turn hydrogen from lifting gas to ballast water means changing the weight would be much less wasteful and much easier to manage. To climb you could simply put an electric current through the fuel cell and convert some ballast water into lifting hydrogen. To descend simply put the hydrogen through the fuel cell and collect the water and generate electricity... with the tether you have as much electricity as you need as well as fibre optic connections from the AESA radar antennas covering the airship down to the computers in the ship to process all that data and then send communications information back up to the airship to transmit via its enormous antenna... the airship is already scanning with radar so it is hardly invisible...) Of course being an AESA you could manage those transmissions to make it look like noise...
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 822
    Points : 816
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:13 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Idea would be to have lifts at the stern and then after the landing run, to remove planes very fast from the deck.

    Having them at the stern is a bad idea because that is where you will be landing and taking off with planes...
    Stern lifts would be used for taking plane to the deck before take-off. So no landing would be happening on that strip at that time. Will make a sketch when I have time.

    GarryB wrote:
    Often lifts have been placed on the outer edge of the deck up the side, but I suspect up the centre in front of the island would be the best place... it is close to where landed aircraft would end up anyway and lowering them in the centre means you could put them in the left or right side hangar no matter which side they landed on. It would also be useful to have aircraft coming up there because that would be near where your fighters launch from for quick launches (ie urgent launches during surprise attacks).
    Yes this is not a bad option. Had considered two front lifts, one on each side, because the hangars I consider operate linearly, transferring planes backwards after their landing to save space, even when transfer from left to right needs to be possible. But that is only a rough idea and I admit lacking the deep deck-operations knowledge needed for addressing every detail.
    GarryB wrote:
    The point of the angled deck is to allow landings on a deck but to allow setting up other aircraft for launch on that same deck.

    If you just use a straight landing on one deck then you are using up way to much deck for that landing... the aircraft will either catch the cable and land in a quarter of the deck length or it will miss... if it misses there still wont be enough room to land anyway so they will land with full thrust and if they catch the cable shut down the engines... if they miss they will hit AB and lift the nose and reduce flap from landing settings to take off settings and take off again.

    They don't need an entire deck for that... the angled deck design means you can land planes and have then sitting waiting to be positioned for launch on the landing side and the take off side.

    It means you can launch a large number of aircraft at once, but if you adapt the setup with lots of aircraft already in the air for both sides to recover aircraft then you can land planes faster too.

    If you use the double deck design to launch 2-3 aircraft from each side that is getting a lot of aircraft in the air very quickly... being able to recover them two at a time... one on each deck will be important for getting them back on deck.
    Agree almost on everything. But it is not accurate that the landing can be done in a fraction of the deck. If you take a look at current carriers, landing strip is more than 200 m, actually close to 250. Reason is the position of the cables and the fact that you aim for the second or third for a safe landing (almost 100 m of deck gone by the moment the cable is caught) . If you try to make the carrier shorter (in order to save displacement) you are not going to have space enough and landing strip needs to be used exclusively for landing.
    GarryB wrote:
    it may be thinkable to have special, separated / protected / equipped rooms for installing weapons and starting engines.

    You don't arm or load weapons under deck, and why run engines under the deck?

    All that has to happen above deck where there is fresh air and the ability to shunt things off the deck into the sea if there is a problem...
    Until now yes, because the hangars are relatively small, crammed and not ready for such operations. But who know if this could be done differently, once the aircraft flow inside the hangar is organized and automated? Special rooms could have fresh air, fire extinction means and designed to contain or direct fire and explosions to the outside safely. A fire or explosion on the deck is far from being safe as we know very well from the past...

    Since the idea is to have a small carrier operating efficiently, it would be good to have a deck as small as possible and therefore keep aircraft in other place for as long as possible. This is the motivation to start engines or load weapons under the deck, but I admit I am far from knowing all the possible issues this may entail.
    Still unclear for me regarding catapults. From the last calculations I got, they would not be needed for fighters at full A2G load if the run is close to full deck or T/W ratio is very high.

    They wont be needed for fighters with an A2A load... full A2G loads are much higher and might require assistance, though the long run on the K and therefore also this cat ship would mean EM cats would not be that valuable.
    You may want to check this out:

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


    Full load means full A2G and full fuel. Just play around and try with the parameters from 2nd stage PAK-FA for instance, you may be surprised!
    The critical thing however is your AEW or AWACS platform... even 250m is not enough without a catapult system.

    Having a big powerful radar in the air is critical to effective carrier operations... you only get by without it if it is not an option.

    Ka-31 is nice but a medium size fixed wing light transport aircraft that could also act as an inflight refuelling/cargo carrying model would also be very valuable.

    (Note I don't mean AWACS and inflight refuelling and cargo all at once... a platform with AWACS gear and another aircraft of the same type that could either carry cargo or fuel for inflight refuelling duties.)

    Having a fixed wing aircraft that can see 360 degrees with a big powerful radar antenna that sees high altitude to sea level that can fly at 600km+ away from the ship and still detect targets and pass data to ships and other aircraft without revealing the position of those ships or aircraft is invaluable.


    With the same simulation tool above I tried with the parameters of E-2. Sadly did not found the aerodynamic data needed and used the ones from F-18 instead (not correct, I know), but with a slight increase of L/D it could take off with a 250 m run.


    I am not so sure the fully-fledged AWACS plane is needed and I am even less sure it is wise to have such slow, high value targets floating around. A modified fighter would be much more survivable, an UAV would be less valuable. Even a helicopter with the new high-speed designs could be a reasonable option.

    If there were AWACS aircraft and F-14s operating near the USS Liberty when the Israelis attacked... they would not have attacked.

    If the AEGIS class cruiser in Iranian waters had asked the local carrier to determine the correct ID of the F-14 that was flying towards them it would have told them it was an Airbus and hundreds of people would not have been murdered.

    If a real attack was taking place they would have been able to identify it as an attack several minutes before the ship worked it out itself... and minutes of warning during war are of infinite value.
    Well those cases show bad will rather than equipment shortcomings... it is like the planes of 11S not being disturbed by US AD. Beyond ridiculous.

    Also the EM cats means that AWACS airframe can have an inflight refuelling model, so that when all the defending fighters are launched you can launch the inflight refuelling aircraft so that on their way back to the carrier to reload they can top up so the ring of aircraft waiting to land don't run out of fuel and ditch... if you have a problem on deck you can deal with it properly... if you can't fix it you can ferry the aircraft to a land base... and you can keep your AWACS platform operating longer and further from the carrier so the enemy can't just find your AEW aircraft and quickly work out where your carrier is... Ka-31s can't operate enormous distances from their carriers...

    What amount of fuel would those tanker planes carry? MTOW of E-2 is like 24 tonnes, so they are not airliner-sized tankers. The high internal fuel capacity of a UCAV along the lines of X-47B / Okhotnik would be IMO almost equivalent. A PAK-FA can carry >10 tons fuel as well.

    On the other hand, it seems Russia is indeed researching on them. I would simply not use them if they are not mandatory since they seem to be expensive, complex and difficult to maintain. And also slower for the take-offs. But their advantages are obvious yes.
    The technology they use is exactly the same as monorail maglev trains... why would developing that sort of technology be a waste of money?
    The technology is never a waste and as you say this field has hundreds of interesting applications, but the deployment of an expensive, complex system can mean you need much more people for the CV operations, some of them highly qualified, big and complex pieces as spare, additional failure sources and stops due to maintenance. You would never buy those problems I f there is not a relevant need for the system right?


    Yes I am aware. In this double-strip layout that would not be necessary so would make landing much simpler.

    It would be necessary... if you are going to line up twice as many planes for take off you need to be able to land more than just one plane at a time or you will find you have some trouble.
    Once you send all planes in the air, you set both strips for landing. No problem!
    Could even make use of a CV feasible for AF pilots without the intensive training / practice today's navy pilots need.

    The Soviets had some amazing software and systems for automatically landing VSTOL aircraft... I really think they will be automating a lot of the landing skill required... remember 5th gen fighters are already highly automated to make operations easier...
    Here you have a point, since I don't believe automatic landing is not only possible but easier than manual one. But I guess the pilots don't want to be erased that easily and also the possibility to land when the automatic system fails is an easy to defend argument. In future it will be different probably.
    A trimaran design would be 80-100 m wide probably, so very big indeed. But not twice a 70-80 m width conventional carrier.
    A three hull ship the same with as a normal single hull carrier... is that what you are saying?

    Why?

    I thought the whole point was the extra width makes alternative options possible...

    The whole point after my proposal and also what the Krilov guy mentioned was to use a radical redesign of the hull to compensate for size difference. If you take a super carrier and make it twice the size or more then it will be more capable of course but also impossibly expensive and complex. The challenge I see is to have a small, relatively affordable vessel matching big CVNs and not to design a huge one to beat them all. This is way more in line with traditions of Russian military and with real possibilities of any navy based on real world economics.


    Due to the restrictions of the conventional single hull design with max 40 m water line width and also max height due to stability issues, the hangars and available space below deck are very restricted. In a trimaran design you could easily reach 60 or 70 m width below the deck without the width at the water line being excessive. You can have massive hangars, cargo holds for expeditionary forces and a big structure in the middle of the ship for helicopters and VLS cells. All in ca. 250 m length.
    Depends on the scenarios you consider. I took two: first one is you fail to catch the cable. Since engines are revving 100% and you are very fast, take off would be completely safe. Second one is you catch the cable but the gearing mechanisms or any other issue prevent a successful detention of the plane. I assume a low residual speed can be neutralized by the sky jump. Of course in a pathological case in between the sky jump could do more harm than good but that should not be the most frequent situation

    The two scenarios are also dealt with using an angled deck design... and leave the front of the deck for normal operations because as the aircraft landing are landing at an angle even if they flight right through they would never fly into things on the front of the deck... that is the purpose of the angle.

    Missing the cable is very common, but cable system failure is rare and no really worth changing the entire design for.

    Angled deck makes the most sense even with two separate landing strips.
    The angled deck only deals with the first scenario, which I agree is the biggest problem (or at least should be, unlike in the last deployment of the K in Syria). The sky jump at the end of the landing strip is an improvement in both situations so I see it as a superior configuration.


    Personally I think a ship the size of the K or slightly bigger is fine and to get AWACS support an airship with a tether would be the simplest and cheapest option... you could tether it to the carrier or a much smaller vessel... it could provide power and collect all the data and process it and then transmit it via the airship so no one could tell what it is tethered to. In fact the vessel it is tethered to could be filled with lots of SAMs so anyone tries to attack the airship itself will have an enormous AESA array of such power as to melt the tiny little radar brain of any missile sent to destroy it, and dozens of cruise missiles could be launched at the air base the aircraft that fired the missile at the airship to deal with that sort of threat, or anti ship missiles if the missile was launched from an aircraft and of course plenty of S-400 and S-500 based naval missiles on the tether ship can knock down any other aircraft threatening the airship.

    A collapsible semi rigid design could be stored on most Russian ships above a certain size in case an attack is successful.
    Agree. In this draft idea there is place above the rear hangar for such an airship. The combination of the airship and other radars on AEW aircraft could be very interesting and difficult to avoid for any aggressor.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1151
    Points : 1151
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Hole on Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:54 pm

    The Jak-44 could start without catapult. 40 tons MTOW. Propfans D-227 with 2,5 times the power of the E-2.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:30 pm

    Stern lifts would be used for taking plane to the deck before take-off. So no landing would be happening on that strip at that time. Will make a sketch when I have time.

    Which means no aircraft can be brought up during landings or during takeoffs...

    It would not make sense to put a car park in the middle of a highway.

    Deck lifts out of the way in the centre in front of the island and perhaps even behind would allow aircraft to be brought up or taken down to the hangars no matter what is taking off or landing at the time.


    If you try to make the carrier shorter (in order to save displacement) you are not going to have space enough and landing strip needs to be used exclusively for landing.

    By angling the landing run you maximise its length while taking the rest of the deck out of the danger area if there is a problem landing.

    Until now yes, because the hangars are relatively small, crammed and not ready for such operations.

    Umm... no... it is because an explosion inside a hanger would destroy or set fire to all your aircraft and in a contained space would be vastly more destructive than a mere explosion or fire on deck.

    Second ordinance is never kept... armed or unarmed... anywhere near aircraft or fuel... it is kept in an armoured bunker separated from the aircraft and is not armed till it is mounted on the deck on the aircraft and even then not until just before take off.

    The British and Americans learned that the hard way.

    A fire or explosion on the deck is far from being safe as we know very well from the past...

    Vastly safer than even just a fire below deck.

    Since the idea is to have a small carrier operating efficiently,

    No.

    Small carriers are crap.

    If you are going to spend a billion on a ship then spend 3 billion and get a decent one that does everything you want... don't scrimp on important things and make it bloody useless.

    it would be good to have a deck as small as possible and therefore keep aircraft in other place for as long as possible.

    The opposite of this.

    Smaller is not better with carriers.

    This is the motivation to start engines or load weapons under the deck, but I admit I am far from knowing all the possible issues this may entail.

    Thousands of people successfully commit suicide every year by running a car engine inside their garage... some of them are not meaning to kill themselves but they die just the same... Running engines and loading weapons in the hangar offers no real benefits even in the rain, but incurs enormous potential risks.

    Full load means full A2G and full fuel. Just play around and try with the parameters from 2nd stage PAK-FA for instance, you may be surprised!

    Not surprised at all.

    Russian carrier aircraft are not primarily intended for air to ground roles... their primary role is air to air defence of the ships.

    The only aircraft that requires a cat is AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft, plus potentially some UAVs they might operate.

    Russian stealth and MiG-29KR aircraft would also have advantages of thrust vectoring engines to further help them get airborne too.


    I am not so sure the fully-fledged AWACS plane is needed and I am even less sure it is wise to have such slow, high value targets floating around. A modified fighter would be much more survivable, an UAV would be less valuable. Even a helicopter with the new high-speed designs could be a reasonable option.

    Having a high speed aircraft with an enormous radar able to look 360 degrees in seconds that can operate at medium to high altitudes for hours if not days.

    Well let me say that ships operating their radars will reveal their position to the enemy, yet wont reveal attacking forces approaching below the radar horizon... a single AWACS platform can scan hundreds of kms in every direction from near space down to the sea surface and transmit that data to all the ships and aircraft of the fleet, so they have information but are not emitting anything.

    As for vulnerability, how safe would an A-50 be operating above what is the equivalent of about 30-40 S-400 batteries and 6-8 S-500 batteries and perhaps 20-30 S-350 batteries... and that is not including the Su-57s there to defend them too... I think the AWACS would be the safest thing around.

    Without that AWACS however an incoming blip on a radar might only appear as it crosses the radar horizon... and it could be a single missile or a coordinated missile attack against all your ships that were detected because they were using their radar to spot enemy forces and threats...

    Well those cases show bad will rather than equipment shortcomings..

    There were F-14s nearby during the Iranian airbus incident, but the carrier group commander pulled them back because the commander of the vessel that ended up shooting down the airbus sounded like he was out of control and looking for a fight... (carrier commanders words, not mine).

    Had they been used the mistake would have been immediately recognised and nobody would have died.

    It was actually a system design fault... the airfield the airbus took off from was a joint military and civilian airfield so when an F-14 squawked an IFF code the operator on the cruiser put his cursor over the airfield. When the airbus took off from the airfield the cursor on the screen followed the aircraft but was actually returning information from where the actual cursor was... on the airfield. So when the IFF system checked the cursor appeared to be on the incoming aircraft but was reading as an F-14 sitting on the runway on the airfield. The IFF signal was therefore not the signal coming from the Airbus, which was transmitting properly the civilian code.

    The same psychological mentality that makes hunters think other hunters are deer resulted in the operators claiming the target was descending in an attack flight profile, when examination of the recorded sensor readings show a steady climb to a normal flight altitude... they wanted to see an F-14 and that is what they saw.

    it is like the planes of 11S not being disturbed by US AD. Beyond ridiculous.
    ?

    What amount of fuel would those tanker planes carry? MTOW of E-2 is like 24 tonnes, so they are not airliner-sized tankers. The high internal fuel capacity of a UCAV along the lines of X-47B / Okhotnik would be IMO almost equivalent. A PAK-FA can carry >10 tons fuel as well.

    I am not suggesting they are to be used to fuel the planes for strikes on the US, but an extra ton of fuel to 6-8 planes, and topping up the AWACS aircraft would mean less landing and takeoff cycles for the smaller aircraft.

    The technology is never a waste and as you say this field has hundreds of interesting applications, but the deployment of an expensive, complex system can mean you need much more people for the CV operations, some of them highly qualified, big and complex pieces as spare, additional failure sources and stops due to maintenance. You would never buy those problems I f there is not a relevant need for the system right?

    Just the addition of AWACS platforms makes it worth it. And adding a monorail system on a ship is not a huge deal... the technology will be valuable in a range of areas... trains as mentioned, superconductors, super magnets, EM guns, there would not be hundreds of people needed to support these systems... and 99% of the time if there is a problem... just use fighters while you sail home and get the problem sorted.... 5th gen fighters will likely get surface mounted radar antennas that will enable a lot more airspace to be searched than standard radars.

    Once you send all planes in the air, you set both strips for landing. No problem!

    Even in combat you would never have all your aircraft in the air...

    Life at sea is a complex dance of juggling... planes in the air and planes that need to be in the air with planes on the deck going up or going away...

    The challenge I see is to have a small, relatively affordable vessel matching big CVNs and not to design a huge one to beat them all. This is way more in line with traditions of Russian military and with real possibilities of any navy based on real world economics.

    The Russians have had helicopter carriers (Moskva), and they have had small VSTOL carriers (Kiev Class). The general consensus was that VSTOL carriers had weak ineffective aircraft and while much cheaper than a bigger carrier were not actually cheap and not actually much use for anything, so in that sense were rather too expensive for what you got. A Yak-38 was very ordinary and not very useful for anything... except testing ejection seats.

    The sky jump at the end of the landing strip is an improvement in both situations so I see it as a superior configuration.

    But it isn't.

    In Syria they lost two aircraft.

    If the ski jump made any difference at all then they could have cleared the entire deck and had a straight on landing run down the entire length of the deck ending in the ski jump. The fact that they didn't even try suggests there was no point... the extra few dozen or so metres of the ski jump would just mean the plane will hit the water going slightly slower...

    I remember older British and American planes had barriers for planes to run into if there were problems but that was with much slower propeller driven aircraft and they often got seriously damaged anyway.

    The Jak-44 could start without catapult. 40 tons MTOW. Propfans D-227 with 2,5 times the power of the E-2.

    The D-27 prop fans are Ukrainian.

    Besides they can build a much lighter and better aircraft by now I am sure...

    They need to make a good aircraft as it would be a valuable little plane that could be widely used that is rather cheaper and more affordable than A-50 and A-100 aircraft types.

    Look at the improvement to the An-2, with an all composite structure.

    A Cat will make operations safer and easier.

    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1151
    Points : 1151
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Hole on Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:45 pm

    The high MTOW is due to a large fuel supply. Range and endurance of the Yak-44 would have been much larger as for the E-2.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 822
    Points : 816
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Tue Jul 31, 2018 7:26 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Stern lifts would be used for taking plane to the deck before take-off. So no landing would be happening on that strip at that time. Will make a sketch when I have time.

    Which means no aircraft can be brought up during landings or during takeoffs...
    No, not at all. During landings the landing strip can take planes down to the hangars
    During take-offs, corresponding strip can have aircraft lifted from the hangars.


    It would not make sense to put a car park in the middle of a highway.

    Deck lifts out of the way in the centre in front of the island and perhaps even behind would allow aircraft to be brought up or taken down to the hangars no matter what is taking off or landing at the time.
    Not disputing that possibility, it depends on size, layout and requirements.

    If you try to make the carrier shorter (in order to save displacement) you are not going to have space enough and landing strip needs to be used exclusively for landing.
    By angling the landing run you maximise its length while taking the rest of the deck out of the danger area if there is a problem landing.
    This is understood but the landing run is still more than 200 m. Take off run is 100 at least.  So you have a 2 x 300 m carrier in the end. We do not seem to dispute what is best but what is possible you know?

    Until now yes, because the hangars are relatively small, crammed and not ready for such operations.
    Umm... no... it is because an explosion inside a hanger would destroy or set fire to all your aircraft and in a contained space would be vastly more destructive than a mere explosion or fire on deck.

    Second ordinance is never kept... armed or unarmed... anywhere near aircraft or fuel... it is kept in an armoured bunker separated from the aircraft and is not armed till it is mounted on the deck on the aircraft and even then not until just before take off.

    The British and Americans learned that the hard way.
    Agreed. Not making a vital point of this way of preparing aircraft for take-off, but as said you would not have many planes in the same room, and it would not be a contained space. Only the unit(s) about to take off would be there.

    Since the idea is to have a small carrier operating efficiently,

    No.

    Small carriers are crap.

    If you are going to spend a billion on a ship then spend 3 billion and get a decent one that does everything you want... don't scrimp on important things and make it bloody useless.
    See comparison with K below, in order to have the same understanding of "small" and "big". I doubt such unit with triple hull would be much smaller in displacement than the K. About that size should be ok and hopefully cheaper than a 100 kT CVN

    Basically all the topics we discuss in this forum are affected by the availability of funds. It is therefore essential to design with the costs in mind or the projects fail. This is especially important with carriers being so cost intensive and needed in numbers of at least three or four for the Russian navy. Better to build some more units of a smaller ship that is reasonably capable than one or two of a design which is too big and expensive


    Full load means full A2G and full fuel. Just play around and try with the parameters from 2nd stage PAK-FA for instance, you may be surprised!

    Not surprised at all.

    Russian carrier aircraft are not primarily intended for air to ground roles... their primary role is air to air defence of the ships.

    The only aircraft that requires a cat is AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft, plus potentially some UAVs they might operate.

    Russian stealth and MiG-29KR aircraft would also have advantages of thrust vectoring engines to further help them get airborne too.
    Well, all operational use of the K was spent doing essentially A2G in Syria, so real use of future CVs can very well go in that direction. But as said A2G or A2A plays no role with the T/W ratio true 5G planes should be capable of. Full load from the short runs is no problem, and also from the long run on dry setting BTW...

    I am not so sure the fully-fledged AWACS plane is needed and I am even less sure it is wise to have such slow, high value targets floating around. A modified fighter would be much more survivable, an UAV would be less valuable. Even a helicopter with the new high-speed designs could be a reasonable option.

    Having a high speed aircraft with an enormous radar able to look 360 degrees in seconds that can operate at medium to high altitudes for hours if not days.

    Well let me say that ships operating their radars will reveal their position to the enemy, yet wont reveal attacking forces approaching below the radar horizon... a single AWACS platform can scan hundreds of kms in every direction from near space down to the sea surface and transmit that data to all the ships and aircraft of the fleet, so they have information but are not emitting anything.

    As for vulnerability, how safe would an A-50 be operating above what is the equivalent of about 30-40 S-400 batteries and 6-8 S-500 batteries and perhaps 20-30 S-350 batteries... and that is not including the Su-57s there to defend them too... I think the AWACS would be the safest thing around.

    Without that AWACS however an incoming blip on a radar might only appear as it crosses the radar horizon... and it could be a single missile or a coordinated missile attack against all your ships that were detected because they were using their radar to spot enemy forces and threats...

    Not disputing relevance of airborne early warning, at all. Simply the means needed for achieving it. For instance, a AEW UAV would probably have bigger range and persistence than a current AWACS and be much more affordable.

    You refer an AD force defending the own AWACS, it corresponds to what naval force composition?

    Well those cases show bad will rather than equipment shortcomings..

    There were F-14s nearby during the Iranian airbus incident, but the carrier group commander pulled them back because the commander of the vessel that ended up shooting down the airbus sounded like he was out of control and looking for a fight... (carrier commanders words, not mine).

    Had they been used the mistake would have been immediately recognised and nobody would have died.

    It was actually a system design fault... the airfield the airbus took off from was a joint military and civilian airfield so when an F-14 squawked an IFF code the operator on the cruiser put his cursor over the airfield. When the airbus took off from the airfield the cursor on the screen followed the aircraft but was actually returning information from where the actual cursor was... on the airfield. So when the IFF system checked the cursor appeared to be on the incoming aircraft but was reading as an F-14 sitting on the runway on the airfield. The IFF signal was therefore not the signal coming from the Airbus, which was transmitting properly the civilian code.

    The same psychological mentality that makes hunters think other hunters are deer resulted in the operators claiming the target was descending in an attack flight profile, when examination of the recorded sensor readings show a steady climb to a normal flight altitude... they wanted to see an F-14 and that is what they saw.
     it is like the planes of 11S not being disturbed by US AD. Beyond ridiculous.
    ?
    I meant that you don't shoot down unidentified planes in a foreign country unless you have that in your agenda. Said Iranian Airbus. Liberty in turn was a flagrant false flag. For these cases you always will find an excuse why none of the systems worked that day. Who is such a dick as to pull the F-14s back because some subordinate wanted a fight, instead of getting a positive identification of a target in peace time? This is a crime and not a system failure sorry.

    What amount of fuel would those tanker planes carry? MTOW of E-2 is like 24 tonnes, so they are not airliner-sized tankers. The high internal fuel capacity of a UCAV along the lines of X-47B / Okhotnik would be IMO almost equivalent. A PAK-FA can carry >10 tons fuel as well.

    I am not suggesting they are to be used to fuel the planes for strikes on the US, but an extra ton of fuel to 6-8 planes, and topping up the AWACS aircraft would mean less landing and takeoff cycles for the smaller aircraft.
    Agree. This is doable with buddy refuelling or big UAVs. Since US is not going to bigger tankers at the moment, Russia would not be forced to do either, especially if Su-57s with their huge range were navalized.

    The technology is never a waste and as you say this field has hundreds of interesting applications, but the deployment of an expensive, complex system can mean you need much more people for the CV operations, some of them highly qualified, big and complex pieces as spare, additional failure sources and stops due to maintenance. You would never buy those problems I f there is not a relevant need for the system right?
    ... and 99% of the time if there is a problem... just use fighters while you sail home and get the problem sorted.... 5th gen fighters will likely get surface mounted radar antennas that will enable a lot more airspace to be searched than standard radars.
    Well, this is what I mean. Modern technology will allow smaller radars that can be carried in other aircraft and still reasonably cover AEW role.

    Once you send all planes in the air, you set both strips for landing. No problem!
    Even in combat you would never have all your aircraft in the air...

    Life at sea is a complex dance of juggling... planes in the air and planes that need to be in the air with planes on the deck going up or going away...
    We do not need to overcomplicate. A conventional carrier is also limited to one landing at a time and people manage to live with that limitation. In fact the alternative configuration is superior in many ways.

    The challenge I see is to have a small, relatively affordable vessel matching big CVNs and not to design a huge one to beat them all. This is way more in line with traditions of Russian military and with real possibilities of any navy based on real world economics.
    The Russians have had helicopter carriers (Moskva), and they have had small VSTOL carriers (Kiev Class). The general consensus was that VSTOL carriers had weak ineffective aircraft and while much cheaper than a bigger carrier were not actually cheap and not actually much use for anything, so in that sense were rather too expensive for what you got. A Yak-38 was very ordinary and not very useful for anything... except testing ejection seats.
    What about sending Su-57s in the air faster than super carrier sends F-18s? This is no low performance configuration for STOVL aircraft!
    The sky jump at the end of the landing strip is an improvement in both situations so I see it as a superior configuration.
    But it isn't.

    In Syria they lost two aircraft.

    If the ski jump made any difference at all then they could have cleared the entire deck and had a straight on landing run down the entire length of the deck ending in the ski jump. The fact that they didn't even try suggests there was no point... the extra few dozen or so metres of the ski jump would just mean the plane will hit the water going slightly slower...

    I remember older British and American planes had barriers for planes to run into if there were problems but that was with much slower propeller driven aircraft and they often got seriously damaged anyway.
    Well, as far as I know they were not trying to see whether the aircraft would crash or not, in case of serious doubt about the operation of the arresting cables they would have sent the planes to Hmeimim immediately. Besides, you cannot go straight on an angled deck with purpose-built arresting cables.

    A sky jump is close to 7-10 m high, 50 m long so you need some momentum to climb it. But in any case this is just a small help, not making a huge deal out of it.

    The Jak-44 could start without catapult. 40 tons MTOW. Propfans D-227 with 2,5 times the power of the E-2.

    The D-27 prop fans are Ukrainian.

    Besides they can build a much lighter and better aircraft by now I am sure...
    Agree...

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:43 pm