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 Sat Nov 03, 2018 5:02 am

    eehnie wrote:The problem is that you are not reading what you have in front of you...
    You are right, fair enough. I lost that in the repeated and unnecessary quotes about TO and your colourful text salad so I apologize for that one.

    and you used globalsecurity data about the MiG-29 to deny globalsecurity data about the Su-57.
    The difference is I am using coherent and official data from Rosoboronexport to back my claim that while you are getting unreferenced, outlandish data from Global Security against all available industry data as proof of an improbable layout against anything seen in CV design, basic physics and existing evidence from PAK-FA. Then comes the very design of Shtorm, with catapults, ski jump, 200 m landing strip and 100 TO run, with all provisions of conventional carriers. But despite you take the size (only 25 meters more than K) as a hint in favour of your hunch about carriers without assistance for TO and landing. That is what you call a scientific approach.

    "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". Heard that before?

    It seems that something changed in the Su-57.
    What changed?
    Which is the purpose of the change?
    These are questions for Slyusar, Shoigu,...
    Tell me, what changed? When did you see the PAK-FA landing in such short distance or any evidence of those changes? Size of the braking system? Tires? Air brakes? Engine reverser? Chute? Yes, "something" special and secret for sure.
    Because of some odd quote found solely in Global Security and your obsession with that issue the world is going suddenly upside down?

    What is more probable, an inaccurate statement in the PAK-FA article (found several gross errors reading it superficially) or that Russians are going to make a revolutionary (and completely illogical) carrier with TO and landing strips taking the whole length of the deck for CTOL planes, with no assistance or safety measures?

    We will see, this is for sure thumbsup
    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 5:10 am

    LMFS wrote: that Russians are going to make a revolutionary (and completely illogical) carrier with TO and landing strips taking the whole length of the deck for CTOL planes, with no assistance or safety measures

    We will see, this is for sure thumbsup

    remove CTOL from equation and you can enjoy SVRL on 30-40m et voila! 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 9:31 am

    LMFS, first you missed the entire globalsecurity quote, then you missed the landing word. Every repetition has been necessary, even using multiple colors and the maximum letter size.

    Rosoboronexport data are fine, but you also used goblasecurity data.

    Still it is good to remember that United Aircraft Corporation is the company that developed and is producing the Su-57. The words of his President Yuri Slyusar are not especulation, And if other sources, are offering data in line with the said by the President of United Aircraft Corporation, there is not something to avoid.

    It would be interesting to use the data of the Su-33 and the MiG-29K. Both CTOL.

    Looking at them, very likely we can have a good idea of some of the modifications introduced in the Su-57 in order to reduce its take-off and landing runway needs.

    The question about the purpose of the reduction of the runway needs of the Su-57 until the length of the Project 23000 aircraft carrier is also very interesting.


    Last edited by eehnie on Sat Nov 03, 2018 3:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    LMFS

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:46 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:remove CTOL from equation and you can enjoy SVRL on 30-40m  et voila! lol1 lol1 lol1
    ...and then, Gunship joins the party with his own mantra. lol1 lol1

    You can imagine how much I care for that SVRL, now I found the proof Su-57 can be modified for naval operation! Very Happy

    eehnie wrote:The question about the purpose of the reduction of the runway needs of the Su-57 until the length of the Project 23000 aircraft carrier is also very interesting.
    Only Shtorm has a conventional angled deck not what you propose. Look where the arresting cables are put on a carrier and where the contact of the plane happens and you will see how relevant is that. Do you suggest the plane is going to make contact with a mathematic precision at the beginning of the deck (even in rough seas) and brake (by itself!) by the exact end without one meter tolerance, despite rain, landing weight, wind over the deck etc?? Really?

    Look BTW quotes from UAC chief designer talking about possible creation of naval version of Su-57 and the need to address lots of issues for carrier operation:

    "If needed, we will do it, undoubtedly,"

    "If we work only on the aerial components and do not work on the ship components, then things won't match up. A whole host of problems involving takeoff, landing, operation, electromagnetic compatibility and so on — it must be done together," he said.

    "If a new carrier is being built, it must have modern features, such as electromagnetic catapults,"

    Now you see I can rectify, interested to see if you can 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 Sat Nov 03, 2018 3:02 pm

    LMFS wrote:You can imagine how much I care for that SVRL, now I found the proof Su-57 can be modified for naval operation! Very Happy

    proof on level of krylov's plastic fantastic lol1 lol1 lol1

    10 years of MiG-35
    5 years of Shtorm and
    now of Su-57k


    congrats, your proofs are undisputed and keep piling up! each one 5 years, can we guess what will be next one in 2023?



    avatar
    eehnie

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Sat Nov 03, 2018 4:33 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    eehnie wrote:The question about the purpose of the reduction of the runway needs of the Su-57 until the length of the Project 23000 aircraft carrier is also very interesting.
    Only Shtorm has a conventional angled deck not what you propose. Look where the arresting cables are put on a carrier and where the contact of the plane happens and you will see how relevant is that. Do you suggest the plane is going to make contact with a mathematic precision at the beginning of the deck (even in rough seas) and brake (by itself!) by the exact end without one meter tolerance, despite rain, landing weight, wind over the deck etc?? Really?

    Look BTW quotes from UAC chief designer talking about possible creation of naval version of Su-57 and the need to address lots of issues for carrier operation:

    "If needed, we will do it, undoubtedly,"

    "If we work only on the aerial components and do not work on the ship components, then things won't match up. A whole host of problems involving takeoff, landing, operation, electromagnetic compatibility and so on — it must be done together," he said.

    "If a new carrier is being built, it must have modern features, such as electromagnetic catapults,
    "

    Now you see I can rectify, interested to see if you can too

    I have nothing to rectify. Because I never said that the future Russian aircraft carriers must not have take-off and landing assistance systems. I simply said that that it is good to have free of obstacles the main axis of the aircraft carrier, in order to be able to operate without take-off and landing assistance when the systems fail or when they want.

    Are you asking for new quotes with bolding?

    I totally support the quote that you posted. It confirms how the designs of the Su-57 and the Project 23000 Shtorm received strong mutual feedback from the other in the last decade. The presense of the Su-57 in the presentation of the Project 23000 Shtorm export variant reflects a lot of work together, not only plastic of Krylov like GunshipDemocracy said. This is something that I have been defending here before.

    The Project 23000 Shtorm is the alone public project that qualifies for the Russian Navy requirement of ships over 70000 tons, and there are less than 2 months to go.

    The Shtorm-KM recently presented of which you proposed a variant does not qualify.
    avatar
    LMFS

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sat Nov 03, 2018 7:49 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    LMFS wrote:You can imagine how much I care for that SVRL, now I found the proof Su-57 can be modified for naval operation! Very Happy

    proof on level of krylov's plastic fantastic  lol1  lol1  lol1  

    10 years of MiG-35
    5 years of Shtorm and
    now of Su-57k

    congrats, your proofs are undisputed and keep piling up! each one 5 years, can we guess what will be next one in 2023?
    Chief UAC designer saying Su-57 can "undoubtedly" be turned into naval fighter is no evidence for you that it can be turned naval fighter, what will a clueless guy like him know about Su-57 right??
    You have nerve man, could make a good spokesman for State Department or US mission at the UN  lol1  lol1

    eehnie wrote:I have nothing to rectify.
    Ok no more questions then
    avatar
    Isos

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:02 pm

    Chief UAC designer saying Su-57 can "undoubtedly" be turned into naval fighter is no evidence for you that it can be turned naval fighter, what will a clueless guy like him know about Su-57 right??

    And ? Any fighter can have a naval version. The thing is that right now they can't produce them since they don't have a carrier capable of operating it. And when you see the small number of jets on K, you don't start production of su-57k to replace ten or so su-33 and 4 mig-29k.

    Even the production of land based version seems problematic, let alone a naval version. They would need another billions for its conversion, tens of billion for the new carrier R&D and construction + 5 or 6 billion for enough su-57k t fit in. Something russia can't do right now.  And if those project of LHD+VSTOL are real then the carrier won't be produce any time soon.

    If the VSTOL jet is good enough then making it a "normal" jet could be an easy solution for future 5th gen carrier fighter. The free space of the middle engine would allow more fuel and bigger weapons bays.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:01 pm

    Chief UAC designer saying Su-57 can "undoubtedly" be turned into naval fighter is no evidence for you that it can be turned naval fighter, what will a clueless guy like him know about Su-57 right??

    He said? Oh in that case it's settled.

    Lockheed Martin said 2 years ago that they will demonstrate portable fusion reactor in couple of months. Same thing, eh?

    And from which ship would these Su-57 operate from? By the time they manage to build some barge big enough to handle it Su-57 will be ripe for decommission.

    It would be wise to keep in mind that these statements are coming from same crop of people who expect us to believe that those dastardly Americans are sneaking into their hangars at night and are drilling holes in Soyuz capsules...
    avatar
    LMFS

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:33 pm

    Isos wrote:And ? Any fighter can have a naval version.
    No, that is actually not true. Not every fighter can be adapted to naval requirements, because of aerodynamics, structure and landing gear among others. Check history of naval fighters if you doubt it.

    The thing is that right now they can't produce them since they don't have a carrier capable of operating it. And when you see the small number of jets on K, you don't start production of su-57k to replace ten or so su-33 and 4 mig-29k.

    Even the production of land based version seems problematic, let alone a naval version. They would need another billions for its conversion, tens of billion for the new carrier R&D and construction + 5 or 6 billion for enough su-57k t fit in. Something russia can't do right now.  And if those project of LHD+VSTOL are real then the carrier won't be produce any time soon.

    If the VSTOL jet is good enough then making it a "normal" jet could be an easy solution for future 5th gen carrier fighter. The free space of the middle engine would allow more fuel and bigger weapons bays.
    Not really agreeing on the figures and statements above, but, what is your point exactly? I am just saying the technical feasibility of a Su-57K had been confirmed by the possibly most authoritative source possible so I consider this dispute closed. This was an ongoing discussion time ago, in terms of assessing what are the Russian options for future naval fighters. What they do in the end and when is a matter of the decisions of MoD, but I would think the naval strategy document should be taken as the guideline and there the decision to build carriers and a blue water navy is clearly stated.

    Next steps are probably:
    > Deciding whether they finally build carriers, with what characteristics and in what schedule.
    > Accordingly, what kind of fighter will operate from them. Su-57? STOVL? MiG-29? New Flanker version?? UCAV??
    > If Su-57K was to be chosen, they would need to harmonize the designs of both plane and carrier. And then develop the technical solution, probably considering 2nd stage engines. Wing folding, arrestor, reinforcements, instrumentation etc.

    By the time they are ready with the prototypes, we would probably have year 2025. K would be back online and may (or may not) be compatible with the new 57K. I see no reason why it would not be compatible with K but of course this would need to be seen. But in any case they have the 29Ks (two squadrons) with still ca. 20 years life in front of them, so there is no real hurry.

    PapaDragon wrote:He said? Oh in that case it's settled.
    Yes, exactly. If chief designer of UAC says it is technically feasible, then it is technically feasible. That or you have a better source to prove him wrong.

    See above, what they do in the end with that "technical feasibility" was not the point of my post.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:59 pm

    LMFS wrote:.............
    Yes, exactly. If chief designer of UAC says it is technically feasible, then it is technically feasible. That or you have a better source to prove him wrong.

    See above, what they do in the end with that "technical feasibility" was not the point of my post.

    It was technically feasible to nuke the Moon

    They haven't done it for a reason, same applies here
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5974
    Points : 6001
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Militarov on Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:22 pm

    LMFS wrote:Not every fighter can be adapted to naval requirements, because of aerodynamics, structure and landing gear among others. Check history of naval fighters if you doubt it.

    Actually there is nothing stopping you from making navalised variant of any fighter there is. Actually majority of USAF fighters can land on carriers if really required, or for emergency landings on make-happen-asap airstrips, even tho they are not primary built as navalised fighters.

    Main difference is the reinforced landing gear to deal with increased landing stress, other than that those are basically same machines.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5974
    Points : 6001
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Militarov on Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:24 pm

    Can Su-57 be turned into K variant? Sure. Will they? Eeww...maybe, if they ever put tarmac on some tanker long enough to land it on Very Happy
    avatar
    Isos

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:35 pm

    Not really agreeing on the figures and statements above, but, what is your point exactly?

    The point is that russia can do it but won't because they don't have the money and the carrier. Kuznetsov is too small to spend more on the su-57 program, which will be produced in smaller numbers than expected, to have a couple of naval su-57.

    Even the VTOL program if it has started could be stpped if the Lavina or whatever is its name class isn't build. Those programs have to be done togather and you need to be sure there will have enough money to finish it.

    Su-57 program proved that new technologies coast huge ammount so they can't just start them and then stop them because they can't build lot of them.

    This was an ongoing discussion time ago, in terms of assessing what are the Russian options for future naval fighters.

    I wasn't following in details the discussion. Future naval fighters means they started a program for carrier. They have not. Only speculation.

    The bad thing is that even india managed to build a small carrier before trying to make a big one. Russia should also build the small shtorm to gain in experience and put only cheap mig 29k on it. If they do it, they will be confident about bigger ones and this one could replace kuznetsov which could be sold to some ME country like SA or south american.
    avatar
    LMFS

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Nov 04, 2018 1:21 am

    Militarov wrote:Actually there is nothing stopping you from making navalised variant of any fighter there is. Actually majority of USAF fighters can land on carriers if really required, or for emergency landings on make-happen-asap airstrips, even tho they are not primary built as navalised fighters.

    Main difference is the reinforced landing gear to deal with increased landing stress, other than that those are basically same machines.
    Yes, you could say every plane can land on a carrier the same I can drink poison... at least one time
    From all the sources I have seen USAF fighters cannot land on a carrier, from type of hook to minimum speed to maximum sink rate, structural strength are simply not valid, and the fact that USAF and Navy use different aircraft only supports that. So would be interested in seeing some links providing info on what you refer.

    Regarding naval versions: of course without economic or performance constraints you can modify so much a plane that it can operate from a carrier, but at what cost? F-15N was proposed and discarded due to exaggerated weight increase for instance. F-22 in its current aero design would not be capable of carrier approaches, not to talk about the landing gear and hence the general design of the plane and internal structure. Or try to fit a CATOBAR compatible front landing gear on a F-16. So in practical terms there are aircraft designs that allow for navalization and others that don't allow it with reasonable amount of effort, costs and performance of the resulting aircraft.


    Isos wrote:The point is that russia can do it but won't because they don't have the money and the carrier. Kuznetsov is too small to spend more on the su-57 program, which will be produced in smaller numbers than expected, to have a couple of naval su-57.
    Well, let them decide that for themselves. They created the Su-33 and MiG-29K also for small numbers in the end. More on that below.
    Regarding the K, why is it too small? Two squadrons Su-57 as would be possibly carried on the K are too few but three or four would be ok? What is the number you consider ok?

    Even the VTOL program if it has started could be stpped if the Lavina or whatever is its name class isn't build. Those programs have to be done togather and you need to be sure there will have enough money to finish it.
    Right, with the difference that Su-57 already exists and STOVL doesn't. Difference in the efforts needed for both developments are essentially orders of magnitude apart. If you have some numbers of Su-57 in the VVS and then a very closely related K version in the carriers, your economies of scale are huge compared to a plane developed only for the navy.

    Su-57 program proved that new technologies coast huge ammount so they can't just start them and then stop them because they can't build lot of them.
    These are extremely long term programs. Su-57 will be serving for the next 40 years, that is why they are not in a hurry to deploy them until they are effective and reliable.

    I wasn't following in details the discussion. Future naval fighters means they started a program for carrier. They have not. Only speculation.
    Really people, what do you think a strategic document like the naval doctrine is for? This is not toilet paper. May not be implemented 100%, may (will) have delays, due to the extreme long term planning involved. But the firm intentions to create carriers are stated there and also outside of that document many times. Why do you keep doubting it all the time? Most probably they will keep K for a good while and build two or three new carriers, more or less along the lines of other big countries like India or China.

    Russia should also build the small shtorm to gain in experience and put only cheap mig 29k on it
    I think carriers are too expensive to build cheap experiments and give them a go (not saying light carrier and MiG-29K cannot cope with the task). Either you need them and in that case you build what you need or you put the money to other use.
    avatar
    Gibraltar

    Posts : 21
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2018-09-22

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Gibraltar on Sun Nov 04, 2018 1:43 am

    If I would be in Russian MOD, well

    I would go straight for only two options:
    1) project 23000 Shtorm Carrier or modified or similar one
    2) a deal with Chinese to buy 002A blueprints or a ready to sail ship.

    Why?

    1) Because carriers are the most expensive and long lifespan ships of navy's fleet, Russia don't lack skills in nuclear propulsion, and with such a ship I would choose a Kirov-like hybrid propulsion system and a Kuznetsov-like hard missile attack/defence tubes. With such a solution they'll have no needs to develop bigger reactors, just plant 4/6 of the ones of Boreis and possibility of autonomous propulsion even in worst case of reactors fails and no need to form a numerous battle group such as US Navy.
    2) It's an almost ready package and needs not deep modifications to the original project to accomodate russian jets. It carry in dote EMALS system and they in case they could buy one ready to sail from chineses it solves the main russian problem: building issues, delays, deficiency in manufacturing technology, burocracy and every could slow down construcion and raise costs.

    About both of these solutions: their 300+m lenght seems sufficient to accomodate Su-57's or a derivate version landing. Not least, such a ship is eventullay, a BLUE WATER power projection ship. When we start talking about this arguments, long distance power projection, it becomes very less important 1-2-3-4 billions more or less because it gives way more contribution to national interests in any form they present, avoiding wars, protect allies and routes etc I don't want to slide in political discussions but Russia needs at VERY least one (and at least two) blue water battle group.


    Then about other proposals..
    I find has not a big sense to build a V pseudo-double-keel hull carrier, it's a weird creature and poses more problems then solutions of internal logistics, machineries, system and supply arrangement, not to mention headaches when will need to be drydocked.
    And a standard medium/light carrier such as Italian ones I think the worst choice. Their utility is very poor even in regional/mediterranean theatres. They comes with conventional propulsion, scarce autonomy, low speed, no way to operate heavily armed aircrafts, no power projection at all, just tin-toys even compared to french R91 Charles De Gaulle.
    Any good only for Bellona fraks.



    Last edited by Gibraltar on Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:00 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : correction)
    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 Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:11 am

    LMFS wrote:Chief UAC designer saying Su-57

    Yo bro, - Su-57 chief designer and general manger is the same ?!  Youri Slyusar in OAK that I know about is a lawyer by trade, who become a gen manager of OAK or it was another Yuri SLyusar talking?  affraid  affraid  affraid

    https://ria.ru/spravka/20150113/1042414192.html
    http://whoiswho.dp.ru/cart/person/1932403/




    LMFS wrote: can "undoubtedly" be turned into naval fighter is no evidence for you that it can be turned naval fighter, what will a clueless guy like him know about Su-57 right??
    You have nerve man, could make a good spokesman for State Department or US mission at the UN  lol1  lol1

    Yo, bro. I never said Su-57 cannot be navalized.  And what Slyusar said is simply on level of Shtorm or MiG-35. Its true they all can be built!
    MiG-35 can be built already last 10 years. Shtorm last 5 years.




    You know this remains me Russian joke I've head lately:

    Can a master in martial arts can  get his ass kicked on the street?  
    Yes, the real master can get all


    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 04, 2018 5:23 am

    The MiG-33 has a larger wing area with bigger flaps and control surfaces and rather more powerful engines than the land based MiG-29, which had 8.3 ton thrust engines compared with the 9 ton thrust engines of the MiG-33.

    Having wheel chocks that hold the aircraft while the engines are run up to full speed shortens take off run, as does having a ski jump and thrust vectored engines...

    The biggest advantage is that it is unlikely to carry anything like its maximum weight most of the time because AAMs are much lighter than most air to ground munitions.
    avatar
    eehnie

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Sun Nov 04, 2018 5:30 am

    LMFS wrote:I am just saying the technical feasibility of a Su-57K had been confirmed by the possibly most authoritative source possible so I consider this dispute closed. This was an ongoing discussion time ago, in terms of assessing what are the Russian options for future naval fighters. What they do in the end and when is a matter of the decisions of MoD, but I would think the naval strategy document should be taken as the guideline and there the decision to build carriers and a blue water navy is clearly stated.

    Next steps are probably:
    > Deciding whether they finally build carriers, with what characteristics and in what schedule.
    > Accordingly, what kind of fighter will operate from them. Su-57? STOVL? MiG-29? New Flanker version?? UCAV??
    > If Su-57K was to be chosen, they would need to harmonize the designs of both plane and carrier. And then develop the technical solution, probably considering 2nd stage engines. Wing folding, arrestor, reinforcements, instrumentation etc.


    By the time they are ready with the prototypes, we would probably have year 2025. K would be back online and may (or may not) be compatible with the new 57K. I see no reason why it would not be compatible with K but of course this would need to be seen. But in any case they have the 29Ks (two squadrons) with still ca. 20 years life in front of them, so there is no real hurry.

    PapaDragon wrote:He said? Oh in that case it's settled.
    Yes, exactly. If chief designer of UAC says it is technically feasible, then it is technically feasible. That or you have a better source to prove him wrong.

    See above, what they do in the end with that "technical feasibility" was not the point of my post.

    This makes sense. I totally agree in all the bolded in green part. And like you say, is very likely to see the Su-57 operated from the Project 11435 A Kutznetsov aircraft carrier (for sure it will be considered in the modernization of the ship, if it was some problem previously).

    I have not doubt that the changes required for a naval variant of the Su-57 are minimal, and not very high cost. My alone doubt at this point is if the main variant of the Su-57 is compatible with the use from aircraft carriers. It would be an important advantage in my view.
    avatar
    eehnie

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Sun Nov 04, 2018 5:41 am

    Gibraltar wrote:If I would be in Russian MOD, well

    I would go straight for only two options:
    1) project 23000 Shtorm Carrier or modified or similar one
    2) a deal with Chinese to buy 002A blueprints or a ready to sail ship.

    Why?

    1) Because carriers are the most expensive and long lifespan ships of navy's fleet, Russia don't lack skills in nuclear propulsion, and with such a ship I would choose a Kirov-like hybrid propulsion system and a Kuznetsov-like hard missile attack/defence tubes. With such a solution they'll have no needs to develop bigger reactors, just plant 4/6 of the ones of Boreis and possibility of autonomous propulsion even in worst case of reactors fails and no need to form a numerous battle group such as US Navy.
    2) It's an almost ready package and needs not deep modifications to the original project to accomodate russian jets. It carry in dote EMALS system and they in case they could buy one ready to sail from chineses it solves the main russian problem: building issues, delays, deficiency in manufacturing technology, burocracy and every could slow down construcion and raise costs.

    About both of these solutions: their 300+m lenght seems sufficient to accomodate Su-57's or a derivate version landing. Not least, such a ship is eventullay, a BLUE WATER power projection ship. When we start talking about this arguments, long distance power projection, it becomes very less important 1-2-3-4 billions more or less because it gives way more contribution to national interests in any form they present, avoiding wars, protect allies and routes etc I don't want to slide in political discussions but Russia needs at VERY least one (and at least two) blue water battle group.


    Then about other proposals..
    I find has not a big sense to build a V pseudo-double-keel hull carrier, it's a weird creature and poses more problems then solutions of internal logistics, machineries, system and supply arrangement, not to mention headaches when will need to be drydocked.
    And a standard medium/light carrier such as Italian ones I think the worst choice. Their utility is very poor even in regional/mediterranean theatres. They comes with conventional propulsion, scarce autonomy, low speed, no way to operate heavily armed aircrafts, no power projection at all, just tin-toys even compared to french R91 Charles De Gaulle.
    Any good only for Bellona fraks.

    The option 1 is the strongest under every technical analysis, assuming that Russia wants own production in order to avoid problems.

    No need to repeat arguments, simply bolded in green the parts where I totally agree.

    China is a fair and reliable ally for Russia today and very likely will continue being in the future. I do not think Russia would have a problem with the second option, but surely prefers the first.
    avatar
    LMFS

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:29 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Yo bro, - Su-57 chief designer and general manger is the same ?!  Youri Slyusar in OAK that I know about is a lawyer by trade, who become a gen manager of OAK or it was another Yuri SLyusar talking?  affraid  affraid  affraid

    https://ria.ru/spravka/20150113/1042414192.html
    http://whoiswho.dp.ru/cart/person/1932403/
    I put this info on the STOVL thread. It was stated by UAC chief designer Sergey Korotkov.
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7135p375-russian-stovl-vtol-fighter-development#239178

    Yo, bro. I never said Su-57 cannot be navalized.  And what Slyusar said is simply on level of Shtorm or MiG-35. Its true they all can be built!
    MiG-35 can be built already last 10 years. Shtorm last 5 years.
    You said the Su-57 had probably gone through the navalization conceptual studies and that modification was deemed too complex, see below:

    So you say Su-57 has foldable  wings?

    No it hasn't, no reason for it, until MoD decides to create a carrier version, the same way Su-27 has no folding wings but Su-33 has. F-22 had many issues to be navalized...


    looks like Su-57 undergone similar exercise and perhaps that's why this decision.

    @Gibraltar:
    Krylov designs are just proposals, the bureau that normally takes care of carrier designs in Russia is Nevskoye. They say they are working on carrier designs and technologies, and hints have been a carrier around 70kT. The director Sergey Vlasov said he didn't agree on putting every system in the carrier instead of making it simply a carrier, implying that all the defensive systems just make the vessel more complex and expensive. Nevertheless I think MoD will want some kind of "cruiser" capabilities both because of their doctrine and lack of escorting vessels and also due to Montreux convention.

    Having said that, the light design from Krylov has bigger deck and same air wing of K with 30% less displacement due to new hull shape. That is a great advantage IMO that should be explored, have no way of knowing what are the associated problems you mention. Don't think it is a radical multihull design just a moerate modification of the keels to get a broader stern.
    avatar
    Gibraltar

    Posts : 21
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2018-09-22

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Gibraltar on Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:37 am

    eehnie wrote:
    China is a fair and reliable ally for Russia today and very likely will continue being in the future. I do not think Russia would have a problem with the second option, but surely prefers the first.

    I think Chinese are in debt with Russia in the carrier-affair. Don't forget they got access to carrier platform by completing the Varyag, bought for nothing from Ukranians, tugged for 5 seas, it gave chinese almost immediate and low low low cost access to carrier platform technology even not the newest. I think that has been an error in Russia own convenience to let the Varyag be sold and not rebuy and complete by themselfs, but, being confident about chinese reliability as strategic partner maybe has been a right choice. History will speak.
    In any case without russian will, Varyag scratches would been rusting forever in Ukraine and never become Liaoning, so it wouldn't be unfair if chineses give back something to Russia.
    avatar
    Gibraltar

    Posts : 21
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2018-09-22

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Gibraltar on Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:59 am

    LMFS wrote:
    @Gibraltar:
    Krylov designs are just proposals, the bureau that normally takes care of carrier designs in Russia is Nevskoye. They say they are working on carrier designs and technologies, and hints have been a carrier around 70kT. The director Sergey Vlasov said he didn't agree on putting every system in the carrier instead of making it simply a carrier, implying that all the defensive systems just make the vessel more complex and expensive. Nevertheless I think MoD will want some kind of "cruiser" capabilities both because of their doctrine and lack of escorting vessels and also due to Montreux convention.

    Having said that, the light design from Krylov has bigger deck and same air wing of K with 30% less displacement due to new hull shape. That is a great advantage IMO that should be explored, have no way of knowing what are the associated problems you mention. Don't think it is a radical multihull design just a moerate modification of the keels to get a broader stern.

    I totally agree with MoD underlined, it's Russian doctrine and has perfect sense.
    Then, Krylov light design to me has many faults: with that design and displacement is unlikely to go nuclear (green water ship in best case) with twin hull in stern means 2 completely separated machinery and turbine compartments, low propulsion efficiency optimization, high center of gravity, 30% less displacement than Kuznetsov + large stern means low draft and bad hydrodinamic profile, low speed, large turn rates, an incognite in rough sea situations. I think that, exagerating but not too much, that thing would sail as a cargo barge and still has no cruiser capabilities. I would spend a lot of money in a reliable and long-perspective useful design such as a kuznetsov-evolution, nuclear, bigger but not so much, rather than weird or light solution.
    avatar
    Gibraltar

    Posts : 21
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2018-09-22

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Gibraltar on Sun Nov 04, 2018 1:10 pm

    Last add, carriers as ssbn are a fleet part depending 90% on highest level political decisions, very few should be left to militaries wishes because they would choose the easiest and lightest configuration to operate forgetting about capability strategic performances. We can see it by how has been discouraged Kirov platforms rehaul that was in the end started by Putin's circle spin. I hope they won't trade the best capabilities obtainable with carriers for a pretended flexibility.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5974
    Points : 6001
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Militarov on Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:07 pm

    LMFS wrote:F-15N was proposed and discarded due to exaggerated weight increase for instance.

    It would be comparable to Su-33 in that matter, which USN didnt like plus the weapons array that was available to F-15A wasnt adequate either. To my knowledge there was very little structural work on F-15N compared to the original design, however landing gear modifications had to be severe, that is beyond question, its one thing to land 10 times on a carrier another to land 2000 times. Which again brings us to the conclusion that you can if you want turn anything into navalised fighter if you really want.

    I also said that you CAN land on a carrier with it, i never said its smart idea or something that could be done repeatedly.

    Dassault Rafale, EF-2000, F-15, Gripen, MiG-29, Su-27, Su-25, Venom, Tejas and... dozens of other fighters got their navalised variant, were tested or are proposed even tho they were concieved as land based fighters. Even V-1600 was a thing at one point...

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


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