Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Share
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 820
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Hole on Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:05 pm

    The Point is that you can launch a heavy aircraft (which means a lot of fuel) with the help of a sky jump. No need for catapults, when you got enough engine power.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:35 am

    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.

    So how are you going to arrange the hangars?

    The aircraft coming in on one side at the rear of the hangar... needs to be serviced and checked... but what if it needs to take off again....

    Plus you have the entire front deck for takeoffs, so four planes at a time taking off but one side for landing, but one rear lift bringing aircraft up on deck and one taking on landing aircraft and putting them down in the hangar at one end... sounds like a real pain in the ass to be honest... the hangars are generally rather long but relatively narrow things so having lifts on the outer side is popular... even having one enormous through hangar, it would be a real pain in the ass to have the entry and exit at the rear end. Having it down the middle reduces the max distance everything needs to move... remember it is not just an hangar... there will be workshop areas for disassembly and reassembly and minor repairs and maintenence of several different aircraft types.

    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?

    The aircraft coming down while the ship is going up and down means the very rear of the deck would not be available for anything else on the landing side... when aircraft land they end up a long way from the rear when they stop so it makes rather more sense to have the lifts taking them down somewhere there rather than having to stop landing and drag the aircraft to the back of the ship to lower it to the hangar.

    Deck lifts are not super fast... it is not a lift in a shop, so that deck lift will be tied up for at least 3 minutes getting the aircraft on it and clearing the edges on deck and in the hangar and then lowering the aircraft and then getting it off for the next aircraft to get down. With four aircraft taking off at a time that can cause problems when they all start running low on fuel.

    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.

    Screw up with only one plane carrying four 500kg HE bombs... do you think the other aircraft on the ship would be unaffected?

    Even the most heavily armoured room would be in serious trouble.

    And that is ignoring the 5-10 tons of fuel on board the one plane... no isolating one aircraft at a time in a room makes no difference.

    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

    If you are using that image as a basis then it is a total waste of time... with a straight landing strip instead of the traditional angled landing strip, then you only get to launch two aircraft on the takeoff side. On the landing side you need the entire length in case the plane does not catch the wires or indeed the cable or hook break and the aircraft crashes.

    The whole point of the angled deck is to separate the deck into two independent parts where landing and take off operations can continue together at the same time.

    Your example also shows a layout where you could add take off positions all down the take off deck so with 4 or 5 rows you could get aircraft in pairs of 8 to 10 aircraft ready to take off... with deck mounted shields protecting aircraft behind from jet wash that fold down when the aircraft takes off... the problem is that even if you use both sides to recover aircraft you are only ever going to be able to land two aircraft at a time... that is too much of a bottleneck.

    Also considering its deck is twice the size of the K it has half the parking space...

    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...

    Well the operation in Syria for the K was all about testing the new MiG-29KR and the upgrades to the Su-33... I would suggest in normal operations that the main role would be air defence and threat/target spotting via AWACS/AEW platforms if present...

    For instance, a AEW UAV would probably have bigger range and persistence than a current AWACS and be much more affordable.

    Yeah... people kept saying that about all the UAVs and they seem to have a very high attrition rate and not really be that effective, except in unopposed airspace murdering people in Pakistan and Yemen and other places.

    If you have an AWACS platform like a Yak-44 then you also have a Yak-44 that can be lunched to deliver more fuel to that Yak-44AEW aircraft to further extend its operational performance as much as you want.

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

    A carrier will have its own SAMs including S-500, and the Cruisers and Destroyers that operate with it will also be rather well equipped with such systems.

    The carrier adds human eyes and extended radar coverage.

    In the middle of the ocean a radar contact creates a problem... what is it? It wont tell you what it is. Sending a ship to have a look would take too long and leave that ship vulnerable to ambush... and would give away the fact that there is a fleet of ships there.
    Launching a missile could create an international incident and actually start a war.

    Sending a plane... something you can call back if 50 targets appear around the first target and start closing on on your fleet (50 targets you wouldn't see without air borne radar due to the curve of the earth)

    Of course if it is 51 anti ship missiles you can keep that aircraft out there... it can engage a couple of missiles but its radar can be used to direct s-350s launched from ships with their ARH at 140km range.

    Without the aircraft you would not know there were 51 missiles on the way until they came over the sea horizon.

    Having more time to repel an attack is always better.

    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.

    The commander of the AEGIS cruiser had chased Iranian navy boats into Iranian waters... the carrier commander should have ordered that dick to leave too.

    The whole situation was a crime... that is why they gave out medals.

    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.

    Israel had made agreements with the US regarding conflicts, and was breaking those agreements... Liberty was in a position to record those violations, so it became a threat and they tried to deal with it by intentionally murdering their allies... but money and intel from captured systems made the boo boo all better...

    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.

    Not just smaller, but vastly more capable... stealth might become meaningless if these claims for new radar technology is accurate...

    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 design you suggest vastly increases the potential take off rate, yet still offers one plane landing at one time... it will create an enormous bottleneck.

    What about sending Su-57s in the air faster than super carrier sends F-18s? This is no low performance configuration for STOVL aircraft!

    There is no comparison between the Yak-38 and Su-57... both have high thrust to weight ratios and both have vectored thrust engines, but from there the difference is enormous. The Sukhoi has an enormous high lift wing and zero drag from ordinance most of the time. It has a modern capable fire control system with modern radar and missiles and other weapons. The Yak had a tiny wing to allow transonic flight... which was totally pointless, a very limited payload and performance. Both have very good ejection systems.

    The Yak could operate from smaller carriers, but its value is so low that there is more benefit in spending more on a real carrier and getting real planes.

    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.

    Well first of all they wouldn't know what the problem was... after the first few cables broke they would tell the aircraft to circle while they were quickly replaced... by the time they realised the problem was not faulty cables but was actually the actual arrester gearing that is supposed to have give in it to prevent the cables from just snapping it might have been too late.

    The fact that they didn't send in a potential buddy refuelling aircraft suggests they need to change their procedure manual... which is another lesson they learned.

    Besides, you cannot go straight on an angled deck with purpose-built arresting cables.

    You can if the cables just break so you are not using them anyway... The MiG-29KR and Su-33 don't have break parachutes or airbrakes AFAIK, so they would be pushing sht uphill literally... clown

    Agree...

    Would also expect the electronics would be much lighter and smaller today too, though performance expectations would be greater too.

    The Point is that you can launch a heavy aircraft (which means a lot of fuel) with the help of a sky jump. No need for catapults, when you got enough engine power.

    No you can't.

    It is a question of G forces... a heavy plane wont put up with high horizontal and vertical g forces on takeoff...

    When was construction of new reactor completed and what is name of submarine it was installed on?

    It is likely the reactors developed for the Destroyers they will start building soon, but also used on Submarines too.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 612
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:43 pm

    GarryB wrote:So how are you going to arrange the hangars?

    The aircraft coming in on one side at the rear of the hangar... needs to be serviced and checked... but what if it needs to take off again....

    Plus you have the entire front deck for takeoffs, so four planes at a time taking off but one side for landing, but one rear lift bringing aircraft up on deck and one taking on landing aircraft and putting them down in the hangar at one end... sounds like a real pain in the ass to be honest... the hangars are generally rather long but relatively narrow things so having lifts on the outer side is popular... even having one enormous through hangar, it would be a real pain in the ass to have the entry and exit at the rear end. Having it down the middle reduces the max distance everything needs to move... remember it is not just an hangar... there will be workshop areas for disassembly and reassembly and minor repairs and maintenence of several different aircraft types.
    Maybe misunderstanding here, see attached rough drawing.




    I do not know what exact position would be best for lifts (length of ship and runs involved on this as well as many other considerations), but possible positions would be represented by the red rectangles. Planes taken down by lifts closer to the bow, brought up by the rear ones. Planes that do not need deep inspections or repairs are kept in the flow rearwards with the help of rolling skids that could be automated and could clamp to the floor to fix the planes safely. The ones needing repairs go to the workshop area, which is more freely configurable, and are afterwards inserted back into the flow. Blue walls would mark areas where engines could be on and planes could be received from landing or prepared for take-off as an additional possibility to gain operational speed on the deck. This is ideal when you have just one kind of plane on those hangars of course! But nevertheless there is additional hangar space at the level of the deck for other kinds of aircraft in smaller numbers

    This allows much more planes to be kept in the same space with much less work plus flexibility for repairs
    The aircraft coming down while the ship is going up and down means the very rear of the deck would not be available for anything else on the landing side... when aircraft land they end up a long way from the rear when they stop so it makes rather more sense to have the lifts taking them down somewhere there rather than having to stop landing and drag the aircraft to the back of the ship to lower it to the hangar.

    Deck lifts are not super fast... it is not a lift in a shop, so that deck lift will be tied up for at least 3 minutes getting the aircraft on it and clearing the edges on deck and in the hangar and then lowering the aircraft and then getting it off for the next aircraft to get down.  With four aircraft taking off at a time that can cause problems when they all start running low on fuel.
    See above. Ideally planes after landing would be taken down outside of the landing strip to avoid interference


    Screw up with only one plane carrying four 500kg HE bombs... do you think the other aircraft on the ship would be unaffected?

    Even the most heavily armoured room would be in serious trouble.

    And that is ignoring the 5-10 tons of fuel on board the one plane... no isolating one aircraft at a time in a room makes no difference.
    Like said this would be a "nice to have" if possible. Additional space is available at the stern in the middle of the ship. Just for curiosity, do you happen to know how many HE bomb explosions have happened in CVs in modern days? I guess this is no fun whatever the configuration of the ship


    If you are using that image as a basis then it is a total waste of time... with a straight landing strip instead of the traditional angled landing strip, then you only get to launch two aircraft on the takeoff side. On the landing side you need the entire length in case the plane does not catch the wires or indeed the cable or hook break and the aircraft crashes.
    This matches a super CVN with a fraction of the length. How is that useless?


    The whole point of the angled deck is to separate the deck into two independent parts where landing and take off operations can continue together at the same time.
    Agreed, just see problems regarding the final size such configuration would lead to. Otherwise it would be of superior performance of course.

    Your example also shows a layout where you could add take off positions all down the take off deck so with 4 or 5 rows you could get aircraft in pairs of 8 to 10 aircraft ready to take off... with deck mounted shields protecting aircraft behind from jet wash that fold down when the aircraft takes off... the problem is that even if you use both sides to recover aircraft you are only ever going to be able to land two aircraft at a time... that is too much of a bottleneck.
    Yes, you could take off really really quick in this config which is the most important point. I don't think you really need to go beyond 4 fighters at a time, since you could make a queue of planes waiting for their positions at the bow and not loose much time between launches. For other planes there would be launch positions at the stern.

    What you call bottleneck is actually twice as fast as a super CVN...  Razz


    Also considering its deck is twice the size of the K it has half the parking space...
    Yes. This is done on purpose and so flow in hangars and organization of decks is changed. There is also space for helos at the rear that could operate relatively independent of the fixed wing aircraft.

    Why is it a need to have lots of parking space and drive the size of the ship upwards, if you can do the same (or more!) in less area?

    This thing would allow to have a expeditionary force together with reasonable air wing. Separated fixed wing and helos decks + additional space for ASW and rescue. Higher take-off and landing rates than a CVN. Smaller effort in the hangars. Incomparably higher amount of AD/ASh/land attack missiles


    Well the operation in Syria for the K was all about testing the new MiG-29KR and the upgrades to the Su-33... I would suggest in normal operations that the main role would be air defence and threat/target spotting via AWACS/AEW platforms if present...
    Yeah but what is the only operational use the vessel has had? Bombing some guys without air force. CVs are used like that most of the time, like it or not...


    Yeah... people kept saying that about all the UAVs and they seem to have a very high attrition rate and not really be that effective, except in unopposed airspace murdering people in Pakistan and Yemen and other places.

    If you have an AWACS platform like a Yak-44 then you also have a Yak-44 that can be lunched to deliver more fuel to that Yak-44AEW aircraft to further extend its operational performance as much as you want.
    Let's see, but I think UVAs will gain importance for almost any role and specially high persistence and high risk ones.


    The whole situation was a crime... that is why they gave out medals.
    You are sadly right...


    Israel had made agreements with the US regarding conflicts, and was breaking those agreements... Liberty was in a position to record those violations, so it became a threat and they tried to deal with it by intentionally murdering their allies... but money and intel from captured systems made the boo boo all better...
    What is even better than a false flag? A false flag where you eliminate or discipline the guys in your own band that are pissing you off. This was apparently going to be blamed on Egypt but it didn't work out as intended...


    The design you suggest vastly increases the potential take off rate, yet still offers one plane landing at one time... it will create an enormous bottleneck.
    Four launch positions is AFAIK the same that a super CVN. In case you are even faster with the take-offs, well, that is only an advantage. You have to accommodate your landings to be timed according to the available landing resources, so the first planes to take-off will have some minutes time less in the air. Anyway that still means twice as much landing capability as a normal carrier!


    You can if the cables just break so you are not using them anyway... The MiG-29KR and Su-33 don't have break parachutes or airbrakes AFAIK, so they would be pushing sht uphill literally...  clown
    Yeah, maybe landing gear would need to be checked since in that case the planes would go really fast up the ramp.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 11, 2018 7:26 am

    This allows much more planes to be kept in the same space with much less work plus flexibility for repairs

    That design might work for an assembly line in a factory but a hangar????

    So with that design I presume the aircraft enter at the front after they have landed and go up via the rear.

    So basically to take another aircraft down you need to move every single aircraft in the hangar one space down.

    You get the plane on deck that is next in line no matter what aircraft type you actually need.

    Planes have to roll sideways to move down the hangar.

    BTW those hangars are tiny being only the width of a single fighter plane... so no chance at all of putting an AWACS platform in there at all...

    Where will you put the dozen or more helicopters?

    Just for curiosity, do you happen to know how many HE bomb explosions have happened in CVs in modern days? I guess this is no fun whatever the configuration of the ship

    Very very few as far as I am aware because bombs are not fused until they are up on deck already mounted on the aircrafts wing where there is no chance of it getting bumped in handling.

    This matches a super CVN with a fraction of the length. How is that useless?

    If you make a ship 1/3rd shorter but twice as wide you are not making it cheaper or smaller in terms of volume and weight... it might be 100m shorter at 250m instead of 350m but it wont be lighter or smaller by volume.

    By increasing the number of aircraft that can take off at one time by 4-5 times but only increasing the recovery rate by two you make flight management a nightmare and risk to losing aircraft much much higher.

    Agreed, just see problems regarding the final size such configuration would lead to. Otherwise it would be of superior performance of course.

    Your solution as it stands does not do a great job in my opinion.

    With cable based arresting systems you don't need a full deck length for landing, so having one deck for take off and one for landing, is using two decks where at the moment one deck is already doing the job.

    Talk about using the full length of the deck for takeoffs is interesting ONLY if that is needed... if you wanted MiG-21s to take off then a 250m run with EMALS cats could probably do the job... but why? Su-57s with new more powerful engines and thrust vectoring are smaller and lighter and rather more powerful than the Su-33s that currently take off from the K... with a slightly bigger 75K ship there would only be problems getting a heavy AWACS aircraft airborne... but that is what they are developing EMAL cats for.

    A super wide vessel creates a lot of problems in navigation and port operations... is has to be for a very very good reason.

    Yes, you could take off really really quick in this config which is the most important point. I don't think you really need to go beyond 4 fighters at a time, since you could make a queue of planes waiting for their positions at the bow and not loose much time between launches. For other planes there would be launch positions at the stern.

    What you call bottleneck is actually twice as fast as a super CVN...

    Looking at your design posted above you have one entire deck taking off and one for landing though the front of the landing deck you have indicated takeoff points... ie two on each deck near the front for the short take off run positions.

    With the take off deck you could have at least three more take off positions (if the front short take off positions are long enough to take off then anything behind that could also be used... you just need deck mounted blast reflectors to raise up and protect the aircraft behind.

    That means in the shortest take off run you have four aircraft on both decks, then the next line of two aircraft behind the two on the take off deck according to your drawing could be level with the VLS cells, and then another position level with the green arrow head on the drawing, while if you have another take off position at the very rear of the deck you could have another position between the rear and last position.

    That means five takeoff points on the take off side from the very rear... which does not need engine exhaust deflectors, up to the front positions at the short take off position... each launch position has two aircraft so 5 x 2 plus the other 2 on the landing deck side, so that means 12 aircraft launches in rapid succession... the time it would take between launches is the time it takes to drop the blast shields down on the deck after the aircraft are gone... so pretty damn fast.

    So you have 12 aircraft in the air and in an hours time when they are low on fuel you have 12 aircraft wanting to land... normally you can land one at a time... if you close down the take off deck you can land two at a time, but not actually simultaneously...

    Bottleneck.

    Why is it a need to have lots of parking space and drive the size of the ship upwards, if you can do the same (or more!) in less area?

    Because in real operations there is no real protection or advantage to keeping all the planes down in the hangar... most aircraft spend their time on the deck where they are ready to use.

    If you have a very small deck with little parking space you will waste an enormous amount of time using the lifts to bring up and put away aircraft, when most of the time you really want to land... refuel and rearm and relaunch.

    You don't arm and fuel aircraft in the hangar... you do it with parked aircraft... it is too time consuming to do it on the launch position...

    Yeah but what is the only operational use the vessel has had? Bombing some guys without air force. CVs are used like that most of the time, like it or not...

    Actually no.

    If the Russian navy had to engage enemy ground forces most of the attacks will come from ship launched missiles, not aircraft delivered ordinance.

    Most of the testing done in Syria was not sending an Su-33 to drop an iron bomb on something... they did the full recon and mission planning, using a range of sources from satellites and drones to special forces on the ground... more often than not a Russian naval force would have then launched a cruise missile attack on an enemy force rather than send in a few Su-33s with Iron bombs... What happens if the dozen Su-33s are on a bombing mission and the enemy sends a few planes to attack the Russian Naval force?

    The Su-33 and MiG-33 are for air defence of the surface ships... why send them away to attack targets they could use a cruise missile to do much safer.

    Let's see, but I think UVAs will gain importance for almost any role and specially high persistence and high risk ones.

    There are some missions for which UAVs are ideally suited... being small and insignicant and flying high and looking for targets and threats... they are very good at.

    For doing the same and carrying a small amount of ordinance to take out one car or one building in case an important threat is discovered they are also excellent... largely misused by the US to murder people but moving along...

    For things like AWACS there is potential but for decent persistence, plus a powerful and effective enough radar and all the processing that is needed... ie airborne warning and control is not just AEW or airborne early warning... ie a radar in the sky to give early warning... it is early detection, classification and also control of ground and air assets to deal with the detected threat or target.

    You need people on board the AWACS platform that see the data and generate commands to direct forces on the sea and in the air... a drone can't do that.

    The AWACS plane might carry jamming drones and towed decoys, but it needs a crew.

    What is even better than a false flag? A false flag where you eliminate or discipline the guys in your own band that are pissing you off. This was apparently going to be blamed on Egypt but it didn't work out as intended...

    Indeed the blind loyalty only seems to go one way.

    Of course the problem isn't the Jews in the US with money and power... it is the evangelical christians with their stupid end of the world prophesies that involve Zion...

    UK relatively tame on the propaganda as Ustinov & Severomorsk head out through English Channel post-Navy Day

    Hahahahaha... how about a cruise missile up the Thames river with a warhead equipped with a real Novichok warhead to wipe out all of London and show those dicks what a real chemical attack looks like.

    hoom

    Posts : 1075
    Points : 1067
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom on Sat Aug 11, 2018 10:08 am

    Hahahahaha... how about a cruise missile up the Thames river with a warhead equipped with a real Novichok warhead to wipe out all of London and show those dicks what a real chemical attack looks like.
    Well they normally imply that the only thing stopping that from happening is the RN escort (even when it was just an OPV because nothing else was available), this time they just said 'through the UK area of interest' and 'routine' so its much lighter on the propaganda than typical.

    I've yet to discern a clear pattern to explain why sometimes they go meh 'routine' but other times 'zomg we stopped a Russkie invasion', it's clearly got nothing to do with the actual behaviour of the Russian ships & doesn't seem to particularly relate to the current level of Ru/UK political relationship since UK has been actively trying to push the Skripal 2 thing recently with latest claim that they're on the verge of demanding extradition of 'identified Russian agents'.

    From recollection the previous 'we stopped a Russkie invasion' one was shortly before a Parliamentary budget debate though...
    So I guess they got their budget increase? Or are still reeling from the Type 31 cancellation, maybe refusing to cooperate in Political action because of it? Suspect
    Getting pretty far OT there tho silent
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 612
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:04 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    So with that design I presume the aircraft enter at the front after they have landed and go up via the rear.
    Yes

    So basically to take another aircraft down you need to move every single aircraft in the hangar one space down.
    Not necessarily, you can place gaps as needed, or use the workshop space to bypass one particular plane, but roughly speaking you have a FIFO hangar. Nevertheless this is only a rough idea, if this was 100% ready and better in every sense I would be talking to Krylov not here on the internet Very Happy

    You get the plane on deck that is next in line no matter what aircraft type you actually need.
    Main hangars are for fighters or one for fighters and the other for UCAVs. Space on the deck hangars for AEW/AWACS if they were of a different type

    Planes have to roll sideways to move down the hangar.
    Yes, with automated skids. Imagine how much work this would save on the hangars. Look at the hangar of a LHA or a CV and tell me they are optimized as they are. They need lots of free space to move the planes back and forth that prevents them from having storage space. The technology to avoid this is available and cheap.

    BTW those hangars are tiny being only the width of a single fighter plane... so no chance at all of putting an AWACS platform in there at all...
    Originally the plan was to have a well close to the midline of the ship hence the hangars narrow and on the sides, but this is arguable since the multi-hull design allows also for increased height. Using planes of similar size helps in using the space better and keep the aircraft protected (i.e. in Artic conditions this is needed). As said above, there is additional place at the hangars on the deck or even additional levels of hangars if this was doable

    Where will you put the dozen or more helicopters?
    Here, see marked in red the deck hangars


    Very very few as far as I am aware because bombs are not fused until they are up on deck already mounted on the aircrafts wing where there is no chance of it getting bumped in handling.
    Thanks. This as everything is a case of risk assessment. The whole idea of having planes, bombs and fuel together in a nuclear vessel is not for people with low tolerance to risk to start with Razz

    If you make a ship 1/3rd shorter but twice as wide you are not making it cheaper or smaller in terms of volume and weight... it might be 100m shorter at 250m instead of 350m but it wont be lighter or smaller by volume.
    Not twice as wide as said. It will have much more internal volume that is for sure and that is one of the main advantages. Single hulls are very limited in every axis in this regard, no way to avoid it.


    By increasing the number of aircraft that can take off at one time by 4-5 times but only increasing the recovery rate by two you make flight management a nightmare and risk to losing aircraft much much higher.
    No GarryB, current CVNs have four launching positions and only one landing strip, many times with is sides crammed with planes. Again, you have to schedule your operations accordingly. Carrier operations ARE a nightmare and exceedingly dangerous. Do you think landing on a moving, angled deck full of aircraft scarcely 10 meters away of your strip is remotely safe? The risk of playing bowling with parked planes is huge. And the need to move aircraft around also. Imagine the amount of work and complexity when you need 5000 people on board. You can and must reduce this number several times in order to reach a size that can be handled with a sustainable economy. To do that you need to handle planes differently, not to go for a bigger and bigger deck.

    Your solution as it stands does not do a great job in my opinion.

    With cable based arresting systems you don't need a full deck length for landing, so having one deck for take off and one for landing, is using two decks where at the moment one deck is already doing the job.
    Just take a look at actual landing video and see the length of landing strip used. But nevertheless I am not against angled deck if it can be used while keeping the size of the ship within reasonable values, this goes well beyond my knowledge and available time.


    Talk about using the full length of the deck for takeoffs is interesting ONLY if that is needed... if you wanted MiG-21s to take off then a 250m run with EMALS cats could probably do the job... but why? Su-57s with new more powerful engines and thrust vectoring are smaller and lighter and rather more powerful than the Su-33s that currently take off from the K... with a slightly bigger 75K ship there would only be problems getting a heavy AWACS aircraft airborne... but that is what they are developing EMAL cats for.
    Fighters with T/W available today can take-off from a passive, simple, cheap sky-jump equipped vessel from the short runs even on full load. That is a massive step in terms of capacity, especially if you can launch from 4 positions (or more doing as you suggest with further positions down the strip). Or alternatively, have one strip full of aircraft ready to take off while the other is kept for landings. Or parallel landings when aircraft return from mission, without any other plane on the deck posing a risk. So you can configure for all take-off, all landing, mid-tempo and small fixed wing force / large helo force. You don't get this flexibility and safety with the conventional configuration.

    Bigger planes, if properly designed, can take-off from the long runs. I would never install catapults if a sky jump can do the job. What happens if the catapult is broken? Cancelling of take-offs until repair. Or you install more, independent units to higher cost to at least have some spare capacity. If the problem is the catapults place on the landing strip then you may need to cancel operations straight away or loose launching capability. All these features increase the costs, maintenance, labour and operational complexity of the current CVNs to extreme levels.

    A super wide vessel creates a lot of problems in navigation and port operations... is has to be for a very very good reason.
    Yes, port compatibility could be a major issue. Also the ability to use Suez or Panama, I did not research that. But the advantages are huge IMHO, I have listed them already many times. With four vessels like this one you would cover both CV and amphibious assault roles for Northern and Pacific fleet with a unit covering warm seas/ME and another undergoing maintenance. And the added self defence capabilities would reduce the need for escort many times.


    Looking at your design posted above you have one entire deck taking off and one for landing though the front of the landing deck you have indicated takeoff points... ie two on each deck near the front for the short take off run positions.
    Yes, during operations at normal tempo this would be the deck configuration

    With the take off deck you could have at least three more take off positions (if the front short take off positions are long enough to take off then anything behind that could also be used... you just need  deck mounted blast reflectors to raise up and protect the aircraft behind.

    That means in the shortest take off run you have four aircraft on both decks, then the next line of two aircraft behind the two on the take off deck according to your drawing could be level with the VLS cells, and then another position level with the green arrow head on the drawing, while if you have another take off position at the very rear of the deck you could have another position between the rear and last position.

    That means five takeoff points on the take off side from the very rear... which does not need engine exhaust deflectors, up to the front positions at the short take off position... each launch position has two aircraft so 5 x 2 plus the other 2 on the landing deck side, so that means 12 aircraft launches in rapid succession... the time it would take between launches is the time it takes to drop the blast shields down on the deck after the aircraft are gone... so pretty damn fast.
    Yes this is possible, and you could land on the other side at the same time and operate helos from the rear...

    So you have 12 aircraft in the air and in an hours time when they are low on fuel you have 12 aircraft wanting to land... normally you can land one at a time... if you close down the take off deck you can land two at a time, but not actually simultaneously...

    Bottleneck.
    Blessed bottleneck, twice as wide as a super CVN. Do you know any CV were this is different? In a modern CVN you launch from 4 positions and land on one...bottleneck.

    The important issue is that you can send more aircraft in the air and also receive more per unit of time than a CVN.

    Because in real operations there is no real protection or advantage to keeping all the planes down in the hangar... most aircraft spend their time on the deck where they are ready to use.

    If you have a very small deck with little parking space you will waste an enormous amount of time using the lifts to bring up and put away aircraft, when most of the time you really want to land... refuel and rearm and relaunch.

    You don't arm and fuel aircraft in the hangar... you do it with parked aircraft... it is too time consuming to do it on the launch position...
    You can fill launch positions on the take-off strip and operate like you expose above without interfering with landings. There are places at the bow, middle and stern to cross from one deck to the other after landing. Additional place for parking bow and stern. Only not too much space wasted on the deck. Lifts can be made bigger as well to carry too planes and loose less time with them, but honestly we are going too far. Only to prepare a catapult launch takes a good while and this config is already so much faster.

    Actually no.

    If the Russian navy had to engage enemy ground forces most of the attacks will come from ship launched missiles, not aircraft delivered ordinance.

    Most of the testing done in Syria was not sending an Su-33 to drop an iron bomb on something... they did the full recon and mission planning, using a range of sources from satellites and drones to special forces on the ground... more often than not a Russian naval force would have then launched a cruise missile attack on an enemy force rather than send in a few Su-33s with Iron bombs... What happens if the dozen Su-33s are on a bombing mission and the enemy sends a few planes to attack the Russian Naval force?

    The Su-33 and MiG-33 are for air defence of the surface ships... why send them away to attack targets they could use a cruise missile to do much safer.
    What you explain makes sense but is theory, current experience with K and other CVs in advanced phases of a conflict is to bomb on the cheap, instead of launching expensive CMs all of the time. I agree nevertheless that CMs are used each time more. But in a conflict like Syria a carrier with 3 or 4 squadrons like 100 km far from the coast could have been safer than Hmeimym in regards of militant attacks and fill the strike role on that intensity relatively easily most of the time.

    The example you propose would correspond rather to an early phase of a conflict when you deal with air force and AD rather than using all you resources for bombing. In any case you need to program your forces to deal with both strike and AD roles. With a ship like proposed you could have easily 4 squadrons on board + huge SAM capacity to increase your operational effectiveness several times compared to the K.

    There are some missions for which UAVs are ideally suited... being small and insignicant and flying high and looking for targets and threats... they are very good at.

    For doing the same and carrying a small amount of ordinance to take out one car or one building in case an important threat is discovered they are also excellent... largely misused by the US to murder people but moving along...

    For things like AWACS there is potential but for decent persistence, plus a powerful and effective enough radar and all the processing that is needed... ie airborne warning and control is not just AEW or airborne early warning... ie a radar in the sky to give early warning... it is early detection, classification and also control of ground and air assets to deal with the detected threat or target.

    You need people on board the AWACS platform that see the data and generate commands to direct forces on the sea and in the air... a drone can't do that.

    The AWACS plane might carry jamming drones and towed decoys, but it needs a crew.

    Inefficient approach for today IMO. The ship can house the crew much more effectively and then use LPI links to AEW UVAs or fighters to relay information and commands. Conventional AWACS are dead in a high intensity conflict. In fact I think a distributed AEW capability on board of LO and/or kinetically apt planes is much better, and modern "active skins" as said can be very useful in that regard.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:08 am

    Yes, with automated skids. Imagine how much work this would save on the hangars.

    Automated skids?

    Would it not just be easier to turn them 90 degrees?

    Then you could either have two side by side... or even better have some space down the entire length of the hangar so aircraft can be taken out of turn to be raised to the deck and launched?

    Originally the plan was to have a well close to the midline of the ship hence the hangars narrow and on the sides, but this is arguable since the multi-hull design allows also for increased height. Using planes of similar size helps in using the space better and keep the aircraft protected (i.e. in Artic conditions this is needed). As said above, there is additional place at the hangars on the deck or even additional levels of hangars if this was doable

    Actually the smaller the island is on the deck the better... the island performs two roles... tower for the airfield that is the carrier and bridge of the ship... otherwise it would be better to have as small a tower as possible.

    A big island means less parking space for aircraft... (note some designs have two "towers"... one for the ships bridge and one for landing control...

    Here, see marked in red the deck hangars

    Barely long enough to get three in and not wide enough for more than one... how are you going to get 20 odd helos in there, let alone a workshop to support their operations...

    The whole idea of having planes, bombs and fuel together in a nuclear vessel is not for people with low tolerance to risk to start with

    Indeed, but experience has led to certain best practises being adopted... like fuelling and arming only on the deck... on a US carrier the people who do that wear Blue and Red respectively I think...

    The risk of playing bowling with parked planes is huge.

    That problem was solved with the angled landing deck.

    It is the straight deck design that reintroduces that problem.

    You can and must reduce this number several times in order to reach a size that can be handled with a sustainable economy. To do that you need to handle planes differently, not to go for a bigger and bigger deck.

    If you can afford a sea going blue water navy then you need a carrier as a force multiplier.

    Ground forces are cheaper without air force support, but are generally much more effective in attack and defence with air support.

    Surface ships are cheaper without a carrier, but are much more effective in attack and defence with a carrier.

    Just take a look at actual landing video and see the length of landing strip used. But nevertheless I am not against angled deck if it can be used while keeping the size of the ship within reasonable values, this goes well beyond my knowledge and available time.

    The purpose of the angled deck is to allow landings without having to clear all the aircraft off the deck... it can be applied to any design including your suggestion.

    Fighters with T/W available today can take-off from a passive, simple, cheap sky-jump equipped vessel from the short runs even on full load. That is a massive step in terms of capacity, especially if you can launch from 4 positions (or more doing as you suggest with further positions down the strip).

    The K already has that capacity with flankers and fulcrums... the problem is lack of AWACS, which is being solved by EMALS.

    A straight deck cat is no replacement for an EM cat...

    I would never install catapults if a sky jump can do the job. What happens if the catapult is broken?

    Heavy aircraft will never be able to use ski jump takeoffs... the sudden vertical gs would break them... the pieces would just drop into the sea.

    What happens if the catapult is broken? Cancelling of take-offs until repair. Or you install more, independent units to higher cost to at least have some spare capacity. If the problem is the catapults place on the landing strip then you may need to cancel operations straight away or loose launching capability. All these features increase the costs, maintenance, labour and operational complexity of the current CVNs to extreme levels.

    That is just silly. What if the breaking mechanism for your cable landing system breaks, like it did for the K in Syria... they don't carry replacement gear systems... they carry spare cables, but with the gear broken every cable will snap every time... if they didn't why would you bother with gears for landing in the first place.

    If the problem is that the EM catapult system has failed that means the heavy aircraft are grounded so you can only operate fighters... big deal.

    When the EM system is working you get vastly superior operational performance than you will ever get with just ski jumps (ie no AWACS heavy aircraft).

    Yes, port compatibility could be a major issue. Also the ability to use Suez or Panama, I did not research that. But the advantages are huge IMHO, I have listed them already many times. With four vessels like this one you would cover both CV and amphibious assault roles for Northern and Pacific fleet with a unit covering warm seas/ME and another undergoing maintenance. And the added self defence capabilities would reduce the need for escort many times.

    A 100m shorter but double width vessel is not going to be light or cheap and there are going to be a lot of places these ships simply cannot go.

    These carriers are going to be 60K ton plus... there is simply no way they could possibly be any lighter than the K and in my opinion will likely be actually very very heavy... 90K ton plus... you are not going to save any money using these ships for both fixed wing carrier and landing ships... they are likely to build new ships very much influenced but different from the Mistrals and at most they will be 30-35K ton each and much much cheaper than any cat carrier.

    Blessed bottleneck, twice as wide as a super CVN. Do you know any CV were this is different? In a modern CVN you launch from 4 positions and land on one...bottleneck.

    On a super carrier one of those aircraft in the air is an AWACS aircraft that can be up for a very long time. It can also launch tanker aircraft to other aircraft in the air getting low on fuel can remain in the air longer.

    A modern CVN can launch from 4 positions, but that does not mean that it does.

    [quote]
    The important issue is that you can send more aircraft in the air and also receive more per unit of time than a CVN. [/qutoe]

    You can launch 5 times more but only recover them twice as fast as a standard carrier.

    Only not too much space wasted on the deck.

    By using a straight deck you are wasting much more deck than a standard CVN.

    Only to prepare a catapult launch takes a good while and this config is already so much faster.

    It does not take that long to hook the plane into a cat and launch it... it takes rather more time to fuel and arm it.

    What you explain makes sense but is theory, current experience with K and other CVs in advanced phases of a conflict is to bomb on the cheap, instead of launching expensive CMs all of the time.

    Most conflicts Russia will be using a surface fleet intervention for would be in places where there is no question of air control on land, or during an air attack on the Russian surface fleet. In the former an Su-33 at 10km altitude with dumb bombs has proven effective given accurate target information. In the latter the Su-33 and MiG-33 should be enough to blunt any attack on the ships... deployed well forward to deal with a mass anti ship missile attack, by taking on the aircraft delivering the missiles and the missiles themselves, or deployed a few hundred kms in front of the ships in case of an aircraft attack where ship launched long range SAM missiles can be used against incoming aircraft and missiles.

    Improvements in missile technology suggest dogfighting should not be a problem, but given the choice of a MiG-33 or Su-33 against an F-18 or naval F-35 my money would be on the Russians...

    The example you propose would correspond rather to an early phase of a conflict when you deal with air force and AD rather than using all you resources for bombing. In any case you need to program your forces to deal with both strike and AD roles. With a ship like proposed you could have easily 4 squadrons on board + huge SAM capacity to increase your operational effectiveness several times compared to the K.

    The purpose of a Russian carrier is to defend Russian ships from enemy air power... land based or sea based.

    It is not intended to invade the US or EU, it is intended to protect Russian interests world wide.

    Inefficient approach for today IMO. The ship can house the crew much more effectively and then use LPI links to AEW UVAs or fighters to relay information and commands.

    It is all about dataflow... if you have a big radar... whether it is in a UAV or AWACS or even a blimp, then to actually gather useful information you need to transmit radiation... radiated signals that can be detected at more than twice the distance they can actually gather information to...

    That is going to reveal its position... that is a given... the amount of communications signals and data will be enormous... even more so for an AEW like a UAV because it doesn't process the information it just beams it to nearby ships, who process the information... so what does that ship do?

    It will need to send commands to the UAV to tell it where to scan and to perhaps take a better look in one direction or another because of the data it sent before... it will also need to send its information to other ships and any aircraft already in the air to deal with any threats or targets that might have been detected.

    From an enemies perspective a huge signal has appeared in the air a few thousand kms off their shores... then despite being over the horizon they detect electronic traffic with at least one ship... those two objects become targets... Tomahawks can be fired immediately against the ship and aircraft can be sent to engage the aircraft.... the tomahawks would be detected early, but all those ships will be lighting up their SAMs and the radars they need to detect and engage incoming missiles... the Falklands conflict showed missiles jammed by military ships re-targeted civilian ships used as troop transports and support vessels... so I doubt any military ship will remain blind with its radar off when under attack... anti ship missiles after the emitting ship could easily come across other radar and radio silent vessels and attack them anyway...

    In comparison a proper AWACS aircraft will also be detected but its transmissions will be LPI radar scans and burst transmissions of commands to ships and aircraft that wont reply... so there is this plane off your coast that seems to be scanning, and occasionally sending short range burst transmissions.

    A simple scaled up K with EM cats and an AWACS platform and naval Su-63s (Su-27 = naval Su-33, so Su-57 = naval Su-63) can do everything they need... no need for huge exotic catamaran carriers... no matter how interesting they could be... just look up catamaran aircraft carrier in Yandex or Google...
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 612
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:55 pm

    @GarryB:

    As said this is only a suggestion in order to think about the possible advantages of changing the hull shape. IMHO this is still very promising in many aspects (only the increased take-off and landing capabilities and increased internal space would be enough to make it a superior weapon) despite some drawbacks and, speaking more broadly, the opportunities to modify many aspects of current paradigms in CV use exist. Russia should make use of these possibilities to develop their own carrier concept since conventional CV design and doctrine are not really optimal for them. Neither a single Kuznetsov, nor some Lavinas plus Shtorms or small carriers for STOVL aircraft are an optimal answer considering needs and available resources. Russia needs ships as cheap and small as possible, as versatile as possible and with very high defensive capabilities. If the answer to these requirements was clear and undisputed Russia would already have several units, instead what they have are endless discussions.



    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:22 am

    I agree Russia should keep an open mind and remain aware that a new design might be made possible with new propulsion, new materials, and new technology, but the current angle deck carrier took decades to develop and was developed for sound reasons, and to just ignore all that to be cool or modern looking is very foolish... if only for the reasons that there will likely be some very harsh and painful lessons to be learned before it becomes mature capable technology.

    Instead of going for a 70K ton plus fixed wing CVN, perhaps make a Mistral sized amphibious assault carrier from a multi hull design... such a vessel would certainly benefit from having an enormous armour deck, with lots of space in the hangar and on deck for all sorts of things.

    Hell... if you wanted to you could use one side for helicopter operations and the other side could have Grad batteries and Tornado batteries and Smerch batteries to support the landing with ground to ground artillery fire... a SERNA landing vessel, which could do 30 KNTs could have a Coalition artillery gun on board but instead of landing it could zip up and down the coastline firing 152mm shells up to 70kms inland with a CEP of 10m... The lack of stability of the gun platform in the open ocean shouldn't matter with the guided shells... when it has fired off all its ammo it can return to the ship and while reloading the SERNA can land an armoured vehicle and come back and pick up another Coalition to continue to support the troops landing.

    Think outside the square...
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 612
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:24 pm

    GarryB:
    Believe me, I do not give a f*ck about weapons systems looking modern or cool... sound functional requirements result by themselves in harmonious and good-looking weapons almost without exception.

    Agree the deviation from canonical CV design would mean learning painful lessons. Maybe Russia is more conservative and prefers Americans doing the heavy lifting? It is a time-proven strategy Very Happy

    In regards of the amphibious support options, on-board artillery is indeed an option (at least one cannon is almost mandatory) but would rely on deep magazines of CMs for the first attacks and planes / high speed helos in the next ones. You don't necessarily want your vessel in range of enemy artillery too...

    As a sideline, do you remember our old discussion about the UAV for take-off assistance? It is just a matter of time Razz

    https://twitter.com/TheWoracle/status/1028802986506702849
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:17 am

    Agree the deviation from canonical CV design would mean learning painful lessons. Maybe Russia is more conservative and prefers Americans doing the heavy lifting? It is a time-proven strategy

    There might be a new design that ticks all the boxes and solves existing problems but makes new systems or a new way of doing things better possible, but it is not the case that alternative designs have not been considered before or tested before... it is like the problem of replacing a modern assault rifle... it is not simply the case of needing to be better... it needs to be so much better that it offers things current models cannot be adapted to do... and for the moment it does not look realistic... especially considering their might be hidden problems that make it less useful than a conventional design.

    It is like the design of the tank... there was no set design for quite some time... it was a dual purpose gun and heavy armour that rendered multi turret tanks obsolete... but with remote weapon positions with automatic target tracking you might end up with a future APC with multiple machine gun turrets able to cover angles on their own.

    The whole point of a big carrier is a big AWACS platform and they can only be launched with a catapult system... ski jump ramps would break what is basically a light transport aircraft with a big radar on its back filled with electronics...

    Ski jumps are very good for light fighters and even heavy fighters, but no good for heavy planes like inflight refuelling tankers or AWACS aircraft.

    And no, Russia could never expect any assistance from the US or NATO... they would probably end up killing more Russian soldiers than they save anyway.

    In regards of the amphibious support options, on-board artillery is indeed an option (at least one cannon is almost mandatory) but would rely on deep magazines of CMs for the first attacks and planes / high speed helos in the next ones. You don't necessarily want your vessel in range of enemy artillery too...

    Smerch has a range of almost 100km... if you are landing things you don't want to be thousands of kms from the beach... sometimes you have to take some risks... but a 203mm gun should be able to fire a significant distance... perhaps 120km or so with guided shells.

    SERNA landing ships could bring them closer to the beach to fire too.

    As a sideline, do you remember our old discussion about the UAV for take-off assistance? It is just a matter of time

    Such designs are intended to allow for smaller carriers... a smaller carrier has less endurance, less capacity, and is more weakly armed and equipped to defend itself.

    Carrier are never cheap... a carrier group is expensive to operate in itself and saving some cash by making them less well protected and less mobile is very short sighted... spending a little more money to be able to launch much more capable heavy aircraft is worth every rouble.... because some small little half assed UAV used to look for threats might not spot a real threat early enough to make a difference.

    Equally planes not powerful enough to get airborne on their own would be too underpowered to be effective in combat...

    Such designs will be pushed by countries too cheap to continue using cats... they will also suggest VSTOL aircraft are a good idea too, but the reality is that this option is being forced on them because they are too cheap to buy a good sized carrier.

    If VSTOLS were all that why did the UK and France build the QE and the Charles De Gaul? They could have simply built Mistral sized ships and built 5 times as many
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 612
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:19 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    There might be a new design that ticks all the boxes and solves existing problems but makes new systems or a new way of doing things better possible, but it is not the case that alternative designs have not been considered before or tested before... it is like the problem of replacing a modern assault rifle... it is not simply the case of needing to be better... it needs to be so much better that it offers things current models cannot be adapted to do... and for the moment it does not look realistic... especially considering their might be hidden problems that make it less useful than a conventional design.

    It is like the design of the tank... there was no set design for quite some time... it was a dual purpose gun and heavy armour that rendered multi turret tanks obsolete... but with remote weapon positions with automatic target tracking you might end up with a future APC with multiple machine gun turrets able to cover angles on their own.
    Broadly agree. In the case of a carrier, the design is IMHO rather dated and far from being optimal in many regards, but given the cost, size and length of developmental cycles involved, the risk of going a different direction and screwing it is simply massive. Probably this is the reason CVs have evolved so little since the 50's
    BTW, Russia just revolutionized the tank design with the T-14 like 100 years after its invention, so never say never.

    The whole point of a big carrier is a big AWACS platform and they can only be launched with a catapult system... ski jump ramps would break what is basically a light transport aircraft with a big radar on its back filled with electronics...

    Ski jumps are very good for light fighters and even heavy fighters, but no good for heavy planes like inflight refuelling tankers or AWACS aircraft.
    Have to disagree both that a full blown AWACS is needed and also that sky jump would necessarily break it if designed properly. Shock during landing is many times stronger than going up the ramp, just look at the compression of the shock struts in any deck operation video. Search for mishaps or accidents and look the impacts the aircraft handle before breaking, they are massive.

    And no, Russia could never expect any assistance from the US or NATO... they would probably end up killing more Russian soldiers than they save anyway.
    I meant, let them do the expenses for developing new kinds of CVs (the discussion is on also in US due to exorbitant prices of CVNs and increasing vulnerabilities even against modest militaries). Then learn from their problems and only take the valid solutions, as done so many times in the past.


    Smerch has a range of almost 100km... if you are landing things you don't want to be thousands of kms from the beach... sometimes you have to take some risks... but a 203mm gun should be able to fire a significant distance... perhaps 120km or so with guided shells.

    SERNA landing ships could bring them closer to the beach to fire too.
    Well, that is unconventional but if the conditions call for it, why not? It wouldn't be incompatible with the proposed design. A deck full of Smerch opening fire would be a thing to be seen! Very Happy

    Such designs are intended to allow for smaller carriers... a smaller carrier has less endurance, less capacity, and is more weakly armed and equipped to defend itself.
    This particular example is for airliners, so they can be optimized for cruise and not for take off. It is the same approach I submitted: put the characteristics you need for take off in some vehicle you actually only use for take off. Don't put the burden on the plane you need optimized for fighting as it happens in STOVL.

    Carrier are never cheap... a carrier group is expensive to operate in itself and saving some cash by making them less well protected and less mobile is very short sighted... spending a little more money to be able to launch much more capable heavy aircraft is worth every rouble.... because some small little half assed UAV used to look for threats might not spot a real threat early enough to make a difference.
    UCAVs are not half arsed aircraft. X-47B or Okhotnik are 20+ ton with huge fuel reserves, payload and endurance. And AI will make them exceedingly capable before any Russian carrier gets built. I would not rule out that they can be performing full AWACS role almost autonomously in 10 to 15 years. Machines do not need man-machine interface you know, so they are many orders of magnitude faster handling and relaying information that an operator... they will learn in parallel and not need training. Human obsolescence is coming fast man.

    Radar arrays can be placed at the leading / trailing edges like in a previous Soviet proposal, eliminating he need of the bulky dorsal antenna and going further to GaN devices the size will decrease manifold, this is not too far away. Not even talking about rofar. Processing equipment could be included as payload in the weapon bays so the aircraft could be used in other ways if needed, avoiding the need to multiply resources on board.


    Equally planes not powerful enough to get airborne on their own would be too underpowered to be effective in combat...

    Such designs will be pushed by countries too cheap to continue using cats... they will also suggest VSTOL aircraft are a good idea too, but the reality is that this option is being forced on them because they are too cheap to buy a good sized carrier.

    If VSTOLS were all that why did the UK and France build the QE and the Charles De Gaul? They could have simply built Mistral sized ships and built 5 times as many

    QE is for STOVL right? Charles de Gaule remains if I am not wrong the only non-US carrier with catapults, until the Chinese finish developing their EMALS system. The US is apparently still struggling badly with their own one. This suggest to me that this thing (be it steam or electromagnetic) is a real pain in the ass. Why only US using them practically, when they are so powerful? This is the intriguing question for me. And of course, they loose every time more and more relevance since modern engines allow fighters to take off full load on a sky jump, modern electronics allow smaller planes to cover AWACS role and high-speed helicopters are about to appear. All this calls for a revision of paradigms.

    Have to agree that STOVL aircraft and carriers is a half-arsed solution though!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:10 pm

    Broadly agree. In the case of a carrier, the design is IMHO rather dated and far from being optimal in many regards, but given the cost, size and length of developmental cycles involved, the risk of going a different direction and screwing it is simply massive. Probably this is the reason CVs have evolved so little since the 50's
    BTW, Russia just revolutionized the tank design with the T-14 like 100 years after its invention, so never say never.

    The angled landing deck carrier design works... and you can really only call it outdated when something proven to actually work and be superior gets into service.

    The T-14 will revolutionise armoured vehicle design, because it is an entire vehicle family, but to be honest there are places throughout Russia where a T-90 is good enough and will be for decades to come. (Note with the addition of ARENA-2, old model vehicles will have rather good protection even against current threats).

    Have to disagree both that a full blown AWACS is needed and also that sky jump would necessarily break it if designed properly.

    If full blown AWACS is not needed then Russia can just build two more Kuznetsov class carriers and use Ka-31 AEW aircraft.

    The fact is that while much better than nothing, a proper AWACS platform is much better.

    If you are going to have hundreds then a half arsed design is OK because it has numbers on its side... but they can't afford hundreds because that would eat in to the number of real fighters on board. UAVs are interesting but flaky and no one has an operational AWACS UAV... noone.

    Do you think more risk is OK?

    Landing stresses is taken by the undercarriage... getting thrust upwards at the point of launch is taken by the wings... wings already near max weights because of fuel load... there is a reason no AWACS aircraft take off via a ski jump.

    I meant, let them do the expenses for developing new kinds of CVs (the discussion is on also in US due to exorbitant prices of CVNs and increasing vulnerabilities even against modest militaries). Then learn from their problems and only take the valid solutions, as done so many times in the past.

    I agree, but any new design that is of course going to be unproven is going to attract costs and there wont ever be a cheap carrier option... trust me... the Brits invented 99% of all carrier related technology and they went to the extreme of VSTOL carriers... which had enormous potential for failure... they were very lucky in the Falklands war to come away as well as they did...

    This particular example is for airliners, so they can be optimized for cruise and not for take off. It is the same approach I submitted: put the characteristics you need for take off in some vehicle you actually only use for take off. Don't put the burden on the plane you need optimized for fighting as it happens in STOVL.

    But you hit on your own problem... if you are going to use an assisted take off system so aircraft don't need such big powerful engines to operate on a carrier... to improve performance once they are airborne.. That is fine for a transport or AWACS platform, but that is death to a fighter plane... low power to weight ratio and fuel efficiency was never a good feature of a fighter.

    If you only want the assisted take off option for heavy slow aircraft then... that is what EMALS is all about.

    EMALS is being developed and will create a lot of very useful technologies as a byproduct... I don't understand why you are so set against it.

    UCAVs are not half arsed aircraft. X-47B or Okhotnik are 20+ ton with huge fuel reserves, payload and endurance. And AI will make them exceedingly capable before any Russian carrier gets built. I would not rule out that they can be performing full AWACS role almost autonomously in 10 to 15 years. Machines do not need man-machine interface you know, so they are many orders of magnitude faster handling and relaying information that an operator... they will learn in parallel and not need training. Human obsolescence is coming fast man.

    With the nuclear jet engines they are using in their unlimited range cruise missiles they could make a large UAV with unlimited range and onboard electrical power that never lands and just flys around with carrier groups or just surface groups to support operations... but the point is that to operate from a carrier a big heavy aircraft carrying a radar... with people on board it is far more autonomous and capable... people on the aircraft looking at the data processed by onboard computers can direct aircraft and ships and subs... AI might get to that level at some time but for now it needs humans.

    Claiming Russia could build an AI AWACS to replace human based alternatives suggests there is something ready for that role... and AFAIK there is not.

    Radar arrays can be placed at the leading / trailing edges like in a previous Soviet proposal, eliminating he need of the bulky dorsal antenna and going further to GaN devices the size will decrease manifold, this is not too far away. Not even talking about rofar. Processing equipment could be included as payload in the weapon bays so the aircraft could be used in other ways if needed, avoiding the need to multiply resources on board.

    That would apply to both manned and unmanned aircraft... and I would suggest new technology systems would be worth waiting for... the suggestions of performance are eye watering.

    The US is apparently still struggling badly with their own one.

    The US is struggling with all its new super ships... Zumwalt.. and LCS... it is all about making the money disappear...

    This suggest to me that this thing (be it steam or electromagnetic) is a real pain in the ass. Why only US using them practically, when they are so powerful? This is the intriguing question for me.

    The British are too cheap to spend the money on large carriers... the bean counters are in charge... the money they waste on half planes like VSTOL F-35 would be better spent on EMALS.

    The technology is new, so of course there will be problems... problems that need new technology and materials for the solution... research and development in EMALS would be broadly applied to a wide range of fields and would be generally beneficial for the Russians... unlike VSTOL technology... they already have helicopters...

    And of course, they loose every time more and more relevance since modern engines allow fighters to take off full load on a sky jump, modern electronics allow smaller planes to cover AWACS role and high-speed helicopters are about to appear. All this calls for a revision of paradigms.

    The Ka-31 is a 12 ton helicopter and it only carries the antenna array... no computer processing of data... as you mentioned yourself a fighter is not an AWACS platform... it does not have the endurance... plenty of speed and performance but that is not important with an AWACS platform.

    How about a tethered airship... or one with nuclear cruise missile engines to manouver...

    Have to agree that STOVL aircraft and carriers is a half-arsed solution though!

    If the British had a proper carrier with AWACS and fighters with BVR missile capability it would have been much more one sided.

    Of course if the Argentines had MiG-23s with BVR missiles and with swing wing performance to take off from the islands themselves instead of operating from the mainland things could have been totally different.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 821
    Points : 821
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:49 pm

    The only runway on Falklands was bombed by the RAF Vulcan. The AAF/N was expecting more raids on it & moved all their fighters to the mainland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck

    If Russia is going to develop her own manned tilt rotors eventually, & I think they will, they could have AWACS & tankers based on them, saving on the CAT system & the Yak-44. They still have enough time to do it before the planned start of their 1st CVN construction.
    This would make an ideal carrier borne AEW aircraft, like the E-2 Hawkeye or a COD (Cargo On Deck) aircraft like the C-2 Greyhound, albeit an expensive alternative!
    This would suit the carriers of the Royal Navy or the French navy, given the smaller stature of their ships compared to the United States. https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/01/osprey-capabilty-versus-cost-is-it-really-worth-it/
    https://www.military.com/defensetech/2012/07/09/ospreys-next-jobs-tanker-or-awacs

    By the same token, it would suit the smaller RuN CVNs as well!

    The only reason the US & France didn't yet is because they already have the E-2 AWACS & the CAT, with EMALS on the CVN-78:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gerald_R._Ford#Operational_and_major_system_testing

    Preparations "for ocean warfare when the ship deploys in 2022" r also underway: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/07/18/navys-uss-ford-set-for-upgraded-ship-defense-weapons.html


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 612
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The angled landing deck carrier design works... and you can really only call it outdated when something proven to actually work and be superior gets into service.
    I am referring to the concept itself, not to the angled deck which is a single feature that can be good or bad depending on the implementation


    UAVs are interesting but flaky and no one has an operational AWACS UAV... noone.

    Do you think more risk is OK?
    Russian carriers are a long term project. Air wing needs to be conceived considering prospective solutions, not only existing ones. Especially if this is going to mean important compromises like size, use of catapults and other defining considerations


    Landing stresses is taken by the undercarriage... getting thrust upwards at the point of launch is taken by the wings... wings already near max weights because of fuel load... there is a reason no AWACS aircraft take off via a ski jump.

    Landing is absorbed by the undercarriage... and airframe. Conversely, any marked g loading at the ramp would be absorbed by the landing gear as well! Check mark 9:26 in this video to see how smooth take-off is compared to a landing (from minute 10 onwards, with interesting shots of the arresting damper in operation)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpwsGPG_sN8

    The Greyhounds are going to be substituted by the MV-22 because they cannot handle the landings with high weight so even with catapults an alternative was necessary for those old pieces of junk.  Razz
    And remember, you need to be able to land at any take-off weight (discounted consumed fuel of course) in case of emergency. So landing remains the limiting value for those planes it seems...

    BTW, stall speed of E-2 is extremely low, look at the mark 0:40  Shocked

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkGPTRiD3Ig

    This would allow for remarkably slow take-offs. In any case as said, there are other options than legacy transport planes for this role.

    With the nuclear jet engines they are using in their unlimited range cruise missiles they could make a large UAV with unlimited range and onboard electrical power that never lands and just flys around with carrier groups or just surface groups to support operations...

    That would be a great idea, if the engine is not a source of radiation. This is dubious given the restricted use it has, at least until now.

    but the point is that to operate from a carrier a big heavy aircraft carrying a radar... with people on board it is far more autonomous and capable... people on the aircraft looking at the data processed by onboard computers can direct aircraft and ships and subs... AI might get to that level at some time but for now it needs humans.

    In case of intense jamming or enemy air attack the AWACS can be isolated, silenced or pulled back. An isolated fighter has some level of use and autonomy by being manned, an isolated AWACs has no use apart from being an easy, high value target for the enemy. Technology allows to distribute this role among more numerous, less costly and more survivable platforms and this is what will probably happen in future IMHO. In fact is already happening with planes like F-35 and its intelligence and communication capabilities


    The British are too cheap to spend the money on large carriers... the bean counters are in charge... the money they waste on half planes like VSTOL F-35 would be better spent on EMALS.

    The technology is new, so of course there will be problems... problems that need new technology and materials for the solution... research and development in EMALS would be broadly applied to a wide range of fields and would be generally beneficial for the Russians... unlike VSTOL technology... they already have helicopters...

    Garry, you are dodging the answer you know? Very Happy There are many carrier operators but very few of them operate catapults. Why?

    How about a tethered airship... or one with nuclear cruise missile engines to manouver...
    Yes, this remains an interesting option. I have not seen any suggestion that industry is exploring it so I remain cautious but if applicable would open many excellent options as discussed.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 612
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:56 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:The only runway on Falklands was bombed by the RAF Vulcan. The AAF/N was expecting more raids on it & moved all their fighters to the mainland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck

    If Russia is going to develop her own manned tilt rotors eventually, & I think they will, they could have AWACS & tankers based on them, saving on the CAT system & the Yak-44. They still have enough time to do it before the planned start of their 1st CVN construction.
    The only reason US & France didn't is because they already have the E-2 AWACS & the CAT, with EMALS now being tested on the CVN-78.

    Good info about Malvinas thanks! Seems some of the merit goes to the old ugly bombers even when STOVL took the credit for the successful campaign Razz

    Regarding the US as said the MV-22 is already taking over for transport role, even with cats for the reasons explained.

    As to Russian tiltrotors, it is an option but I think they seem to be very complex and maintenance intensive. And Russians have long-ongoing programs to develop high speed helos with similar characteristics. So I would not see the need for one additional headache and would instead concentrate on the helos, with maybe one version of the Ka-52 (which is asking loud to get one propeller on the tail) and one big fat multirole model for ASW / transport / rescue and maybe AEW with speed, range and payload. That would fill the needed roles quite effectively I would say.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 821
    Points : 821
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:19 pm

    ..and maybe AEW with speed, range and payload.

    That may be harder or impossible to achieve on a helo, but they could be deployed on escorts &/ supply ships to make up for it, so there's no need for E-2's speed & range.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 612
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:30 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:That may be harder or impossible to achieve on a helo, but they could be deployed on escorts &/ supply ships to make up for it, so there's no need for E-2's speed & range.

    Last thing I heard was like 30 people, 1000 km, >500 km/h for the Ka-92, but that was preliminary information. Slightly less range than the MV-22 but same speed and similar payload. As you say their lower footprint would allow to deploy them in smaller vessels too.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2489
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:34 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    ..and maybe AEW with speed, range and payload.

    That may be harder or impossible to achieve on a helo, but they could be deployed on escorts &/ supply ships to make up for it, so there's no need for E-2's speed & range.

    Without a catapult the only way to get that is something like a V-22 AEW. The heliborne AEW the British are using is a joke compared to what the French and Americans have. If we were serious about naval aviation we would get catapults and make an Il-112V AEW. But then we aren't really serious about it.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 821
    Points : 821
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:06 pm

    The radome/folding antenna & all electronic gear will increase weight & drag, thus decreasing its range & speed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-92
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201804031154-qkfd.htm

    Time will tell!
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 612
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:44 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:The radome/folding antenna & all electronic gear will increase weight & drag, thus decreasing its range & speed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-92
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201804031154-qkfd.htm

    Time will tell!

    Good link at Zvezda

    Main option for the AEW role on a carrier would be IMHO a big UAV, not a helo. Alternatively, the antenna may be integrated in the rotor in the future, since the blades get thicker and slower in order to reduce tip's speed and the propeller takes over the horizontal propulsion, who knows?

    @Vladimir79: Russian navy does not look serious about carriers because it has still (apparently) not found their own needs, doctrine and corresponding solutions. This will develop in coming decades I think.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 821
    Points : 821
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:50 am

    The construction of the century in Turkey: Ankara intends to dig up another Bosporus
    At the Montreux convention, the construction of a new channel will not be affected in any way. After all, it (the convention) applies not only to the Bosporus, but also to the Dardanelles.
    https://finobzor.ru/66358-turciya-gotova-stroit-dubler-bosfora.html?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

    They'll need to dig a 2nd canal to bypass it too, since:
    The Dardanelles is 61 kilometres (38 mi) long, and 1.2 to 6 kilometres (0.75 to 3.73 mi) wide, averaging 55 metres (180 ft) deep ..
    The very narrow and winding shape of the strait is more akin to that of a river. It is considered one of the most hazardous, crowded, difficult and potentially dangerous waterways in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardanelles#Present_morphology
    If of them r built, Russia can have her future CVNs sail in/out of the Black Sea bypassing the Montreux convention restrictions. To prohibit them in the Black Sea, a new treaty will need to be drafted & ratified by all.


    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2262
    Points : 2283
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:50 am

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t5535p175-military-aviation-industry-news#232258

    miketheterrible wrote:here is an article about what was said apparently:

    https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=3051169&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

    The domestic aviation industry is undergoing big changes. In a year and a half, Russia will supply the market with the brand-new MC-21 medium-haul airliner — this is the main hope of our civil aviation. Meanwhile, the Russian Air Force has high hopes for the main military breakthrough — the Su-57 fifth-generation jet fighter. When will it go into service? What other kinds of aircraft should we expect?

    Yuri Slyusar, the head of the United Aircraft Corporation, spoke about this with our reporter Nailya Askerzade.

    The Su-57 jet fighter is in the sky over Zhukovsky. Fast, maneuverable, and completely invisible to foreign radar systems. A 300-meter-long runway is enough for it in order to take off.

    Nailya Askerzade, reporter: "Of course, many people dream of at least approaching the top-secret Su-57 fifth-generation jet fighter. We have a unique opportunity to look at it in detail. This "king of dogfighting" is so unique that we aren't allowed to film everything. The state-of-the-art target acquisition system allows target tracking at a considerable distance, the engine features greater thrust and fuel efficiency, and the smart cockpit advises the pilot how to operate.

    Taras Artsebarsky, test pilot: "In fact, having flown this plane, when I happen to fly the previous generation jet, I can't help noticing the imperfections, the things that are missing compared to the new one. The new jet features a powerful AI support system for the pilot; it performs a lot automatically and, overall, it allows the pilot to concentrate on the main combat tasks without any distractions".

    Taras Artsebarsky is a first-class test pilot. He is the son of cosmonaut Anatoly Artsebarsky, so he's been close to the sky since his childhood. He has already mastered more than 20 types of aircraft, so he has a big sample size for comparison.

    - Do you remember your first flight on this fighter?

    - Of course, I do. Pilots always remember such things; any sortie on a new type of aircraft is unforgettable and even more so if it is such a fighter jet.

    - What nickname did you and your colleagues give this aircraft?

    - We nicknamed it affectionately, kindly, by his index name — "Poltinnik" (fifty). And we're still calling it that because we're used to now.

    The West got intrigued by these aircraft after two such jets were transported to Syria in February.

    - When will the Ministry of Defense take charge of these planes?

    Yuri Slyusar, President of the United Aircraft Corporation: By the end of this summer. I think, at Patriot Park, we'll sign a contract with the Defense Ministry regarding the delivery of the first production batch. This is such a significant event for us. In total, we have planned to purchase around 12 jets so, next year, they will be supplied directly to the unit.


    lol! lol! lol!

    What a sweet moment Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

    The reality coming to hit the hardest way to the anti Project 23000 Shtorm trolls thumbsup thumbsup

    With the Project 23000 Shtorm Aircraft Carrier, Russia may not need even a navalized variant of the Su-57, and likely will be able to operate in the new aircraft carriers with the main variant of the Su-57.

    What a way of saving money in the development of redundant model of aircrafts and increasing the available number of fighters that can operate in the aircraft carrier thumbsup thumbsup

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7032p50-state-armament-program-2018-2027#213329

    Now, all the anti Project 23000 Shtorm trolls can go to cry by the corners. Also the VTOL/STOVL fighter trolls. russia russia
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18073
    Points : 18633
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:54 pm

    The only runway on Falklands was bombed by the RAF Vulcan. The AAF/N was expecting more raids on it & moved all their fighters to the mainland.

    The Mirage fighters were their most capable and were not able to operate on the islands because the runway was too short.

    If they had a decent runway and operational aircraft with BVR capability the Vulcans never would have attempted an attack.

    If Russia is going to develop her own manned tilt rotors eventually, & I think they will, they could have AWACS & tankers based on them, saving on the CAT system & the Yak-44. They still have enough time to do it before the planned start of their 1st CVN construction.

    Money is already being spent on EMALs... and even just improvements in monorail design makes the investment worth it... let alone the experience working with new materials and systems...

    By the same token, it would suit the smaller RuN CVNs as well!

    The Russians don't have anything like that anywhere near operational and it would probably cost more to get something to that stage than it would to finish what they have with the EMALS... the US wont sell Ospreys and I doubt they would want them anyway...

    The only advantage over an Mi-26 or Mi-38 would be speed... which is not important to an AWACS platform.

    I am referring to the concept itself, not to the angled deck which is a single feature that can be good or bad depending on the implementation

    I don't understand. The fixed wing conventional (ski jump) takeoff but arrested landing concept? With a straight deck you need two full sized decks, but with angled deck you can operate with one deck... sounds like the simpler smaller single deck carrier is good enough for the job.

    Russian carriers are a long term project. Air wing needs to be conceived considering prospective solutions, not only existing ones. Especially if this is going to mean important compromises like size, use of catapults and other defining considerations

    New carriers take a lot of time and planning.... not to mention the requirement for a lot of land and sea based support needed for carrier operations... it takes 20 years from the decision to build to actually getting something operational, and going by todays practise the cost of the air wing is going to be very very expensive anyway... even without the carrier and the cruisers and destroyers that will operate with it.

    And remember, you need to be able to land at any take-off weight (discounted consumed fuel of course) in case of emergency. So landing remains the limiting value for those planes it seems...

    The only weight variable for an AWACS platform will be fuel, and for long operational periods it will hopefully be a significant number... but for an emergency landing it can easily dump fuel if needed.

    That would be a great idea, if the engine is not a source of radiation. This is dubious given the restricted use it has, at least until now.

    The UAV could be made enormous... a nuclear engine on a bomber makes little sense because while it saves needing to carry an enormous payload of fuel, the weight of the nuclear engine and its shielding usually meant the payload is pathetic, so it makes more sense to carry normal engines and lots of fuel and a bigger payload for the target.

    The point is that this UAV is carrying radar equipment but no bombs so unlimited range and continuous electrical power are rather more important... it does not need to be very fast, but powerful radar and good communications equipment (ship and satellite) and unlimited flight range and endurance is all you would want... there could be plenty of room for shielding to prevent radiation leaks or air pollution...

    In case of intense jamming or enemy air attack the AWACS can be isolated, silenced or pulled back. An isolated fighter has some level of use and autonomy by being manned, an isolated AWACs has no use apart from being an easy, high value target for the enemy.

    The Soviets had laser based communications equipment that could not be jammed as it was line of sight (used between satellites... to intercept you had to get between the satellites)... an AWACS UAV operating over Russian military ships would be a difficult target... trying to jam it would be an enormous risk as it would only be effective from close range... a distance where a surface ship could fire an home on jam missile to destroy the emitter... S-400 out to 400km and S-500 out to 600km... not to mention any naval based PAK FA with R-37M able to hit targets at 400km, plus they have shown an air launched Iskander... with four times the range and 50% more speed... the same improvement for an air launched S-500 would make it seriously dangerous...

    The whole idea of an AWACS sounds vulnerable, but it can see anything approaching and direct ships and aircraft to intercept before they become a real problem... having what appears to be a big vulnerable AWACS platform is actually much safer than not having one and relying on luck to detect a low flying threat... by the same token a huge carrier sounds vulnerable, but actually having it extends the reach and range of sight of the surface vessels and offers several extra rings of defence that another ship just can't do.

    Technology allows to distribute this role among more numerous, less costly and more survivable platforms and this is what will probably happen in future IMHO. In fact is already happening with planes like F-35 and its intelligence and communication capabilities

    So putting up a half dozen fighters to do the same job as one AWACS platform... makes you wonder why NATO bothers with those big expensive Sentry aircraft it has... I mean what a huge target... just having some F-35s flying around would be much better...

    Garry, you are dodging the answer you know? Very Happy There are many carrier operators but very few of them operate catapults. Why?

    The USN has steam cats on most of its old carriers and is just putting EMALS cats on its brand new carrier. The US marines use STOVL carriers... a better question would be... the British used to have little VSTOL carriers like the Hermes and took them to war, yet their new carriers are also STOVL which require VSTOL aircraft...

    So they are saving money by not having to develop a bigger ship, or modern catapult systems (they had steam cats decades ago, so developing new cats.... even steam ones would be expensive and time consuming), and accepting the penalty of a much more expensive plane they are buying off the shelf of lower performance than they would have gotten if they had just made the typhoon a naval plane.

    Kinda sad really as all the very important technology in carriers was a British invention, but now they have lost the technology of the catapult and don't have the money or time to develop EMALS...

    Yes, this remains an interesting option. I have not seen any suggestion that industry is exploring it so I remain cautious but if applicable would open many excellent options as discussed.

    They have sold large numbers of land based tethered airships... used for communications relay and AEW in mountainous regions to China and other customers... they have models that are powered via their tethers that can operate for 2-3 months at a time unmanned...

    Even their new Armata tank has a tethered UAV reportedly with thermal and radar sensors that is powered via the tether and communicates silently to the vehicle via the tether.

    That may be harder or impossible to achieve on a helo, but they could be deployed on escorts &/ supply ships to make up for it, so there's no need for E-2's speed & range.

    Speed is not really important for AEW... range and endurance as well as altitude are important though.

    Without a catapult the only way to get that is something like a V-22 AEW. The heliborne AEW the British are using is a joke compared to what the French and Americans have. If we were serious about naval aviation we would get catapults and make an Il-112V AEW. But then we aren't really serious about it.

    EMALS cats are being developed in Russia and I would suggest a small AEW like the Il-112V would actually be rather popular... a smaller lighter cheaper air combat management aircraft is actually a valuable thing... especially where ground control and radar coverage is patchy... it is what the west calls a force multiplier.


    Main option for the AEW role on a carrier would be IMHO a big UAV, not a helo. Alternatively, the antenna may be integrated in the rotor in the future, since the blades get thicker and slower in order to reduce tip's speed and the propeller takes over the horizontal propulsion, who knows?

    The main rotor moves too fast... but new radar technology is progressing and aircraft skin antenna designs could simply require the front and sides of the nose and the rear and sides of the tail area to carry antenna, plus some side mounted arrays...



    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 612
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:29 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    With the Project 23000 Shtorm Aircraft Carrier, Russia may not need even a navalized variant of the Su-57, and likely will be able to operate in the new aircraft carriers with the main variant of the Su-57.
    I think you are stretching this a bit:

    1. These 300 m can hardly mean full load from a flat surface.

    2. That take-off run would mean to put fighters to take off in a conventional carrier where they need to land. You don't do that

    3. Takeing off is fine, but landing is even better. How you do that on a flat top without arrestor hooks?

    4. Operation from a carrier requires an extreme level of resistance to salty environment, for all involved hardware.

    5. Stress to the airframe and landing gear for carrier operations is extreme too.

    Navalized Su-57 can be very similar to conventional one me thinks, but I doubt conventional ones could operate from a carrier. AF and navy have separate structures after all.

    Now, all the anti Project 23000 Shtorm trolls can go to cry by the corners. Also the VTOL/STOVL fighter trolls.  russia russia
    Well, in fact it seems they are pushing for the STOVL, that points (sadly) rather to half-arsed carriers than to Shtorms!

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:05 am