Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Share
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:27 am

    LMFS wrote:
    Of course Zircon on small vessels and subs would be a massive asset. I was just referring to the case when a naval group from Russia is operating in a disputed area far from the country and subject to the potential threats coming from USN's CSG that would be with certainty deployed in response to a Russian presence. In such circumstances any platform  which is not covered by the air wing of the carrier, is turned into a target. A corvette that can launch Zircons is a very dangerous corvette indeed, but it cannot repel air attacks as a carrier group can,

    true one corvette is never meant to attack CSG alone. It is going to be a distributed firepower with external support and Intel. None the less couple of Zircon armed corvetter create pretty nice sea denial  area




    Range is believed to be 1,000km and speed mach 7-8, with a scramjet engine providing power from launch to impact...
    It has been said that it was tested to 8 M but the operational speed is unknown. According to the patent the scramjet would propel the missile during its high altitude cruising and then detach for the descent to the target.

    Zircon was patented in US?  affraid  affraid  affraid





    Regarding what would be better, air launched Zircon or Kinzhal: it is unclear to me what is the range of the later is, decoupled of the effects of the carrier. It was reported 2000 km from MiG-31 and 3000 km from Tu-22. This can only mean that the missile alone has far shorter range. But again, flight profile of the carrier (is a dash attack meant or slow cruising + dash to launch speed) and the availability of IFR would have a significant influence here. Maybe the Zircon from an air launched position would be longer ranged than the Kinzhal? Then it should be adopted of course.

    last year there were an article about 2 air launched missiles Kh-50 and GZUR(Phase I) both ~1500km range. They both are supposed to firn into internal launcher of Tu-22M3. Mind that Kh-15 did. Kh-15 was  4,8m and weight 1,200 kgs

    If GZRU/Kh-50 is gonna be similar then perhaps this is gonna be used by deck fighters.




    And that is why Russia needs carriers... with competent fighters with decent range and speed and missile payload capacity for air to air engagements.
    Agree. Su-57 would allow Russia to counter USN with a way smaller amount of carriers. And with air launched AShM like those mentioned above it would in fact have the upper hand ...even grossly outnumbered.  I still think distributed AEW with fighters and specialised UCAVs can substitute heavy cumbersome  turboprop AWACS in the future, but in regards of tankers it seems USN will have an advantage in terms of launching planes with very big fuel payloads and so compensate for their lesser missile technology and naval fighter's performance.


    I cannot believe waht I am reading.  Lesser missile and fighter performance? Su-33 is dead with F-35 and we do not knwo if Su-57 would better than 2 decades younger F/A-XX. Lesser missile performance in 2030s? so you know what they gonna have then right?


    LARSM stealth and high subsonic max  1600km range. Kh-50 same. Where is that "worse performance"







    I personally would have liked to have seen a more ambitious upgrade of the K to include NPP and naval Su-57s... which would make 2 new CVNs good enough... one carrier in upgrade/overhaul and two operational/training at any given time.
    Well, they don't have any carrier right now so they will try to get the K back asap. The Su-57 is another issue, probably no decision will be taken until the 2nd stage engines are ready. It would be an error to task the MiG-35 with the role as sole carrier-borne fighter for RuN IMO, it will not provide the edge needed against the superior resources of USN.

    how much F-!8 Superhornes is worse than MiG-35? cannot get where precisely?



    Russia would IMO need 4 carriers: North, Pacific and Med/warm waters + repair.

    wy not 6? or 10? the fact is that Russia has 10x smaller military. There are thing expensive as missile forces or aerospace forces you cannot stop funding.  What expenses would you cut first then?

    There is 4:1 cost ratio between 100kt:40kton CV. Not to mention that with CVN you need also have an  extra LHD. And with all of those you have 0.1 money.

    Fro smaller CVs is better but IHMO not worth it. if you need go for longer series.
    QE2 (70kton:LHA America 45kton)  - 5,2bln:3,4bln



    Just trying to make sense of the news about LHDs and STOVL. These would point out to Russia planning small flat tops for expeditionary forces, maybe equipped with STOVL fighters. I don't think this makes much sense but cannot know what Russian officials are thinking on exactly. To me, carriers with STOBAR planes are needed in any case, in fact as my search of information indicated, F-35Bs have longer take-off runs than current MiGs and Sukhois aboard the K...  Rolling Eyes

    not f-35, F/A XX you mean? Stobar planes are cool the only problem is you cannot afford it.If you buy CVNs you need extra LHDs. And you need LHDs anyway.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 15, 2018 1:05 am

    LMFS wrote:

    Ok, some numbers for you: F-18 has 700 km radius, plus what MQ-25 adds to that (they talk about delivering 6800 kg of fuel at 900 km from the carrier) plus range of the LRASM >500 km. Now what is the use of your Zircon?

    Zircon makes ~3,15 mns squqre kms area secure . for your ships from othe navies. Not every ship has F-18. If you fight CSG then perhaps you have own air cover either from deck. then you need something lighter like Kh-50/GZUR or Tu-22M with kinzhals.




    It is better having the enemy beyond attack range than having to trust in your SAMs to stop a massive missile salvo.
    no ship-borne fighter can ever carry such heavy missile. IT better to have sarmat with avangard too you know russia russia russia





    do you suggest Su-57 is on new shiny Russian  CVNs are happily navigating around the world now ?   I thought we were talking about 2030s.
    Hey, now applies to everyone: F-35 and its associated AA missiles are not on par with R-37M, period.
    A Su-57, IF the basic compatibility with carrier operation is given (which I have to assume considering the Flanker heritage and some elements of the plane) could be ready for deployment within 5 years. The Kuznetsov will be ready in 3-4 years. Who says K is not compatible with a naval Su-57 and new carriers are necessary? What is 15-20 years in the future is the STOVL fighter and the fleet of LHDs  Razz
    [/quote]

    Kuz is for max +20 years. Nobody ever mentioned to use on fleet heavy fighters. F-35 wond be hit by R-37M because Su-33 is not gonna carry them. neither can see F-35. F/A-XX can be just better then Su-57 and smaller too. On top ot things you have 0.1 of US budget and symmetrical coping US solutions is simply way to nowhere.

    They got now 10 you have one old. You buy 2 new . they will build extra 3-4.






    Actions against US fleet in conditions of numerical air-superiority was already tried in Japan. They called it Kamikaze. Fighters in such numbers will be treated as extra cover not and major force. Me thinks you mix US approach to the Russian one.
    I consider you are going to deploy a force to a contested area far from Russia yes. If you are going to stay very close to the Motherland then you can spare your LHDs and STOVLS all together too.
    As shown above, in order to keep your force safe you need to be capable of retaliation in case of attack, that means, being in reach for actually hitting the enemy vessels. In the situation you describe above you are badly outranged by the enemy's air wing and therefore rendered a target.


    That's why you dont fight their CVNs with yours. thats what you dont seem to get. Its waste o lives and money. LHDs are for different conflicts like Syrian, like humanitarian/personnel extraction/north fleet cover . Close to motherland can mean 700km from shore in north before anything gets there you still appreciate 20-30 fighters to cover you.






    Agreed that's why idea of small aircraft carriers fits good here.
    Ok what is the deterring capability of the small ships with short-ranged aircraft against USN? I am not seeing it sorry...

    why short ranged?! same parameters are on both sides. Contested area is no midway just to show your presence. Of course you dont see it because you wait for midawy.
    Any attack of Russian fighter by US one is an act of war. Ypu think a fleet of Tu-22Ms or T-160M2, Anchar/Avangard are for?






    But what we are talking about now IMO is having enough conventional deterrence capacity FAR from Russia to dispute geopolitical space. First Russia improved the nuclear forces, then general state of its armed forces for mere defensive reasons. But once this is ensured, in order to protect and encourage their economical development they need commercial relationships and alliances abroad, this is a normal sequence in the development of a nation so I don't see why Russia should be an exception and remain isolated. We are seeing in Syria BTW that they do not reject exerting power abroad, as any other country in the world.

    Again showing you flag is nto fully pledged war. If 30 fighter wont be enough 60 wont be too. You first tof all dont have money to build large end expensive ships and on top LHDs.
    It is no like you buy a Maybach so you get rich. This works th other way around. UK and Us worked on gangster mode but still capital ships came AFTER they were rich. First Drake was a pirate robbing Spaniards then UK could build more ships.


    Besides lets assume Russia gets in nominal terms to 4-5trillions USD. say 2x bigger PPP. it is still 1/3 US GDP. You cannot copy their approach and expenses. Less human capital too.






    Sea denial by what means? I am not seeing it very clear sorry

    Ships wit Onyx, Calibers/S-300F. Subs is typical sea denial. Large CSGs is sea control.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 630
    Points : 624
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:18 am

    this is called a day dreaming mate, is there ANY P-800 carried by any Su-30/30? mno it too heavy. no way it is possible. It is planned GZUR though. I dotn know about its weight only thet will be only airborne. Perhaps lighter Zircon?
    What is Brahmos but a P-800?

    BTW North fleet is definitely first place to go. No Su-57 will ever had combat radius bigger then 900 km I'd be surprised.   With 4 AAMs perhaps and looooooong take off.
    What combat radius you estimate for a fighter with a range of 3500 km on internal fuel? It should be > 1500 km.
    Again: a fighter with the T/W ratio of the Su-57 could take off from the short runs of the K fully loaded EASILY. That is way less than the F-35B from an LHA you know


    hoom

    Posts : 1094
    Points : 1084
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom on Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am

    What is Brahmos but a P-800?
    Its a P-800 with a reduced size fuel tank & Indian electronics.
    Ru Wiki says the air-launch version is 2500kg vs 3000kg ship launch.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:35 am

    LMFS wrote:
    this is called a day dreaming mate, is there ANY P-800 carried by any Su-30/30? mno it too heavy. no way it is possible. It is planned GZUR though. I dotn know about its weight only thet will be only airborne. Perhaps lighter Zircon?
    What is Brahmos but a P-800?

    Not sure what  do you mena? Brahmos and P-800 are closely related. I've never heard about any fighter in Russia carrying P-800.  True I've found 1 Brahmos can be carried by Su-30MKI tho but nothing starting from CV.

    For carrier based fighters Indians developed Brahmos-NG (5m/1,5tons vide Kh-50/GZUR)


    BTW North fleet is definitely first place to go. No Su-57 will ever had combat radius bigger then 900 km I'd be surprised.   With 4 AAMs perhaps and looooooong take off.
    What combat radius you estimate for a fighter with a range of 3500 km on internal fuel? It should be > 1500 km.
    Again: a fighter with the T/W ratio of the Su-57 could take off from the short runs of the K fully loaded EASILY. That is way less than the F-35B from an LHA you know

    [/quote]


    Su-57 is surely capable but cannot have both payload and lots of fuel  and short take off. Takeoff weight for AA mission for Su-33 is 3300kg.

    BTW What F-35 are you talking about? Russian fighters will meet  F/A-XX at same level at least. 20 years younger tech then in Su-57.
    Mind that deck version as in Su-33 was ~70%more expensive. With small series Su-57 would be for free either.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 630
    Points : 624
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:29 pm

    hoom wrote:
    What is Brahmos but a P-800?
    Its a P-800 with a reduced size fuel tank & Indian electronics.
    Ru Wiki says the air-launch version is 2500kg vs 3000kg ship launch.
    Stated weight for both Brahmos and P-800 is 3 tons. Yes air launched version is 500 kg lighter but it remains a close P-800 derivative.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 630
    Points : 624
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:57 pm

    Not sure what  do you mena? Brahmos and P-800 are closely related. I've never heard about any fighter in Russia carrying P-800.  True I've found 1 Brahmos can be carried by Su-30MKI tho but nothing starting from CV.

    For carrier based fighters Indians developed Brahmos-NG (5m/1,5tons vide Kh-50/GZUR)
    Indian MKIs do not operate from carrier to start with...

    Su-57 is surely capable but cannot have both payload and lots of fuel  and short take off. Takeoff weight for AA mission for Su-33 is 3300kg.

    BTW What F-35 are you talking about? Russian fighters will meet  F/A-XX at same level at least. 20 years younger tech then in Su-57.
    Mind that deck version as in Su-33 was ~70%more expensive. With small series Su-57 would be for free either.
    You don't listen. Su-57 in the weights and thrust classes stated for izd. 30 could take off easily fully loaded from the short take off runs on the Kuznetsov. I have linked a STOBAR simulation tool to check this.

    F/A-XX is nothing while F-35Cs numbers for the navy have been increased in order to cover the delay until US knows what will follow (NGAD or whatever), procurement scheduled well beyond 2030. Meanwhile Su-57 is starting serial production.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 15, 2018 1:09 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    For carrier based fighters Indians developed Brahmos-NG (5m/1,5tons vide Kh-50/GZUR)
    Indian MKIs do not operate from carrier to start with...

    but MiG-29k does



    Su-57 is surely capable but cannot have both payload and lots of fuel  and short take off. Takeoff weight for AA mission for Su-33 is 3300kg.

    BTW What F-35 are you talking about? Russian fighters will meet  F/A-XX at same level at least. 20 years younger tech then in Su-57.
    Mind that deck version as in Su-33 was ~70%more expensive. With small series Su-57 would be for free either.

    You don't listen. Su-57 in the weights and thrust  classes stated for izd. 30 could take off easily fully loaded from the short take off runs on the Kuznetsov. I have linked a STOBAR simulation tool to check this [/quote]

    aaa if you have tool then laws of physics dont count anymore? like payload and fuel is always max and no extra usage? affraid affraid affraid



    F/A-XX is nothing while F-35Cs numbers for the navy have been increased in order to cover the delay until US knows what will follow (NGAD or whatever), procurement scheduled well beyond 2030. Meanwhile Su-57 is starting serial production.

    F-35 is not in numbers (340 ?) so far.
    Su-57 is 12, not in series and unlikely navalized (if ever) before 2030s

    F/A-XX (fleet fighter)  is to replace F-18 and complement F-35 so yes is will be in numebrs.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 630
    Points : 624
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:25 pm

    true one corvette is never meant to attack CSG alone. It is going to be a distributed firepower with external support and Intel. None the less couple of Zircon armed corvetter create pretty nice sea denial  area
    USN has ten CSGs, so in every relevant situation they will deploy one or two. Corvettes have no survivability against air wing of a CSG so they cannot deny anything unless properly protected.

    Zircon was patented in US?  affraid  affraid  affraid
    Russians also have patents!

    If GZRU/Kh-50 is gonna be similar then perhaps this is gonna be used by deck fighters.
    For the anti-ship role a supersonic missile is important, so Kh-50 probably not the best candidate. If GZUR fits then it will be used as well, don't know much about it.

    I cannot believe waht I am reading.  Lesser missile and fighter performance? Su-33 is dead with F-35 and we do not knwo if Su-57 would better than 2 decades younger F/A-XX. Lesser missile performance in 2030s? so you know what they gonna have then right?

    LARSM stealth and high subsonic max  1600km range. Kh-50 same. Where is that  "worse performance"

    LARSM subsonic with estimated <600 km range. Where do you have taken your data from? Compare that to Kinzhal...

    Regarding the fighters, a naval Su-57 would simply be in another category compared to USN fighters in the foreseeable future, the plane of the same generation of Su-57 in USN being F-35C. F/A-XX is a plane which does not exist and for which no requirements or schedule are fixed. What are the technical characteristics of that plane so that we can compare?

    how much F-!8 Superhornes is worse than MiG-35? cannot get where precisely?
    Not much and besides they are way more numerous and better supported. That is why RuN needs the Su-57

    wy not 6? or 10? the fact is that Russia has 10x smaller military. There are thing expensive as missile forces or aerospace forces you cannot stop funding.  What expenses would you cut first then?
    Russia is also like ten times more efficient in military procurement than US, so I would expect them finding a good compromise between costs and performance. Four K-sized carriers should be attainable in the long term for a country like Russia, given we are heading into multipolarity. Consider the advantage Russia has in terms of investment in protecting its allies abroad (countries that want to have the freedom to choose allies outside the West) against US (need to force everybody into "alliance"). US faces a law of diminishing returns in terms of projecting power while Russia only needs to be strong enough not to be easily pushed aside, so a reasonable investment in terms of power projection can have big economic returns for them.

    There is 4:1 cost ratio between 100kt:40kton CV. Not to mention that with CVN you need also have an  extra LHD. And with all of those you have 0.1 money.
    Where do you take this from? Vlasov says textually that the steel for the hull is peanuts compared to the systems. So if your LHDs are going to have advanced weapons systems and latest technologies they will be expensive too. With the disadvantage that they cannot protect Russian interest in US-disputed areas.

    not f-35, F/A XX you mean? Stobar planes are cool the only problem is you cannot afford it.If you buy CVNs you need extra LHDs. And you need LHDs anyway.
    No, F/A-XX is next generation, current one is Su-57 and F-35.
    Do not know exactly what Russia can afford and what not. The K will be kept and apparently they want to build both LHDs and other carriers.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:27 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    true one corvette is never meant to attack CSG alone. It is going to be a distributed firepower with external support and Intel. None the less couple of Zircon armed corvetter create pretty nice sea denial  area
    USN has ten CSGs, so in every relevant situation they will deploy one or two. Corvettes have no survivability against air wing of a CSG so they cannot deny anything unless properly protected.


    I guess you ge tit wrong. Corvettes or Karakurts are not build to fight CSGs n high seas alone. They are just a part of zonal system of Hoimelnd defense. "Trucks with missiles" if you prefer this way.



    Zircon was patented in US?  affraid  affraid  affraid
    Russians also have patents!


    but  Im not sure that they made public how their secret missile works for anyone  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect



    If GZRU/Kh-50 is gonna be similar then perhaps this is gonna be used by deck fighters.
    For the anti-ship role a supersonic missile is important, so Kh-50 probably not the best candidate. If GZUR fits then it will be used as well, don't know much about it.

    Kh-50 is more less LARSM counterpart.  AFAIK GZUR is airborne only,  has size allowing to be on revolver launcher of Tu-22M (thus>5m ) and ~1,500km. They wer etalking about GZUR phases but it was only once soem time ago. Phase i 6-8Ma and Pahse II 12-14Ma






    I cannot believe waht I am reading.  Lesser missile and fighter performance? Su-33 is dead with F-35 and we do not knwo if Su-57 would better than 2 decades younger F/A-XX. Lesser missile performance in 2030s? so you know what they gonna have then right?

    LARSM stealth and high subsonic max  1600km range. Kh-50 same. Where is that  "worse performance"

    LARSM subsonic with estimated <600 km range. Where do you have taken your data from? Compare that to Kinzhal...

    Kinzhal is not on suitable for any deck fighter AFAIK. and unliley will be applied in large numbers. As for LRASM my bad I quoted JASSM (related delopment , F-18 can be a carrier)




    JASSM-XR
    In September 2018, Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to develop an "Extreme Range" variant of the AGM-158. The weapon would weigh about 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) and deliver a 2,000 lb (910 kg) warhead out to a range of 1,000 nmi (1,900 km; 1,200 mi); it is planned to be ready by 2023.[47][48]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM








    Regarding the fighters, a naval Su-57 would simply be in another category compared to USN fighters in the foreseeable future, the plane of the same generation of Su-57 in USN being F-35C. F/A-XX is a plane which does not exist and for which no requirements or schedule are fixed. What are the technical characteristics of that plane so that we can compare?

    F-35 is late by half of generation thet's why F/AXX will overlap. Frist replacing F-18.
    Su-57k doesn't exist and there is no schedule to build it too. There is no fixed schedule for Russian VSTOL fighter either.
    Same  as any of Russian carriers. Su-33/MiG-29k are dead by then. F-18 soon after.

    Either you assume they are there in 2030s and what to choose in such environment indeed there is no need to argue.






    how much F-!8 Superhornes is worse than MiG-35? cannot get where precisely?
    Not much and besides they are way more numerous and better supported. That is why RuN needs the Su-5


    F-18 will be on their way out in late 2030s. Do we discuss this period right 2030s-2040?  







    Russia is also like ten times more efficient in military procurement than US, so I would expect them finding a good compromise between costs and performance.

    and indeed they did! It is called small universal carrier  lol1  lol1  lol1





    Four K-sized carriers should be attainable in the long term for a country like Russia, given we are heading into multipolarity. Consider the advantage Russia has in terms of investment in protecting its allies abroad (countries that want to have the freedom to choose allies outside the West) against US (need to force everybody into "alliance"). US faces a law of diminishing returns in terms of projecting power while Russia only needs to be strong enough not to be easily pushed aside, so a reasonable investment in terms of power projection can have big economic returns for them.

    Projecting power with cheaper ships, armed with  ligh but capable fighters will do this job perfectly. Look at Syria anything other is just III WW. Where do you see any intermediate scenario? Waht's more instead of 1 large you can have 2 smaller ships and secure more area.



    There is 4:1 cost ratio between 100kt:40kton CV. Not to mention that with CVN you need also have an  extra LHD. And with all of those you have 0.1 money.
    Where do you take this from? Vlasov says textually that the steel for the hull is peanuts compared to the systems. So if your LHDs are going to have advanced weapons systems and latest technologies they will be expensive too. With the disadvantage that they cannot protect Russian interest in US-disputed areas.


    It is not mine  but thanks    thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup .  Look at costs of Ford:America (or Wasp). Surely 1 bln unfinished EMALS add something to this for sure.


    Why thy cannot protect Russian interests? How many Russian fighters were shoot down in Syria by US? or US by Russia? or how many Chinese in South China Sea? so why do you need hundreds there?





    not f-35, F/A XX you mean? Stobar planes are cool the only problem is you cannot afford it.If you buy CVNs you need extra LHDs. And you need LHDs anyway.
    No, F/A-XX is next generation, current one is Su-57 and F-35.
    [/quote]

    Su-57k is not in series neither, officially for Russian fleet is planned VSTOL. If you prefer next gen too russia russia russia

    F/AXX is theoretically intend of 2020  lol1  lol1  lol1 but I am sure end of 2030s they will be available.





    Do not know exactly what Russia can afford and what not. The K will be kept and apparently they want to build both LHDs and other carriers.

    Kuz was kept for budgetary reasons. And that's good. Taking into account their cuts in all procurement I seriously doubt spending billions more $ for ships that make no difference make sense.  Of course we ll live to see what what they will chose.

    Good that at least VSTOL was chosen for a good beginning  russia  russia  russia

    hoom

    Posts : 1094
    Points : 1084
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom on Sun Sep 16, 2018 4:49 am

    HQ Gallery of the light carrier concept http://bastion-karpenko.ru/lma-cnii-45-army-2018/
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18119
    Points : 18679
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:54 am

    Su-57 is surely capable but cannot have both payload and lots of fuel and short take off. Takeoff weight for AA mission for Su-33 is 3300kg.

    Its max internal payload will be 4 RVV-BD and the two wing positions for R-73 replacements... so about 200kgs for the two short range AAMs and at about 600kgs each for the heavy AAMs that is 2.4 tons so a total of 2.8 tons of AAMs for the Su-57 so it should be able to get airborne with full weapons and full fuel...

    They don't currently have a naval Su-57 because there is no carrier for it to operate from... navalising the Su-57 will take less time than building a new carrier for it to operate from.

    Naval Su-57s will have no problems defeating F-35s and anything the US Navy might come up with in the mean time...

    HQ Gallery of the light carrier concept

    Looks bigger and therefore heavier than the K so I don't see how they can call it a light carrier... unless that is the actual carrier they are talking about...
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 630
    Points : 624
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:58 am

    I guess you ge tit wrong. Corvettes or Karakurts are not build to fight CSGs n high seas alone. They are just a part of zonal system of Hoimelnd defense. "Trucks with missiles" if you prefer this way.
    Yes I know, but we were discussing carriers and power projection

    but  Im not sure that they made public how their secret missile works for anyone  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect





    Kh-50 is more less LARSM counterpart.  AFAIK GZUR is airborne only,  has size allowing to be on revolver launcher of Tu-22M (thus>5m ) and ~1,500km. They wer etalking about GZUR phases but it was only once soem time ago. Phase i 6-8Ma and Pahse II 12-14Ma
    OK thanks, will keep an eye on those developments...

    Kinzhal is not on suitable for any deck fighter AFAIK. and unliley will be applied in large numbers.
    Where Kinzahl or a modification thereof can be launched from is to be seen, we are discussing about the future carrier force of Russia as far as I know. In any case as discussed the MKIs of India can carry a similarly sized weapon and as also shown (simulation tools are based in physics in fact and not in wishful thinking of either side) modern fighters with high T/W ratio can take off full load from ski jumps. So, given the extremely important advantages of such air launched weapons and the technical possibilities it is easy to understand they will be probably deployed in mid to long term. Even in low numbers the threat level they represent is huge for a CSG.


    JASSM-XR
    In September 2018, Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to develop an "Extreme Range" variant of the AGM-158. The weapon would weigh about 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) and deliver a 2,000 lb (910 kg) warhead out to a range of 1,000 nmi (1,900 km; 1,200 mi); it is planned to be ready by 2023.[47][48]
    Ok, now you talk too about a future development, of a sub-sonic missile for land attack and which no USN fighter can carry. This is probably a weapon for USAFs B-1Bs and the like, not an AShM for naval fighters.

    F-35 is late by half of generation thet's why F/AXX will overlap. Frist  replacing F-18.
    Aha.... so F-35 is 5.5G and NGAD 6G or how does it go? Not seeing many life signs about the program BTW, maybe you have more info on it?

    Either you assume they are there in 2030s and what to choose in such environment indeed there is no need to argue.
    As said potential Su-57 would be mid term, for mid 20's probably due to already existing airframe. I see reasonable to think it could be deployed on the K. But of course I don't know what they plan to do.

    and indeed they did! It is called small universal carrier  lol1  lol1  lol1
    All seen until now are private proposals. No official procurement plans disclosed that I know.

    Projecting power with cheaper ships, armed with  ligh but capable fighters will do this job perfectly. Look at Syria anything other is just III WW. Where do you see any intermediate scenario?  Waht's more instead of 1 large you can have 2 smaller ships and secure more area.
    I make my case and explain why I think they are not up to the threat level in the future scenarios and you rewind to the previous step, what can I say? dunno  

    It is not mine  but thanks    thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup .  Look at costs of Ford:America (or Wasp). Surely 1 bln unfinished EMALS add something to this for sure.
    Different roles, technological levels, capacities plus bloated US budgets. This represents in no way what a universal carrier or TAKR or LHD (have seen no clear proposal from you with sizes, capabilities and systems) would cost, considering no additional carriers are going to be providing cover. Against a K-type carrier you would be saving what? Arresting cables and gear, approach guidance and what more? Where do the savings come from?

    Why thy cannot protect Russian interests? How many Russian fighters were shoot down in Syria by US? or US by Russia? or how many Chinese in South China Sea? so why do you need hundreds there?

    Turkey downed one plane on cold blood due to relaxed Russian policy. Then they moved S-400 and air superiority fighters to the theatre and things changed. Syria is actually a good argument for the ones proposing to have cover of first order assets in order to avoid embarrassing loses on a deployment.

    F/AXX is theoretically intend of 2020  lol1  lol1  lol1 but I am sure end of 2030s they will be available.
    Yes yes, call me when they are ready with the requirements  Very Happy

    Good that at least VSTOL was chosen for a good beginning  russia  russia  :Russia:
    Happy that at least you are happy Laughing
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:07 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    They don't currently have a naval Su-57 because there is no carrier for it to operate from... navalising the Su-57 will take less time than building a new carrier for it to operate from.

    Naval Su-57s will have no problems defeating F-35s and anything the US Navy might come up with in the mean time...

    especially thet they wont meet anytime. F/AXX will be their enemy to fight with. And of course they have not carriers and will not have any to place large fighters.




    HQ Gallery of the light carrier concept

    Looks bigger and therefore heavier than the K so I don't see how they can call it a light carrier... unless that is the actual carrier they are talking about...
    [/quote]

    regardless n carrier chosen no carrier will even sacrifice half of its fighters for their size. Unless in Russia is being used Ukrainian logic.

    hoom

    Posts : 1094
    Points : 1084
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom on Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:43 pm

    Looks bigger and therefore heavier than the K so I don't see how they can call it a light carrier... unless that is the actual carrier they are talking about...
    Yes thats the one thats being talked about last few pages.
    Apparently had a non-public display at Army 2017 show last year (some stats made public), model on display this year.

    And yes the deck is huge, like very close to the size of a Nimitz deck.
    If you look carefully there is a really long overhang aft & the given stats are 1.2m wider max beam (carried all the way aft & a long way forward vs Nimitz is actually mostly not at max beam) but 28m shorter.

    Aim of the design is clearly to maximise deck space & carry a large air-wing mainly with a big deck park, which is a logical aim essentially what the US has done pretty much from the start.

    Question is whether that size deck can really be supported on only a 44kton hull dunno
    It seems doubtful but I would possibly buy it on K displacement with hull extended under most of the stern overhang.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Sep 16, 2018 2:02 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    I guess you ge tit wrong. Corvettes or Karakurts are not build to fight CSGs n high seas alone. They are just a part of zonal system of Hoimelnd defense. "Trucks with missiles" if you prefer this way.
    Yes I know, but we were discussing carriers and power projection

    then Russia cannot follow neither US nor Chinese way, to expensive. They must use more cost effective means.




    Kinzhal is not on suitable for any deck fighter AFAIK. and unliley will be applied in large numbers.
    Where Kinzahl or a modification thereof can be launched from is to be seen, we are discussing about the future carrier force of Russia as far as I know. In any case as discussed the MKIs of India can carry a similarly sized weapon and as also shown (simulation tools are based in physics in fact and not in wishful thinking of either side) modern fighters with high T/W ratio can take off full load from ski jumps. So, given the extremely important advantages of such air launched weapons and the technical possibilities it is easy to understand they will be probably deployed in mid to long term. Even in low numbers the threat level they represent is huge for a CSG.

    if you take a look on any hypersonic missile they are all in fact aeroballistic - they go high not to heat up due to air compression. Then going down rapidly over targets.
    Kinzhalis long range but a IMHO Iskander based stopgap before other will be developed. Definitely not suitable for any deck fighter.




    JASSM-XR
    In September 2018, Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to develop an "Extreme Range" variant of the AGM-158. The weapon would weigh about 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) and deliver a 2,000 lb (910 kg) warhead out to a range of 1,000 nmi (1,900 km; 1,200 mi); it is planned to be ready by 2023.[47][48]
    Ok, now you talk too about a future development, of a sub-sonic missile for land attack and which no USN fighter can carry. This is probably a weapon for USAFs B-1Bs and the like, not an AShM for naval fighters.

    And how many CVNs in Russia and Su-57 do you have ready now? or at least before 2025?
    True XR and ER are different. BTW 2,3 tons isntis lighter then P-800 anyway?

    F-16 in Poland  will be integrated with those so I'd say F-18 can handle as well.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM
    Tis one is ER not XR tho ( 1000km range)

    While both the original JASSM and the JASSM-ER are several inches too long to be carried in the internal weapons bay of the F-35 Lightning II, the F-35 will be able to carry both missiles externally, which compromises the aircraft's stealth features.[29]







    F-35 is late by half of generation thet's why F/AXX will overlap. Frist  replacing F-18.
    Aha.... so F-35 is 5.5G and NGAD 6G or how does it go? Not seeing many life signs about the program BTW, maybe you have more info on it?

    No F-35 is  5G  but after really postmature pregnancy lol1  lol1  lol1 IT is going AFAIK tehy wan it late 2020s but lest give them 10 years more  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil


    https://news.usni.org/2015/02/04/cno-greenert-navys-next-fighter-might-not-need-stealth-high-speed

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Navy’s planned next generation fighter will likely rely less on the speed and stealth that has defined the current generation of U.S. tactical aircraft and could feature an unmanned option, the Chief of Naval Operations said on Wednesday.

    CNO Adm. Jonathan Greenert described options for the next Navy fighter – the F/A-XX – that would overwhelm or suppress enemy air defenses instead of outrunning or hiding from threats.



    Amazingly similar to new LMFS from Butowski's drawings  What a Face  What a Face  What a Face






    and indeed they did! It is called small universal carrier  lol1  lol1  lol1
    All seen until now are private proposals. No official procurement plans disclosed that I know.


    We both only guessing here. I have only special link to Supreme Commander you know  lol1  lol1  lol1  Take alook on  positive trend in their plans (100k+ -> 70k  -> 44k) I can see with each iteration they get better.

    I'd say something like 3 (idelly 4) +/- De Gaulle size carriers with ~30+ fighters + couple of hellos in sea control mode wouldn't be bad approach. Why universal - because you need also amphibious forces support.




    Projecting power with cheaper ships, armed with  ligh but capable fighters will do this job perfectly. Look at Syria anything other is just III WW. Where do you see any intermediate scenario?  Waht's more instead of 1 large you can have 2 smaller ships and secure more area.
    I make my case and explain why I think they are not up to the threat level in the future scenarios and you rewind to the previous step, what can I say? dunno  
    glad we agree then  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup




    It is not mine  but thanks    thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup .  Look at costs of Ford:America (or Wasp). Surely 1 bln unfinished EMALS add something to this for sure.
    Different roles, technological levels, capacities plus bloated US budgets. This represents in no way what a universal carrier or TAKR or LHD (have seen no clear proposal from you with sizes, capabilities and systems) would cost, considering no additional carriers are going to be providing cover. Against a K-type carrier you would be saving what? Arresting cables and gear, approach guidance and what more? Where do the savings come from?
    I
    indeed different roles - you need light carrier for basic cover in Syrian scenario.  Show me any example where smaller CV cost same as a larger one? Tell me what precisly is technical difference between LHA America ian  Nimitz in terms of capabilities? I'd love to learn something new.

    I couldn't find.

    Waht me thinks is:   Size is 40k+ (60k iMHO is max for budget size) to have both number of fighters, decent defensive armament and supplies.  Amphibious operations support is very nice to have (no need for extra LHD). You know originally Soviet TAKRS had to fulfill the following list of tasks:


    a) anti-aircraft defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it;
    b) ensuring the security of strategic submarine cruisers in combat patrol areas;
    c)  search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;
    d) detection, guidance and destruction of the enemy's surface forces;
    e)  assurance of amphibious landing.

    Not much changed since then IMHO. D would be optional, depending on how quick can you build escort grouping.  And yes there are no large fighters on CVNs for a reason. This reason is called better usage of ship available space.

    So yes in conditions where you have limited escorting possibilities, scarce foreign bases, building 1 max 2 ships makes little sense. 1 will be at best operational. And extremely expensive.
    Not to mention costs of additional building amphibious forces. having 3 or even 4 smaller make mchu more sense to me.





    Why thy cannot protect Russian interests? How many Russian fighters were shoot down in Syria by US? or US by Russia? or how many Chinese in South China Sea? so why do you need hundreds there?

    Turkey downed one plane on cold blood due to relaxed Russian policy. Then they moved S-400 and air superiority fighters to the theatre and things changed. Syria is actually a good argument for the ones proposing to have cover of first order assets in order to avoid embarrassing loses on a deployment.



    Facts are:
    1) there was no US involvement (officially)
    2) there were NO direct US/Ru fighting, there are 2-3 large CSGs aroung all the time , none of them ever tried to attack Russains
    3) There were never more then Russia 8 fighters same time there since 2015 (excluding short Kuz stay)
    4) do you think Turkey was paralyzed by 1 S-400 battery not by whole Russian might behind it?

    so no this is the best argument you dont need large CVNs for this kind of conflict.





    Good that at least VSTOL was chosen for a good beginning  russia  russia  :Russia:
    Happy that at least you are happy Laughing

    Oh Im sure you are ahppy too that the best option finally prevailed thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Sep 16, 2018 2:05 pm

    hoom wrote:

    Aim of the design is clearly to maximise deck space & carry a large air-wing mainly with a big deck park, which is a logical aim essentially what the US has done pretty much from the start.

    Question is whether that size deck can really be supported on only a 44kton hull dunno
    It seems doubtful but I would possibly buy it on K displacement with hull extended under most of the stern overhang.

    Not sure if deck parking is so good in Arctic tough... or large deck and small hull in tropical storms which with climate change will be more and more often.

    hoom

    Posts : 1094
    Points : 1084
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom on Sun Sep 16, 2018 2:40 pm

    Krylov gonna Krylov unshaven
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 630
    Points : 624
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Sep 16, 2018 2:48 pm

    hoom wrote:Question is whether that size deck can really be supported on only a 44kton hull dunno
    It seems doubtful but I would possibly buy it on K displacement with hull extended under most of the stern overhang.
    Well, I would agree but I don't know how to calculate the displacement of a vessel reliably just by its looks. Materials, construction and internal layout, protection levels will surely have a big impact on that, without it being externally apparent I guess. They put a lot of deck on the new proposal, way beyond any other carrier I have seen, so in fact the hull is not that big.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 630
    Points : 624
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Sep 16, 2018 4:31 pm

    then Russia cannot follow neither US nor Chinese way, to expensive. They must use more cost effective means.

    :attention:Yes Sir!!

    This navy thing is too complicated, Russians should ditch it altogether and enjoy the pleasures of simple life in their dachas

    if you take a look on any hypersonic missile they are all in fact aeroballistic - they go high not to heat up due to air compression. Then going down rapidly over targets.
    Kinzhalis long range but a IMHO Iskander based stopgap before other will be developed. Definitely not suitable for any deck fighter.
    OK, please tell Leonkov so that he doesn't embarrass himself suggesting its naval deployment too!
    All hypersonic missiles will try to fly high as long as possible for obvious reasons in order to maximize range. But aeroballistic and CMs are quite different in regards of flight profile as far as I know. A Kinzhal will have a rocket engine with a given burn time that will be best used with a quasi-ballistic trajectory. Zircon will be propelled for way longer part of the flight (hence the "cruise" part of its name) and as air breathing it will have an optimal flight altitude that will be kept constant until the final approach to the target. Would be interesting to know if this last approach will be a fast angled dive or sea skimming and in the last case, for how long and with what terminal speeds.

    F-16 in Poland  will be integrated with those so I'd say F-18 can handle as well.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM
    Tis one is ER not XR tho ( 1000km range)
    Hey man you are mixing up missiles. The XR will be a heavy missile that will need at least a heavy fighter (if not restricted exclusively to heavy bombers) to be launched. Hornet from what I know can carry FPU-11 tanks with up to 1450 kg fuel so 2.3 tons is A BIT beyond that, and the front wheels limit also heavily the max length of the ordnance placed in the centerline station. The JASSM and JASSM-ER are much less than half so big and with less than half the range in the best case. But you are still conveniently ignoring that such kind of subsonic crap will not survive against robust AD unless in an incredibly massive attack. And also you forget that the version of this airframe used as AShM is the LARSM, with improved sensors due to the nature of the targets but due to this reason reduced range compared to the ER. Russians did not bother making an additional version of Calibr with massively reduced range as AShM out of excess of time and budget, reason is without proper design including high terminal speed the chances of piercing modern ADs are quite low.

    No F-35 is  5G  but after really postmature pregnancy lol1  lol1  lol1 IT is going AFAIK tehy wan it late 2020s but lest give them 10 years more  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil
    Considering the current lack of news about the plane or even involved technologies or requirements, historic development times and the fact that they will be busy paying for F-35 well into the 30's I am more than relaxed in regards of the F/A-XX. And on top of that they say it will be neither fast nor stealth, with the payload of a F-18...  should we all start trembling because a couple of drawings are released?

    We both only guessing here. I have only special link to Supreme Commander you know  lol1  lol1  lol1  Take alook on  positive trend in their plans (100k+ -> 70k  -> 44k) I can see with each iteration they get better.
    Sure, soon they will come up with a Gorshkov-XL that doubles as carrier for two helos and fishing ship, for maximum civilian use.

    I'd say something like 3 (idelly 4) +/- De Gaulle size carriers with ~30+ fighters + couple of hellos in sea control mode wouldn't be bad approach. Why universal - because you need also amphibious forces support.
    You kidding me? All this discussion to say you want 3 or 4 carriers of the de Gaulle size??? CVN with catapults and AWACS as well??
    And how is this carrier supposed to support amphibious forces???  Shocked

    glad we agree then  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup

    Yes, we agree that you are kidding me. Good that I start to realize respekt

    I
    indeed different roles - you need light carrier for basic cover in Syrian scenario.  Show me any example where smaller CV cost same as a larger one? Tell me what precisly is technical difference between LHA America ian  Nimitz in terms of capabilities? I'd love to learn something new.

    I couldn't find.
    OK... lets say they both have flat tops and are ships. The rest is different.


    Waht me thinks is:   Size is 40k+ (60k iMHO is max for budget size) to have both number of fighters, decent defensive armament and supplies.  Amphibious operations support is very nice to have (no need for extra LHD). You know originally Soviet TAKRS had to fulfill the following list of tasks:


    a) anti-aircraft defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it;
    b) ensuring the security of strategic submarine cruisers in combat patrol areas;
    c)  search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;
    d) detection, guidance and destruction of the enemy's surface forces;
    e)  assurance of amphibious landing.

    Not much changed since then IMHO. D would be optional, depending on how quick can you build escort grouping.  And yes there are no large fighters on CVNs for a reason. This reason is called better usage of ship available space.

    So yes in conditions where you have limited escorting possibilities, scarce foreign bases, building 1 max 2 ships makes little sense. 1 will be at best operational. And extremely expensive.
    Not to mention costs of additional building amphibious forces. having 3 or even 4 smaller make mchu more sense to me.
    Aha...  Suspect
    ... so you are proposing very much the same as I do, with the exception that a amphibious assault ship is fat and slow and cannot operate effectively as carrier or ASW
    If not for that I would agree. More realistically I think 2-3 LHDs will be built and with much luck and a little of political will 3-4 carriers in the size you say. Starting with the LHDs hopefully in some years and finishing in 20+ years with the complete carrier fleet. Meanwhile they have the K for limited power projection capabilities, they will have to manage without anything better.

    Facts are:
    1) there was no US involvement (officially)
    2) there were NO direct US/Ru fighting, there are 2-3 large CSGs aroung all the time , none of them ever tried to attack Russains
    3) There were never more then Russia 8 fighters same time there since 2015 (excluding short Kuz stay)
    4) do you think Turkey was paralyzed by 1 S-400 battery not by whole Russian might behind it?

    so no this is the best argument you dont need large CVNs for this kind of conflict.
    What on Earth has to do the lack of official US involvement in the fact that Russians know who did it, why and how to prevent it in the future?
    Do you happen to think that the reason why there has been no further escalation and hence the enabling factor for intervention is that Russia is not far away? How would things work in a deployment further from home??

    The first level of the conflict is political and related to avoid embarrassing situations, not about a complete military defeat. The small number of fighters and SAMs is not an antidote against all combined NATO forces in ME, but a deterrent: unless under a massive, unjustifiable attack against them they can give a black eye to the aggressor and make them think twice before being too cocky, under the risk that they can be the embarrassed ones. But if the deployed assets are not up to the task then they are gladly turn into targets. A trap like the one laid to the Su-24 was only possible because it was not protected and prepared for possible threats. With Su-35s covered by S-400 things changed a bit.

    Oh Im sure you are ahppy too that the best option finally prevailed thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
    You are very optimistic given the history of cancelled Russian projects aren't you?
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2157
    Points : 2149
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Sun Sep 16, 2018 4:49 pm

    F-16 in Poland  will be integrated with those so I'd say F-18 can handle as well.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM
    Tis one is ER not XR tho ( 1000km range)

    Which version did they receive ? I think it was the ER with almost 1000km range. Isn't it illegal since they signed the treaty that limit the range of export missiles to 300km ? Even the normal one has a range of some 380km if I'm not wrong.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:43 pm

    Isos wrote:
    F-16 in Poland  will be integrated with those so I'd say F-18 can handle as well.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM
    Tis one is ER not XR tho ( 1000km range)

    Which version did they receive ? I think it was the ER with almost 1000km range. Isn't it illegal since they signed the treaty that limit the range of export missiles to 300km ? Even the normal one has a range of some 380km if I'm not wrong.


    https://www.defence24.com/70-jassm-er-missiles-for-the-polish-f-16-fighters-us-state-department-issues-a-consent
    US Department of State approved the transaction, the goal of which is to make it possible for Poland to acquire the JASSM-ER cruise missiles. The ER version has a range which exceeds 900 kilometres. USD 200 million has been defined as the maximum amount of the contract.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:37 am

    LMFS wrote:
    then Russia cannot follow neither US nor Chinese way, to expensive. They must use more cost effective means.
    :attention:Yes Sir!!

    This navy thing is too complicated, Russians should ditch it altogether and enjoy the pleasures of simple life in their dachas

    for you for now, no worries I'll explain to you in simpler  words   lol1  lol1 lol1






    if you take a look on any hypersonic missile they are all in fact aeroballistic - they go high not to heat up due to air compression. Then going down rapidly over targets.
    Kinzhalis long range but a IMHO Iskander based stopgap before other will be developed. Definitely not suitable for any deck fighter.
    OK, please tell Leonkov so that he doesn't embarrass himself suggesting its naval deployment too!

    did he explain what is going to carry Kinzhal? MiG-31 deck version? Suspect Suspect Suspect





    All hypersonic missiles will try to fly high as long as possible for obvious reasons in order to maximize range. But aeroballistic and CMs are quite different in regards of flight profile as far as I know. A Kinzhal will have a rocket engine with a given burn time that will be best used with a quasi-ballistic trajectory.  Zircon will be propelled for way longer part of the flight (hence the "cruise" part of its name) and as air breathing it will have an optimal flight altitude that will be kept constant until the final approach to the target. Would be interesting to know if this last approach will be a fast angled dive or sea skimming and in the last case, for how long and with what terminal speeds.

    i dont know if Kinzhal doesn't have air breathing engine too. It is also able to change directory so form this perspective not much changes with respect to ZIrcon.






    But you are still conveniently ignoring that such kind of subsonic crap will not survive against robust AD unless in an incredibly massive attack. And also you forget that the version of this airframe used as AShM is the LARSM, with improved sensors due to the nature of the targets but due to this reason reduced range compared to the ER. Russians did not bother making an additional version of Calibr with massively reduced range as AShM out of excess of time and budget, reason is without proper design including high terminal speed the chances of piercing modern ADs are quite low.

    1) F-18 has 8 tons of of payload unlike Su-33 (6500 ) or MiG-29k (5500).
    2) Subsonic "crap " is designed to break into Russian/Chinese AADs

    Do you think that in US they dont know what AAD is doing? Yes they CAN do supersonic missiles yet they decided subsonic but very low observable. For a good reason I'd say. Apparently in specifics of US/Russian Chinese conflicts this a optimal approach.





    No F-35 is  5G  but after really postmature pregnancy lol1  lol1  lol1 IT is going AFAIK tehy wan it late 2020s but lest give them 10 years more  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil
    Considering the current lack of news about the plane or even involved technologies or requirements, historic development times and the fact that they will be busy paying for F-35 well into the 30's I am more than relaxed in regards of the F/A-XX. And on top of that they say it will be neither fast nor stealth, with the payload of a F-18...  should we all start trembling because a couple of drawings are released?

    perhaps reading with understanding would be a good start? it is about survivability at first. Ranges to be higher, engines more efficient.
    In mid 2030s F-18 will be just worn out. Russian carriers  (if build) will be fresh then.

    BTW F-35 easily kills Su-33 and MiG-29k due to old avionics. If nothing changes it is not good for Russia either. That's wny I guess Russia wants to build VSTOL as light LMFSin 6gen tech.




    I'd say something like 3 (idelly 4) +/- De Gaulle size carriers with ~30+ fighters + couple of hellos in sea control mode wouldn't be bad approach. Why universal - because you need also amphibious forces support.
    You kidding me? All this discussion to say you want 3 or 4 carriers of the de Gaulle size??? CVN with catapults and AWACS as well??
    And how is this carrier supposed to support amphibious forces???  Shocked

    I believe this would be pretty much optimal  cost/effect ratio. BTW no catapult, why VSTOL i goes nicely with ski-jump.  de Gaulle is smaller than LHA America and can carry 800 marines, QE2 can carry 250 although capacity is ~ 1000 bove compliment. LHA america 1600 Marines.


    Yes QE2 has secondary role amphibious group support.




    So yes in conditions where you have limited escorting possibilities, scarce foreign bases, building 1 max 2 ships makes little sense. 1 will be at best operational. And extremely expensive.
    Not to mention costs of additional building amphibious forces. having 3 or even 4 smaller make mchu more sense to me.
    Aha...  Suspect

    ... so you are proposing very much the same as I do, with the exception that a amphibious assault ship is fat and slow and cannot operate effectively as carrier or ASW
    If not for that I would agree. More realistically I think 2-3 LHDs will be built and with much luck and a little of political will 3-4 carriers in the size you say. Starting with the LHDs hopefully in some years and finishing in 20+ years with the complete carrier fleet. Meanwhile they have the K for limited power projection capabilities, they will have to manage without anything better.

    Not sure why they are fat and slow (America ad CVN De Gaulle  have comparable speeds). TO make it clear: I am for  a modular light carrier if you prefer. And actually being modular mission dependent they are designed to have ASW role unlike classical CV. They can have different air wing in Syria, far north or If you need to go to Nigeria or Somalia to kick some pirates' buts and extract personnel you have one -top-shop


    After 20+ years perhaps they will build  carriers perhaps or never as all fighting moves to orbit  lol1  lol1  lol1







    Facts are:
    1) there was no US involvement (officially)

    What on Earth has to do the lack of official US involvement in the fact that Russians know who did it, why and how to prevent it in the future?
    Do you happen to think that the reason why there has been no further escalation and hence the enabling factor for intervention is that Russia is not far away? How would things work in a deployment further from home??


    same, Avangard reached  in ~20 minutes any place on earth



    But if the deployed assets are not up to the task then they are gladly turn into targets. A trap like the one laid to the Su-24 was only possible because it was not protected and prepared for possible threats. With Su-35s covered by S-400 things changed a bit.

    Surely,  but with 30 LMFS and sea based S-500/S-350. If this wont work you are in IIIWW





    Oh Im sure you are ahppy too that the best option finally prevailed thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
    You are very optimistic given the history of cancelled Russian projects aren't you?


    Soviet ? no. I dont expect dissolution of Russia anytime soon. And later neither  lol1  lol1  lol1
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18119
    Points : 18679
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:03 am

    BTW F-35 easily kills Su-33 and MiG-29k due to old avionics.

    F-35s wont even enter Syrian air space... how good do you actually think they are?

    Next gen AAMs designed to destroy stealth fighters and stealth bombers could easily be loaded onto Su-33s and MiG-29Ks to deal with F-35s... with AWACS support the Flankers and Fulcrums don't even need to turn on their radars and can receive target information from ships and AWACS platforms.

    How is the F-35 supposed to defeat the Flanker and Fulcrums?

    Its armament is AMRAAM, SIDEWINDER, and a cannon... jamming pods and towed decoys will deal with AMRAAM, and DIRCMS will deal with Sidewinders, so it comes down to guns for the F-35.

    A whole new generation of AAMs is being developed for the Su-57 and the primary enemy target will be stealthy fighters and stealthy bombers... the Americans are not developing anything else... so some sort of mixed active/passive radar homing missiles with IIR backup seekers and also probably some other sneaky method of finding and tracking stealthy targets... the Flanker and Fulcrum could both easily carry large numbers of such weapons if need be.

    If it comes down to guns only my money would be on the two Russian aircraft too.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:16 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    BTW F-35 easily kills Su-33 and MiG-29k due to old avionics.

    F-35s wont even enter Syrian air space... how good do you actually think they are?


    and only because of Su-33 which are not there right?





    Next gen AAMs designed to destroy stealth fighters and stealth bombers could easily be loaded onto Su-33s and MiG-29Ks to deal with F-35s... with AWACS support the Flankers and Fulcrums don't even need to turn on their radars and can receive target information from ships and AWACS platforms.

    How is the F-35 supposed to defeat the Flanker and Fulcrums?


    What new gen AAM do you mean? Su-33 has avionics last time updated when in 2009? Ahh and how many AWACShas Kuz?

    dunno dunno dunno



    A whole new generation of AAMs is being developed for the Su-57 and the primary enemy target will be stealthy fighters and stealthy bombers... the Americans are not developing anything else...

    we are talking about S-33 vs F-35 not Su-57 right ?



    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Sep 23, 2018 1:22 pm