Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Share
    avatar
    LMFS

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:12 pm

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

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

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

    Plus 90% if the time the most critical mission for an Su-57 on a carrier would be with a relatively light load (air to air loads are rarely more than 30% max load potential) plus full fuel...
    Agree, eehnie was saying Su-57 can take off full load from a flat surface in 300 m or so I understood it. I know it can take full load with 100 m run on a sky jump but that works completely different.

    2. That take-off run would mean to put fighters to take off in a conventional carrier where they need to land. You don't do that

    A conventional takeoff on a runway is not the same as having wheel blocks hold you back while you run the engines up to full power before being released for takeoff...
    Issue discussed here was rather that you should not place the take-off and landing positions interfering with each-other. It can be done in special cases but IMHO not as a norm.

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

    Fitting arrester hooks to MiG-33s and Su-33s was not that difficult.
    eehnie's argument was to use conventional Su-57's to landing on a flat top. Was just arguing it cannot be done without modifications to the airframe.
    In the case of the Su-57, the arrestor hook would somehow interfere with the rear bay. Maybe it can be solved intelligently without affecting too much the internal space or usability of the bay but it is an issue in any case.

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

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

    High composite material content helps in this regard.
    Salty, moist environment is a nightmare for every single screw in the plane. Materials put together need to be compatible. Protection needs to be studied a implemented with great care.


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

    The prototypes of the PAK FA were upgraded with improved strengthening already...
    Yes, but it was not tested as a naval fighter as far as I know. Those are different levels of stress to the airframe due to approach trajectory, movement of the ship etc.

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

    I am sure common sense will prevail.

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

    They wont go for dinky 20K ton helicopter carrier cum air superiority carrier... they will likely use VSTOL aircraft as an aircraft with extra and different capability options... much the same way they operate MiG-29K2 and Su-33 aircraft on the K.
    STOVL development points to LHDs getting one or max two squadrons fixed wing aircraft for strike and air defence. This (I hope) does not prevent them from having normal carriers like K or the Storm-KM with aircraft adapted to STOBAR operations, see Martyanov's article I posted. STOVL on a STOBAR carrier would make little sense to me in principle but who knows...
    Bigger carriers seem little likely as of now.

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

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

    Multihull designs would reduce drag and increase speed and internal volume... but will also dramatically increase weight... and weight often corresponds to cost in terms of building and operating...
    Weight increase I don't know, or at least cannot quantify it, biggest multihull designs are like 150 m long, made of aluminium...completely different built. Internal space increases much more than the wall surfaces to be built, due to form factor. Obviously there is an extra cost and risk when you move to a different technology so there would be an investment in that regard. But you would avoid going the way we see now, with LHDs and their STOVL aircraft + STOBAR carriers and their aircraft. Of course the reality is normally less stellar than what we can imagine Very Happy

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

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

    Now if you add a few Su-57s there then it becomes even better protected... as do the ships the aircraft are operating with.
    Idea is that the AWCS can move a bit isn't it? Otherwise it cannot cover the operations of the fighters when i.ie striking ground targets. You are counting on very robust escort by the way, by now they only have one 22350.

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

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

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

    The point is that an AWACS platform could do the same over much greater ranges with 360 degree coverage for much longer... with bigger better radar... it doesn't matter how much better new radars in fighters are becoming... the same radar 4 times bigger in an AWACS plane will always be better... especially with smaller stealthy targets becoming an issue.... (Swarms etc).
    Argument is technology allows progressively smaller aircraft to take care of roles that before needed huge, expensive dedicated aircraft. A fighter where you place radar arrays on the side weapon bays (big dimensions to go to lower frequencies and high power aperture) + frontal radar would have a big angular coverage, with say 300+ km range and still have speed and missiles to respond to threats. It is not as good as an AWACS but has a fair amount of its practical use while costing a fraction and being way more survivable and in fact being able to cover other roles (same approach for turning the plane into jamming, reconnaissance or simply conventional fighter). Way higher ceiling would be a plus too. Together with long persistence UAVs and other assets it would build a net of intelligent nodes which is intrinsically way stronger and more difficult to defeat than one or two AWACS. If variable cycle engines appear in the next 10-20 years they would even have greater endurance than today's fighters and cover this role even better.

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

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

    Plus you can't give a friend something you don't have yourself yet...
    I meant, US would help in case of UK actually needing a powerful air wing for a shooting war with AWACS and the rest of assets. So you can do the posturing without needing to buy all the expensive and complicated items you need for real war.

    Personally I think the only real option is to make the front lifting system able to be angled back and operate in normal flight so it is not dead weight... something with thrust vectoring at the front and rear of the aircraft would create an eye wateringly manouverable aircraft...
    You mean, a Harrier? Very Happy
    Sad but true, agree what you say. It is not easy to get such plane right and in fact I think Yak-141 was not that wrong, maybe additional intakes on top of the plane for the main engine would help with the hot air ingestion. Looking to the future, probably electrical propulsion should be considered too, current electrical motors have already an incredible power density and they are being improved very fast. Theoretically, the best solution for propulsion efficiency IMO would be two podded main engines on the wings  that could be rotated vertically (the engine or the nozzle) to push close to CoG. Current solutions need a great amount of thrust to be added to the main engine at the front of the plane and that is simply inconvenient.

    New light carrier proposal from Krylov:

    Is that the right picture... it looks enormous....
    Indeed, it looks very big for the displacement... that is why I say you cannot tell the weight of such vessel without knowing how much empty space you have below deck. BTW I would go nuclear too.

    hoom

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom on Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:27 pm

    Kuz attained 29 knots only on trials
    Very few ships get operational practical top speed quoted as their top speed rather than trial speed...
    Point was that a 28kt design speed isn't actually terrible.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:54 pm

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

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

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

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

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

    Well, well, well, looks like we got the catapults in here too, they're just not visible on the model.

    If that the case then the only issues left are the missiles, which i don't see, and of course the lack of nuclear engines.
    I am not sure why they don't want nuclear engines, the only reasons i can think of are the need for export, there are technical problems with adding nuclear engines or it's just cheaper to not add nukes.
    My guess would be that it's the latter.

    As for the weight, i don't know, there is the possibility that new construction methods and materials would allow for the current design to weigh that much, but we can't be 100%.


    Last edited by AlfaT8 on Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:48 pm

    In the case of the Su-57, the arrestor hook would somehow interfere with the rear bay. Maybe it can be solved intelligently without affecting too much the internal space or usability of the bay but it is an issue in any case.
    Even though non-navalized USAF fighters have arrestor hooks, it's still a big IF a navalized SU-57 could be fitted with 1 w/o extensive mods & loss of performance:
    The tailhooks on Air Force aircraft, including the F-15, F-16, F-117 and F-22s.. for airfield "emergency landing situations and to secure the aircraft during maintenance engine testing, ..
    Tailhooks on Air Force aircraft typically are non-retractable and need to be put back into place by ground crews (although some F-15Es and F-22s are now fitted with actuators allowing them to be retracted by the pilot)
    https://flyingwithfish.boardingarea.com/2012/12/26/reader-mail-why-do-air-force-jets-have-tailhooks/

    Very few ships get operational practical top speed quoted as their top speed rather than trial speed...
    Point was that a 28kt design speed isn't actually terrible.

    But what is going to be its cruise speed? Max. high/full speed runs of 35-45kts can't be sustained for too long, even on CVNs.
    ..or it's just cheaper to not add nukes.
    My guess would be that it's the latter.
    Yes, they want it to fit the budget. Also, CVNs' reactors may need to be refueled (unlike on the new subs), keeping them in the yards longer, leaving the VMF w/o a carrier.
    avatar
    LMFS

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:19 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Even though non-navalized USAF fighters have arrestor hooks, it's still a big IF a navalized SU-57 could be fitted with 1 w/o extensive mods & loss of performance

    Yes of course, we can't know this from home. But the width of the hook is around 10 cm, so probably compatible with the clearances of weapons in the rear bay. And being optimistic and judging by the Su-33, maybe just putting it after the rear bay and enlarging the rear sting would do:


    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:45 am

    Paraphrasing the article, for the LHD/UDKs, is an interim variant between LHA & CVN, cheaper than a CVN with a full-fledged AW, OTH it'll give power projection capability in long-distance ops. The PLAN may need 200–300 STOVLs, the VMF 100-150.
    Creation of VTOL, if it does going together with China and began in 2017, could lead to the flight of the first prototype in 2022-2023 and the launch of the plane into production in the second half of the 2020s. In case the construction of UDK will begin in 2021-2022 - by the time its ready, the aircraft will be ready.
    https://iz.ru/780270/ilia-kramnik/avianesushchie-zagadki-chto-obeshchaiut-chinovniki
    Exactly as I said a few posts back!

    hoom

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom on Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:54 am

    But what is going to be its cruise speed? Max. high/full speed runs of 35-45kts can't be sustained for too long, even on CVNs.
    Not relevant to the question of whether a 28kt top speed is adequate.
    Its adequate & on par with other recent non-nuclear carriers & frankly numbers like 35kt for Nimitzes are fantasy propaganda.

    Edit: add that 8 Embarassed


    Last edited by hoom on Fri Aug 24, 2018 7:11 pm; edited 1 time in total

    kumbor

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  kumbor on Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:06 am

    hoom wrote:
    But what is going to be its cruise speed? Max. high/full speed runs of 35-45kts can't be sustained for too long, even on CVNs.
    Not relevant to the question of whether a 2kt top speed is adequate.
    Its adequate & on par with other recent non-nuclear carriers & frankly numbers like 35kt for Nimitzes are fantasy propaganda.

    Best sea speed of Nimitz was 31,5kts.
    Kuz`s best 23 knots is below any operational need, because ship sails into wind when operating aircraft, and ship speed adds also! That`s why carriers are fast ships.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3716
    Points : 3754
    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 Aug 24, 2018 12:03 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Paraphrasing the article, for the LHD/UDKs, is an interim variant between LHA & CVN, cheaper than a CVN with a full-fledged AW, OTH it'll give power projection capability in long-distance ops. The PLAN may need 200–300 STOVLs, the VMF 100-150.
    Creation of VTOL, if it does going together with China and began in 2017

    no way it its gona be together ith China. Not sure what this journo is smoking but it never happens. Apparently he watched 2012 where only China can build arks in Tibet Smile 10 years is normal time since they didnt start form beginning.

    AS for 40k LHA/TAKR I've always thought that this is most effective compromise for Russian NAVY
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3716
    Points : 3754
    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 Aug 24, 2018 12:14 pm

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

    I am sure common sense will prevail.


    it was! in era of Kiznahls, Zircons or Gzurs "full sized " carriers are 5x as expensive white elpts just to consume enormous resources bringing very little effect.



    STOVL development points to LHDs getting one or max two squadrons fixed wing aircraft for strike and air defence.

    LHA/TAKR will be best option. Mind that Soviet had 40-60k displacement as rule of thumb with cost/efficiency ratio.





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


    and one such group is gonna eat your all military budget right? Suspect Suspect Suspect
    .
    avatar
    LMFS

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:41 pm

    The soap opera continues lol1 lol1 lol1

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5487292

    Plans to develop a CVN gentlemen...
    avatar
    eehnie

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:48 pm

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

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

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

    Plus 90% if the time the most critical mission for an Su-57 on a carrier would be with a relatively light load (air to air loads are rarely more than 30% max load potential) plus full fuel...
    Agree, eehnie was saying Su-57 can take off full load from a flat surface in 300 m or so I understood it. I know it can take full load with 100 m run on a sky jump but that works completely different.

    This is not right. Instead I said this:

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

    Your comment against was simply weak.

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

    Fitting arrester hooks to MiG-33s and Su-33s was not that difficult.
    eehnie's argument was to use conventional Su-57's to landing on a flat top. Was just arguing it cannot be done without modifications to the airframe.
    In the case of the Su-57, the arrestor hook would somehow interfere with the rear bay. Maybe it can be solved intelligently without affecting too much the internal space or usability of the bay but it is an issue in any case.

    This is not possible in the landing runway of the Project 11435 Kutznetsov, that is of around 200m of lenght. Instead, the landing runway of the Project 23000 Shtorm is far longer. Maybe around 260-270m. And can be longer still in the variant for Russia. With the data of runway need of 300m for the take-off without assistance, I would not assure that the main variant of the Su-57 would require assistance for landing in the Project Shtorm aircraft carrier.

    As I commented you before, the simultaneous dessign very likely had mutual feedback in approximately the last 10 years. It is sure that the Project 23000 Shtorm has been designed for a confortable use of the Su-57 to force minimal addaptations of the aircraft to the ship. And very likely the Su-57 has been designed also taking into account feedback from the ship, and this data published for needed runway lenght would be evidence of it.

    In my opinion, very likely, between the main goals in the design of both, the Project 23000 and the Su-57, has been always to reduce the need of assistance both on take-off and landing. In the case of the take-off, with 4 take-off points, if I remember well, the 2 shortest will offer strong assistance, while the 2 longer maybe also able to offer assistance, but in conditions of low stress, the hability to operate without assistance both to take-off and landing decreases significantly the risk of accident.

    Certainly both are higly complementary designs, very likely full complementary. This is what we must think by default. The contrary must be proved, because would be totally negligent.
    avatar
    LMFS

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:23 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:it was! in era of Kiznahls, Zircons or Gzurs "full sized " carriers are 5x as expensive white elpts just to consume enormous resources bringing very little effect.
    Care explaining what elements are responsible for such increase in costs? Any carrier, be it LHD or TAKR or conventional will be expensive, don't see the big difference. Maybe if you explain in more detail your proposal I will get it. Size, features, air wing, roles, defensive means?


    LHA/TAKR will be best option. Mind that Soviet had 40-60k displacement as rule of thumb with cost/efficiency ratio.
    I am ok with that. In that size you can have STOBAR operations, like the K or the Storm light


    Last edited by LMFS on Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    LMFS

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:28 pm

    @eehnie:

    we agree to disagree then. Your comments simply ignore realities of carrier operation and make assumptions too lightly IMO. All to argue that CTOL Su-57 could operate from the Shtorm carriers, for an obscure tactical advantage. I simply don't see the huge value or sense in that, sorry
    avatar
    PapaDragon

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:47 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:it was! in era of Kiznahls, Zircons or Gzurs "full sized " carriers are 5x as expensive white elpts just to consume enormous resources bringing very little effect.
    Care explaining what elements are responsible for such increase in costs? Any carrier, be it LHD or TAKR or conventional will be expensive, don't see the big difference. Maybe if you explain in more detail your proposal I will get it. Size, features, air wing, roles, defensive means?
    ......

    He already did on different tread:

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:.......
    Krylov Center some time ago mentioned that Storm (1 piece) is going to be in range of 1 trillion Rubles (till recently ~16billions $) . including R&D. For thsi you can get 10 mistrals or 6 Wasp LHDs (using pricing for US navy)

    Let's go with 6 WASPs here. For a price of one supercarrier that will take ages to build and will be available for limited period of time before having to return to port they can get a whole fleet of smaller carriers that will allow them to operate globally year round.

    And don't forget that carrier needs escort ships. For a price of second supercarrier they can buy enough of escorts to cover entire carrier fleet.

    So even in best case scenario for supercarrier approach you would have to choose: either 2 supercarriers with no escort ships whatsoever or 6 light carriers with every single escort ship they would need.

    Basically it's either half-assed solution that doesn't solve anything (like now with Kuz) or approach that solves every problem they have and then some.

    And let's not forget that for price of third supercarrier they could buy more than dozen Yasen-class SSGNs.

    3 ships versus whole brand new fleet more powerful than anything they could have ever imagined or hoped for.

    Numbers speak for themselves.

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3716
    Points : 3754
    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 Aug 24, 2018 2:04 pm

    LMFS wrote:The soap opera continues lol1 lol1 lol1

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5487292

    Plans to develop a CVN gentlemen...

    Tha's right TAKR with 40-60ktons for VSTOL thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
    avatar
    LMFS

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:07 pm

    @PapaDragon:

    either we get the cost discussion right or we can spare it because we say things that have no fundament in reality:

    > 16 billion is a huge cost for Russian navy. It is more than a Ford carrier, so I take this with great mistrust. What is included there?
    > The values you mention for the smaller carriers are without development and without air wing

    What I am asking is, what is he proposing exactly. If you get a nuclear TAKR with 60k and 3-4 squadrons fighters + docks + helos + VLS etc then what features are you saving and what big cost reduction is expected?


    Last edited by LMFS on Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3716
    Points : 3754
    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 Aug 24, 2018 2:10 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:.......
    Krylov Center some time ago mentioned that Storm (1 piece) is going to be in range of 1 trillion Rubles (till recently ~16billions $) . including R&D. For thsi you can get 10 mistrals or  6 Wasp LHDs (using pricing for US navy)

    Let's go with 6 WASPs here. For a price of one supercarrier that will take ages to build and will be available for limited period of time before having to return to port they can get a whole fleet of smaller carriers that will allow them to operate globally year round.



    4 is already good but 6 is definitely better Laughing Laughing Laughing Some time ago we've discovered that best factor in optimizing plans for CVNs is Anton Germanovich Siluanov lol1 lol1 lol1

    I am convinced that in with restricted resources and no intentions to wage full scale wars with South American/African countries Wasp/America is best choice.



    And don't forget that carrier needs escort ships. For a price of second supercarrier they can buy enough of escorts to cover entire carrier fleet.

    actually you can if you focus 100% of MoD budget only for this task yes sir yes sir yes sir



    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3716
    Points : 3754
    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 Aug 24, 2018 2:15 pm

    LMFS wrote:@PapaDragon:

    either we get the cost discussion right or we can spare the discussion because we say things that have no fundament in reality:

    > 16 billion is a huge cost for Russian navy. It is more than a Ford carrier, so I take this with great mistrust. What is included there?
    > The values you mention for the smaller carriers are without development and without air wing

    What I am asking is, what is he proposing exactly. If you get a nuclear TAKR with 60k and 3-4 squadrons fighters + docks + helos + VLS etc then what features are you saving and what big cost reduction is expected?


    yup

    1) you save cost of Mistral + cost of  Shtorm + perhaps also cost of Groskhov M in one?
    2) operational costs (America LHA) 3,4 blns unit including R&D  - Ford 9 blns building unit + 5 blns $ R&D



    BTW AMerica LHA displacemtn is like 50ktons...
    avatar
    eehnie

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:30 pm

    LMFS wrote:@eehnie:

    we agree to disagree then. Your comments simply ignore realities of carrier operation and make assumptions too lightly IMO. All to argue that CTOL Su-57 could operate from the Shtorm carriers, for an obscure tactical advantage. I simply don't see the huge value or sense in that, sorry

    Yes, we can agree to disagree, because to assume as lightly the strong negligence in the Russian engineers in not compatible with my point. Neither is compatible with my point to ignore the high cost advantages of this way in the development of the aircraft carrier + figther combination.

    Public data to take into account:

    SU-57 take-off lenght: 300m
    Project 23000 lenght: 330m

    https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02298.pdf
    $21.0 Billion = Development costs F-22
    http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160324_Fact-Sheet.pdf
    $55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)
    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf
    $04.7 Billion = Development cost G Ford Aircraft Carriers
    $12.9 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-78 G Ford Aircraft Carrier)
    $11.4 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-79 JF Kennedy Aircraft Carrier)
    $13.0 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-80 Enterprise Aircraft Carrie

    Realities of carrier operations depend of the design of the carrier+aircraft and can be improved by design.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:42 pm

    LMFS wrote:@PapaDragon:

    either we get the cost discussion right or we can spare it because we say things that have no fundament in reality:

    > 16 billion is a huge cost for Russian navy. It is more than a Ford carrier, so I take this with great mistrust. What is included there?
    > The values you mention for the smaller carriers are without development and without air wing

    What I am asking is, what is he proposing exactly. If you get a nuclear TAKR with 60k and 3-4 squadrons fighters + docks + helos + VLS etc then what features are you saving and what big cost reduction is expected?

    Number for supercarrier is also without air wing. And everything else. Same standard for both small and large ones.

    Also, nothing is stopping navy from ordering​ nuclear powered version later on.

    Right now helicopter carriers​ and transport ships are priority, once VTOLs are ready they can diversify.

    Ship's size dictates price, construction speed and operating costs.
    avatar
    eehnie

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:29 pm

    In the refered to the costs of production:

    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftodaysmilitary.ru%2F2015%2F07%2F04%2Fperspektivnyj-rossijskij-avianosets-otsenili-v-6-2-milliarda-dollarov%2F

    Prospective Russian aircraft carrier estimated at 6.2 billion dollars

    07/04/2015 |  15:41 |  

    At the International Maritime Defense Show (IMDS-2015) in St. Petersburg, a high-ranking source in the defense-industrial complex named the cost of creating an aircraft carrier for the Storm project.

    Construction of a ship with a displacement of up to 100 thousand tons, capable of carrying up to 80-90 aircraft, will cost 350 billion Russian rubles, or about 6.2 billion dollars.  The source stressed that this will not be a one-time payment, but investments in the program for a period of 10 years.

    In addition, the source noted that this is a "theoretical price", since it is only possible to estimate the cost of an aircraft carrier after the development of the project and the creation of cooperation of enterprises that will build it.  But in any case it will be at least a couple of hundred billion Russian rubles.  A significant part of the cost of the new ship, according to the source, will be electromagnetic catapults.

    In a similar amount estimated the creation of the aircraft carrier and CEO of the Nevsky PCB Sergei Vlasov.  According to him, a heavy aircraft carrier would cost the budget 200-280 billion Russian rubles.

    For comparison: the most powerful modern aircraft carrier - American-class "Nimitz" - costs about $ 4.5 billion, and the aircraft carriers of the Gerald R. Ford type, which are being replaced by him, are $ 10.5 billion.

    To note that today 350 billion Russian Rubles are US$ 5.19 billion

    In Russian Rubles, this means less than a 2% of the budget of the State Armament Program 2018-2027.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Aug 24, 2018 7:12 pm

    kumbor wrote:Best sea speed of Nimitz was 31,5kts.
    Kuz`s best 23 knots is below any operational need, because ship sails into wind when operating aircraft, and ship speed adds also! That's why carriers are fast ships.
    The USN CVN top speed is classified; it's declared as "in excess of 30 kts". Years ago I heard from sailors that they can do as high as ~45 kts, if not more. The conventional CV-63 did a high speed run in 1998 doing ~35-38 kts for > an hour. Later it sailed from Singapore to the Arabian Gulf in < than 4 days. https://www.searoutes.com/portdistance?fromName=Fujairah&fromLocode=AEFJR&toName=Singapore&toLocode=SGSIN

    3,316nm/4=828.9nm per day/24hr=34.54 kts.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3716
    Points : 3754
    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 Aug 24, 2018 10:53 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Yes, we can agree to disagree, because to assume as lightly the strong negligence in the Russian engineers in not compatible with my point. Neither is compatible with my point to ignore the high cost advantages of this way in the development of the aircraft carrier + figther combination.



    Harvard wants to know your location!
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3716
    Points : 3754
    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 Aug 24, 2018 11:01 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:Ship's size dictates price, construction speed and operating costs.


    so 70% or price of new AC is operational cost for the whole group...



    A 2009 report said that Gerald R. Ford would cost $14 billion including research and development, and the actual cost of the carrier itself would be $9 billion.[52] The life-cycle cost per operating day of a carrier strike group (including aircraft) was estimated at $6.5 million in 2013 published by the Center for New American Security.[53]


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:43 pm