Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Share
    avatar
    eehnie

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:07 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    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!

    1.- This is not explicitly said. Neither if it is for full load or partial load. Data for full load is more habitual.

    2.- In every aircraft carrier with 3 or 4 take-off points, the take off-trajectory of some of them cuts the landing runway.

    3.- Landing distance is shorter than not assisted take-off distance that is habitually given for maximum load. As example, landing never is done with maximum load because of the consum of fuel during the fly.

    4.- Most of the aditional structural efforts of the variants for aircraft carrier have been until now to make the aircraft to reduce its take-off distance, in order to be able to operate from aircraf carriers. All them are included in the main variant of the Su-57.

    5.- The simultaneous designs help to make the Su-57 compatible with the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carriers. It would be very negligent to have not mutual feedback and influence. Certainly, this has been happening in approximately, the last 10 years.

    6.- At this point a navalized Su-57 would include solutions for storage and little more. But with the potential use of standard aircrafts based on land this becomes less important. As example. When you have a specific aircraft to operate from aircraft carriers it is important to store 90 of them instead of 60, because there are not aditional land based specific units. But when standard aircrafts are used frin aurcraft carriers, near the mainland the aircraft fleet of the aircraft carrier can become 60 (carrier based) + 60 (land based), because the aircraft carrier can be used by land based aircrafts as transit and maybe supply base. Still it is an advantage to be be considered, that can be also useful for land based Su-57.

    7.- The 300 m runway lenght, means the availability of the main variant of the Su-57 ifor use from aircraft carriers. This is the most important part. With it, the Su-57 in its main variant has not competitor, not in cost, neither in performance. VTOL/STOVL solutions will be underperformers and more expensive.

    8.- The achievement of the first fly by 2025 of the Tu-PAK-DA, the MiG-41, and even of a replacement of the Su-34 developped from the Su-57, is doable independently of other projects without problem, but if the Russian United Aircraft Corporation, and specially Yakovlev, would have resources for more by 2025, there are strong need to attend in the refered to the transport and airliner aircrafts, that is where they are more delayed in order to complete the new generation of armament and auxiliary equipment. The MS-21 is not enough, a good number of projects need still impulse.

    9.- August 2018, and there is not alternative project publicly known to the Project 23000 that can become its competitor. Providing the use of the Su-57 from aircraft carriers, the Project 23000 Shtorm has not competitor. Abysmal performance difference.
    avatar
    LMFS

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:43 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    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.

    I am referring in general to the conventional single hull. Hull is thin and with a form factor that does not allow for big internal space, unless you go to extreme dimensions.

    On a multi-hull concept, you could use angled deck or not, it depends on many things. But due to the form factor, you get huge hangars and internal space with great sea-worthiness (trimaran) and speed.

    Depending on how you solve the AEW / refuelling issues, you could also use a design similar to the Kuznetsov's one to go the low risk path.

    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.
    Agree, therefore, better to consider what technology will allow in terms of unmanned flight and AEW then.

    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.
    Yes, but you need to consider numbers. USN has such a huge amount of carriers and so big air wings that you should spread the risk on platforms capable of self defence instead of concentrating it on little survivable assets like AWACS. You would struggle to protect them.

    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...
    Well, we move progressively in that direction. Not that AWACS are going to disappear any time soon, but as the rest of platforms are more and more capable they may be "less irreplaceable" than before.

    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.
    They have uncle Sam to help in case of need, that could be a reason. Nevertheless catapults seem prohibitive for most navies fro some reason. Let us see what happens with EMALS.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:11 pm

    ..the basic documents for shipbuilders are the state defense order and the state program of armaments, and only there it is stipulated which ships will be built for the Russian Navy. "As soon as some of these documents appear or disappear, it's worth returning to this topic," the source said.
    http://www.ng.ru/news/625563.html?print=Y
    Russia to create new vertical takeoff aircraft
    http://www.pravdareport.com/news/science/tech/21-08-2018/141430-vertical_takeoff-0/
    As of 2018 a number of recent developments within the Russian military, and the Russian Navy in particular, could well lead to the revival of the Yak-141 program. As Russia’s economy began a slow recovery from the year 2000, and the country sought to enhance its military capabilities under a massive modernisation drive initiated in 2008, a number of partially completed Soviet era weapons program have been revived. From the late 2000s Chief of the Russian General Staff General Nikolai Makarov has strongly advocated the need for light carriers to enter service in the country’s navy, with four such carriers planned under a joint project with France from which Paris withdrew in 2014. Russia has since worked to develop the capabilities to built light carrier warships domestically, and according to Navy Deputy Commander in Chief Viktor Bursuk the country is set to begin construction of the first of these ships in 2020. Two carrier variants are currently planned, which have been referred to as the “universal amphibious assault ship” and “large amphibious assault ship.” The first of these are, according to Deputy Defence Minister Yuri Borisov, set to enter service in the early 2020s, and the heavier class reportedly could displace up to 40,000 tons.
    With the resurrection of a light carrier program, the Russian Navy will for the first time since the USSR’s fall have need for advanced VTOL capable fighter aircraft. With a number of states which field light carriers set to acquire F-35B short takeoff vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for their warships, Japan’s Izumo Class, the United States’ Wasp and America Class assault ships and Italy’s Cavour and Giuseppe Garibaldi among them, Russia may well follow this trend and attempt to induct a fighter with yet more sophisticated VTOL capabilities. With the Yak-141 already in late prototype stages at the time of its cancellation, research and development costs to move the design to a production ready stage would be significantly reduced. With a significant demand for low cost aircraft capable of operating from light carriers, with China, Thailand and South Korea all potential clients which field such warships, the Yak-141 could also potentially become a major export success for Russian military aviation. With China currently building three 075 amphibious assault ships, massive 40,000 ton vessels each capable of deploying up to 30 aircraft, Beijing is likely to be a major client for an advanced Russian VTOL fighter - with export sales subsiding the cost of starting the program and making it considerably more cost effective.
    The VTOL fighters are set to serve as an effective force multiplier for any carrier strike group which fields them, with the aircraft likely to deploy some of Russia's most capable standoff weapons allowing them to threaten enemy aircraft and warships at extreme ranges. Considering that the original Yak-141 was to be equipped with R-77 air to air missiles, long range platforms and the most advanced in the Russian inventory at the time, it remains possible that a modern adaptation of the platform could deploy lethal new K-77 air to air missiles - platforms based on the R-77 but extensively modified for deployment by next generation fighters and retains an unparalleled 193km strike range and a high degree of precision. State of the art anti ship missiles far surpassing those fielded by Western carrier based fighters such as the F-35B,  weapons such as the Mach 3 Kh-41 and 300km range Kh-35U and P-800, allow even relatively small carrier warships the size of the Dokdo or Mistral Class to deploy lethal firepower and thus gain an asymmetric advantage at sea by fielding even a small contingent of Yak-141 jets. Equipping the fighter with advanced AESA radars based on those recently developed for the MiG-35 and Su-57 also remains a significantly possibility. Considering the high potential for exports and Russia’s considerable need for these aircraft for its own navy should the country’s light carrier program be seen through, the completion of the Yak-141 program and finally inducting the advanced fighter into active service, most likely with a number of modernisations applied, represents a potentially highly feasible project and one which there is a good chance the Russian military will pursue.
    https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/70726

    The new STOVL fighter may be as different from the Yak-141 as the TU-22 is from the TU-22M: https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/547228-rossiya-samolyot-vertikalnyi-vzlyot-posadka

    I can already hear GarryB saying that "they won't be related"!

    kumbor

    Posts : 162
    Points : 160
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  kumbor on Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:08 pm


    My opinion is that the revival of STOVL Yak-141 would be a mistake, as that plane was projected 35 years ago and it has never been finalised except for few prototype aircraft.
    With SU-57 Russia has designed an airframe for the next 50 years, or so, including future naval (palubnaya) version. We can only wait and see, but with such numerous naval, airforce and land programs underway, i think it would be too much to go for new STOVL airplane. No money.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:36 pm

    Still le$$ than 80-100K Ton CVN that neither India nor any1 else will buy, w/o which it's unaffordable now & into foreseeable future. At least STOVLs may be exported & used by the VKS too.
    avatar
    LMFS

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:22 pm

    New light carrier proposal from Krylov:

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5476445


    avatar
    AlfaT8

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:36 pm

    Well if the Ruskies want to re-learn the mistakes of the Kiev the hard way, then by all means, carry on.
    We t will simply have to wait for them to come back to the Carrier.
    How tragically Cyclical.

    As for exports, other than India who else is there?
    avatar
    AlfaT8

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:01 pm

    LMFS wrote:New light carrier proposal from Krylov:

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5476445



    Ok

    This is most definitely not the purposed 70KT carrier.
    It's a cheaper light carrier, basically the Kuz with a wider deck, smaller tower, a bit more length, less firepower scratch  and no Catapult.
    Apparently it's meant for export, so it'll use gas turbine engines.

    Weighs 44 thousand tons and can carry up to 46 aircraft.
    I would have gone for something closer to 60KT.
    avatar
    Isos

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:32 pm

    LMFS wrote:New light carrier proposal from Krylov:

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5476445



    They could have allowed more space for launching the fighters. They almost start on the ski-jump while they could start 50m behind where the mig is on the lift.

    They didn't correct the mistakes from K. It's a shame that they propose that. It clearly shows a lack of work. But still better than the chinese copy, indian copy of Vikramanditya or even K.

    kumbor

    Posts : 162
    Points : 160
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  kumbor on Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:54 pm

    Isos wrote:
    LMFS wrote:New light carrier proposal from Krylov:

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5476445



    They could have allowed more space for launching the fighters. They almost start on the ski-jump while they could start 50m behind where the mig is on the lift.

    They didn't correct the mistakes from K. It's a shame that they propose that. It clearly shows a lack of work. But still better than the chinese copy, indian copy of Vikramanditya  or even K.

    You say it is, allegedly, GT powered. Where is the funnel? I see no funnel? Apparently nuclear powered. Moreover, Kuz is 304m long OA. A piece of a ship! I guess displacement of this project at 60.000t standard/70.000 full load, not less. About 50 aircraft. I think it is just what Russian navy needs. Also, this is only a model, It is not even start-up project. And guys from Krylov institute know their job. Also, by the time this hypothetic carrier is launched, Chinese may have even better project for export.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:13 am

    Apparently it's meant for export, so it'll use gas turbine engines.
    Storm offered to India was a CVN, so nuclear propulsion can be exported.
    Also, by the time this hypothetic carrier is launched, Chinese may have even better project for export.
    They r not even remotely short of $, & will be building CV/Ns for their navy 1st, not for Brazil, Argentina, Thailand, Turkey, Pakistan & certainly not for India.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7245
    Points : 7339
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:19 am


    This is not helicopter/STOVL carrier.

    Where is that one? Cool
    avatar
    Isos

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:22 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    This is not helicopter/STOVL carrier.

    Where is that one? Cool

    Rogozin took it with him lol1 They will build it on the moon cheers
    avatar
    LMFS

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:29 am

    eehnie wrote:
    1.- This is not explicitly said. Neither if it is for full load or partial load. Data for full load is more habitual.
    OK, we can just speculate. Have never seen the PAKFA doing that, only the rotation phase takes nearly that.

    2.- In every aircraft carrier with 3 or 4 take-off points, the take off-trajectory of some of them cuts the landing runway.
    Normally, the ones at the front are the main ones. What you say would mean using only the ones at the rear that interfere the landing strip, and it is really not necessary with a sky jump, even for a standard Su-57

    3.- Landing distance is shorter than not assisted take-off distance that is habitually given for maximum load. As example, landing never is done with maximum load because of the consum of fuel during the fly.
    You mean, breaking the plane is shorter than take off? Have you seen any video of operations at the Kuznetsov? Why do you think carriers have arrestors then???

    4.- Most of the aditional structural efforts of the variants for aircraft carrier have been until now to make the aircraft to reduce its take-off distance, in order to be able to operate from aircraf carriers. All them are included in the main variant of the Su-57.
    I am not aware of that and it makes no sense. Increasing weight to improve take-off?

    5.- The simultaneous designs help to make the Su-57 compatible with the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carriers. It would be very negligent to have not mutual feedback and influence. Certainly, this has been happening in approximately, the last 10 years.
    Certainly. I see no problem for a navalized Su-57, only the position of the arrestor hook could interfere with the rear bay. I am sure the wings could be folded for small footprint, just by seeing what was achieved with the Su-33.

    6.- At this point a navalized Su-57 would include solutions for storage and little more. But with the potential use of standard aircrafts based on land this becomes less important. As example. When you have a specific aircraft to operate from aircraft carriers it is important to store 90 of them instead of 60, because there are not aditional land based specific units. But when standard aircrafts are used frin aurcraft carriers, near the mainland the aircraft fleet of the aircraft carrier can become 60 (carrier based) + 60 (land based), because the aircraft carrier can be used by land based aircrafts as transit and maybe supply base. Still it is an advantage to be be considered, that can be also useful for land based Su-57.
    CVs are designed to operate far from home. Apart that you keep ignoring that you need to arrest the plane during landing and you need a hook for that.

    7.- The 300 m runway lenght, means the availability of the main variant of the Su-57 ifor use from aircraft carriers. This is the most important part. With it, the Su-57 in its main variant has not competitor, not in cost, neither in performance. VTOL/STOVL solutions will be underperformers and more expensive.
    Agree with the last part but not on the first one. A navalized Su-57 would not need to be expensive at all.

    9.- August 2018, and there is not alternative project publicly known to the Project 23000 that can become its competitor. Providing the use of the Su-57 from aircraft carriers, the Project 23000 Shtorm has not competitor. Abysmal performance difference.
    There is one already
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:57 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    This is not helicopter/STOVL carrier. Where is that one? Cool

    U may contact Krylov & Nevskoe Design Bureau public relations offices for a tentative date models of it'll be released. If it's not by them, I hope u'll be redirected to appropriate entity. But be rest assured that some sketches of it already exist.
    A number of reports have also indicated that Russia is considering developing a specialised fighter jet to operate from the hull of its carriers, either the larger warships alone or both types of vessel, which could be heavily based on the Yak-141 vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft. These fighters could potentially field cutting edge Russian fifth generation technologies including Phazotron Zhuk AE active electronically scanned array radars and K-77 air to air missiles - allowing them to effectively fulfil a fleet defence role and complement the integrated air defence networks of Russia’s carrier strike groups. https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/70771
    avatar
    eehnie

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:26 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Apparently it's meant for export, so it'll use gas turbine engines.
    Storm offered to India was a CVN, so nuclear propulsion can be exported.
    Also, by the time this hypothetic carrier is launched, Chinese may have even better project for export.
    They r not even remotely short of $, & will be building CV/Ns for their navy 1st, not for Brazil, Argentina, Thailand, Turkey, Pakistan  & certainly not for India.

    No, the Project 23000 variant to export was also non nuclear.

    hoom

    Posts : 1318
    Points : 1308
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom on Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:47 pm

    This is most definitely not the purposed 70KT carrier.
    It's a cheaper light carrier, basically the Kuz with a wider deck, smaller tower, a bit more length, less firepower scratch and no Catapult....
    ...
    Weighs 44 thousand tons and can carry up to 46 aircraft.
    The model & the text are contradictory.
    The model depicts something clearly significantly bigger than K, I'd say its 100k.

    Compare

    with

    and


    On K the long launch is about 3/4 the length ending about the rear of the island the model its at most 2/3 also endin at the rear of the (smaller) island.
    The model has 7 Su-33 parked behind the island, K gets 5 & the model still has room for 5 Migs ahead of the island.
    Small lifts in the deck is odd

    I'm not opposed to the idea of a 44k light carrier, thats Vikramaditya size.

    I think its very viable & a fair prospect to get the 2 each for North & Pacific fleets.
    Designed from the start to maximise airgroup, with modern tech and experience from operating K + the Vikramaditya rebuild it can be more efficient.
    I'd rework the deck layout with a lift on left stern and so that the long launch point is clear of the angled deck.
    Would mean preparing launches doesn't stop planes from landing.


    I'm very opposed to the idea of developing a new VSTOL plane based on Yak-141, I just don't believe that can be as efficient as STOBAR.
    Even if they're talking about planes for a LHD type ship I think you'd be better to go for a non-V design specifically designed for ski-jump takeoff & rolling landing.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:54 pm

    No, the Project 23000 variant to export was also non nuclear.
    That's besides the point- both variants were offered, therefore CVNs could be exported, esp. after leasing SSNs to them:
    https://sputniknews.com/military/201709121057307647-india-russia-nuclear-submarine/

    Channel Istanbul: what benefits Russia?
    https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2468515.html

    Russia will benefit from it, as Turkish economy will become stronger & bigger merchant ships gain entry to the Black Sea, facilitating trade in her ports.
    avatar
    LMFS

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:49 pm

    Info about the Shtorm-KM, the light carrier proposal by Krylov:

    The fate of another bold project - the light multi-purpose aircraft carrier Storm-KM - with a displacement of 37 to 44 thousand tons, first introduced to the general public, is also unclear. His heavy nuclear fellow Storm KGNC showed at the International Maritime Defense Show in St. Petersburg in 2013. The project of a ship with a displacement of one hundred thousand tons turned out to be too large-scale. So we decided to start with a smaller aircraft carrier.

    "Storm-KM" is designed for 46 aircraft - 12-14 heavy Su-33 fighters, 12-14 light MiG-29K, four long-range radar surveillance aircraft and 12-14 multi-purpose helicopters Ka-27, "told RIA Novosti head of the project department Alexey Litsis. - From the nuclear power plant for a number of reasons they refused in favor of a gas turbine power of 110 thousand horsepower. We are often asked: where is his pipe? There are no pipes, the "exhaust" will be drained down along the sides. This, in particular, will also reduce the visibility of the ship. Autonomy "Storm-KM" for provisions for about two months, the speed - up to 28 knots. The take-off of aircraft will be carried out in two ways - both from a springboard (for the most heavily armed vehicles), and through an electromechanical catapult, using cables. "

    It should be noted that at the end of the first day, the delegation of the Russian Ministry of Defense stayed at the stand with mock-ups of perspective ships for a long time, and studied the project of a light aircraft carrier with interest. It is possible that the fate of this and dozens of other bold but obviously not cheap projects will be decided on the "Army-2018". Time to think everything over and still weigh, the forum will end only on Sunday, August 26.

    РИА Новости https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20180821/1526969105.html


    kumbor

    Posts : 162
    Points : 160
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  kumbor on Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:59 am

    LMFS wrote:Info about the Shtorm-KM, the light carrier proposal by Krylov:

    The fate of another bold project - the light multi-purpose aircraft carrier Storm-KM - with a displacement of 37 to 44 thousand tons, first introduced to the general public, is also unclear. His heavy nuclear fellow Storm KGNC showed at the International Maritime Defense Show in St. Petersburg in 2013. The project of a ship with a displacement of one hundred thousand tons turned out to be too large-scale. So we decided to start with a smaller aircraft carrier.

    "Storm-KM" is designed for 46 aircraft - 12-14 heavy Su-33 fighters, 12-14 light MiG-29K, four long-range radar surveillance aircraft and 12-14 multi-purpose helicopters Ka-27, "told RIA Novosti head of the project department Alexey Litsis. - From the nuclear power plant for a number of reasons they refused in favor of a gas turbine power of 110 thousand horsepower. We are often asked: where is his pipe? There are no pipes, the "exhaust" will be drained down along the sides. This, in particular, will also reduce the visibility of the ship. Autonomy "Storm-KM" for provisions for about two months, the speed - up to 28 knots. The take-off of aircraft will be carried out in two ways - both from a springboard (for the most heavily armed vehicles), and through an electromechanical catapult, using cables. "

    It should be noted that at the end of the first day, the delegation of the Russian Ministry of Defense stayed at the stand with mock-ups of perspective ships for a long time, and studied the project of a light aircraft carrier with interest. It is possible that the fate of this and dozens of other bold but obviously not cheap projects will be decided on the "Army-2018". Time to think everything over and still weigh, the forum will end only on Sunday, August 26.

    РИА Новости https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20180821/1526969105.html


    Obviously, they have forgotten that warships have clear tendency to "grow" while building, becoming bigger and heavier. The comparison with bread dough is perfectly adequate. Разбухают корабли, разбухают, растут!
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:41 am

    There are no pipes, the "exhaust" will be drained down along the sides. This, in particular, will also reduce the visibility of the ship. Autonomy "Storm-KM" for provisions for about two months, the speed - up to 28 knots. The take-off of aircraft will be carried out in two ways - both from a springboard (for the most heavily armed vehicles), and through an electromechanical catapult, using cables. "
    Those pipes with hot gases will take space & may cause fires!
    28 kts is little slow for a CV! CV-60 had 35 kn (65 km/h; 40 mph);
    CV-61, CV-64 & CV-66 had 34 knots (63 km/h); CV-59, CV-62 & CV-63 had 33 knots (61 km/h):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Saratoga_(CV-60)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ranger_(CV-61)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constellation_(CV-64)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(CV-66)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal_(CV-59)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Independence_(CV-62)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kitty_Hawk_(CV-63)

    "Electromechanical" catapult? They had problems with arresting gear cables, losing 2 fighters, did they fix them to make stronger cables for CAT?

    hoom

    Posts : 1318
    Points : 1308
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom on Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:25 am

    28 kts is little slow for a CV!
    Top speed of K is 29kt.
    UK Queen Elizabeth is designed for 25kt, apparently did 27.5 over ground in trials according to AIS. (over ground = current, wind etc may be included, unknown what weight that was at & also that was before the whole leaking around the prop-shafts thing being announced...)
    Charles de Gaulle is 27kt. (btw 42,000ton)


    kumbor

    Posts : 162
    Points : 160
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  kumbor on Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:22 am

    hoom wrote:
    28 kts is little slow for a CV!
    Top speed of K is 29kt.
    UK Queen Elizabeth is designed for 25kt, apparently did 27.5 over ground in trials according to AIS. (over ground = current, wind etc may be included, unknown what weight that was at & also that was before the whole leaking around the prop-shafts thing being announced...)
    Charles de Gaulle is 27kt. (btw 42,000ton)


    Kuz attained 29 knots only on trials. As machinery status deteriorated, best speed has fallen down to 18 knots. During last Syria deployment, after partial boiler refit, she attained 23 knots! Machinery needs complete overhaul!
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:49 pm

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

    Big wing area, low drag, smaller than an Su-33 but rather more powerful engines... with even more powerful engines within 5 years...

    Plus the ski jump boost for takeoff performance... not to mention the ability to turn the nose of the ship into the wind and often be able to sail into the wind to further increase lift.

    Plus 90% if the time the most critical mission for an Su-57 on a carrier would be with a relatively light load (air to air loads are rarely more than 30% max load potential) plus full fuel...

    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

    A conventional takeoff on a runway is not the same as having wheel blocks hold you back while you run the engines up to full power before being released for takeoff...

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

    Fitting arrester hooks to MiG-33s and Su-33s was not that difficult.

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

    Corrosion resistance is an issue for all modern aircraft...

    High composite material content helps in this regard.


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

    The prototypes of the PAK FA were upgraded with improved strengthening already...

    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.

    The current information about the MiG-35 suggests it can be used on carriers with minimal modification and that future service models will be able to operate from carriers if needed.

    This might sound a little strange but they have already done tests where cables across roads attached to gearing in trucks are used for mobile landing strips on motorways with arrested landings.

    It would be an ideal way to disperse aircraft without the problems of VSTOL aircraft that destroy conventional paved roads on landing and take offs.

    Well, in fact it seems they are pushing for the STOVL, that points (sadly) rather to half-arsed carriers than to Shtorms!

    I am sure common sense will prevail.

    I think they know half arsed small carriers are not value for money... I rather suspect they will develop EMALs, and VSTOL aircraft, and normal fixed wing aircraft and use them on 70-90K ton carriers.

    They wont go for dinky 20K ton helicopter carrier cum air superiority carrier... they will likely use VSTOL aircraft as an aircraft with extra and different capability options... much the same way they operate MiG-29K2 and Su-33 aircraft on the K.

    I am referring in general to the conventional single hull. Hull is thin and with a form factor that does not allow for big internal space, unless you go to extreme dimensions.

    Making it long and relatively narrow is so it can move through the water faster than a barge...

    Multihull designs would reduce drag and increase speed and internal volume... but will also dramatically increase weight... and weight often corresponds to cost in terms of building and operating...

    Agree, therefore, better to consider what technology will allow in terms of unmanned flight and AEW then.

    Manned aircraft are easier and cheaper to develop and test... starting with a manned aircraft and then perhaps developing an unmanned version would be a much safer way of going...

    Yes, but you need to consider numbers. USN has such a huge amount of carriers and so big air wings that you should spread the risk on platforms capable of self defence instead of concentrating it on little survivable assets like AWACS. You would struggle to protect them.

    Even if you had zero fighters... an AWACS platform operating above several capital ships and perhaps half a dozen destroyers is the equivalent of flying an A-100 above 100 S-400 batteries and perhaps 10 S-500 batteries with Pantsir and TOR and BUK for support... I think it would be the safest thing in the sky... even if the US had an ICBM with a terminal warhead that was an ARM... the S-500 would likely shoot it down...

    Now if you add a few Su-57s there then it becomes even better protected... as do the ships the aircraft are operating with.

    Well, we move progressively in that direction. Not that AWACS are going to disappear any time soon, but as the rest of platforms are more and more capable they may be "less irreplaceable" than before.

    If your AWACS is going to become a tiny fighter sized platform in the form of a UAV then I would agree... but anything you can fit into a fighter you can put something much much better in a large AWACS platform.

    The Soviets already looked at mini awacs ideas in the PVO... the whole point behind the Su-30M was a large aircraft with a large radar supported by lots of smaller cheaper aircraft with less capable radars... the Su-30 flys around looking for threats with its big powerful radar and when it detects a threat it sends a smaller cheaper fighter towards the target at high speed and high altitude, but with its radar off... the enemy sees the Su-30 but wont see the MiG... the MiG- uses target data from the Flanker and launches a missile much closer to the target and then turns back while the Su-30 basically manages the missile to the target for a kill... the MiG burns a lot of fuel and uses missiles, but it can land and rearm and refuel while the flanker directs other MiGs to targets and just cruises at medium altitude looking and directing other platforms for attack.

    The point is that an AWACS platform could do the same over much greater ranges with 360 degree coverage for much longer... with bigger better radar... it doesn't matter how much better new radars in fighters are becoming... the same radar 4 times bigger in an AWACS plane will always be better... especially with smaller stealthy targets becoming an issue.... (Swarms etc).

    They have uncle Sam to help in case of need, that could be a reason. Nevertheless catapults seem prohibitive for most navies fro some reason.

    I suspect uncle sam wont help with EMALS because the VSTOL model F-35 is the one they make the most profit on.... and the more the British buy the cheaper it will become for the US Marines...

    Plus you can't give a friend something you don't have yourself yet...

    The new STOVL fighter may be as different from the Yak-141 as the TU-22 is from the TU-22M: https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/547228-rossiya-samolyot-vertikalnyi-vzlyot-posadka

    I can already hear GarryB saying that "they won't be related"!

    I hope they are not related... the Yak-41 was fundamentally flawed... those two lift jet engines behind the cockpit blast hot air down... when landing on a deck that hot air will stall the main engine if it goes in the main air intake... meaning that enormous engine at the back will suddenly lose most of its power... boom.

    They couldn't solve the problem then... the only solution is a lift fan powered by the main engine... which takes up enormous internal space but is useless deadweight during normal flight.

    Personally I think the only real option is to make the front lifting system able to be angled back and operate in normal flight so it is not dead weight... something with thrust vectoring at the front and rear of the aircraft would create an eye wateringly manouverable aircraft...

    Still le$$ than 80-100K Ton CVN that neither India nor any1 else will buy, w/o which it's unaffordable now & into foreseeable future. At least STOVLs may be exported & used by the VKS too.

    What makes you think STOVL aircraft will sell? They are really only useful from small carriers and most customers able to afford small carriers around the world are looking at F-35 and would never consider a Russian aircraft no matter how much better it would be.

    Russia likely wont sell any CVNs, but it wont sell any SSBNs either...

    New light carrier proposal from Krylov:

    Is that the right picture... it looks enormous....

    Apparently it's meant for export, so it'll use gas turbine engines.

    Go nuke or go home I say... though for export I could understand no nukes.

    and no cats... no point developing EMALS for gas turbine ships...

    Weighs 44 thousand tons and can carry up to 46 aircraft.
    I would have gone for something closer to 60KT.

    A conventionally powered ship would need a lot of bunkerage... I would go for 60K ton too...

    I am not aware of that and it makes no sense. Increasing weight to improve take-off?

    Structural strengthening to allow heavier landings... steeper glide paths... remember it also has thrust vectoring...

    CVs are designed to operate far from home. Apart that you keep ignoring that you need to arrest the plane during landing and you need a hook for that.

    The only fixed wing aircraft that Russia and the Soviet Union ever operated on carriers were land based aircraft developed without arrester hooks, yet in each case... MiG-33, Su-33, and Su-28, had hooks fitted... and they worked.

    Kuz attained 29 knots only on trials. As machinery status deteriorated, best speed has fallen down to 18 knots. During last Syria deployment, after partial boiler refit, she attained 23 knots! Machinery needs complete overhaul!

    That is what they are currently doing.

    "Electromechanical" catapult? They had problems with arresting gear cables, losing 2 fighters, did they fix them to make stronger cables for CAT?

    No... they are not going to fix the arrester gear... aircraft that take off from the K in future will just land somewhere else...

    And they didn't have problems with the cables... there is no arrester gear cable on this planet that could be used on its own to stop an aircraft like they do... they need fully functioning gear to allow give to stop the aircraft over a greater distance and longer time to reduce the peak stress on the cable.

    The simple fact is that if the cable didn't break but the arrester gear didn't work the plane still would have crashed... the difference would have been the tail hook would have been ripped off with potential for damage to the aircraft structure... either way the aircraft would end up in the sea.

    Correct operations is that the hook catches the cable but the cable comes out and lengthens... not instantly or it would not stop the aircraft, but it is gradually let out slowing down the aircraft and not putting all the stress on the cable (which would break it).

    kumbor

    Posts : 162
    Points : 160
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  kumbor on Thu Aug 23, 2018 1:12 pm

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

    Big wing area, low drag, smaller than an Su-33 but rather more powerful engines... with even more powerful engines within 5 years...

    Plus the ski jump boost for takeoff performance... not to mention the ability to turn the nose of the ship into the wind and often be able to sail into the wind to further increase lift.

    Plus 90% if the time the most critical mission for an Su-57 on a carrier would be with a relatively light load (air to air loads are rarely more than 30% max load potential) plus full fuel...

    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

    A conventional takeoff on a runway is not the same as having wheel blocks hold you back while you run the engines up to full power before being released for takeoff...

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

    Fitting arrester hooks to MiG-33s and Su-33s was not that difficult.

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

    Corrosion resistance is an issue for all modern aircraft...

    High composite material content helps in this regard.


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

    The prototypes of the PAK FA were upgraded with improved strengthening already...

    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.

    The current information about the MiG-35 suggests it can be used on carriers with minimal modification and that future service models will be able to operate from carriers if needed.

    This might sound a little strange but they have already done tests where cables across roads attached to gearing in trucks are used for mobile landing strips on motorways with arrested landings.

    It would be an ideal way to disperse aircraft without the problems of VSTOL aircraft that destroy conventional paved roads on landing and take offs.

    Well, in fact it seems they are pushing for the STOVL, that points (sadly) rather to half-arsed carriers than to Shtorms!

    I am sure common sense will prevail.

    I think they know half arsed small carriers are not value for money... I rather suspect they will develop EMALs, and VSTOL aircraft, and normal fixed wing aircraft and use them on 70-90K ton carriers.

    They wont go for dinky 20K ton helicopter carrier cum air superiority carrier... they will likely use VSTOL aircraft as an aircraft with extra and different capability options... much the same way they operate MiG-29K2 and Su-33 aircraft on the K.

    I am referring in general to the conventional single hull. Hull is thin and with a form factor that does not allow for big internal space, unless you go to extreme dimensions.

    Making it long and relatively narrow is so it can move through the water faster than a barge...

    Multihull designs would reduce drag and increase speed and internal volume... but will also dramatically increase weight... and weight often corresponds to cost in terms of building and operating...

    Agree, therefore, better to consider what technology will allow in terms of unmanned flight and AEW then.

    Manned aircraft are easier and cheaper to develop and test... starting with a manned aircraft and then perhaps developing an unmanned version would be a much safer way of going...

    Yes, but you need to consider numbers. USN has such a huge amount of carriers and so big air wings that you should spread the risk on platforms capable of self defence instead of concentrating it on little survivable assets like AWACS. You would struggle to protect them.

    Even if you had zero fighters... an AWACS platform operating above several capital ships and perhaps half a dozen destroyers is the equivalent of flying an A-100 above 100 S-400 batteries and perhaps 10 S-500 batteries with Pantsir and TOR and BUK for support... I think it would be the safest thing in the sky... even if the US had an ICBM with a terminal warhead that was an ARM... the S-500 would likely shoot it down...

    Now if you add a few Su-57s there then it becomes even better protected... as do the ships the aircraft are operating with.

    Well, we move progressively in that direction. Not that AWACS are going to disappear any time soon, but as the rest of platforms are more and more capable they may be "less irreplaceable" than before.

    If your AWACS is going to become a tiny fighter sized platform in the form of a UAV then I would agree... but anything you can fit into a fighter you can put something much much better in a large AWACS platform.

    The Soviets already looked at mini awacs ideas in the PVO... the whole point behind the Su-30M was a large aircraft with a large radar supported by lots of smaller cheaper aircraft with less capable radars... the Su-30 flys around looking for threats with its big powerful radar and when it detects a threat it sends a smaller cheaper fighter towards the target at high speed and high altitude, but with its radar off... the enemy sees the Su-30 but wont see the MiG... the MiG- uses target data from the Flanker and launches a missile much closer to the target and then turns back while the Su-30 basically manages the missile to the target for a kill... the MiG burns a lot of fuel and uses missiles, but it can land and rearm and refuel while the flanker directs other MiGs to targets and just cruises at medium altitude looking and directing other platforms for attack.

    The point is that an AWACS platform could do the same over much greater ranges with 360 degree coverage for much longer... with bigger better radar... it doesn't matter how much better new radars in fighters are becoming... the same radar 4 times bigger in an AWACS plane will always be better... especially with smaller stealthy targets becoming an issue.... (Swarms etc).

    They have uncle Sam to help in case of need, that could be a reason. Nevertheless catapults seem prohibitive for most navies fro some reason.

    I suspect uncle sam wont help with EMALS because the VSTOL model F-35 is the one they make the most profit on.... and the more the British buy the cheaper it will become for the US Marines...

    Plus you can't give a friend something you don't have yourself yet...

    The new STOVL fighter may be as different from the Yak-141 as the TU-22 is from the TU-22M: https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/547228-rossiya-samolyot-vertikalnyi-vzlyot-posadka

    I can already hear GarryB saying that "they won't be related"!

    I hope they are not related... the Yak-41 was fundamentally flawed... those two lift jet engines behind the cockpit blast hot air down... when landing on a deck that hot air will stall the main engine if it goes in the main air intake... meaning that enormous engine at the back will suddenly lose most of its power... boom.

    They couldn't solve the problem then... the only solution is a lift fan powered by the main engine... which takes up enormous internal space but is useless deadweight during normal flight.

    Personally I think the only real option is to make the front lifting system able to be angled back and operate in normal flight so it is not dead weight... something with thrust vectoring at the front and rear of the aircraft would create an eye wateringly manouverable aircraft...

    Still le$$ than 80-100K Ton CVN that neither India nor any1 else will buy, w/o which it's unaffordable now & into foreseeable future. At least STOVLs may be exported & used by the VKS too.

    What makes you think STOVL aircraft will sell? They are really only useful from small carriers and most customers able to afford small carriers around the world are looking at F-35 and would never consider a Russian aircraft no matter how much better it would be.

    Russia likely wont sell any CVNs, but it wont sell any SSBNs either...

    New light carrier proposal from Krylov:

    Is that the right picture... it looks enormous....

    Apparently it's meant for export, so it'll use gas turbine engines.

    Go nuke or go home I say... though for export I could understand no nukes.

    and no cats... no point developing EMALS for gas turbine ships...

    Weighs 44 thousand tons and can carry up to 46 aircraft.
    I would have gone for something closer to 60KT.

    A conventionally powered ship would need a lot of bunkerage... I would go for 60K ton too...

    I am not aware of that and it makes no sense. Increasing weight to improve take-off?

    Structural strengthening to allow heavier landings... steeper glide paths... remember it also has thrust vectoring...

    CVs are designed to operate far from home. Apart that you keep ignoring that you need to arrest the plane during landing and you need a hook for that.

    The only fixed wing aircraft that Russia and the Soviet Union ever operated on carriers were land based aircraft developed without arrester hooks, yet in each case... MiG-33, Su-33, and Su-28, had hooks fitted... and they worked.

    Kuz attained 29 knots only on trials. As machinery status deteriorated, best speed has fallen down to 18 knots. During last Syria deployment, after partial boiler refit, she attained 23 knots! Machinery needs complete overhaul!

    That is what they are currently doing.

    "Electromechanical" catapult? They had problems with arresting gear cables, losing 2 fighters, did they fix them to make stronger cables for CAT?

    No... they are not going to fix the arrester gear... aircraft that take off from the K in future will just land somewhere else...

    And they didn't have problems with the cables... there is no arrester gear cable on this planet that could be used on its own to stop an aircraft like they do... they need fully functioning gear to allow give to stop the aircraft over a greater distance and longer time to reduce the peak stress on the cable.

    The simple fact is that if the cable didn't break but the arrester gear didn't work the plane still would have crashed... the difference would have been the tail hook would have been ripped off with potential for damage to the aircraft structure... either way the aircraft would end up in the sea.

    Correct operations is that the hook catches the cable but the cable comes out and lengthens... not instantly or it would not stop the aircraft, but it is gradually let out slowing down the aircraft and not putting all the stress on the cable (which would break it).

    Idea not to have arrester gear and think that aircraft should land somewhere else is simply funny, if not pure idiotism!

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:42 pm