Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Share
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 826
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:28 am

    eehnie wrote: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.
    Bravo. That is where you (after having done the same with n forum members before) get personal and start saying BS before I cut this for good. The underlying error, improper not of an engineer but of any person with common sense, is you essentially denying the principle of redundancy by saying it does not help having two systems since they could both fail at the same time... I engaged in basic reasoning not because I am an idiot but out of good will and frankly patience, because you were not understanding such a trivial issue. But you behaving like a dick changes things a bit so there you have the cold truth served, I don't care if you are hypersensitive and don't like being shown or corrected, if you got hurt by my basic calculations man up.

    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.
    Look, that trivial calculation was the reason I told you there was less than a 2% reduction of the length of the lane by making it straight in the first place. So spare us your lessons on basic trigonometry and especially personal attacks for 2.5 meters difference over 160, it is so ridiculous I am not even going to lose time over it. You show no clue about numbers, about their significance and what is worse, about basic civility. Have fun

    hoom

    Posts : 1330
    Points : 1320
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom on Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:59 am

    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.
    Longer in the V example to get the launch position clear of the landing strip, only needs a few more meters.
    On a cleansheet design you might have a (relatively) shorter bow with the normal length run but I don't think there is really such thing as 'too long'.

    Cleansheet design would have a port rear lift behind the launch spot (& associated hangar location/setup) so planes can be brought up without crossing the landing strip.
    avatar
    eehnie

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:31 am

    LMFS, just to remember:

    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.

    The first and alone personal reference was from you. To assume that I do not know the definitions of independent event and of conditional probability, and that I think the opposite, was quite audatious and unfriendly.

    Unlike you, I did not personal attacks.

    And no, in my previous words there is not a denial of the principle of redundance.

    If you want to traslate properly my words to probabilities, I was saying that the probability of both landing trajectories being disabled at same time is not 0. The landing assistence systems of both can fail at same time, and sooner or later this problem will appear under a proposal that forces dependence of landing assistance. Instead, in a design with enough size, that allows landing and take-off without assistance, keeping free of obstacles the main axis of the aircraft carrier, there is not this problem.

    LMFS wrote:BTW, don't know where you are taking from the notion that the landing options are shorter.

    Basically, you asked.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18644
    Points : 19200
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:41 am

    With the new multi-keel design the deck at the stern is so broad that angled deck is not needed anymore IMHO.

    It still uses an angled deck, but with less angle so the angled deck is much longer.

    The purpose of the angled deck is to allow aircraft to land continuously even while aircraft are set up on the launch positions and are prepared for take off.

    If you look at the model on your post (number 560) you can clearly see that the gray and blue plane right up the front ready in the front two takeoff positions (yellow lines showing their take off paths).

    Just behind them on the deck is a gray aircraft with wings folded but it is surrounded by a yellow oval which indicates an aircraft lift, of which there are three including one right at the rear of the carrier deck.

    Behind the front aircraft lift and to the left is the third takeoff position... you can identify them because they have gray rectangles on the deck where there is a blast deflector which can be raised to allow the aircraft in that position to run at full AB without damaging any aircraft or personnel behind them.

    Note the left aircraft in the front takeoff position you can see the blast reflectors are up and you can see the red painted underside of that deflector.



    You can also see a blue aircraft in the process of landing on the angled deck and various aircraft parked around the place, including one on each of the aircraft lifts.

    You can clearly see that the rear launch position is partially on the landing strip but narrowly avoids the deck lift slightly in front of it.

    The funny small rectangular shapes that look like a large rectangle with a small rectangle added on between the aircraft lifts and the main structure in line and behind the right front aircraft take off position are probably ammunition lifts.

    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:

    Arrester gear malfunction is unusual and not worth redesigning a whole carrier for.


    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)

    You never see a land based aircraft tower in the middle of landing air strips and you wont see a carrier tower in the same place.

    The only modern change for towers is the split of the ships tower and the aircraft control tower...

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

    Their income depends on their empire, so they need the tools of empire to keep the little ones in line... when they lose the herd they lose the farm.

    No, thy dotn you do.

    You are the one wanting a supersonic 5th gen STOVL fighter...


    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.

    The Ru Navy never expressed any interest in a 90 K ton Storm class carrier.... that was an offering from a design bureau that has never made a CVN.

    The Ru Navy has said the Kuznetsov is slightly too small and they want something a little bigger in the 70K tons range Max weight.

    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.

    Landing on a carrier in the middle of an ocean with the deck heaving up and down has and is and will always be difficult... they used to land straight and it wasn't any easier and if you screwed it up you risked running into other aircraft on the deck and making a real mess of things.

    An angled deck design means you have your little corner of the deck to yourself so if you miss the cable you can fly through and come around and have another go.

    I don't understand why you find fault with such a clever design.

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

    The extra space on deck is better used for parking of aircraft than adding the enormous complication of two landing runs... they already have three take off runs...

    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.

    Yeah... imagining the arresting gear fails is like imagining the carrier hits a mine and sinks... so make it a hovercraft...

    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.

    What are you talking about?

    You line up with the runway for landing... you don't land in a circle... you land in a straight line.... whether that is parallel to the deck of the ship or angled to the deck of the ship... the tried and trusted mirror system makes landing fairly straight forward... and the angled deck is no harder than a straight deck landing.


    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

    The length used for a cable landing depends on whether the aircraft caught the first, second, third, or fourth cable... if you get the fourth cable the aircraft uses almost all of the angled deck length to stop. Having extra length in this case means nothing at all, unless you want to use longer cables.

    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.

    The purpose of an angled deck is to allow for missing the cables... or indeed crashing in a big fireball, but not having parked aircraft or people traffic in the way...

    Push the burning wreck off the deck and hose it down and next aircraft...

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

    One landing strip with a slight angle, and a bow to allow rolling takeoffs... that is just normal.

    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.

    AWACS and tanker aircraft are practically transports and transports wont like ski jumps... too much weight.... too much g force at too much weight will just break them.

    If you are going to have cats for a tanker when why not use them for AWACS too?

    Tidier and more effective layout may be possible.

    They used to use straight decks because the old propeller driven aircraft could get airborne in that distance... though sometimes only with a good head of steam into the wind.

    Jet aircraft simply didn't have any chance of getting airborne or more importantly landing in such a small area so cable arresting gear and steam cats were developed.

    With cable arresting gear you only needed a fraction of the length of the deck to land or follow through and come around again, so an angled deck was used because it isolated the area of the deck used up for landing and freed up the rest of the space for parking and preparing aircraft for take off or weapon loading.

    The only exception is VTOL aircraft like Harrier types and helicopters... where rolling landings and rolling takeoffs allow operating at heavier weights easier, which improves aircraft performance.

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

    With cats the longer takeoff runs become redundant... it would be better to use the extra space for parking aircraft...


    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.

    The situation in Syria was unusual and was a result of them never operating at such a tempo before. The problem will have been dealt with by now so trying to redesign the whole carrier to reduce the problems is a waste of time.

    Changing the landing run to the full length of the deck is not enough to allow landing without cable arrester gear, so why bother?

    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.

    Cables break in normal operation... but of course not all the time. If they break all the time then that is a problem with the arrester gear itself... without arrester gear all cables will break first time every time... arrester gear is like the gears in a car that allow it to operate at different speeds... without it you would either have serious problems starting off or going up hill because of the high fixed gear ratio that allows you go travel on high ways efficiently, or you can start off easy, but can't drive much faster than 50km/h without the engine roaring at 12 thousand revs.

    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 ?

    If the arrester gear is not working then all of the cables will snap when caught because there is no gearing to give them give... they are not elastic bands.

    avatar
    eehnie

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:42 am

    GarryB wrote:Changing the landing run to the full length of the deck is not enough to allow landing without cable arrester gear, so why bother?

    This begins to be in doubt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    - Do you remember your first flight on this fighter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 826
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:58 pm

    hoom wrote:Longer in the V example to get the launch position clear of the landing strip, only needs a few more meters.
    On a cleansheet design you might have a (relatively) shorter bow with the normal length run but I don't think there is really such thing as 'too long'.

    Cleansheet design would have a port rear lift behind the launch spot (& associated hangar location/setup) so planes can be brought up without crossing the landing strip.
    Ok understood. What I mean is that the short runs should be ok for new carriers with new fighters in 100% of the cases and are already ok for 90% of missions. The longer runs through the ski jump, I am not sure they would add that much. Maybe with UCAVs could be of help, with tankers I guess not and with AWACS I have my doubts.

    I would always prefer strips that do not cross each other, that is why I propose to make them straight. But if this is not possible and the use is restricted to some planes then your idea could work. What I don't see quite ok is if you plan to launch many fighters from that position, since you cannot park and prepare many planes in the same area (or maybe I am wrong, how many are you calculating to be parked in that area?), I think this would make the TO tempo slow (if only one plane can be lifted and then armed and prepared for launch each time) or would add interference to the landings (if the planes are armed somewhere else and then cross the landing strip). The space left port of the landing strip is narrow and angled, so it cannot be used very well. If you make a big space for parking and preparing the planes port of the landing strip, wouldn't it be better to move the landing strip altogether and avoid crossings?

    eehnie wrote:The first and alone personal reference was from you. To assume that I do not know the definitions of independent event and of conditional probability, and that I think the opposite, was quite audatious and unfriendly.
    Was not being unfriendly, at all. The construction you point out as hostile could be also written "this is not how things are done in risk mitigation", has nothing to do with "you" personally and is quite frequent in English. I was not thinking for a second you would ignore basic probability or trying to give a master class to anyone for God's sake, but if you discuss obvious things I will have to go to obvious reasoning.

    Unlike you, I did not personal attacks.
    Yes you did, FYI. Rather rude ones.

    And no, in my previous words there is not a denial of the principle of redundance.

    If you want to traslate properly my words to probabilities, I was saying that the probability of both landing trajectories being disabled at same time is not 0. The landing assistence systems of both can fail at same time, and sooner or later this problem will appear under a proposal that forces dependence of landing assistance. Instead, in a design with enough size, that allows landing and take-off without assistance, keeping free of obstacles the main axis of the aircraft carrier, there is not this problem.
    Yes, any system destined to stop the plane can fail, be it on board of the carrier or on board of the plane. And you cannot land in 300 m without assistance, sorry. Take a look at actual data.

    GarryB wrote:It still uses an angled deck, but with less angle so the angled deck is much longer.
    Maybe I am missing something:
    > The angle at the new Krylov proposal is quite conventional (between 5 and 10º)
    > The smaller the angle, the shorter the strip, even if by an insignificant amount

    The purpose of the angled deck is to allow aircraft to land continuously even while aircraft are set up on the launch positions and are prepared for take off.
    Yes by now even I know this. The issue is, with decks being so wide, landing strip can be parallel to the carrier's axis instead of angled, without it losing its function, namely allow simultaneous landings and TOs

    If you look at the model on your post (number 560) you can clearly see...
    Ahaaa... yes I can see all that Garry... what do you  exactly mean?  lol1

    Arrester gear malfunction is unusual and not worth redesigning a whole carrier for.
    The issue is infrequent but its impact is very serious, because it essentially leaves the planes in the air with nowhere else to go. And it is of course not the only risk factor during landing
    > New arresting gear is also relying heavily on power electronics, due to the need of easing the loads of the landing for different planes at different weights. So it is getting complicated too.
    > Naval fighters need to carry big amounts of extra fuel and keep it as reserve (30% according to Yakovlev article I posted some days ago). This is a huge amount, needed only as prevention of a eventuality that prevents from landing as scheduled, as a crash, damaged arrestors, malfunction of plane after landing, delays etc. Redundancy would ease enormously these issues.

    You never see a land based aircraft tower in the middle of landing air strips and you wont see a carrier tower in the same place.
    Maybe, but why?

    Landing on a carrier in the middle of an ocean with the deck heaving up and down has and is and will always be difficult...
    Well, I don't exactly know if modern planes cannot take care of this automatically but I guess pilots need to be capable of doing it regardless.

    they used to land straight and it wasn't any easier and if you screwed it up you risked running into other aircraft on the deck and making a real mess of things

    An angled deck design means you have your little corner of the deck to yourself so if you miss the cable you can fly through and come around and have another go.
    Just in case, I am not proposing to land straight in collision course with the planes in the TO queue... simply eliminating the bad consequences of the angled layout. Angled decks appeared together with jet fighters, that could not land as the propeller models. It is clear to me their function is needed!

    I don't understand why you find fault with such a clever design.
    No, no fault. I just think they evolved the way they did out of need, due to the narrow stern of old carriers, and remained that way even when the carriers themselves changed notably. Nowadays this restriction of a narrow stern is gone and I think the space can be used better, allowing more landing strips and increased independence between the different areas and operations on the deck.

    The extra space on deck is better used for parking of aircraft than adding the enormous complication of two landing runs... they already have three take off runs...
    I am pretty sure this is a big advantage as explained above and in previous posts, but well, I am no naval expert!

    Yeah... imagining the arresting gear fails is like imagining the carrier hits a mine and sinks... so make it a hovercraft...
    One single landing strip is a bottleneck... if you can remove it you are better without it.

    What are you talking about?

    You line up with the runway for landing... you don't land in a circle... you land in a straight line.... whether that is parallel to the deck of the ship or angled to the deck of the ship... the tried and trusted mirror system makes landing fairly straight forward... and the angled deck is no harder than a straight deck landing.
    The ship moves forward while you move at an angle with it, this is not the simplest motion to coordinate. As you say, an instrument is needed so the pilot can do it. Further, there is a misalignment between the axis of the plane and that of the deck during the touchdown, due to their relative movement. Do not know how hard this is on the landing gear and structure but doesn't seem ideal to me. References I have read indicate the angled landing is indeed more complicated and pilots need special training for it.

    The length used for a cable landing depends on whether the aircraft caught the first, second, third, or fourth cable... if you get the fourth cable the aircraft uses almost all of the angled deck length to stop. Having extra length in this case means nothing at all, unless you want to use longer cables.
    I know, also don't see this as a critical issue, was just answering eehnie. But in any case, the bigger the strip, the bigger the allowance for failures and maybe as you point out you can manage less aggressive landings if you set up your arresting gear accordingly. New intelligent gear should be capable of doing this, saving airframe hours.

    The purpose of an angled deck is to allow for missing the cables... or indeed crashing in a big fireball, but not having parked aircraft or people traffic in the way...

    Push the burning wreck off the deck and hose it down and next aircraft...
    lol1  lol1  You say it as if removing a crashed fighter was like sweeping the floor with a broom! In reality it means lengthy operations and the planes waiting on the air need to have significant amount of extra fuel in prevision of such things.

    AWACS and tanker aircraft are practically transports and transports wont like ski jumps... too much weight.... too much g force at too much weight will just break them.

    If you are going to have cats for a tanker when why not use them for AWACS too?
    Not sure about the first part but you may have a point.
    Regarding the second, there are some options now for AWACS or AEW that may solve this function with a different type of platform, some of them even V/STO capable. That is why I focus on tankers, which are heavily dependant in payload and hence will need catapults to be competitive. But of course, if you have them you can launch your AWACS too!
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3730
    Points : 3768
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:23 am

    GarryB wrote:
    OK then why only US is building large CVNs? because money dont matter!
    Their income depends on their empire, so they need the tools of empire to keep the little ones in line... when they lose the herd they lose the farm.

    True but history says, that  they first get rich stealing form Lations, Indians then build  strong fleet. Spanish power started form 3 tiny ships going to India ;-) after considerabel wealthwas "found" navy was built. Same with Brits. Check history Francis Drake or bank of England.



    No, thy dotn you do.
    You are the one wanting a supersonic 5th gen STOVL fighter...

    Do you mean Russians? of course they want to have modern, great fighter with low landing / start requirements. You want to see it 50 years ofl tech and 70 yo cocnept applied for 2030s fighter.   Russian aerospace engineers (same who built Su-57, MiG-31 or Su-35 and are building MiG-41) say otherwise.

    Well given my choice I buy their story not yours.   russia  russia  russia






    you might prefer even 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.

    The Ru Navy never expressed any interest in a 90 K ton Storm class carrier.... that was an offering from a design bureau that has never made a CVN.
    The Ru Navy has said the Kuznetsov is slightly too small and they want something a little bigger in the 70K tons range Max weight. [/quote]

    Not, exactly first around 2015 mod said about 3 concepts of CV that will be analyzed.  Tass in 2015? 2016? reported that first MoD was evaluating 2  sizes ~30ktons (Lider tech related) and ~100kt large one.  Recently Navy started talking about 70ktons.

    CVNs projects' evaluation.

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5204525

    Gren:


    MOSCOW, October 29 - RIA News. A prospective expeditionary ship for the Russian Navy will be created on the basis of a large landing ship of the type "Ivan Gren," Alexey Rakhmanov, president of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, told reporters on Monday
    .

    РИА Новости https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20181029/1531695586.html

    hoom

    Posts : 1330
    Points : 1320
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom on Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:45 am

    The longer runs through the ski jump, I am not sure they would add that much.
    Its about getting the launch point clear of the landing strip.

    I would always prefer strips that do not cross each other, that is why I propose to make them straight. But if this is not possible and the use is restricted to some planes then your idea could work. What I don't see quite ok is if you plan to launch many fighters from that position, since you cannot park and prepare many planes in the same area (or maybe I am wrong, how many are you calculating to be parked in that area?), I think this would make the TO tempo slow (if only one plane can be lifted and then armed and prepared for launch each time) or would add interference to the landings (if the planes are armed somewhere else and then cross the landing strip). The space left port of the landing strip is narrow and angled, so it cannot be used very well. If you make a big space for parking and preparing the planes port of the landing strip, wouldn't it be better to move the landing strip altogether and avoid crossings?
    How many planes can V prepare currently while having planes waiting to land?
    There's only so much you can do on a carrier as small as V so 1 or 2 on that stern area is a vast capability increase over the current 0.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1421
    Points : 1597
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  d_taddei2 on Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:50 am

    A bit of a wild card. Would it be better to build smaller aircraft carriers say 2-3 along the same lines of what Italians and Spanish or even that chakri nareuebat. 12-30 fixed wing or attack helicopters  (not inc transport and asw etc heli) there's a few advantages such as being able to deploy aircraft carrier capabilities in multiple areas, cheaper per unit, export potential and avoid the old saying eggs all in one basket if there was a loss or breakdown for whatever reason the impact would be less also if one was in getting repair you would still retain the capability. Also more locations to service the ships due to smaller size. So instead of one highly expensive and juicy target you have 2-3 smaller less expensive carriers. With a the basic standard hull design size you could offer aircraft carrier or helicopter carrier for sale. And as for export potential a smaller cheaper unit and price tag will be more within other countries needs and budget. Ok only real downside is the image of not having massive impressive looking monster but bigger isn't always better.

    hoom

    Posts : 1330
    Points : 1320
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom on Wed Oct 31, 2018 11:52 am

    Would it be better to build smaller aircraft carriers say 2-3 along the same lines of what Italians and Spanish or even that chakri nareuebat.
    Well that was pretty much the plan with the Mistrals.
    This is the proposed concept for the domestic replacement


    I'm not opposed to the idea of these small VTOL carriers but it does require an appropriate aircraft to operate from it. (which Russia currently lacks but may be coming)

    US studies have consistently decided the capability loss is bigger than the cost saving (huge vested interest in that outcome though), I say capability of 2 or 3 of those is a lot better than 0 carriers capability.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3730
    Points : 3768
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:23 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:So instead of one highly expensive and juicy target you have 2-3 smaller less expensive carriers. With a the basic standard hull design size you could offer aircraft carrier or helicopter carrier for sale. And as for export potential a smaller cheaper unit and price tag will be more within other countries needs and budget. Ok only real downside is the image of not having massive impressive looking monster but bigger isn't always better.

    Agreed 100%. Its my understanding why Russian MoD made decision build a VSTOL fighter instead of investing in mega CVNs. This can make ship choice easier (+ new tech breakthrough).  
    Can be 20ktons can be 40 or can be 70ktons







    hoom wrote:I'm not opposed to the idea of these small VTOL carriers but it does require an appropriate aircraft to operate from it. (which Russia currently lacks but may be coming)

    US studies have consistently decided the capability loss is bigger than the cost saving (huge vested interest in that outcome though), I say capability of 2 or 3 of those is a lot better than 0 carriers capability.

    (1) Russian project for VSTOL was already started.

    (2) Great to see that we can agree.
    avatar
    eehnie

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:55 pm

    LMFS. Do not blame me of what only you have been doing. Here are the quotes with your personal attacks answering the quotes from me that you selected.

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p550-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#238782

    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.

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p575-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#238807

    LMFS wrote:
    eehnie wrote: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.
    Bravo. That is where you (after having done the same with n forum members before) get personal and start saying BS before I cut this for good. The underlying error, improper not of an engineer but of any person with common sense, is you essentially denying the principle of redundancy by saying it does not help having two systems since they could both fail at the same time... I engaged in basic reasoning not because I am an idiot but out of good will and frankly patience, because you were not  understanding such a trivial issue. But you behaving like a dick changes things a bit so there you have the cold truth served, I don't care if you are hypersensitive and don't like being shown or corrected, if you got hurt by my basic calculations man up.

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p575-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#238863

    LMFS wrote:
    eehnie wrote:The first and alone personal reference was from you. To assume that I do not know the definitions of independent event and of conditional probability, and that I think the opposite, was quite audatious and unfriendly.
    Was not being unfriendly, at all. The construction you point out as hostile could be also written "this is not how things are done in risk mitigation", has nothing to do with "you" personally and is quite frequent in English. I was not thinking for a second you would ignore basic probability or trying to give a master class to anyone for God's sake, but if you discuss obvious things I will have to go to obvious reasoning.

    eehnie wrote:Unlike you, I did not personal attacks.
    Yes you did, FYI. Rather rude ones.

    eehnie wrote:And no, in my previous words there is not a denial of the principle of redundance.

    If you want to traslate properly my words to probabilities, I was saying that the probability of both landing trajectories being disabled at same time is not 0. The landing assistence systems of both can fail at same time, and sooner or later this problem will appear under a proposal that forces dependence of landing assistance. Instead, in a design with enough size, that allows landing and take-off without assistance, keeping free of obstacles the main axis of the aircraft carrier, there is not this problem.
    Yes, any system destined to stop the plane can fail, be it on board of the carrier or on board of the plane. And you cannot land in 300 m without assistance, sorry. Take a look at actual data.

    With this kind of comment you can only expect rude answers. Instead you will not find in my words personal attacks. Not in the quotes you selected to answer and neither in the rest of the messages.

    About your last comment about the 300m, we have very positive and interesting news from Yuri Slyusar, the highest level official in the Russian aviation insdustry:

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p575-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#238839
    https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=3051169&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

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

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

    Do not forget it.

    hoom

    Posts : 1330
    Points : 1320
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom on Thu Nov 01, 2018 9:49 am

    We should get a clue fairly soon to what the Russian Govt/Navy are planning in terms of future carriers if the sunken PD-50 floating dock can't be salvaged.

    If they're planning for a 100Kton beast then an even bigger floating dock will be ordered.
    If they're planning for relatively small then replacement can be smaller than PD-50.

    (2) Great to see that we can agree.
    I think I'm well enough on record supporting more numerous small carriers, I just think STOBAR (with existing knowledge & experience) is a more practical way to go vs developing an all new VSTOL capability.
    Worst comes to worst a carrier designed for STOBAR can operate VSTOL aircraft but not vice versa.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2458
    Points : 2452
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Thu Nov 01, 2018 7:30 pm

    I just though about something. Ulyanovsk was already started in the 90s in USSR. So they finished the dev work for almost everything for the carrier which was supposed to have catapult. Can we deduce that russia alredy has a finished prohect for catapults ? Would they need lot of work, time and money to develop new ones or upgrade the one developed in ussr ?

    Is it hard/costly to develop them ? Only country that has them is USA. France if I'm not wrong buys them to US. India wants to buy also them to US so if they don't try to have an indian made could mean they can't produce them.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3730
    Points : 3768
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Nov 02, 2018 2:47 am

    eehnie wrote:About your last comment about the 300m, we have very positive and interesting news from Yuri Slyusar, the highest level official in the Russian aviation insdustry:

    Sorry to disappoint you but this news was already 2 years or so in wiki. In both cases (wiki, Slyusar)  no word about takeoff mass though    dunno  dunno  dunno


    Длина разбега/пробега: 350 м (100 м)
    Length of takeoff / landing: 350 m (100 m)

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%83-57




    hoom wrote:We should get a clue fairly soon to what the Russian Govt/Nav.
    That's definitely one way to estimate it. Another is that in early 2019 3 reworked concepts of CVs are to be evaluated and one to be chosen for further implementation.  (Borisov said some time ago)


    hoom wrote:
    (2) Great to see that we can agree.
    I think I'm well enough on record supporting more numerous small carriers, I just think STOBAR (with existing knowledge & experience) is a more practical way to go vs developing an all new VSTOL capability.
    Worst comes to worst a carrier designed for STOBAR can operate VSTOL aircraft but not vice versa.

    skijump and TVC were actually invented for VSTOL fighters. There is no contradiction with VSTOL. Just about arresters. VSTOL can also land on short strip. Su-57 according to wiki in 100m...flaps, and TVC definitely help.





    Isos wrote: Can we deduce that russia alredy has a finished prohect for catapults ? Would they need lot of work, time and money to develop new ones or upgrade the one developed in ussr ?

    unlikely, those catapults were working,besides steam catapult makes no sense in arctic winter. This was one of reasons why Soviets were not so enthusiastic about catapults. You need EMALS for this.



    Isos wrote: Is it hard/costly to develop them ? Only country that has them is USA. France if I'm not wrong buys them to US. India wants to buy also them to US so if they don't try to have an indian made could mean they can't produce them.

    True it is complex and expensive project. When you run 1-2 CVs it makes little economical sense doing as it can cost you 20-25% price off the whole CV!


    BTW France decided not to invest in one project with UK , I wonder why? The most revolutions idea is that they would plan joint project with ... Germany. France and Germany have economy ~$7,000B    ~40% of US one.  Both could build nice CV fleet.
    avatar
    eehnie

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Fri Nov 02, 2018 3:18 am

    The data of the new I posted is clear

    August 20, 2018

    More data about:

    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/pak-fa.htm

    The T-50 takeoff and landing distance is shortened, only about 330 meters to complete the landing runway, their weapons can all be mounted inside the fuselage bomb bay to meet stealth requirements. Reportedly, T-50 can carry eight R-77 air to air missiles.

    330m is just the aprroximate data of lenght given for the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carrier.

    Why disappointment if we are reading what we want to read?

    The Su-57 is perfectly capable of operating from an aircraft carrier. Their landing and take-off runway needs still are not totally fixed publicly, but very likely will allow the aircrafts to operate from the future Russian aircraft carriers with and without take-off and landing assistence, adding safety to the operations of both aircrafts and aircraft carriers. And it refered to the main variant of the aircraft.

    Perfect work of the Russian engineers. We can assume that the future Russian aircraft carriers will allow a comfortable and safe use of the Su-57.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 826
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Fri Nov 02, 2018 12:45 pm

    In reality the plan is to build a 100 knots carrier from which CTOL planes can take of and land on the spot. So we will be all right and happy clown

    Please lets be serious. Planes land normally in 600-700 m minimum. And that, only with the assistance of the chute:
    Su-35: 750 m with drag chute (Rosoboronexport)
    MiG-29: 600 m with drag chute (GlobalSecurity.org)

    Reason for this limitation is very simple, due to the relative size of the landing gear, the plane and its speed, and has not changed in Su-57. Besides, you cannot leave the plane land on a ship without making sure to stop it. Imagine the breaks fail and the plane needs to abort landing, with a chute on its tail... that would be interesting to see. Or simply if the chute does not deploy, with the aircraft not having the cables to stop it, it cannot keep the engines at full power to be in conditions to abort the landing.

    So unless we get >1 km-long ships I don't expect convectional planes landing without assistance on a carrier. The 25 m difference between the Shtorm and the light carrier have no effect in this regard.


    avatar
    eehnie

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:42 pm

    I do not consider serious to put a emoticon of a clown to the words of Yuri Slyusar, President of the Russian United Aircraft Corporation (owner of Yakovlev, MiG, Ilyushin, Sukhoi, Tupolev,...).

    I do not consider serious to use data about the MiG-29 from globalsecurity to deny data about the Su-57 from globalsecurity. Just the same source.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 826
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Fri Nov 02, 2018 7:05 pm

    eehnie wrote:I do not consider serious to put a emoticon of a clown to the words of Yuri Slyusar, President of the Russian United Aircraft Corporation (owner of Yakovlev, MiG, Ilyushin, Sukhoi, Tupolev,...).
    Have not done that, so don't make up things

    I do not consider serious to use data about the MiG-29 from globalsecurity to deny data about the Su-57 from globalsecurity. Just the same source
    Only source you provided is that it can take off in 300 m, I am not contradicting it and it was not Global Security, what on earth are you complaining about? And lesser planes can already TO from 100 m without active assistance (ski jump is simply a curved deck and was also present at the Shtorm, as well as catapults) so I don't see the big deal. BTW, why do you keep talking about TO when the discussion is about landing? Is it in order to take us for fools or is it some understanding problem of yours?
    avatar
    eehnie

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:23 pm

    LMFS wrote:Only source you provided is that it can take off in 300 m, I am not contradicting it and it was not Global Security

    I posted two sources, one of them global security.


    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p575-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#238839
    https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=3051169&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

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

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


    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p575-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#239057
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/pak-fa.htm

    The T-50 takeoff and landing distance is shortened, only about 330 meters to complete the landing runway, their weapons can all be mounted inside the fuselage bomb bay to meet stealth requirements. Reportedly, T-50 can carry eight R-77 air to air missiles.

    330m is just the approximate data of lenght given for the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carrier.


    Last edited by eehnie on Sat Nov 03, 2018 2:49 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7250
    Points : 7344
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:39 pm

    eehnie wrote:.............
    330m is just the approximate data of lenght given for the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carrier.


    Which will never be built but hey, you used colored font Razz
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 826
    Points : 820
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:57 pm

    Suspect Suspect Suspect

    OK... and where am I disputing the 300 m TO in all of the above?

    And more important even... why on earth do you insist on the same, when I said over and over that the problem for implementing your proposal is not TO but landing?? Apart from many other issues already mentioned like storage of planes, reinforcement of airframes, corrosion, but I am not going to repeat eternally, if you prefer ignoring then better not to discuss at all.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2458
    Points : 2452
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:51 pm

    eehnie wrote:.............
    330m is just the approximate data of lenght given for the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carrier.

    Are you aware that take off lenght depends on the load of the plane ? If your data is real it is for empty su-57, with full afterburners.

    330m is the lenght of the shtorm carrier not lenght of the runway. Moreover accelerating on 300m and using the skyjump full loaded will destroy the aircraft.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3730
    Points : 3768
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Nov 03, 2018 3:12 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    eehnie wrote:.............
    330m is just the approximate data of lenght given for the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carrier.


    Which will never be built but hey, you used colored font  Razz

    capital ship=capital letters lol1 lol1 lol1
    avatar
    eehnie

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Sat Nov 03, 2018 3:20 am

    LMFS wrote:Suspect Suspect Suspect

    OK... and where am I disputing the 300 m TO in all of the above?

    And more important even... why on earth do you insist on the same, when I said over and over that the problem for implementing your proposal is not TO but landing?? Apart from many other issues already mentioned like storage of planes, reinforcement of airframes, corrosion, but I am not going to repeat eternally, if you prefer ignoring then better not to discuss at all.

    The problem is that you are not reading what you have in front of you...

    eehnie wrote:http://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p575-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#239057
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/pak-fa.htm

    globalsecurity wrote:The T-50 takeoff and landing distance is shortened, only about 330 meters to complete the landing runway, their weapons can all be mounted inside the fuselage bomb bay to meet stealth requirements. Reportedly, T-50 can carry eight R-77 air to air missiles.

    330m is just the approximate data of lenght given for the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carrier.

    and you used globalsecurity data about the MiG-29 to deny globalsecurity data about the Su-57.

    LMFS wrote:In reality the plan is to build a 100 knots carrier from which CTOL planes can take of and land on the spot. So we will be all right and happy clown

    Please lets be serious. Planes land normally in 600-700 m minimum. And that, only with the assistance of the chute:
    Su-35: 750 m with drag chute (Rosoboronexport)
    MiG-29: 600 m with drag chute (GlobalSecurity.org)

    Reason for this limitation is very simple, due to the relative size of the landing gear, the plane and its speed, and has not changed in Su-57. Besides, you cannot leave the plane land on a ship without making sure to stop it.
    Imagine the breaks fail and the plane needs to abort landing, with a chute on its tail... that would be interesting to see. Or simply if the chute does not deploy, with the aircraft not having the cables to stop it, it cannot keep the engines at full power to be in conditions to abort the landing.

    So unless we get >1 km-long ships I don't expect convectional planes landing without assistance on a carrier. The 25 m difference between the Shtorm and the light carrier have no effect in this regard.

    It seems that something changed in the Su-57.
    What changed?
    Which is the purpose of the change?
    These are questions for Slyusar, Shoigu,...

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Nov 20, 2018 7:51 pm