Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:18 am

    eehnie wrote:
    1) The MiG-29K is a variant of the MiG-29, in active service since 1982. Are not you able to recognize this? It is obvious that the technological basis of the MiG-29K is of the late 1970s early 1980s despite to have more modern improvements.



    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 14-4043340-29107

    from balancer MiG-29k cockpit



    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 2755868

    MiG-29 cockpit

    MiG-29


    And MiG-29k is called 4++ generation you know , because of 70s right? Smile

    http://svpressa.ru/post/article/125741/



    2) The facts are not enough to need some historian/expert words? The Admiral Kutznesov is the Russian aircraft carrier selected to remain until today. Fairly the best produced in during the Soviet Union. It was commissioned in 1990. The timing was perfect for the Yak-141, but the naval variant of the Su-27/30/33/35 was selected over the Yak-141 and its variants. And later the naval variant of the MiG-29/35 was selected over the Yak-141 and its variants. Do you mean the Russian Navy selected twice the wrong aircrafts?

    Project 971 and 885 were also stopped. Were they no good subs?




    3) If the Russian Armed Forces do a bid for a new VTOL fighter, this bid will very likely fall vs the Su-57. Very likely will be lighter, very likely will be underperformer compared to the Su-57, and very likely will be more expensive taking into account that the count begins now, at the begin of 2018, with the Su-57 developed and almost ready for serial production, and the VTOL fighter in zero at this point. To note that if the Russian Armed Forces would have expected a VTOL fighter to overperform the Su-57, they would have developed a VTOL fighter instead of the Su-57, and now we would have a 5th generation Russian VTOL fighter as the future main fighter for all the branches of the Russian Armed Forces.

    Well, Su57 was in part paid by India, V/STOL can be paid by Arab Emirates.
    Su-57 is way too expensive to replace other fighter aircraft, in US they produced F-22 not even 200 for a reason. Do you suggest that

    a) Russia has more money than US in military budget?

    b) Russian has too many large ACs to use an expensive navalized V-gen fighter?

    c) Royal navy is dumb calculating that V/STOL fighter is cheaper then developing catapults and buy READY CATOBAR fighter?
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 260
    Points : 256
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Azi on Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:12 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:No, Yak-141's tests showed it could perform vertical take offs with one ton of payload only.

    To bring around 2,5 tons of payload it had to perform a 120 meters take off run

    A full combat load required  a rather conventional take off run, not really short.

    It was not by chance or mistake that they opted for Su-33 and Mig-29K instead of Yak-141: with the only constraint of an angled deck with arrestor gear, they got far more versatile and useful combat aircraft.

    VTOL is a failed concept when referred to combat aircrafts.
    Once again...

    The tests were stopped, due to insufficient funds! The tests were not stopped because Yak-141 was a bad concept. In time were no money is available, only really conservative concepts comes in to reality, never a visionary concept.

    The Yak-141 has two lift engines with a thrust of 41,7 kN and the main engine with 108 kN dry thrust. To start in VTOL mode you must generate more thrust, than the weight of the aircraft (force of mass is generally mass multiplied with gravitational acceleration (in Europe ~ 9,8 )). To start with a bit agilty I calculate 1 ton thrust for lift more, than mass of the aircraft...and e voila you will have a mass of ~17 tons for a vertical take off.

    I don't know if it was possible to take off vertical with activated afterburner!? The tests stopped at the very beginning of test programm, due to no funds. With afterbruner the Yak-141 would have a lift thrust of 235,4 kN, that exceeds the max weight. Maybe the Yak-141 was possible to take off vertical with full payload and max. fuel?! We don't know!

    By the way were was a concept for Yak-141, to be accompanied by trucks with mobile heat resistant mini start and landing place and fuel.

    The Yak-141 was described by pilots as a very agile and capable fighter...by the way.

    And VTOL is not a failed concept! Every STOVL from Harrier to Yak-38 was able to perform VTOL. But these aircraft had weaker engines, than Yak-141, a supersonic VTOL/STOVL. It is good to decide between STOVL and VTOL, because there are my options and not only one. Think about the airstrip is damaged or debris lies around, than your great short take off is not possible! By the way a VTOL aircraft can even land and start on the helipad of a frigate Razz Very Happy
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 260
    Points : 256
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Azi on Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:27 pm

    The Su-57 is a big multi role fighter. It is capable of nearly everything and it's characteristics are great. But Russia need not only big massive fighter, they have now plenty good of them (Su-35 etc.). Russia lacks the amount of good small fighters, even the Mig-29/Mig-35 is too big. Problem of the Su-57 will be...NOT cheap!

    Russia needs a small and cheap single engine fighter, very similar to F-35, but cheap. The F-35 was intended as a cheap fighter, with costs around 40 million US-$, now it's 100 million US-$.
    eehnie
    eehnie

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  eehnie on Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:35 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    1) The MiG-29K is a variant of the MiG-29, in active service since 1982. Are not you able to recognize this? It is obvious that the technological basis of the MiG-29K is of the late 1970s early 1980s despite to have more modern improvements.



    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 14-4043340-29107

    from balancer MiG-29k cockpit



    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 2755868

    MiG-29 cockpit

    MiG-29


    And MiG-29k is called 4++ generation you know , because of 70s right? Smile

    http://svpressa.ru/post/article/125741/



    2) The facts are not enough to need some historian/expert words? The Admiral Kutznesov is the Russian aircraft carrier selected to remain until today. Fairly the best produced in during the Soviet Union. It was commissioned in 1990. The timing was perfect for the Yak-141, but the naval variant of the Su-27/30/33/35 was selected over the Yak-141 and its variants. And later the naval variant of the MiG-29/35 was selected over the Yak-141 and its variants. Do you mean the Russian Navy selected twice the wrong aircrafts?

    Project 971 and 885 were also stopped. Were they no good subs?




    3) If the Russian Armed Forces do a bid for a new VTOL fighter, this bid will very likely fall vs the Su-57. Very likely will be lighter, very likely will be underperformer compared to the Su-57, and very likely will be more expensive taking into account that the count begins now, at the begin of 2018, with the Su-57 developed and almost ready for serial production, and the VTOL fighter in zero at this point. To note that if the Russian Armed Forces would have expected a VTOL fighter to overperform the Su-57, they would have developed a VTOL fighter instead of the Su-57, and now we would have a 5th generation Russian VTOL fighter as the future main fighter for all the branches of the Russian Armed Forces.

    Well, Su57 was in part paid by India, V/STOL can be paid by Arab Emirates.
    Su-57 is way too expensive to replace other fighter aircraft, in US they produced F-22 not even 200 for a reason. Do you suggest that

    a) Russia has more money than US in military budget?

    b) Russian has too many large ACs to use an expensive navalized  V-gen fighter?

    c) Royal navy is dumb calculating that V/STOL fighter is cheaper then developing catapults and buy READY CATOBAR fighter?

    1) Then do you mean that if we put the systems and displays that you show in the picture in a T-72 hull will fly like a MiG-29K? There is a lot more to make a MiG-29K, and many of these things are technology of the late 1970s and early 1980s. In fact the most important technological elements that allow the performance of the MiG-29K are outside of the picture. And yess, 4+ generation technologies are developed from a technological basis of the late 1970s early 1980s, that was 4 generation fighter technology (unlike the T-72 hull). To use the technological basis of the MiG-29/35 is what allows to the MiG-29K and the MiG-35 to be 4+ generation fighters, but is also what allows not them to be reach to be 5 generation fighters. The same with the Su-27/30/33/35. If Russia wants 5 generation fighters for its aircraft carriers neee a new design. And the Su-57 is the real project for it, while a new VTOL fighter is in zero still.

    2) The work on the Project 971 and the Project 885 was not totally cancelled, it was frozen some time and was resumed long time ago, because they were better than other projects that were cancelled. There are hulls of both projects laid down in the early 1990s and finished years later. And even today there are hulls of other projects laid down in the early 90s that remain under construction without a cancellation. This is not the case of the Yak-141 and variants, that were defeated by the variants of the Su-27/30/33/35 and the MiG-29/35.

    3) Then do you mean the VTOL fighter was likely to overperform the Su-57, but Russia selected wrong the project to develop as its future main fighter, misleaded by India?

    The EAU is a staunch follower of the US, and it would not be a bad tactic for the US to use money of the EAU in order to distract the Russian engineers in underperforming projects. Russia is not silly and will manage it right.


    Last edited by eehnie on Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Peŕrier

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Peŕrier on Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:43 pm

    It's not true that Yak-141's development was dropped for lack of fundings.

    As soon as Yak-141 died, development of what would become Mig-29K started, and already in late 90's happened first trial onboard of Kuznetsov.

    It could sound strange, because they never gave publicity to the development, but Mig-29K born right after Yak-141's ditching.

    Why they should invest funds in Mig-29K, when there was no funds to complete Yak-141's development?

    Tinkle tinkle...

    Maybe because they recognized that STOL with arrestor gear was a more practical and flexible concept, and pursued with Mig-29K to get an aircraft with smaller footprint compared to Su-33, but sharing the same take off and landing characteristics.

    By the way, both Su-33 and Mig-29K are credited with around 2 tons of payload when taking off from forward launching spots, give or take, meaning they need around 120 meters run to take off with such payload.

    Ramp no. 3, giving around 200 meters take off run, is used mainly for greater payloads or for very unfavourable meteorological conditions.

    Anyway, both Mig-29K and Su-33 grant far greater bring back capabilities, because Yak-141 showed nearly zero bring back capabilities.

    That meant, any time a mission woild abort whatever the reason, the payload had to be ditched in the sea before trying to land.

    The same more or less is valid for F-35B as well, in spite of 20+ years of technological advancements.

    The british developed the "rolling landing" right to try improve F-35B's bring back characteristics.

    And they opted for STOVL (F-35B) instead of catapults plus arrestor gear (F-35C) because without a nuclear power plant there is little chance to power steam catapults, and even EM catapults would be tricky to provide with the required electric power.

    They discarded nuclear propulsion because deemed too expensive, everything else followed almost automatically, the F-35B being already on the drawing boards for the US Marine and their 12 LHD/LHA.

    And without the US Marine's requirement, the british plus the italians, the australians and the japanese could never be able to fund a new STOVL combat aircraft for maybe 8 flat tops all togheter.

    So how many flat tops is going to fiels Russian Navy, to make viable a russian STOVL combat aircraft?

    What would its development alone cost?

    Because if Russia is going to have three, maybe four LHD, it will be hardly convenient to develop and build an ad hoc STOVL combat aircraft.

    While the same money could far easily pay for a Su-57 derivative, or at last a Su-35 derivative, and even spare some little sum for a new carrier to field alongside Kuznetsov.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8289
    Points : 8373
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:22 pm

    ...So how many flat tops is going to fiels Russian Navy, to make viable a russian STOVL combat aircraft?

    What would its development alone cost?

    Because if Russia is going to have three, maybe four LHD, it will be hardly convenient to develop and build an ad hoc STOVL combat aircraft.

    While the same money could far easily pay for a Su-57 derivative, or at last a Su-35 derivative, and even spare some little sum for a new carrier to field alongside Kuznetsov.

    Any costs of developing new STOVL aircraft will be immediately offset by massive savings that will be result of using much cheaper and flexible carrier vessels.

    Having 4 LHDs is much preferable and cost efficient than having one massive supercarrier white elephant armed with obsolete aircraft. And I doubt they will stop with 4.

    Having a single Kuznetzov-class ship is already problematic enough. Imagine having another single ship class in use only this one being more expensive and complicated one?

    And any STOVL aircraft designed for carrier use can be easily converted into standard light fighter for airforce and export.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Peŕrier on Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:42 pm

    I suspect you have never looked seriously at amphibious ships.

    America class, displacing around 45.000 tons, without any floodable dock (therefore being limited as amphibious ship) can carry 12-16 F-35B.

    Wasp class, only an handful tons smaller, having a flooding dock can carry 4-8 F-35B.

    Queen Elizabeth, a true STOVL carrier with marginal amphibious capability (only vertical assault through helicopters) displacing 65.000 tons can carry around 40 F-35B, probably up to 50.

    So, what kind of LHD, how much displacing, with or without flooding dock, with how many refueling stations over the bridge, how many ordnance's elevators, what capacity for net fuel, how many workshops for aircrafts' maintenance, and so on?

    An easy bet: somewhat displacing no more than 40.000 tons, teoretically limited to no more than 12-14 aircrafts, practically if it will be a true amphibious ship no more than 8-10 aircrafts.

    Best scenario ( a best case, actually) four flat tops with a total of 30-40 aircrafts capacity.

    A more realistic scenario, a more conservative capacity of 6-8 aircrafts with a total capacity of no more than 30 aircrafts.

    Last, how many conventional aircrafts have been derived until now from a STOVL or VTOL project?

    Never heard of any, but I do not pretend to know all history of aviation.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8289
    Points : 8373
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:56 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:I suspect you have never looked seriously at amphibious ships.

    America class, displacing around 45.000 tons, without any floodable dock (therefore being limited as amphibious ship) can carry 12-16 F-35B.

    Wasp class, only an handful tons smaller, having a flooding dock can carry 4-8 F-35B.

    Queen Elizabeth, a true STOVL carrier with marginal amphibious capability (only vertical assault through helicopters) displacing 65.000 tons can carry around 40 F-35B, probably up to 50.

    So, what kind of LHD, how much displacing, with or without flooding dock, with how many refueling stations over the bridge, how many ordnance's elevators, what capacity for net fuel, how many workshops for aircrafts' maintenance, and so on?

    An easy bet: somewhat displacing no more than 40.000 tons, teoretically limited to no more than 12-14 aircrafts, practically if it will be a true amphibious ship no more than 8-10 aircrafts.

    Best scenario ( a best case, actually) four flat tops with a total of 30-40 aircrafts capacity.

    A more realistic scenario, a more conservative capacity of 6-8 aircrafts with a total capacity of no more than 30 aircrafts.

    Last, how many conventional aircrafts have been derived until now from a STOVL or VTOL project?

    Never heard of any, but I do not pretend to know all history of aviation.

    And these numbers are more than enough for Russian Navy.

    You are trying to apply US Naval doctrine to Russia. One look at the map will tell you those two things are not compatible.

    Vessel numbers > vessel size, simple as that.

    As long as they carry anti-sub helicopters and marine troops they are good. Fixed winged aircraft are bonus.

    As for converting VTOLs to conventional aircraft, just because it wasn't done before does not mean it won't be done.

    Why would it be a problem anyway? Simplifying device is easier than doing opposite.
    eehnie
    eehnie

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  eehnie on Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:54 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:Any costs of developing new STOVL aircraft will be immediately offset by massive savings that will be result of using much cheaper and flexible carrier vessels.

    Fake, fake, fake, fake lol!


    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 Carrier)
    $13.0 Billion = My estimation of the Cost per unit (CV-81 ????? Aircraft Carrier)
    $55.0 Billion = Total cost of development of the G Ford Aircraft Carriers plus construction of the 4 aircraft carriers


    We have here some pro-US liying, like this one, but the reality emerges.


    Last edited by eehnie on Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:31 am; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    Peŕrier

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:17 am

    Quite the contrary: it would be a waste of resources.

    A modest 2 aircrafts CAP require at the very least 8 aircrafts to be mantained.

    Actually, because every N cycles each aircraft has to be grounded for 24 hours, give or take, to perform in depth checks and maintenance, 10 aircrafts is a more sound number.

    So any ship embarking only a dozen aircrafts or less would have just the bare minimum to provide a minimal air cover to itself, or even less than the bare minimum.

    So a huge investment to get a mere 2 aircrafts covering the flat top itself, and maybe 2 more ready to take off on alarm.

    Any real air cover for a task force would require additional aircrafts to be dispatched to defend other naval assets of the task force, a task impossible to accomplish with less than 18-20 aircrafts.

    Please note no offensive/strike role is considered, just mere defense, that with a dozen or less aircrafts falls back to self defense of the flat top itself and jusyt closely near other ships.

    Something that any real carrier, no matter how little, would make a short work of it without any effort.

    Under 16-18 combat aircrafts, it would be a matter of hour before attrition would stop any air cover, without even the need to actually shoot down the aircrafts.

    To get a safer margin, something north of 20 aircrafts would guarantee either a 4 aircrafts CAP always available, plus a additional 2 ready to take off on alarm, or 2 distinct 2 airplanes CAPs, one for the flat top itself the other for a separated group of the naval task force, not ideal but sometimes dictated by the tactical situation.

    Again no offensive role, but an air defense no easily overwhelmed and able to withstand some attrition.


    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8289
    Points : 8373
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:28 am

    Peŕrier wrote:

    ..................


    Again you keep trying to apply US Naval doctrine on Russia.

    Days of naval air warfare are long over.

    Russian Navy will use carrier aviation for same three things that all other navies have been using them since mid 20th century:

    1) Scouting

    2) Bombing third world pre-industrial mountain tribes into submission

    3) Geopolitical dick-waiving

    Try to bring an aircraft carrier to modern naval war against anything other than a Coast Guard and you can say goodbye to entire ship and crew.

    20th century is over. So is era of naval air warfare. Missiles are here.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:40 am

    Good luck.

    Unfortunately, whatever AShM or cruise missile you could launch from a ship or from land, it could be loaded under a combat aircraft embarked on a carrier.

    So the carrier will keep having the longest arm, most if not all the times.

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8289
    Points : 8373
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:43 am

    Peŕrier wrote:Good luck.

    Unfortunately, whatever AShM or cruise missile you could launch from a ship or from land, it could be loaded under a combat aircraft embarked on a carrier.

    So the carrier will keep having the longest arm, most if not all the times.


    Agreed.

    If only they could invent some kind of ship that could move underwater and attack carriers from below...

    But alas, how could any nation possibly build such technological wonder?
    avatar
    Peŕrier

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:58 am

    Even forgetting a carrier group has plenty of ASW assets, and sails escorted by one or two SSNs performing free hunting within the intended area of operations, a carrier group tipically sail at 24+ knots.

    Any SSN should hope to place itself along or very close to the intended course, otherwise any try to race with the carrier would make it so noisy to leave it no chance to remain undetected.

    Because there is no sub in the world that can go high speed and keep being quiet.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:14 am

    Peŕrier wrote:Good luck.

    Unfortunately, whatever AShM or cruise missile you could launch from a ship or from land, it could be loaded under a combat aircraft embarked on a carrier.

    So the carrier will keep having the longest arm, most if not all the times.


    1) how many aircraft battles on high seas have you seen after 45? None because there will be none. No need for this. In 30 you'd probably be zeal opponent of aircraft carriers stating that Russia has to build as many battleships as possible.

    2) Long arm? That's the idea. Zircon with 1000km range can be directed by UAC with AWACS abilities. Like V/STOL Fregat cruising over group for hours. With 32-48 UKSK-M can provide great deal of AAD and AShM power. Cany any plane get closer then 1000 km to Russian? If so maybe Russian 20 can fire hypesonic ASchM misiles too. (1500 km range).

    So who's got longer d...direct range?

    3) Maybe less V/STOL per one carrier but more versatility for class of ships. Wasp Class LHD can carry 20-24 F-35B but can also have other roles similar to Juan Carlos Class.


    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:16 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    3) Geopolitical dick-waiving

    damn I have spilled coffee on my keyboard again. Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil


    eehnie wrote:

    $55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)

    $55.0 Billion = Total cost of development of the G Ford Aircraft Carriers plus construction of the 4 aircraft carriers

    Where F-35 project voders is actually 3 planes sharing more less component base. Not to mention that PAK FA costs are around $20bln  thus with use "off shelf"   avionics (PK FA/Su 35), engines (like new NK-32), coatings and only one V/STOL configuration has to be cheaper. Who knows maybe even around half price.







    Peŕrier wrote:Even forgetting a carrier group has plenty of ASW assets, and sails escorted by one or two SSNs performing free hunting within the intended area of operations, a carrier group tipically sail at 24+ knots.

    Any SSN should hope to place itself along or very close to the intended course, otherwise any try to race with the carrier would make it so noisy to leave it no chance to remain undetected.

    Because there is no sub in the world that can go high speed and keep being quiet.

    With barriers of "dwelling fish like torpedo mines" or hypersonic missiles,sub robo drones  and own subs covered by own ASW choppers this is not really that hard in Arctic to block US entrance into area. There are gonna be neither Midway 2 nor  Marian Turkeys' Shootouts  anymore.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:07 am

    Ok, if thread had turned to SciFi novels, with Wasp able to carry a couple dozens F-35B, not to mention robocops, terminators and Alien's eggs, please be my guest.

    I'll simply switch to the ignore it all mood.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 571
    Points : 607
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:58 am

    Peŕrier wrote:Ok, if thread had turned to SciFi novels, with Wasp able to carry a couple dozens F-35B, not to mention robocops, terminators and Alien's eggs, please be my guest.

    I'll simply switch to the ignore it all mood.

    You forget that the Russian navy has giant hypnotic killer squids and telleporting claw monsters not to mention their inivisble flying sourcers and super death rays. Russian medical science can also be used to remove the alien embryo form its host safely and reliably so I don't think they will be having any xenomorph infestations.

    The americans have how many carriers agian? well it doesn't matter because Russia has 87 fully loaded motherships
    hiding in space and ready for the invasion.  

    Oh and the energy shields how could I forget thoes they have them all around Russia
    eehnie
    eehnie

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:36 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:

    ..................


    Again you keep trying to apply US Naval doctrine on Russia.

    Days of naval air warfare are long over.

    Russian Navy will use carrier aviation for same three things that all other navies have been using them since mid 20th century:

    1) Scouting

    2) Bombing third world pre-industrial mountain tribes into submission

    3) Geopolitical dick-waiving

    Try to bring an aircraft carrier to modern naval war against anything other than a Coast Guard and you can say goodbye to entire ship and crew.

    20th century is over. So is era of naval air warfare. Missiles are here.


    If you would have some intention of being fair with the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015, you would be talking in this comment about non nuclear deterrence, which is the main purpose of the planned future Russian aircraft carriers, and their aircrafts.

    Do not forget that the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 will come to you.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1475
    Points : 1467
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:45 am

    eehnie wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:

    ..................


    Again you keep trying to apply US Naval doctrine on Russia.

    Days of naval air warfare are long over.

    Russian Navy will use carrier aviation for same three things that all other navies have been using them since mid 20th century:

    1) Scouting

    2) Bombing third world pre-industrial mountain tribes into submission

    3) Geopolitical dick-waiving

    Try to bring an aircraft carrier to modern naval war against anything other than a Coast Guard and you can say goodbye to entire ship and crew.

    20th century is over. So is era of naval air warfare. Missiles are here.


    If you would have some intention of being fair with the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015, you would be talking in this comment about non nuclear deterrence, which is the main purpose of the planned future Russian aircraft carriers, and their aircrafts.

    Do not forget that the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 will come to you.

    Oh yes the doctrine that states they would have more than one Gorshkov-class in service by now yet they have yet to hand the first one over to the navy.

    The document that says they would have tons of other shit in service by now they failed to either commission entirely or the number they gave us.

    The document that is confirmed to be a steaming load of BS has shown by the SAP.

    PS when the Russians do lay down that carrier, I'll be shocked if they get it made in 15 years. Has by the time the Russians do commission a new CV many nations will be able to sink it with little hassle, since by that point missile tech will be so advanced ain't nothing anyone can do.

    Age of the carrier is dead, while they still have their use against a competent force they are little more than target practice.

    Yes that plan, so I got one question to ask what kind of drugs are you buying?
    eehnie
    eehnie

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:58 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:Any costs of developing new STOVL aircraft will be immediately offset by massive savings that will be result of using much cheaper and flexible carrier vessels.

    Fake, fake, fake, fake lol!


    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 Carrier)
    $13.0 Billion = My estimation of the Cost per unit (CV-81 ????? Aircraft Carrier)
    $55.0 Billion = Total cost of development of the G Ford Aircraft Carriers plus construction of the 4 aircraft carriers


    We have here some pro-US liying, like this one, but the reality emerges.

    Where F-35 project voders is actually 3 planes sharing more less component base. Not to mention that PAK FA costs are around $20bln  thus with use "off shelf"   avionics (PK FA/Su 35), engines (like new NK-32), coatings and only one V/STOL configuration has to be cheaper. Who knows maybe even around half price.

    No, the US developed not 3 different aircrafts, they developed 3 variants of the same aircraft. It is very different in terms of costs. It is not common to see 3 variants developed since the begin, but at same time, is rare the aircraft that has not 3 or more variants after some years of development. You have been talking repeatedly about the F-35, well, these are the costs of the program. A VTOL fighter like the F-35, that is still underperformer, will not come to Russia without cost.

    In every case, we can also assume that the cost of development and construction of a new aircraft carrier in Russia will be also significantly lower for Russia. Do not think that while the development of a VTOL fighter would be cheaper in Russia, the development of aircraft carriers would stay with the costs of the US.

    With reports of the Su-57 having a landing distance of around 330m on land runways, and reports of the Project 23000 having a lenght of 330m, well, I have not doubts that the Project 23000 is being designed for a comfortable use of the Su-57. Even, maybe for a comfortable use of the main variant of the Su-57.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1475
    Points : 1467
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:37 pm

    You are something else by all accounts the plan you speak off is based on the SAP of 2011-2020.

    It assumed certain ships would be in commission by a certain date, the SAP and their "naval" doctrine go hand and hand.

    The Russians have failed miserably in terms of naval when the SAP is concerned, the next phase of the SAP

    shows only Super Gorks will be laid down which contradicts the plan you love to quote since that doctrine envisioned having certain ships with a certain number in the fleet by this point

    Long story short you have some mental damage to your head and at this point, I suggest you seek mental help.

    I could give a rats ass what kind of Navy the Russians build (fact is they cannot afford a remotely big one). In fact if you knew me you would know I believe in a multi-power world.

    ETC a world where all major powers are equal offset each other.

    So keep believing that silly 2015 plan is reality because it's not and you are legit the only one here who thinks that they are still holding true it. Also pal we wll know they will eventually build a new CV however that won't be tell close to 2030 and THEN you gotta wait around 15 years for them to make the dam thing and 15 years is me being generous.

    Going on 12 years and they still don't have a single Gorshkov commissioned, I cannot imagine how bad a CV will be for them. Let alone a 100k one IF they decide to build that
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 571
    Points : 607
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:10 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:if you knew me you would know I believe in a multi-power world.

    ETC a world where all major powers are equal offset each other.


    Oh so thats why you hate the idea of complete Russian millitary superiority over all enemies combined or better yet no enemies left.

    The Russian miliatry is slow to modernise but when it does it will be the most powerful on the planet and no amount of your posts can change this.

    Slimy westerners cannot be trusted with power so your whole idea of a "multi power world" is clearly a bad one unless it incledes their elimination.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1475
    Points : 1467
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:47 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:if you knew me you would know I believe in a multi-power world.

    ETC a world where all major powers are equal offset each other.


    Oh so thats why you hate the idea of complete Russian millitary superiority over all enemies combined or better yet no enemies left.

    The Russian miliatry is slow to modernise but when it does it will be the most powerful on the planet and no amount of your posts can change this.

    Slimy westerners cannot be trusted with power so your whole idea of a "multi power world" is clearly a bad one unless it incledes their elimination.

    Russia will never have complete military superiority over all enemies "combined".

    Just like the US won't.

    You are delusional if you believe this, utterly delusional and clearly don't know about anything.

    Population, Manufacturing, GDP and many more factors come into play. What are you 10?

    Russia will never be the most "powerful" ever there is no such thing. You can say "Russia is the most powerful in this area" and I may find that to be a fair statement. No country on earth will ever be number one in all areas that is just idiotic to say frankly.

    If you really must say such fanboy filled garbage do it with someone who doesn't know better kid or do it with someone who believes in that kind of crap.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:38 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:Ok, if thread had turned to SciFi novels, with Wasp able to carry a couple dozens F-35B, not to mention robocops, terminators and Alien's eggs, please be my guest.

    I'll simply switch to the ignore it all mood.


    No wonder since you are self elected expert above Royal Navy and Russian Navies combined Smile Loosing arguments that your 44' battles never return simply hurts your inner child. Ignore. Dont get hurt then. 


    As for subject matter, we were talking about 2030s. Not 1940's  I dont blame you that you have never heard  

    a) about Russian  plans to develop long range hypersonic missiles to fly with 12-14Ma
    Jane's Commentary"
    According to General-Colonel Zelin, Russia is now implementing a two-stage program for the development of hypersonic missiles. The first stage envisages the development by 2020 of a "compact operational and tactical aviation missile with a range of 1,500 km and a speed of 6 Mach"; this is the aforementioned GZUR. It should be supplemented in the next decade with weapons at a speed of M = 12, assuming a global range.



    b) about Kh-50 and   GZUR of range ~ 1500km 
    According to reports, GZUR is a missile with a speed of M = 6 and with a range of 1500 km in flight by altitude profile. The length of the rocket is 6 m, and the weight is about 1500 kg. As you can understand, the missile has mainly anti-ship designation.


    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/profile

    c) Fregat V/STOL drone  (actually kind of converti-pane)  
    https://topwar.ru/115642-v-rossii-sozdan-avanproekt-bpla-srednego-klassa-fregat.html
    https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/59818cef9a79472e5008df54

    The company "Kronstadt" created a flying model of an unmanned convertoplane "Fregat". This was in an interview with the agency RIA Novosti, the deputy general director of the company and the head of the Center for Advanced Studies Vladimir Voronov.

    "Kronstadt" created a drones, which can fly in both airplane and helicopter. Due to this quality, the range of his flight is increased three-fold compared to helicopter drones, "said Voronov.



    Подробнее на РБК:
    https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/59818cef9a79472e5008df54


    But that you have never heard hear about surveillance drones, about Arctic  importance for Russian Navy, A2/DA and discuss military matters I am a bit surprised. 
    What a Face What a Face What a Face

    Sponsored content

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 6 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:26 pm