Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2476
    Points : 2487
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  eehnie on Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:06 pm

    Isos wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    Isos wrote:Are they stupid ? They should know the capabilities of VSTOL and stupid carrier with VSTOL fighters more than anyone else and they keep saying they want to use that shit.

    Seriously even the indian carrier is better than any future carrier with only VSTOL fighters ...

    Why put them on helicopter carrier ? It can't do as good as an helicopter in the field of helicopter missions (actually it can do anything) and can't do as good as normal fighter in missions for fighters.

    Why the f*ck are they even thinking about that ?

    The explanation is simple, they prefer a seemingly doable, lucrative project (aka jobs program) for the industry, rather than give the industry a hard target to achieve like a proper CTOL or hybrid carrier to build (> 60,000 t). They also seem to be running out of cash, if indeed they end up with no carrier but rather an LHD.

    A huge downgrade to what Russia used to possess back in 1992-1995.

    If it is the reason why, they should just build the frigates and destroyers that they really need so they will have modern ships they could use and make work for shipyards.

    He knows nothing about what he is talking about.
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2476
    Points : 2487
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  eehnie on Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:37 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:The Ministry of Defense told about the development of aircraft-carrying cruisers



    The draft of the new state armament program of the Russian Federation envisages the development and laying of aircraft-carrying cruisers, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov told reporters.
    "Speaking specifically about aircraft-carrying cruisers, (their development and laying are scheduled for) the end of the program," Borisov said.

    РИА Новости https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20171123/1509477278.html

    Cyberspec wrote:The aircraft carriers will have a conventional fighter with STOVL capability...the VTOL aircraft is envisaged as equipping helicopter carriers

    It is expected that the number of aircraft carriers 1 - 2 units by the mid 2030s. Therefore, the striking power of carrier-based aviation is planned to add a vertical takeoff aircraft, which is likely going to be placed on the prospective helicopter being developed instead of "Mistral".

    https://warfiles.ru/168777-krutoy-virazh-mo-rf-sdelalo-vybor-v-polzu-avianesuschih-kreyserov-i-vertoletonoscev.html

    Note that the quote of Borisov would be only this:

    Если говорить конкретно про авианесущие крейсера, то конец программы.

    The rest is added by others.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8319
    Points : 8403
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:26 pm

    '
    One thing everyone is forgetting: single engine STOVL fighter jet can easily be converted into much simpler and cheaper standard light​ fighter jet which is another item on MoD wishlist.

    Starting whole new fighter jet program with so many of them (and damn good ones) already in existence make no sense. But starting fighter jet program that solves more than one problem is whole other thing.

    As for not building supercarriers, again explanation is simple: they don't need them. They do need LHDs and anti-sub cruisers. And they need more than one of them which is number of supercarriers they would build if they went full retard and decided to have another white elephant.

    Several useful ships are better than single useless one. Especially one that will cost half the defense budget to maintain and operate.

    And what exact limitations do STOVL jets have that are such hindrance for Russia? They would not fit into US Naval doctrine but this is not USN, this is Russian Navy. Different priorities, different tasks, different purpose.
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2509
    Points : 2501
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:31 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:'
    One thing everyone is forgetting: single engine STOVL fighter jet can easily be converted into much simpler and cheaper standard light​ fighter jet which is another item on MoD wishlist.

    As for not building supercarriers, again explanation is simple: they don't need them. They do need LHDs and anti-sub cruisers. And they need more than one of them which is number of supercarriers they would build if they went full retard and decided to have another white elephant.

    But lets get something straight. Russia has already two types of advanced, fixed-wing carrier-borne fighters, MiG-29K and Su-33. So the fast-jet part has already paid for itself. Nobody's talking super-carriers, just something in the size/tonnage of the Kuz, just more modern (engine and sensor-wise) and with at least one cat for the heavy stuff. Building two 60,000 ton ships is not particularly  difficult.

    All they have to develop is a twin-engined AEW&C platform and build 4-6 of them max.

    Done.

    All this pussyfooting is rather retarded on RuN's behalf. Year after year, they get screwed by bad planning and wrong priorities. Concerning LHDs, I'm not against them at all, I'm just not in favor of promoting LHDs as a solution to their lack of proper CVs.


    Last edited by KiloGolf on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8319
    Points : 8403
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:40 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:'
    .

    But lets get some things straight. Russia has already two types of advanced, fixed-wing carrier-borne fighters, MiG-29K and Su-33. So the plane part has already paid for itself. Nobody's talking super-carriers, just something in the size/tonnage of the Kuz, just more modern and with at least one cat for the heavy stuff.

    All they have to develop is a twin-engined AEW&C platform and build 4-6 of them max.

    Done.

    Correct and if this was 1990 they should definitely do that. Problem is it's three decades past 1990 and those airplanes don't have that much mileage left in them.

    Wasp/Izumo/America-class sized LHD that can be converted into nuclear carrier and built in numbers is more than sufficient.

    And there is nothing stopping them from installing catapults. In fact with nuclear propulsion I'd say that catapults will come standard. I have no idea why anyone thinks that they will omit catapults no matter the ship's size.

    Reactor = catapult


    Last edited by PapaDragon on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2509
    Points : 2501
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:42 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:Correct and if this was 1990 they should definitely do that. Problem is it's three decades past 1990 and those airplanes don't have that much mileage left in them.

    I think the Su-33s hardly flew any missions in the 90s and 00s (most were built between 1991-1993 iirc). I'd think they got well over a decade ahead of them. If not more.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8319
    Points : 8403
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:48 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:Correct and if this was 1990 they should definitely do that. Problem is it's three decades past 1990 and those airplanes don't have that much mileage left in them.

    I think the Su-33s hardly flew any missions in the 90s and 00s (most were built between 1991-1993 iirc). I'd think they got well over a decade ahead of them. If not more.

    Individual airplanes yes they are in very good condition but as airplane model overall they are past their prime.

    They do have well over a decade left like you said, maybe more but that's pretty much the amount of time before new carrier will be built at best.
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2509
    Points : 2501
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:50 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:Correct and if this was 1990 they should definitely do that. Problem is it's three decades past 1990 and those airplanes don't have that much mileage left in them.

    I think the Su-33s hardly flew any missions in the 90s and 00s (most were built between 1991-1993 iirc). I'd think they got well over a decade ahead of them. If not more.

    Individual airplanes yes they are in very good condition but as airplane model overall they are past their prime.

    They do have well over a decade left like you said, maybe more but that's pretty much the amount of time before new carrier will be built at best.

    I'm sure they can re-build some of the better airframes and possibly go for a newer batch to complement the fleet. Or ditch the Flankers and build some 12-24 more naval Fulcrums, right now. They have options on the aircraft side of things, comfortable options. Their major problem is lack of shipbuilding vision.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8319
    Points : 8403
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:57 pm

    Correct, they definitely need to figure out what ship they want to build and finally commit
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3912
    Points : 3902
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Isos on Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:21 pm

    Russian navy isn't US navy for sure but they do need Something Worth the money. US doesn't give a shit about the money they will just make other pay like for the F-35.

    VSTOL are more than limited in terms of capacities.even if you make them multirole they will be able to take one or two bombs/missile like the yak-141 or the f-35.

    Su-33 will be useless when F-35 will be flown by most of the countries around russia. In terms of BVR they lack long range missiles like last AMRAAM and their RCS make them very difficult to hide with jaming.

    Mig-29K is not mature and will have the same problem as Su-33 but it has some advantages.

    What they need is a either a naval pak fa or a new light Mig. If they want to start a new program they should try with a new mig.

    For the ship I would definitly go for Something like a modern nuk Kuznetsov. With new technology it can be almost a supercarier. Even french CdG is smaller but actually more capable.
    Helicopter carrier would be good too but if you want to use nuk, it is wasting money.

    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 738
    Points : 728
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:33 pm

    Isos wrote:Russian navy isn't US navy for sure but they do need Something Worth the money. US doesn't give a shit about the money they will just make other pay like for the F-35.

    VSTOL are more than limited in terms of capacities.even if you make them multirole they will be able to take one or two bombs/missile like the yak-141 or the f-35.

    Su-33 will be useless when F-35 will be flown by most of the countries around russia. In terms of BVR they lack long range missiles like last AMRAAM and their RCS make them very difficult to hide with jaming.

    Mig-29K is not mature and will have the same problem as Su-33 but it has some advantages.

    What they need is a either a naval pak fa or a new light Mig. If they want to start a new program they should try with a new mig.

    For the ship I would definitly go for Something like a modern nuk Kuznetsov. With new technology it can be almost a supercarier. Even french CdG is smaller but actually more capable.
    Helicopter carrier would be good too but if you want to use nuk, it is wasting money.


    Russia shores are not the Pacific ocean.

    The US had a lot of actions with ships in the II WW, but did you heard any Germany Vs Russia big naval battle during that period ?

    So, that is the reason why Russia has not so much naval ambitions.


    Cyberspec
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2712
    Points : 2867
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Cyberspec on Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:47 pm

    We don't know anything about this proposed VTOL aircraft. Whether it will be a further development of the 1990's projects or something else...it's silly to write pages of analysis based on something unknown
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Guest on Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:16 am

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:Russian navy isn't US navy for sure but they do need Something Worth the money. US doesn't give a shit about the money they will just make other pay like for the F-35.

    VSTOL are more than limited in terms of capacities.even if you make them multirole they will be able to take one or two bombs/missile like the yak-141 or the f-35.

    Su-33 will be useless when F-35 will be flown by most of the countries around russia. In terms of BVR they lack long range missiles like last AMRAAM and their RCS make them very difficult to hide with jaming.

    Mig-29K is not mature and will have the same problem as Su-33 but it has some advantages.

    What they need is a either a naval pak fa or a new light Mig. If they want to start a new program they should try with a new mig.

    For the ship I would definitly go for Something like a modern nuk Kuznetsov. With new technology it can be almost a supercarier. Even french CdG is smaller but actually more capable.
    Helicopter carrier would be good too but if you want to use nuk, it is wasting money.


    Russia shores are not the Pacific ocean.

    The US had a lot of actions with ships in the II WW, but did you heard any Germany Vs Russia big naval battle  during that period ?

    So, that is the reason why Russia has not so much naval ambitions.



    Germany had very limited surface naval assets during WW2, hence they had no major naval engagements during the war with anyone, let alone USSR. You are bringing up things that make no sense whatsoever. Whole Kriegsmarine had 4 battleships and in total had less than half dozen worth mentioning surface naval battles with British navy.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 738
    Points : 728
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:59 pm

    Militarov wrote:



    Germany had very limited surface naval assets during WW2, hence they had no major naval engagements during the war with anyone, let alone USSR. You are bringing up things that make no sense whatsoever. Whole Kriegsmarine had 4 battleships and in total had less than half dozen worth mentioning surface naval battles with British navy.

    So ,summarise it : Germany has limited naval asses, but it used this nt on the main front ( CCCP ) but on a secondary /tercier fronts to.

    Means that the ships had little use to concuer Russia.
    medo
    medo

    Posts : 3640
    Points : 3724
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  medo on Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:05 pm

    We must not compare US NAVY with RuNAVY as they have different priorities. US priority is global empire and their Navy is created for it with large number of big super carriers. Also they have open warn exit in both pacific and Atlantic oceans. Russia doesn't have global interests and navy is mirroring it. They have smaller ships to protect near seas and they are also closed in closed seas like Baltic, Black Sea and Caspian sea. Northern fleet is in Arctic region and only Pacific fleet is with open exit to warm Pacific. Big super carriers are suitable only for Northern and Pacific fleets with exit to open oceans. Smaller carriers like carrier cruisers or something like Izumo carrier destroyer is more suitable for close sea fleet like Black Sea fleet. They are more easy to make with ice protection, what is also important for Arctic region. Smaller carrier easier follow big icebreakers like Arctica nuclerar icebreaker and bring aviation group where needed. VSTOL jets are also not to be underestimated. After all US also developed VSTOL F-35. Don't think about it from Yak-38 perspective. It Will be developped from Yak-141, which was quite decent fighter. At to it modern electronics, weapons and engine from Su-57 and you get a jet, which could do its job to protect the fleet and make strikes where needed.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Guest on Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:41 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Militarov wrote:



    Germany had very limited surface naval assets during WW2, hence they had no major naval engagements during the war with anyone, let alone USSR. You are bringing up things that make no sense whatsoever. Whole Kriegsmarine had 4 battleships and in total had less than half dozen worth mentioning surface naval battles with British navy.

    So ,summarise it : Germany has limited naval asses, but it used this nt on the main front ( CCCP ) but on a secondary /tercier fronts to.

    Means that the ships had little use to concuer Russia.

    Atlantic was primary frontline for Kriegsmarine, same as US navy fought on Pacific and not in Berlin. You know... cutting supply routes from the States and colonies... trying to soften Kings navy as preparation for landing over canal. British Navy was the ruler of the seas at the start of war not USSR. USSR had no capabilities to field its navy in offensive roles hence it was never a threat to Germany.

    Capabilities of naval assets changed since then also fyi. Not sure if you spotted the difference...but guns were replaced by far more potent things called cruise missiles, naval fighters...

    Kriegsmarine was struggling to keep its own shores secured.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22076
    Points : 22620
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:25 pm

    By the way, the correct term is STOVL, i.e. Short Take Off Vertical Landing.

    Yak-38 was a VTOL aircraft, i.e. Vertical Take Off and Landing.

    VSTOL as reported by some, is simply meaningless.

    Actually that STOVL applies to conventional aircraft like the Storch or An-72 or An-2 that have short takeoff and landing.

    The correct term for the Harrier and Yak-38M is V/STOL which stands for Vertical or Short Takeoff or landing... ie vertical takeoff or vertical landing or short take off or short landing.... any aircraft that can take off vertically can also do a rolling take off and any aircraft that can land vertically can use a rolling landing to use wing lift to offset some engine requirements.

    It would make more sense to use arrested landings using a high speed landing with arrestor wires, which when they are working properly are a very efficient way to stop an aircraft in a small area.

    The aircraft carriers will have a conventional fighter with STOVL capability...the VTOL aircraft is envisaged as equipping helicopter carriers

    So the new VTOL aircraft could be a high speed helicopter.... or the Ka-52K.


    He knows nothing about what he is talking about.
    Yes, he is full of the sky is falling.... they can't afford anything but have invested in development of a nuclear power plant for heavy vessels and an EM cat and a naval model of PAK FA, but they don't know how to build large ships despite spending a small fortune to get South Korea to upgrade their Zvezda plant in the far east to build ships up to 350K ton... Of course they wont build big ships, that is just silly.

    single engine STOVL fighter jet can easily be converted into much simpler and cheaper standard light​ fighter jet which is another item on MoD wishlist.

    The only STOVL single engined aircraft was the Harrier and I don't remember any cheap simple version of that...

    The Sea Harrier was a potent aircraft but fit its radar and comparable fixed engine in a conventional plane and it would be a superior aircraft.

    As for not building supercarriers, again explanation is simple: they don't need them. They do need LHDs and anti-sub cruisers. And they need more than one of them which is number of supercarriers they would build if they went full retard and decided to have another white elephant.

    A super carrier is a strike carrier, which is not what the Russians need or want.
    An air defence carrier on the other hand greatly improves the performance of a fleet of vessels in terms of vision and reach.

    In terms of attack performance a hypersonic cruise missile can penetrate enemy defences much better than any carrier aircraft.

    And what exact limitations do STOVL jets have that are such hindrance for Russia? They would not fit into US Naval doctrine but this is not USN, this is Russian Navy. Different priorities, different tasks, different purpose.

    The US Marines want VSTOL F-35s for their little carriers.

    The Russians are better off with better performance aircraft like Su-33 adn MiG-35 and a PAK FA naval model and perhaps a new light 5th gen fighter.

    Su-33 will be useless when F-35 will be flown by most of the countries around russia. In terms of BVR they lack long range missiles like last AMRAAM and their RCS make them very difficult to hide with jaming.

    The Su-33 in the air will offer much better radar coverage than a ships radar set a few metres above the water... and AEW aircraft will also boost the vision of the fleet... if the threat is F-35s then long wave radar on the ships should be able to detect F-35s are rather large distances and the Su-33s can monitor the S-400 missiles as they destroy F-35s 400km from the ship that launched the missile...

    It Will be developped from Yak-141, which was quite decent fighter. At to it modern electronics, weapons and engine from Su-57 and you get a jet, which could do its job to protect the fleet and make strikes where needed.

    No. The Yak-141 was not a decent fighter.... it had a small weak radar and four wing hardpoints and could only carry AAMs... normally two R-77s and two-R-73s and a single barrel cannon... it was mediocre.

    Anything you could put in the Yak-141 you could put in the MiG-29K but it would be faster and longer ranged and much more capable and robust and cheaper.

    avatar
    kumbor

    Posts : 286
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  kumbor on Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    By the way, the correct term is STOVL, i.e. Short Take Off Vertical Landing.

    Yak-38 was a VTOL aircraft, i.e. Vertical Take Off and Landing.

    VSTOL as reported by some, is simply meaningless.

    Actually that STOVL applies to conventional aircraft like the Storch or An-72 or An-2 that have short takeoff and landing.

    The correct term for the Harrier and Yak-38M is V/STOL which stands for Vertical or Short Takeoff or landing... ie vertical takeoff or vertical landing or short take off or short landing.... any aircraft that can take off vertically can also do a rolling take off and any aircraft that can land vertically can use a rolling landing to use wing lift to offset some engine requirements.

    It would make more sense to use arrested landings using a high speed landing with arrestor wires, which when they are working properly are a very efficient way to stop an aircraft in a small area.

    The aircraft carriers will have a conventional fighter with STOVL capability...the VTOL aircraft is envisaged as equipping helicopter carriers

    So the new VTOL aircraft could be a high speed helicopter.... or the Ka-52K.


    He knows nothing about what he is talking about.
    Yes, he is full of the sky is falling.... they can't afford anything but have invested in development of a nuclear power plant for heavy vessels and an EM cat and a naval model of PAK FA, but they don't know how to build large ships despite spending a small fortune to get South Korea to upgrade their Zvezda plant in the far east to build ships up to 350K ton... Of course they wont build big ships, that is just silly.

    single engine STOVL fighter jet can easily be converted into much simpler and cheaper standard light​ fighter jet which is another item on MoD wishlist.

    The only STOVL single engined aircraft was the Harrier and I don't remember any cheap simple version of that...

    The Sea Harrier was a potent aircraft but fit its radar and comparable fixed engine in a conventional plane and it would be a superior aircraft.

    As for not building supercarriers, again explanation is simple: they don't need them. They do need LHDs and anti-sub cruisers. And they need more than one of them which is number of supercarriers they would build if they went full retard and decided to have another white elephant.

    A super carrier is a strike carrier, which is not what the Russians need or want.
    An air defence carrier on the other hand greatly improves the performance of a fleet of vessels in terms of vision and reach.

    In terms of attack performance a hypersonic cruise missile can penetrate enemy defences much better than any carrier aircraft.

    And what exact limitations do STOVL jets have that are such hindrance for Russia? They would not fit into US Naval doctrine but this is not USN, this is Russian Navy. Different priorities, different tasks, different purpose.

    The US Marines want VSTOL F-35s for their little carriers.

    The Russians are better off with better performance aircraft like Su-33 adn MiG-35 and a PAK FA naval model and perhaps a new light 5th gen fighter.

    Su-33 will be useless when F-35 will be flown by most of the countries around russia. In terms of BVR they lack long range missiles like last AMRAAM and their RCS make them very difficult to hide with jaming.

    The Su-33 in the air will offer much better radar coverage than a ships radar set a few metres above the water... and AEW aircraft will also boost the vision of the fleet... if the threat is F-35s then long wave radar on the ships should be able to detect F-35s are rather large distances and the Su-33s can monitor the S-400 missiles as they destroy F-35s 400km from the ship that launched the missile...

    It Will be developped from Yak-141, which was quite decent fighter. At to it modern electronics, weapons and engine from Su-57 and you get a jet, which could do its job to protect the fleet and make strikes where needed.

    No. The Yak-141 was not a decent fighter.... it had a small weak radar and four wing hardpoints and could only carry AAMs... normally two R-77s and two-R-73s and a single barrel cannon... it was mediocre.

    Anything you could put in the Yak-141 you could put in the MiG-29K but it would be faster and longer ranged and much more capable and robust and cheaper.


    Nevertheless, the technical documentation for Yak-141 was eagerly bought by Americans and substantially eased the development of the F-35! Many technical solutions of Yak-141 were used in F-35.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:37 am

    GarryB wrote:

    It Will be developped from Yak-141, which was quite decent fighter. At to it modern electronics, weapons and engine from Su-57 and you get a jet, which could do its job to protect the fleet and make strikes where needed.

    No. The Yak-141 was not a decent fighter.... it had a small weak radar and four wing hardpoints and could only carry AAMs... normally two R-77s and two-R-73s and a single barrel cannon... it was mediocre.

    Anything you could put in the Yak-141 you could put in the MiG-29K but it would be faster and longer ranged and much more capable and robust and cheaper.

    Anything besides MiG-29 is first same old air frame as Yak was,  second F-35 has 8,000kg payload thus "new" Yak-141 could have.  There are hundrets of F-35B (STOVL) ordered BTW.



    Weak radar? are you sure?

    Radar "Zhuk"

    The Yak-141 uses the C-41M armament management system (M is "modernized"), which is the development of the early SUV projects for Yak-41 - C-41 and S-41D (D - "modified"). The system is built around a multimodal on - board radar "Beetle" with a slit antenna array (modification M002). This radar station is similar to the MiG-29M fighter radar , but has smaller overall dimensions. The range of detection of air targets with EPR of 3 m² is 80 km, small surface vessels - 110 km. The station is capable of escorting up to 10 targets, and also provides firing of 4 targets simultaneously. The radar weight is 250 kg. All incoming information is processed by an onboard digital computerand is provided to the pilot using the information display system. Means of display - indicator on the windshield and multifunction indicators . The latter were not used in the experimental "Yaks", although they were installed in one of the full-size mock-ups of the Yak-41 cockpit. In the cockpit of the second flight sample, which is located in the museum of Vadim Zadorozhny , a line-of-sight (IPV) indicator is installed. It was also planned to use a helmet-mounted target designation system [44] .



    Yefim Gordon. Yakovlev Yak-36, Yak-38 & Yak-41: The Soviet 'Jump Jets' / Translation by Dmitriy Komissarov. - Hinckley, England, UK: Midland Publishing, 2008. - P. 101-131, 139-141. - 145 p. - ISBN 978-1-85780-287-0 .




    Last but not least Smile
    Well you do not have to disagree with me or anybody else on this topic. just have to disagree with Russian Top Brass who repeated it couple of times.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 281
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:01 am

    GarryB wrote:

    Actually that STOVL applies to conventional aircraft like the Storch or An-72 or An-2 that have short takeoff and landing.

    The correct term for the Harrier and Yak-38M is V/STOL which stands for Vertical or Short Takeoff or landing... ie vertical takeoff or vertical landing or short take off or short landing.... any aircraft that can take off vertically can also do a rolling take off and any aircraft that can land vertically can use a rolling landing to use wing lift to offset some engine requirements.

    It would make more sense to use arrested landings using a high speed landing with arrestor wires, which when they are working properly are a very efficient way to stop an aircraft in a small area.



    No, STOVL means exactly the ability to perform short take offs and vertical landings. Storch and An-2 are STOL aircrafts, i.e. Short take off and landing.

    Yak-38 and Harrier were VTOL aircrafts, being both able to perform both vertical take offs and landings.


    Obviously being VTOL doesn't forbid to perform conventional take offs and/or short take offs, it stipulate only that the aircraft can perform vertical take offs too.

    Anyway, the matter that counts is what use could have a fixed wing aircraft able to perform vertical take offs.

    About vertical landings it could be argued that it opens the chance to deploy the aircrafts on board of flat tops not suited for high speed landings, as fr LHDs.

    But vertical take offs have proved again and again to be far too demanding on the aircraft, exacting a huge penalty on any other performance.

    In my humble opinion, if Russia is really heading toward the development of a VTOL aircraft, it could be only something like the V-22, or any similar configuration, and it won't be a fast combat aircraft.

    It would maybe evolve in several roles like AEW, ASW or air assault, but it won't be a fighter aircraft or anything close to it.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22076
    Points : 22620
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:59 am

    Anything besides MiG-29 is first same old air frame as Yak was

    Even with new upgraded air frame the Yak will always have the dead weight of the lifting engines and internal high pressure air piping to the nose, tail, and wing tips to allow control in the hover... weight and fragility to damage. Weak points the conventional aircraft does not have.

    second F-35 has 8,000kg payload thus "new" Yak-141 could have.

    The B model STOVL F-35 has nothing like an 8 ton payload capacity and has 1/3 less fuel than the already short ranged F-35s and if it wants to be stealthy we are talking about a couple of bombs internally and maybe a couple of AAMs... 120kgs for each AMRAAM and 500kgs per bomb and you are likely looking at what the Yak-141 would carry... except of course it would not carry bombs.. an anti ship missile is a far more efficient way of delivering HE to targets.. Onyx at mach 2 from a ship or sub makes rather more sense than an expensive and fragile aircraft.

    There are hundrets of F-35B (STOVL) ordered BTW.

    Yeah, the US is a model of financial efficiency and fiscal control....

    It is supposed to operate at forward air bases so the lack of range is less of an issue, but it needs special heat resistant tiles to operate from or it destroys its own engines with FOD. So you will have dozens of transport helos following it around with heat resistant tiles for these white elephants to operate from....

    Weak radar? are you sure?

    It was smaller than the unit fitted to the MiG-29M and of lower performance.

    Any radar you could put into it, you could put a better radar in a fixed wing conventional aircraft because weight and balance were not nearly as critical.

    just have to disagree with Russian Top Brass who repeated it couple of times.

    They have also talked about hypersonic bombers and supersonic transport aircraft... for every technology there is a group of people wanting money spent in their area.... fixed wing VSTOL is dead.. tried and failed.

    Yak-38 and Harrier were VTOL aircrafts, being both able to perform both vertical take offs and landings.

    Both were able to perform rolling takeoffs to reduce the load on the engine by taking some of the lifting load on the wings and were therefore called VSTOL aircraft.

    But vertical take offs have proved again and again to be far too demanding on the aircraft, exacting a huge penalty on any other performance.

    A rolling takeoff greatly increases the fuel load and payload and reduces the strain on the engine without requiring a full runway takeoff.
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2476
    Points : 2487
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  eehnie on Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:28 am

    Good to read finally things making sense.

    VTOL configurations today make not sense for fighters. They lead to subpar fighters. Nothing VTOL can tie the potential of a naval Su-57, like GarryB said. And makes not sense to spend a lot of money in the development of a new aircraft that does not tie the naval Su-57. Russia only needs to do some aircraft carrier that allows a comfortable use of the naval Su-57 in the needed amounts.

    VTOL configurations would be useful and make sense as example for for unmanned shipborne maritime patrol (including long range). And the V-22 configuration is advanced and useful for it. Some UAV with this configuration of rotating engines, with the size of an helicopter or even less, empty of human related equipment and features, and full of sensors and fuel would reach long ranges, being able of keeping a position if necessary, and being easily shipborne at same time in every ship that has some helipad (not only in aircraft carriers).

    And also the VTOL technology is useful in helicopter configurations (a helicopter is a VTOL aircraft too) for the roles that the helicopters habitually do, combat roles and auxiliary roles (transport, training,...), but in the case of the use in combat roles likely becoming unmanned too.

    Then, is likely, very likely, that Russia can talk about the development of VTOL aircrafts to be used from aircraft carriers (and from other smaller ships), but this does not mean that it will be a VTOL fighter.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2915
    Points : 2913
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Dec 24, 2017 8:56 pm

    "France has all year around ice free ports."- so she doesn't need any icebreakers, but still can't afford a 2nd CVN.
    The Mi-26 range is 475-800 km with max. loading: https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mi-26.htm
    There's no tundra below the Arctic Circle; building roads & air bases
    is a lot easier South of it.
    A CATOBAR CVN like Ford or Storm, with offensive & defensive missile armaments must be huge & very expensive. But a CVN w/o those armaments will have, not counting propulsion, the same problems as the USN CVNs & the RN QE class: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-carriers-specialreport/special-report-aircraft-carriers-championed-by-trump-are-vulnerable-to-attack-idUSKBN16G1CZ
    https://www.naval-technology.com/comment/britains-largest-ever-warship-concerning-flaws/
    The USN & AF r getting the AGM-158C LRASM approaching Granit, Oniks & surface launched Kalibrs in range:
    https://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/navy-warships-get-new-heavy-missile-2500-lb-lrasm/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Kalibr#Domestic_variants
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22076
    Points : 22620
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:15 am

    Everything is vulnerable to attack... there is nothing they can build that will be totally safe from enemy attack.


    The point is some pissy little helicopter carrier with VTOL fighter planes wont be that much more useful than an S-400 with 400km range SAMs that can also hit enemy aircraft within a radius of 400km of the ship carrying it...

    On the other hand a medium carrier with cats and a decent AWACS aircraft and fighters that can fly 1,200km plus radius offer the surface group real layered protection from a range of threats.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2915
    Points : 2913
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Dec 26, 2017 7:59 pm

    I don't argue with that, & the Russians know it too. But 1st it must be picked up where they left off- i.e Kiev class type TAKRs with STOVLs- they can afford them now, esp. after the Mistral deal was cancelled & all $ paid back with some extra added, thanks to the favorable exchange rate. TAKRs can be adopted for assault ship roles (UDK in Russian designation) as they can get closer to the enemy's shores.
    A few more factors to consider:
    1. There's no guarantee that any future CVNs won't have to be kept longer in service-like most other ships in Soviet & Russian navy- i.e. past 30 y. reactor life.
    2. Aside from refueling it or installing a new 1, refits & modernizations take a long time, usually longer in RF than in the West.
    3. 3 CVNs armed with only CIWS & SAMs like in the USN will need
    "1 Guided Missile Cruiser (for Air Defense), 2 LAMPS (Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System) Capable Warships (focusing on Anti-Submarine and Surface Warfare), and 1–2 Anti Submarine Destroyers or Frigates.", i.e. 4-5 warships to escort it
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group#Carrier_strike_group  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group
     4. Simple math: 3 CBGs x 5 ships + 1-2 subs + 1 supply ship = 15 extra warships, 3-6 subs & 3 supply ships on rotation to make just 1 CBG ready to sail 24/7 beyond the EEZ.
    IMO, only the #1 navy has the #s needed for that. Putin wants the RF to have a #2 navy. But when/if combined with the PRC & Pakistani naval surface & sub. escorts in the Indo-Pacific, it can be done.

    Sponsored content

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:14 am