Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Share

    kumbor

    Posts : 196
    Points : 194
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  kumbor on Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:11 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:[
    We'll find out after 2020, priorities are on Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, Subs along with LHDs, at the end of the day no matter what Russia does if it wants to play big it needs to go big.

    And no amount of VTOLs and LHDs is gonna change that.

    thats why  VSTOL is officially started? and not CVN? of course some day in fr far future, when London will be under water and in Siberia you can grow orange orchards. russia russia russia

    In "sunny Magadan".
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:13 pm

    kumbor wrote:
    of course some day in fr far future, when London will be under water and in Siberia you can grow orange orchards. russia russia russia

    In "sunny Magadan".

    actually amid climate shift in 50 years  that actually might be true lol1 lol1 lol1
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:27 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    The OAK can say anything they like, in the end they aren't gonna circumvent the realities of VTOL, i laugh at the "fighter" claim. Laughing

    Perhaps they dont know your definition of righter? let me consider OAK more reliable source of fighter knowledge then you.  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup


    On the contrary, building moderate sized ships Russia can both to build and sustain its "waving flag" abilities.

    Look at your view:  Uber carrier with small escort away form Russian shores in case of war? fights alone 2-3 USN CSGs or 10 Virginians?  with positive result of course russia russia russia

    My point always has been that for all other tasks apart from full  midway  battles a moderate CVN is more then enough.

    So 70kT in now an Uber carrier?


    oh so now you say  70ktons  is ok? with 70 and 30 fighters you wont be able to confront US CSGs anyway. Only for Syria or flag waving.

    70ktons like QE2 for VSTOL and troop transport? can be. But still only 36 fighters only.  As it is large so unlikely built in more then  2 pieces. What makes Russia not being able to waive flag in remote areas. Simply because ship is 1 in Pacific close to Russia and the second one in Arctic.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18962
    Points : 19518
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:03 am

    let me consider OAK more reliable source of fighter knowledge then you.

    What are they going to say.... yeah, we can make one but it will be crap compared to a more conventional design...

    oh so now you say 70ktons is ok? with 70 and 30 fighters you wont be able to confront US CSGs anyway.

    WTF is it with you an confronting the US?

    A biplane equipped with a Zircon missile can defeat any current of future US aircraft carrier... so why the need to spend billions making an F-35 failed wannabe clone?

    70ktons like QE2 for VSTOL and troop transport? can be. But still only 36 fighters only. As it is large so unlikely built in more then 2 pieces. What makes Russia not being able to waive flag in remote areas. Simply because ship is 1 in Pacific close to Russia and the second one in Arctic.

    Of course... the Russians are idiots and can only copy western designs... in your tiny brain all they can do is either copy a QE-2 or a 100K ton American heap of shit... they have already presented a model of a design that is innovative... combines the wide deck capacity of a catamaran, but in a vessel that is not wide at sea level that has almost the capacity of the Kuznetsov in a much lighter design... it is a conventional design.... there is no reason why a slightly scaled up nuclear powered model could not be developed to give them greater capacity than the kuznetsov... which they want... in a ship design that could actually be lighter than the Kuznetsov design which would be a good thing too...

    Weight is of no value on its own... a really heavy ship with less capacity is worse than a lighter ship with better capacity... but of course a bigger vehicle normally has bigger capacity unless there is a fundamental change in the basic design to allow more efficient use of capacity...

    kumbor

    Posts : 196
    Points : 194
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  kumbor on Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:22 am

    GarryB wrote:
    let me consider OAK more reliable source of fighter knowledge then you.

    What are they going to say.... yeah, we can make one but it will be crap compared to a more conventional design...

    oh so now you say  70ktons  is ok? with 70 and 30 fighters you wont be able to confront US CSGs anyway.

    WTF is it with you an confronting the US?

    A biplane equipped with a Zircon missile can defeat any current of future US aircraft carrier... so why the need to spend billions making an F-35 failed wannabe clone?

    70ktons like QE2 for VSTOL and troop transport? can be. But still only 36 fighters only.  As it is large so unlikely built in more then  2 pieces. What makes Russia not being able to waive flag in remote areas. Simply because ship is 1 in Pacific close to Russia and the second one in Arctic.

    Of course... the Russians are idiots and can only copy western designs... in your tiny brain all they can do is either copy a QE-2 or a 100K ton American heap of shit... they have already presented a model of a design that is innovative... combines the wide deck capacity of a catamaran, but in a vessel that is not wide at sea level that has almost the capacity of the Kuznetsov in a much lighter design... it is a conventional design.... there is no reason why a slightly scaled up nuclear powered model could not be developed to give them greater capacity than the kuznetsov... which they want... in a ship design that could actually be lighter than the Kuznetsov design which would be a good thing too...

    Weight is of no value on its own... a really heavy ship with less capacity is worse than a lighter ship with better capacity... but of course a bigger vehicle normally has bigger capacity unless there is a fundamental change in the basic design to allow more efficient use of capacity...

    Ships don`t have "SEA LEVEL", ships have WATERLINE.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:57 am

    [quote]
    GarryB wrote:
    let me consider OAK more reliable source of fighter knowledge then you.

    What are they going to say.... yeah, we can make one but it will be crap compared to a more conventional design...

    hurray!  we have already two specialists here better than the whole OAK!!! and VVS decision makers  cheers  cheers  cheers



    oh so now you say  70ktons  is ok? with 70 and 30 fighters you wont be able to confront US CSGs anyway.
    WTF is it with you an confronting the US?

    wait the WTF do you need those big big carriers for?  


    so why the need to spend billions making an F-35 failed wannabe clone?
    +++
    Of course... the Russians are idiots and can only copy western designs..


    Wait w which line above is true?   lol1  lol1  lol1  BTW why do you always mumbling about F-35 clone?   dunno  dunno  dunno



    7.. they have already presented a model of a design that is innovative... combines the wide deck capacity of a catamaran, but in a vessel that is not wide at sea level that has almost the capacity of the Kuznetsov in a much lighter design... it is a conventional design.... there is no reason why a slightly scaled up nuclear powered model could not be developed to give them greater capacity than the kuznetsov... which they want... in a ship design that could actually be lighter than the Kuznetsov design which would be a good thing too...

    Weight is of no value on its own... a really heavy ship with less capacity is worse than a lighter ship with better capacity... but of course a bigger vehicle normally has bigger capacity unless there is a fundamental change in the basic design to allow more efficient use of capacity...

    wait, wait  to they are geniuses of shipbuilding but shitty, open mouth breathing morons copying F-35 design to you?

    lol! lol! lol!  talking bout size of the brain....

    but nice you agree then 24-28 fighters and 40ktons is enough to fulfill  the role  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1707
    Points : 1702
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:36 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Perhaps they dont know your definition of righter? let me consider OAK more reliable source of fighter knowledge then you.  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup

    They can claim watever they like, the engineering realities of VTOL will not change.

    oh so now you say  70ktons  is ok? with 70 and 30 fighters you wont be able to confront US CSGs anyway. Only for Syria or flag waving.

    70ktons like QE2  for VSTOL and troop transport? can be. But still only 36 fighters only.  As it is large so unlikely built in more then  2 pieces. What makes Russia not being able to waive flag in remote areas.  Simply because  ship is 1 in Pacific close to Russia and the second one in Arctic.

    No clue who your referring to, i have never stated that it's an Uber carrier.

    Whether it be 70 or 90 is irrelevant, so long as you have your own air-support, the enemy will have less of a reason to mess with you.

    Good start, then 2 will be 4, then it all depends on how big Russia want's its navy.
    So long as they start the construction process.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18962
    Points : 19518
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:32 am

    hurray! we have already two specialists here better than the whole OAK!!! and VVS decision makers

    Yak is the only portion of OAK that wants STOVL designs... I am sure all other bureaus would prefer to keep it simple and not need to bother with engines powerful enough to get a fighter supersonic and at the same time a nozzle that deflects its thrust 95 degrees so it can land or take off vertically.

    Kamov would probably prefer the new aircraft to be a helicopter... are they wrong?

    wait the WTF do you need those big big carriers for?

    Because smaller carriers have limited performance and endurance.

    BTW why do you always mumbling about F-35 clone?

    Because that is what you keep demanding they make...

    wait, wait to they are geniuses of shipbuilding but shitty, open mouth breathing morons copying F-35 design to you?

    lol! lol! lol! talking bout size of the brain....

    To quote a great Scottish philosopher... "Yeah cannie change the laws of physics Jim..."

    but nice you agree then 24-28 fighters and 40ktons is enough to fulfill the role

    I would prefer the capacity to take 60-90 fighters, but most of the time just take 40-50 and use the extra capacity for AWACS and helos and of course a range of UAVs.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 944
    Points : 938
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:22 pm

    Russia will soon have the opportunity to build aircraft carriers of new generation with a large displacement than that of "Admiral Kuznetsov", such a possibility is currently being worked out, according to RBC with reference to the President of the United shipbuilding Corporation (USC) Alexey Rakhmanov.

    https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.ru/https/vpk.name/news/232515_potencial_est__korablei_net_osk_ozvuchila_perspektivyi_postroiki_avianoscev.html
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 944
    Points : 938
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:45 pm

    This is a re-arrangement of the new light-carrier deck, only somewhat wider (85m vs 78) using previous ideas, newly available data and input mainly from Garry. With the new multi-keel design the deck at the stern is so broad that angled deck is not needed anymore IMHO.


    This would allow to have an excellent opportunity to increase the reliability of the carrier in case of arresting gear malfunction and operational tempo since two landing decks would be available:


    Superstructure would need to be taken to the centreline of the carrier but that would be only good for stability, due to pitch motion it would probably need to be placed close to the CG but if taken backwards it could allow to have a more usable deck, with the center lane full of planes getting ready for TO (actually the whole space in front of the superstructure could be equipped with deflectors for TO as already discussed)

    Short ski-jump TO runs with ca. 100 m in red, longer ones with ca. 200 m in blue. Catapult TO positions for tankers and similarly low T/W ratio planes in yellow. The grid is 10 m

    kumbor

    Posts : 196
    Points : 194
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  kumbor on Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:52 pm

    LMFS wrote:This is a re-arrangement of the new light-carrier deck, only somewhat wider (85m vs 78) using previous ideas, newly available data and input mainly from Garry. With the new multi-keel design the deck at the stern is so broad that angled deck is not needed anymore IMHO.


    This would allow to have an excellent opportunity to increase the reliability of the carrier in case of arresting gear malfunction and operational tempo since two landing decks would be available:


    Superstructure would need to be taken to the centreline of the carrier but that would be only good for stability, due to pitch motion it would probably need to be placed close to the CG but if taken backwards it could allow to have a more usable deck, with the center lane full of planes getting ready for TO (actually the whole space in front of the superstructure could be equipped with deflectors for TO as already discussed)

    Short ski-jump TO runs with ca. 100 m in red, longer ones with ca. 200 m in blue. Catapult TO positions for tankers and similarly low T/W ratio planes in yellow. The grid is 10 m

    Idea of leaving angled flight-deck in favour of parallel take off and landing decks is British invention from late 50s, when they were projecting their CVA-01 class, never laid down. There was a drawing in one of Warship International issues dating from early 70s.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:56 pm

    LMFS wrote:Russia will soon have the opportunity to build aircraft carriers of new generation with a large displacement than that of "Admiral Kuznetsov", such a possibility is currently being worked out, according to RBC with reference to the President of the United shipbuilding Corporation (USC) Alexey Rakhmanov.

    his counterpart form MiG kept saying last 10years that Russia soon can buy 100s of MiG-35s. Possibility is always will it be budget and need this is a different question.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Oct 28, 2018 6:02 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    wait the WTF do you need those big big carriers for?  

    Because smaller carriers have limited performance and endurance.

    OK then why only US is building large CVNs? because money dont matter!


    BTW why do you always mumbling about F-35 clone?
    Because that is what you keep demanding they make...

    No, thy dotn you do.



    but nice you agree then 24-28 fighters and 40ktons is enough to fulfill  the role
    I would prefer the capacity to take 60-90 fighters, but most of the time just take 40-50 and use the extra capacity for AWACS and helos and of course a range of UAVs.

    you might prefer eve 12 of them. Ru Navy too. But in reality realm money is in tight supply. Navy already is cured form 90ktson Storm, now they are mumbling about 70ktons. Likely will be happy with 40ktons too.

    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 944
    Points : 938
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:15 pm

    kumbor wrote:Idea of leaving angled flight-deck in favour of parallel take off and landing decks is British invention from late 50s, when they were projecting their CVA-01 class, never laid down. There was a drawing in one of Warship International  issues dating from early 70s.
    Thanks for the info! Do you happen to know why this was not implemented? Now maybe automatic landing control can help but from what I know, classical landing on an angled deck is notoriously difficult to master for pilots. And in terms using space, forces the superstructure starboard and reduces the area for parking and TO positions.

    I had not seen, previously to QE and the new Russian light carrier, such broad and straight flight decks (width does not reduce at stern). So it seems thinkable to me to get one additional landing deck (with one additional catapult position) and on top of that create additional space for TO out of interference with landings. Such big decks should allow this, and after the Kylov's proposal we know they would not even mean a big displacement increase:


    Look how the deck is essentially symmetrical both sides of Y axis.

    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2418
    Points : 2435
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Sun Oct 28, 2018 8:24 pm


    I think the proposal makes the landing significantly more difficult, reducing the lenght of the available landing trajectories and making narrower the landing space free of obstacles.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 944
    Points : 938
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Oct 28, 2018 9:47 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    I think the proposal makes the landing significantly more difficult, reducing the lenght of the available landing trajectories and making narrower the landing space free of obstacles.
    The fundamental issue is, in case the proposal is feasible, whether the added advantages outweigh the problems. And getting one additional landing lane is a huge advantage. Imagine arresting gear fails when you have a wave of aircraft returning to the carrier, they would not be able to land and could (as it happened in Syria) crash in the sea. Tankers are of course another good option there but in times of war they could be busy or you may not have the time to fuel all returning fighters. Also in case the carrier is attacked and receives one single hit on the landing lane, it would be operationally disabled since planes could not land. And of course you have twice the landing speed, one additional catapult position or alternatively lots of place for parking. The space saved would also allow as said to get aircraft in the air way faster since you can queue them at the center of the deck.

    To your arguments:

    1) Difficulty of the landing
    It is precisely the angled landing that is challenging, because it combines motions on three axes at a time (moving left while approaching) unlike a bi-dimensional landing on a straight deck. Such approach is very complex to time properly and can only be done with instrumentation. Straight landing on the contrary would be much easier to master and therefore would reduce the time to form naval pilots and the amount of hours to keep them fit.

    2) Length of landing trajectories.
    Aircraft take the arresting cables and then are stopped relatively fast, in roughly 100 m. You can look at landing videos to see that the landing deck is not used up completely. But in any case you can calculate the length lost, knowing the angle of decks in carriers is between 5 and 10º, you would lose less than 2% in length by making the landing lane completely straight

    3) Landing space free of obstacles.
    This would depend of course on how close you place aircraft and other obstacles on the deck. But you can look the parking positions on this and other designs and will see that aircraft land quite close to parked ones. I imagine this changes depending on sea state but cannot say what is acceptable and what is not in what conditions. In any case in the proposal clearance could be made according to situation too.

    One concern I would admit is that roll motion would be stronger the more you move the landing lane starboard or backboard compared to the middle line, but I ignore how much this would affect operations under rough sea states, and specially with a new multi-keel design whose stern is probably more stable than a conventional design. Two mitigating strategies would be possible:
    > Landing manoeuvre incorporated to the FCS of the plane for automatic roll compensation beyond capabilities of pilot
    > Use of a smaller angle for the deck (say 2º) to get more deck space left (or right for the right landing lane) for the landing plane and reduce deck roll motion at the point of contact.

    hoom

    Posts : 1424
    Points : 1414
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom on Mon Oct 29, 2018 1:35 am

    Idea of leaving angled flight-deck in favour of parallel take off and landing decks is British invention from late 50s, when they were projecting their CVA-01 class
    Not quite parallel but definitely much straighter than any other post-war carrier designs until the Harrier ships.



    Island is quite far inboard to allow planes brought up on the rear lift to pass outboard to the bow catapault without interfering with landing.
    ~50 Buccaneers, Phantoms & Gannet ASW/AEW would have given it some pretty serious capability.
    Shame about the Sea-Slug SAM on the stern though lol  silent

    I've been trying to figure out a layout allowing a smallish CV to do simultaneous takeoff/landing for ages but keep winding up with basically CVA-01 or an extension of Vikramaditya with the long takeoff run crossing the landing run but the setup happening port rear corner clear of the landing run.

    I do quite like your ideas here LMFS, though somehow doesn't seem quite right.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 944
    Points : 938
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:27 am

    hoom wrote:Not quite parallel but definitely much straighter than any other post-war carrier designs until the Harrier ships.
    Thanks for the info hoom. In the beginning, angled deck was ca. 5°, then is was increased to 10° with further designs.

    I've been trying to figure out a layout allowing a smallish CV to do simultaneous takeoff/landing for ages but keep winding up with basically CVA-01 or an extension of Vikramaditya with the long takeoff run crossing the landing run but the setup happening port rear corner clear of the landing run.
    Then, why to make TO and landing runs cross each other? Not needed me thinks. On the one hand due to T/W of modern planes, on the other due to width of modern decks. As to having TO runs as long as possible, AWACS could be done probably to TO in ca. 200 m run with ski jump, but tankers are going to be crucial in the future and they will demand catapults I think.

    If you follow the evolution of the CV design you see they started as regular, narrow shaped hulls with a straight deck on the top. Then the jet aircraft made angled deck necessary, with the landing lane starting at the middle of the ship coherently with the shape of the hull. In the time since then, decks grew broader and broader, but kept the same layout. And now with the multi-keel design the flight deck is so wide and straight that I think it is not necessary anymore to have landing and TO runs crossing each other, which only creates interference. Or parking on small gaps here and there, like port of the landing run. Tidier and more effective layout may be possible.

    I do quite like your ideas here LMFS, though somehow doesn't seem quite right
    Well, thanks! I know it CANNOT be quite right. But I think we may be onto something here, last proposal from Krylov has shed lots of light on how an innovative but realistic multi-keel CV design could look like and shown its advantages.

    Wake effects of the superstructure on the landing approach could be an issue when changing the layout of course but I think today that can be measured and managed much better than in the past, and also superstructures are getting smaller every day. I also have a sense that some reasons of keeping current design despite its downsides is due to inertia, given the huge amount of operative experience built. But this is slowly changing and I think it will change further.

    kumbor

    Posts : 196
    Points : 194
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  kumbor on Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:37 am

    LMFS wrote:
    hoom wrote:Not quite parallel but definitely much straighter than any other post-war carrier designs until the Harrier ships.
    Thanks for the info hoom. In the beginning, angled deck was ca. 5°, then is was increased to 10° with further designs.

    I've been trying to figure out a layout allowing a smallish CV to do simultaneous takeoff/landing for ages but keep winding up with basically CVA-01 or an extension of Vikramaditya with the long takeoff run crossing the landing run but the setup happening port rear corner clear of the landing run.
    Then, why to make TO and landing runs cross each other? Not needed me thinks. On the one hand due to T/W of modern planes, on the other due to width of modern decks. As to having TO runs as long as possible, AWACS could be done probably to TO in ca. 200 m run with ski jump, but tankers are going to be crucial in the future and they will demand catapults I think.

    If you follow the evolution of the CV design you see they started as regular, narrow shaped hulls with a straight deck on the top. Then the jet aircraft made angled deck necessary, with the landing lane starting at the middle of the ship coherently with the shape of the hull. In the time since then, decks grew broader and broader, but kept the same layout. And now with the multi-keel design the flight deck is so wide and straight that I think it is not necessary anymore to have landing and TO runs crossing each other, which only creates interference. Or parking on small gaps here and there, like port of the landing run. Tidier and more effective layout may be possible.

    I do quite like your ideas here LMFS, though somehow doesn't seem quite right
    Well, thanks! I know it CANNOT be quite right. But I think we may be onto something here, last proposal from Krylov has shed lots of light on how an innovative but realistic multi-keel CV design could look like and shown its advantages.

    Wake effects of the superstructure on the landing approach could be an issue when changing the layout of course but I think today that can be measured and managed much better than in the past, and also superstructures are getting smaller every day. I also have a sense that some reasons of keeping current design despite its downsides is due to inertia, given the huge amount of operative experience built. But this is slowly changing and I think it will change further.

    hoom wrote:
    Not quite parallel but definitely much straighter than any other post-war carrier designs until the Harrier ships.

    Thanks for the info hoom. In the beginning, angled deck was ca. 5°, then is was increased to 10° with further designs.

    In Eagle and Ark Royal flight deck was angled at 8,5* after refit in 60s. In US CVNs angle is 8*.

    hoom

    Posts : 1424
    Points : 1414
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom on Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:43 am

    Then, why to make TO and landing runs cross each other? Not needed me thinks
    Basically because its hard to get a long ramp run to fit ahead of the island on starboard CVA-01 style.
    So I figure extend the existing one on Vikramaditya just a bit further so the setup is clear to port/stern of the landing strip.
    The crossing does generate some interference but only for a few seconds during a launch.

    Something like

    It has its issues like proximity to the arrestor gear & lift location but I think fixable on a cleansheet design.


    Your current concept actually reminds me a bit of the early CVNX concept for what became Ford.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2418
    Points : 2435
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:21 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    I think the proposal makes the landing significantly more difficult, reducing the lenght of the available landing trajectories and making narrower the landing space free of obstacles.
    The fundamental issue is, in case the proposal is feasible, whether the added advantages outweigh the problems. And getting one additional landing lane is a huge advantage. Imagine arresting gear fails when you have a wave of aircraft returning to the carrier, they would not be able to land and could (as it happened in Syria) crash in the sea. Tankers are of course another good option there but in times of war they could be busy or you may not have the time to fuel all returning fighters. Also in case the carrier is attacked and receives one single hit on the landing lane, it would be operationally disabled since planes could not land. And of course you have twice the landing speed, one additional catapult position or alternatively lots of place for parking. The space saved would also allow as said to get aircraft in the air way faster since you can queue them at the center of the deck.

    To your arguments:

    1) Difficulty of the landing
    It is precisely the angled landing that is challenging, because it combines motions on three axes at a time (moving left while approaching) unlike a bi-dimensional landing on a straight deck. Such approach is very complex to time properly and can only be done with instrumentation. Straight landing on the contrary would be much easier to master and therefore would reduce the time to form naval pilots and the amount of hours to keep them fit.

    2) Length of landing trajectories.
    Aircraft take the arresting cables and then are stopped relatively fast, in roughly 100 m. You can look at landing videos to see that the landing deck is not used up completely. But in any case you can calculate the length lost, knowing the angle of decks in carriers is between 5 and 10º, you would lose less than 2% in length by making the landing lane completely straight

    3) Landing space free of obstacles.
    This would depend of course on how close you place aircraft and other obstacles on the deck. But you can look the parking positions on this and other designs and will see that aircraft land quite close to parked ones. I imagine this changes depending on sea state but cannot say what is acceptable and what is not in what conditions. In any case in the proposal clearance could be made according to situation too.

    One concern I would admit is that roll motion would be stronger the more you move the landing lane starboard or backboard compared to the middle line, but I ignore how much this would affect operations under rough sea states, and specially with a new multi-keel design whose stern is probably more stable than a conventional design. Two mitigating strategies would be possible:
    > Landing manoeuvre incorporated to the FCS of the plane for automatic roll compensation beyond capabilities of pilot
    > Use of a smaller angle for the deck (say 2º) to get more deck space left (or right for the right landing lane) for the landing plane and reduce deck roll motion at the point of contact.

    In my view one of the main design issues on aircraft carriers is to reduce the risk of accident, the probability of accident in the operation of the aircrafts on board. In the operation of Syria, this was just the main flaw of the service of the Project 11435 A Kutznetsov. In war time, danger situations are forced, the estress in the operations is far bigger, and as consequence the probability of accident increases.

    I tend to think that improvements on aircrafts tend to allow to reduce the dependence of the aircrafts from landing and take-off assistance in their operations based on aircraft carriers.

    I have not doubt that both take-off and landing assistance systems will continue being designed and used, in order to allow aditional take-off and landing options,  but at same time, I think the new designs of aircraft carriers are trying to reduce the dependence from the use of these systems.

    Nothing assures that more than one take-off assistance system and or landing assistance system fails at same time. A proposal with two short landing options that uses necessarily landing assistence, can see both landing options dissabled if both landing assistance systems fail at same time.

    I think the new designs are trying to allow take-off and landing of aircrafts without assistence, and it will help to reduce the risk of accident on board and will allow to open new solutions to overrun technical failures of these systems.

    In my view the trend in the design is to allow a lower dependence of the aircrafts from landing and take-off assistance systems, and for it is very important to keep the main direction of the aircraft carrier free of obstacles and is very important to go to designs of enough size. Just what Russia is doing.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2517
    Points : 2511
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Mon Oct 29, 2018 2:51 pm

    LMFS wrote:This is a re-arrangement of the new light-carrier deck, only somewhat wider (85m vs 78) using previous ideas, newly available data and input mainly from Garry. With the new multi-keel design the deck at the stern is so broad that angled deck is not needed anymore IMHO.


    This would allow to have an excellent opportunity to increase the reliability of the carrier in case of arresting gear malfunction and operational tempo since two landing decks would be available:


    Superstructure would need to be taken to the centreline of the carrier but that would be only good for stability, due to pitch motion it would probably need to be placed close to the CG but if taken backwards it could allow to have a more usable deck, with the center lane full of planes getting ready for TO (actually the whole space in front of the superstructure could be equipped with deflectors for TO as already discussed)

    Short ski-jump TO runs with ca. 100 m in red, longer ones with ca. 200 m in blue. Catapult TO positions for tankers and similarly low T/W ratio planes in yellow. The grid is 10 m

    Why two landing decks ? If they plan ~40 jets plus the rest helicoptets, 1 is enough. In case of malfunction, you can only replace the arresting cables. And they have 4 or 5 of them for one runway.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 944
    Points : 938
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:14 pm

    kumbor wrote:In Eagle and Ark Royal flight deck was angled at 8,5* after refit  in 60s. In US CVNs angle is 8*.
    Was rounding the numbers since the difference in angle has little effect in length of the landing run. But have seen anything from 5.5º to 10.5º, including 9º for Nimitz class.

    Isos wrote:Why two landing decks ? If they plan ~40 jets plus the rest helicoptets, 1 is enough. In case of malfunction, you can only replace the arresting cables. And they have 4 or 5 of them for one runway.
    Higher tempo of operations, more launching positions, higher reliability as explained. You know what happened in Syria with K whit arresting cables right? Apart from that, the need to account for a problem at landing forces planes to save significantly more reserve fuel which cannot be used and is detrimental to their performance without providing useful range and besides unnecessarily loads the airframes during landing.

    Apart from that you get a better usage of the deck because you don't have a run crossing transversally, leaving irregular and small patches of deck left and right that are difficult to use. Look below how chaotic a modern deck is:


    Operational possibilities for the proposal:

    > Normal operation: TO from the ski jump, with planes being prepared further backwards. Aircraft parking on one landing run. The other landing run ready for receiving aircraft
    > High tempo TO: Planes ready for TO at ski jump and two catapults
    > High tempo landing: two landing runs cleared and receiving planes in parallel
    > Alternatively, landing on one lane while the ski jump sends fighters in the air and the catapult on the other landing run allows to operate AWACS or tankers without interference.

    This allows to create higher intensity and hence compensate for smaller number of aircraft on board and less catapults than a US CVN

    So this is in the end a lot of improvements for safety, reliability and performance. I don't say current formula is not valid, only that it can be improved!  Very Happy


    eehnie wrote:In my view one of the main design issues on aircraft carriers is to reduce the risk of accident, the probability of accident in the operation of the aircrafts on board. In the operation of Syria, this was just the main flaw of the service of the Project 11435 A Kutznetsov. In war time, danger situations are forced, the estress in the operations is far bigger, and as consequence the probability of accident increases.
    Agree. Don't see why this system would be more dangerous, as explained the straight deck is notably easier to land into. And the redundant landing runs address the problem you mention above.

    I tend to think that improvements on aircrafts tend to allow to reduce the dependence of the aircrafts from landing and take-off assistance in their operations based on aircraft carriers.
    I think the new designs are trying to allow take-off and landing of aircrafts without assistence, and it will help to reduce the risk of accident on board and will allow to open new solutions to overrun technical failures of these systems.
    I have not doubt that both take-off and landing assistance systems will continue being designed and used, in order to allow aditional take-off and landing options,  but at same time, I think the new designs of aircraft carriers are trying to reduce the dependence from the use of these systems.
    I think the new designs are trying to allow take-off and landing of aircrafts without assistence, and it will help to reduce the risk of accident on board and will allow to open new solutions to overrun technical failures of these systems.
    It depends:
    If you make a LHD then you use STOVL precisely to make TO and landing relatively independent on assistance, because your ship is not equipped. But this drags the plane instead of the carrier, which is the piece of equipment specifically intended for that role of supporting naval aviation. Today this means the LHDs have a supporting role with focus on amphibious operations while CVNs carry the big stick and have upgraded steam catapults to EMALS and also modernized the arresting gear, the assistance to operations is not going anywhere but in fact getting more sophisticated and capable. This is state of things today I would say.

    Nothing assures that more than one take-off assistance system and or landing assistance system fails at same time. A proposal with two short landing options that uses necessarily landing assistence, can see both landing options dissabled if both landing assistance systems fail at same time.
    Well, that is actually the opposite of how you think in terms if risk mitigation. If your arresting gear "A" has a 1% probability of being disabled and it operates equally and independently of system "B", then the probability of both being out of operation at the same time is 0.01%, which is two orders of magnitude less in this particular case. Obviously this makes quite a lot in terms of ensuring your planes will be able to land instead of crashing in the sea.

    BTW, don't know where you are taking from the notion that the landing options are shorter. This is the shape and dimensions of the new light carrier proposed by Krylov, only a little wider, which should be perfectly doable with little more displacement, multi-keel design and maybe nuclear propulsion. Landing runs are roughly 200m as in most other carriers, have not measured them exactly in the Krylov model (no good view available) but they could be as long as in the original without a problem...

    In my view the trend in the design is to allow a lower dependence of the aircrafts from landing and take-off assistance systems, and for it is very important to keep the main direction of the aircraft carrier free of obstacles and is very important to go to designs of enough size. Just what Russia is doing.
    IIRC you suggested CTOL planes operating at the carriers. This (may) be partially possible for TO with ski jump and powerful engines, but for landing it wont work, there is no CTOL jet plane that can be stopped in less than 300 m without arresting gear. Maybe some engine reverser together with parachute could help? I don't know it honestly...
    So, while I agree form a general point of view that it would be good to reduce assistance, there is a limit in current technical conditions. The best option for me is the Russian one, with ski jump for the fighters and catapults for other planes unlike the USN carriers without ski jump.

    hoom wrote:Basically because its hard to get a long ramp run to fit ahead of the island on starboard CVA-01 style.
    So I figure extend the existing one on Vikramaditya just a bit further so the setup is clear to port/stern of the landing strip.
    The crossing does generate some interference but only for a few seconds during a launch.
    But why do you think it is necessary to have such long TO runs? Modern T/W ratio makes no problem for a fighter to TO from 100 runs. In case of tankers I guess the relevance of increasing payload can make more interesting to put catapults in he end.
    Taking a plane to the TO position is another moment where you interfere with landing.

    Your current concept actually reminds me a bit of the early CVNX concept for what became Ford.
    Wow that design changed a bit in the path to actual implementation  lol1  lol1
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2517
    Points : 2511
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:52 pm

    Higher tempo of operations, more launching positions, higher reliability as explained. You know what happened in Syria with K whit arresting cables right? Apart from that, the need to account for a problem at landing forces planes to save significantly more reserve fuel which cannot be used and is detrimental to their performance without providing useful range and besides unnecessarily loads the airframes during landing.

    K isn't a reliable exemple. It was the fault of old equipment. Which is also weired since it has many wires, so all of them became unusable when the mig 29k landed ?


    Apart from that you get a better usage of the deck because you don't have a run crossing transversally, leaving irregular and small patches of deck left and right that are difficult to use. Look below how chaotic a modern deck is:

    You can make it with one runway and not be transversally. And use the other part for parking and helicopters/VSTOL take off.

    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2418
    Points : 2435
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:44 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    Nothing assures that more than one take-off assistance system and or landing assistance system fails at same time. A proposal with two short landing options that uses necessarily landing assistence, can see both landing options dissabled if both landing assistance systems fail at same time.
    Well, that is actually the opposite of how you think in terms if risk mitigation. If your arresting gear "A" has a 1% probability of being disabled and it operates equally and independently of system "B", then the probability of both being out of operation at the same time is 0.01%, which is two orders of magnitude less in this particular case. Obviously this makes quite a lot in terms of ensuring your planes will be able to land instead of crashing in the sea.

    BTW, don't know where you are taking from the notion that the landing options are shorter. This is the shape and dimensions of the new light carrier proposed by Krylov, only a little wider, which should be perfectly doable with little more displacement, multi-keel design and maybe nuclear propulsion. Landing runs are roughly 200m as in most other carriers, have not measured them exactly in the Krylov model (no good view available) but they could be as long as in the original without a problem...

    I said nothing about probability. Your "opposite of how you think" mention is fairly audatious and baseless. Why do you expect the people reading do not know that you are using the definition of independent events and the definition of conditional probability to do the calculus of the probability of the intersection? In fact your calculus is quite basic, of secondery education level in my native country (and likely in most), previous to a engineering degree in the university.

    About the second part, this is also very basical knowledge, not something where an engineer can even doubt. For a given dimmenssion of the deck, with the poop perpendicular to the main axis of the aircraft carrier like seems to be in your figure, a landing trajectory paralel to the main axis of the aircraft carrier will be always shorter than a landing trajectory with some angle. As example, if the lenght of the landing trajectories of your model (paralel to the main axis of the aircraft carrier) are of 160m, a landing trajectory with an angle of 10º from the main axis of the aircraft carrier will have a lenght of 160m/cos(π/18)=162.47m. Even minimal angles add some lenght to the landing trajectory.

    LMFS wrote:
    In my view the trend in the design is to allow a lower dependence of the aircrafts from landing and take-off assistance systems, and for it is very important to keep the main direction of the aircraft carrier free of obstacles and is very important to go to designs of enough size. Just what Russia is doing.
    IIRC you suggested CTOL planes operating at the carriers. This (may) be partially possible for TO with ski jump and powerful engines, but for landing it wont work, there is no CTOL jet plane that can be stopped in less than 300 m without arresting gear. Maybe some engine reverser together with parachute could help? I don't know it honestly...
    So, while I agree form a general point of view that it would be good to reduce assistance, there is a limit in current technical conditions. The best option for me is the Russian one, with ski jump for the fighters and catapults for other planes unlike the USN carriers without ski jump.

    The time will say.

    In order to complete my point I can say that:

    - I do not support STOVL or VTOL technologies applied to manned fighters, because they affect to the performance of the figther. I instead strongly support the use of VTOL technologies for unmanned platforms, specially shipborne.

    - I consider that curve landing trajectories add risks and danger. In my view the main axis of the aircraft carrier need to be respected without obstables in all its lenght.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:21 pm