Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3039
    Points : 3037
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Dec 07, 2018 6:22 pm

    Russia will have to wait longer for CVNs with EMALS. Plans r being corrected by reality. The economy & political situation may worsen & they may never get them, just like what happened with Varyag & Ulyanovsk.
    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 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Dec 07, 2018 8:41 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    How many of them would fit on a CVN?

    You would only need two...

    two fightera? serious?

    Soviet Union completed 4 Kiev Class (1143) and 1143.5 Kuz (now) Varyag (1143.6 ) was sold to China. Now Russia ha Kuz.
    What RuN plans we'll see not so far, this spring MoD is supposed t choose best project of CVN to be eventually materialized.

    If "universal ship" will win I bet on 3-5 series. IMHO 5 ragher then 2 but well need to wait what will come out of that.


    GB wrote:
    What about vertical landings or take offs from conventional airfields... a bit or molten tarseal for the engine intakes perhaps... I am sure tar would be the ideal fucking lubricant for a modern jet engine... but no... modern materials can take it right?


    again your stories from the crypt  affraid  affraid  affraid , but do you have any real facts?! something that happened in reality not in your mind?   we all 've seen videos. Do they build new runways every tim? no,
    does VSTOL cause "flying rocks" ? no, unless invisible only  and with no mass too.



    GB wrote:
    yup 30-60m STOL is more efficient than vertical, though it still has ability to start vertically for a reason.
    To be gay...

    you re sooo cute saying this  love  love  love



    GB wrote:
    That's why now they are going to distributed propulsion.  Technology advances... the small wings one is STOL

    Wow... no one has ever thought of anything like that before... except have you heard of blown flaps?

    you are soooo smart and gay when you say wow, if flaps would be enough nobody would research new directions.




    GB wrote:

    2) Su-7? Su-57 is of course just one of ideas, with relative small probability to materialize, idea if Russians want to unify platforms and build heavy deck fighter.
    IMHO better is to invest in light fighter since more can be carried by ship and thus can better defend ship grouping.

    More like an example of you... take something that works and make it expensive and more likely to fail... first you say a naval Su-57 is too expensive... even though you are advocating a VSTOL version of a slightly lighter aircraft... then you think a VSTOL version of the Su-57 would work...

    The fact is new fighter will be created. I was wondering about level of unification. Do you understand?
    BTW VSTOL is reasons learned example. Instead of take good MiG-29 and make pathetic MiG-29k instead of promising Yak series. Russian MoD returned to vSTOL concept as more corresponding their needs.


    GB wrote:

    1) Your trying to manipulate here, why? Arnata is perspective tank same as VSTOL fighter or  Su-57.  And yes Armata will be procured when west starts to improve their tanks or service lfie T-72s will come to an end.  

    Armata and T-90 are already designed and either in service or ready for service, while the T-72 is the old model... in terms of our discussion, the Armata is the newly designed product... the Su-57, the upgraded older model vehicles... the T-90 (Su-33), and T-72 (MiG-29KR) have been upgraded and can still do the job but your idea is for a helicopter tank, which you think has some special feature that makes it interesting... the fact is that flying might be useful to get over obstacles, but ultimately it makes the aircraft fragile and vulnerable to damage and prone to fatal crashes... but lets not let facts get in the way of a good story...


    Why official programme you call my idea?! I am proponent of VSTOL but it is objectively materializing so far. Andis because brings huge value for RuN.
    And officially also MiG-29k is dead too.






    GB wrote:
    Yak-141 - where Yak can have only 1 drop tank 1,750kg
    Ferry range: 3,000 km (1,865 mi)

    GOT YOU... the Yak-41 has no belly position to carry fuel tanks like the MiG-29K does so how did it fly with such an asymmetric load?

    Over half its payload capacity under one wing?

    Not bloody likely.

    Dear Expert, so you didnt know that YAK had  a mount for a conformal fuel tank 2000l?  lol1  lol1  lol1  lol1  Check wiki if you dont want to dig deeper.
    Below you got small pic where in most of configurations 2000l extra tank is there. No it was not my drawing  russia  russia  russia

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 21 %D0%92%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%8B_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%AF%D0%BA-141


    ПТБ  - Подвесной топливный бак =.drop tank
    2000л........................................=.2000l



    like payload?  VSTOL 6,800kg vs CATOBAR 8,000kg?

    And what payload exactly will it carry that weighs 8 tons?

    I'll give you a hint... it is not cleared for any type of ordinance that would allow it to carry anything like that sort of weight and in combat it would be dead if it ever did carry such a payload.[/quote]

    and how would you kill fighter you dont see? you got better data be my guest

    F-35
    RCS of 0.005m2
    nonody said detaild about APG-81 for F-35 but APG-77 they are based on have performance blow:

    APG-77 has an operating range of 125–150 mi (201–241 km),[3] against a 1 m2 (11 sq ft) target. A range of 400 km or more, against a 1 m2 (11 sq ft) target, with the APG-77v1 with newer GaAs modules, is believed to be possible while using more narrow beams.[4][3]

    MiG-29k
    RCS I've found is 0,7-1m2
    after wiki[quote] Zhuk-M is X band
    Russian variant has 110-130k front detection of "fighter size", engilsh wki says Zhy7k-ME has 120km to dectec 5m2 target.   No IRST installed on MiG-29k

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D010_%D0%96%D1%83%D0%BA
    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 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:39 pm

    LMFS wrote:@Tsavo Lion:

    agree that it would be good to spare the EMALS, but why do you think US, China, France and Russia all use them or have announced they will use them? There must be a reason for that, considering tiltrotors are a known option since quite a while.

    Russia didnt announce anything yet. Unless one interview with manager form shipyard you take as official.
    France is negotiating with USA so they didn't actually announce anything about their own.
    US and China budgets are well beyond Russian one. By order of magnitude US and Chinese soon too.
    Besides in US and China there is economy of scale which in Russian case wont be ever. Building large CVNs makes absolutely no sense in Russian in any foreseeable future.



    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3039
    Points : 3037
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:47 pm

    ..75 F-35B Lightning IIs built so far. The main distinguishing feature is the possibility of a shortened takeoff and vertical landing. The F-35B can reach a speed of about 1930 km/h, carry up to 6.8 tons of weapons and fly to a distance of 1667km (without refueling). The combat radius ..is 833km.
    [more by 111km of F/A-18E/F: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet#Specifications_(F/A-18E/F)]

    At the Pentagon, this version of the “Lightning II” has high hopes, since large aircraft carriers are not needed for their transfer, quite ample amphibious assault ships and other amphibious assault ships armed with the US Navy. It is also possible to operate them from coastal aerodromes and limited size sites. Thus, at the end of September, F-35B aircraft of the US Marine Corps attacked militants in the Afghan province of Kandahar, moreover, American aircraft took off from the universal landing craft "Essex" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Essex_(LHD-2)], which was in the Arabian Sea. The results of combat use were not publicly reported. The South China Sea could be a potential area of ​​use for the F-35B. Also, this modification was ordered for the fleet of Great Britain and Italy, the possibility of buying these aircraft and Japan is being considered. ..the UK confirms its plans to acquire 138 F-35B aircraft, although so far only 48 fighters have been contracted.

    http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2018-12-06/2_1025_discount.html?print=Y

    At a certain base in California, I didn't notice any damage on the runway caused by Harriers doing test VTOLs. They were used on ships for decades w/o causing major deck damage.
    Many of them were stationed in MCASs Yuma, AZ before the F-35Bs:
    https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/1987/06/mcas-yuma-home-harrier-group
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-LbTscXT90
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft3j3p92mb0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2o3wLZJJ9I
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SECzI0VdR88
    https://www.f35.com/about/who-is-flying/yuma


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:54 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    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 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:30 am

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:I didnt say Rakhmanov had stated this was the chosen model. We'll live to see. Spring 2019 should bring results.  But he clearly stated: one hull and 4 functions of which one is an aircraft carrier. Read again if you dont believe.
    Soviets also did several types of carriers. USMC has as explained vessels  with the same basic design but more or less air wing and with or without well deck. But USN keeps their CVNs regardless.  We will see what RuN does.

    2018

    US budget........$700bn....................USN...-.11..CSGs
    Russian budget.$46bn .....................RuN...-...1..CSG
    ......................(₽2,8T with PPP say $90bn )

    I now hope now you see the difference

    Soviets were planning to keep Yaks on Ulyanovsk AFAIK.




    LMSF wrote:
    I look forward to listen to you theory because no practice you have.
    Not my theory, Russian naval development strategy.

    in this case, since you said that in Russia naval development you see long range fighters and emals the best way to sort it out is simply quote of that fragment which mentions:
    ELMALS, large CVNs and only CATOBAR fighters. Suspect Suspect Suspect




    LMFS wrote:
     And what your naval strategy says about fighting missions against 10:1? or 3:1?
    US alone has 1000 deck fighters. No sane commander is going to slay its troops fighting against them from one CV.
    All you need is one missile that goes through USN AD and a carrier to launch it. Su-57 with internal hypersonic missiles already announced, half a squadron and the whole carrier fleet including USMC is under serious threat of being disabled. But you need to have more range and performance than your opponent's missiles and/or aircraft or you will be the loser in the exchange, and hence you cannot deter it.

    Wait you have just repeated exactly what I had written. You said only about longer range of fighters. The distance form Murmansk to Reykjavik is 2,412km so Russian VSTOL carrier can park there and block any ships coming around Island.

    Then since I am wrong so what precisely radius is ok according to your theory?

    BTW Hypesonic airborne missiles were announced in 2013 AFAIK. GZURs project was reminded last year by Jane's (then vis BMPD got disseminated over Russian press).
    Regardless on GRUZ or onott I seriously doubt in mid 2030s 6 missiles will be enough to take down CSG. Technology in US does not stand still and in almost 20 years they develop anti hypersonic defenses as well.

    What is Pantsir SM or Buk-3 prepared to do now?





    LMFS wrote:
    Logic says you attack carriers instead of  fighters. You first use stand off weapons like 1,500km GZUR and or Kh-50. VSTOL fighters with radius ~1000km are more than enough for this purpose.  All you can do is locally try to defend  own ships. At most.
    You are contradicting yourself, this scenario is a no go for RuN according to you.

    and precisely where do I contradict myself? dunno dunno dunno



    LMFS wrote:Same old random, lame excuses. Fact is F-35B has worse TO performance in US flattops than MiG-29K on the Kuznetsov and that's it, despite being 30 years younger in conception and being STOVL. That means in needs the full deck to take off, voiding any advantage it could have in operational tempo. To me, this is an utter failure in terms of TO performance.

    Well, the same crap about MiG-29k again. F-35B has better permanence on QE2 then MiG-29k on KUZ. TO is shorter more then 2x.
    Since Yak had 60m without skijump. New Russian vSTOL is likely to be better, much better.

    russia russia russia




    LMFS wrote:
    it's OK if you dotn see 300% TO strip difference.
    The one you just made up? No I don't see it.

    which story do you mean? this one abut "flying concrete slabs flying around landing Yak"? I dont make up stories about VSTOL.
    But no worries Russian Navy sees VSTOL value and that's why decided to discontinue obsolete and poorly serviceable MiGs
    and replace by promising VSTOLS. thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup




    skijump can decrease TO by half in case of F-35B? to 450ft in wors scenario to 300ft in good.
    Do you have sources?




    Requirements as per 2015 official documents (https://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/4e5324/f35_december_2015_selected_acquisition_report_sar/)
    Official shortest requirement is 450 feet of runway + a ski-jump to launch a lot of useful weight under unfavorable circumstances


    + here
    https://www.wired.co.uk/article/f-35b-lightning-ii-fly-with-raf

    As Station Commander of Royal Air Force Lossiemouth, Paul Godfrey, describes how the £73 million
    F-35B Lightning II fighter jet will form the centrepiece of the UK’s Royal Navy and RAF next year,
    an F35 interrupts him. It roars down the runway for just 90 metres before launching into the sky.



    LMFS wrote:
    Well not sure about how you imagine how carrier works, that there is one single runway all over the deck?
    In a ship with a relatively narrow deck and with 250 length m where a F-35B needs >200 m for take off, tell me how many planes can TO, land or even be parked in TO positions at the same time.

    Well it is somehow resolved by USMC . Apparently ti is not 200m+ - since it is classified. It is alos not my greatest concern as long as it wont be Russian CVNs case. Russians will most likely keep skijumps (vide Kuz, QE2) and we know nothing about deck size either. Cheaper then deck arresters IMHO (also tried for Yaks - 7m STOL)



    LMFS wrote:

    BAR Landing?  VSTOL and landing is again better MiG- 150m-90m  arrested,  F-35B - 175ft i.e. 53m rolling or vertical.
    STOVL has an advantage in landing. Been saying that for weeks or months already.

    so better in start and landing by 200-300% and you still dont see advantage for navies? Suspect Suspect Suspect




    LMFS wrote:
    not reflecting reality,
    Chinese are switching from STOBAR to CATOBAR and VSTOL.
    Do not think they are abandoning STOBAR any time soon, they are building a new STOBAR carrier now and Liaoning is pretty new. But they are developing CATOBAR true, and will use STOVL for their assault ships, as any rational planer would do.

    abandoning in new designs doesnt mean existing are going ot be discarded immediately. Same with MiGs on KUZ.



    LMFS wrote:
    Russians decided to switch from STOBAR  to VSTOL
    This is what you say. Please provide the quote where MoD declares they abandon STOBAR for STOVL, maybe I missed something.

    so now skijump is more important than MiG-29k? affraid affraid affraid I meant conventional fighters (vide obsolete MiG-29k) wont be there, skijump most likely remains.
    and why why BAR for VSTOL? as extra catcher? perhaps but unlikely.



    LMFS wrote:
    France? Of course then only one French carrier with 100% US CATOBAR tech. Do you suggest Russia should buy form USA? BTW France has 0.1 deck fighters of USMC and cannot afford  second carrier so far.
    France not doing as you would like so they must be idiots, I now.

    of course not. France as low level vassal of US they can buy from US awacs+cat. Thus not wasting resources on developing own EMALS. Fighter will be half or (rather more ) paid by Germans. Good deal IMHO.
    But what does it have to do wit Russia? dunno dunno dunno



    LMFS wrote:
    US has military budget by order of magnitude higher then Russians yet they still use CATOBAR + VSTOL.
    Yes, STOVL for USMC as support of expeditionary forces and CATOBAR for USN  against high-end threats, as I said.

    oops you forgot to mention US has 15x bigger military budget by nominal value and "only" 8 times higher in PPP.


    LMFS wrote:
    Bogdan should have blamed Russian energy-maneuverability doctrine not Su-57  lol1  lol1  lol1
    He is not blaming the plane, just saying that modern air combat is going to be extremely fast and demanding. Hence the intellectual support the plane provides to the pilot.

    no worries, 10? 115? years from now on and no pilots might be needed


    LMFS wrote:
    based on level of unification?  and not me but me Russian engineers.  
    Su-33 was a serious redesign of Su-27. canards, wings surface, hull, engines. Requirement was: as much as possible unify with T-10 frame. I dotn know what ill be level of unification  if any .  I mean with airframe not engines, avionics or weapons.
    So you know it can be done, only have no clue how. I guess that closes the discussion about STOVL Su-57. Have the courage of making a concrete proposal for us to criticize instead of hiding behind excuses.
    \

    you are always talking about proposals? proposal of precisely what?! i am no aerospace engineer neither are you. How and what would you require?
    STOL Su-57 can be? we'll live to see what OAK



    LMFS wrote:OK evidence established:
    1) MiG-29k has poor serviceability in Indian Navy
    Luckily we have recent news to debunk all this crap about the Indians:[/quote]

    good news then ! it is not that much crap then, only medicore performance and being obsolete cheers cheers cheers
    I really hope RuAF procures 2-3 squadrons of MG-25 perhaps then Indians could buy 126+ production lines?





    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:52 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Russia didnt announce anything yet. Unless one interview with manager form shipyard you take as official.
    Statements from industry people with name and reputation at stake are not a bad source to me. There have been repeated reports that Russia is developing EMALS. I am completely neutral to the issue to be honest, if there was a simpler solution I would prefer it, the thing is military planers of the main nations seem to have clear ideas about its need.
    France is negotiating with USA so they didn't actually announce anything about their own.
    So they are taking the needed steps to have EMALS, which is BTW critical for the type of carrier and naval aircraft they are planning to use. Own development or not is not the matter here, they are in NATO after all.
    US and China budgets are well beyond Russian one. By order of magnitude US and Chinese soon too.
    Effectiveness of Russian procurement is also an order of magnitude better than American one. But nobody is talking about 10 or 11 100kT Russian CVNs. We have discussed the costs estimations and they are in line with what the navy has at disposal, you can think what you want of course.
    Besides in US and China there is economy of scale which in Russian case wont be ever.
    There is no real scale economy in CVN business, which is going to build 2 or 3 units of a type. They are built, fitted and tested one by one, not in a serial production. Of course first unit will take more time than subsequent but that is all.
    Building large CVNs makes absolutely no sense in Russian in any foreseeable future.

    Depending what you call large. MoD has stated they intend to get carriers of about 70 kT.
    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 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:21 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    At a certain base in California, I didn't notice any damage on the runway caused by Harriers doing test VTOLs. They were used on ships for decades w/o causing major deck damage.
    Many of them were stationed in MCASs Yuma, AZ before the F-35Bs:

    c'mon that's state's propaganda Very Happy BTW I wonder if USN will consider ever F-35B

    Another interesting this is is Russian VSTOL will be 1 or 2 engines?

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3039
    Points : 3037
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:46 am

    There is no real scale economy in CVN business, which is going to build 2 or 3 units of a type. They are built, fitted and tested one by one, not in a serial production.
    The Nimitz class CVNs were built in batches of 3, 5, & 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier#Ships_in_class

    The Ford class CVNs will repeat that:
    There are expected to be ten ships of this class. To date, five have been announced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier#Ships_in_class

    Series production reduces their overall costs.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:06 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:in this case, since you said that in Russia naval development you see long range fighters and emals the best way to sort it out is simply  quote of that fragment which mentions:
    ELMALS, large CVNs  and only CATOBAR fighters.   Suspect  Suspect  Suspect
    None of us has such statements in either way, don't be silly. CVs and LHDs are mentioned as separated items in the document, which makes sense since they cover different roles. Outside of the document, parallel to statements about LHDs and STOVL there are others about Su-57K, CVs and EMALS that cannot be ignored, that's all
     F-35B has better permanence on QE2 then MiG-29k on KUZ. TO is shorter more then 2x.
    Please provide source
    skijump can decrease TO by half in case of F-35B? to 450ft in wors scenario to 300ft in good.
    Do you have sources?
    Requirements as per 2015 official documents (https://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/4e5324/f35_december_2015_selected_acquisition_report_sar/)
    Official shortest requirement is 450 feet of runway + a ski-jump to launch a lot of useful weight under unfavorable circumstances
    Requirements are 600 ft on US flat deck and 450 on UK ski-jump carrier, carrying 2 x 1000 lb JDAM and 2 x AIM-120, fuel for 450 NM radius mission. That is like 2.4 tons load and full fuel, still not clearly better than the MiG but we could make a simulation and check it out. There is not going to be a huge difference in favour of any of the two I think.
    + here
    https://www.wired.co.uk/article/f-35b-lightning-ii-fly-with-raf

    As Station Commander of Royal Air Force Lossiemouth, Paul Godfrey, describes how the £73 million
    F-35B Lightning II fighter jet will form the centrepiece of the UK’s Royal Navy and RAF next year,
    an F35 interrupts him. It roars down the runway for just 90 metres before launching into the sky.
    This is as crappy a source as it gets and you know it. No weight indication so no clarification, MiGs also take off from short runs close to 100 m on the K.

    Well it is somehow resolved by USMC . Apparently ti is not 200m+ - since it is classified.
    600 ft see above, do the conversion to meters.
    It is alos not my greatest concern as long as it wont be Russian CVNs case. Russians will most likely keep skijumps (vide Kuz, QE2) and we know nothing about deck size either.
    No idea how they will design their LHDs. No reason for not using springboard, agreed.
    Cheaper then deck arresters IMHO (also tried for Yaks - 7m  STOL)
    Yeah no arrestors for STOVL on LHDs, otherwise they would be full blown carriers.
    so better in start and landing by 200-300% and you still dont see advantage for navies?  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect

    Maths are not your main strength I see. But STOVL is ok for navies in the assault support role as discussed.
    Check out the rolling landing on the QE by the way and tell me how much space they save. In terms of TO as proved above they save practically nothing.
    abandoning in new designs doesnt mean existing are going ot be discarded immediately. Same with MiGs on KUZ.
    Chinese are both modifying the J-15 for CATOBAR operations and developing the J-31 which is hinted as future naval fighter. In contrast, they spoke a couple of times about the STOVL. Roughly the same state of development of PAK-FA in year 2000 or 2001, supposing the program will go forward.
    LMFS wrote:
    Russians decided to switch from STOBAR  to VSTOL
    so now skijump is more important than MiG-29k?  affraid  affraid  affraid
    MiG-29K will be used because is already bought, we don't give a damn about it but it is what RuN has at disposal now. And it is capable and perfectly ok for the next years, stop going full drama queen about it.
    I meant conventional fighters (vide obsolete MiG-29k) wont be there, skijump  most likely remains.
    You may be happy of being wrong in the end if they get the Su-57K
    and why why BAR for VSTOL? as extra catcher? perhaps but unlikely.

    Of course it makes no sense
    of course not. France as low level vassal of US they can buy from US awacs+cat.  Thus not wasting resources on developing own EMALS. Fighter will be half or (rather more ) paid by Germans. Good deal IMHO.
    But what does it have to do wit Russia?  dunno  dunno  dunno  
    France is IMO the Western country with the best understanding of national power elements, specially in what regards to military development. So not exactly the lowest level vassal, rather the contrary, and very probably US would be happier with France being less demanding and settling for lesser naval aspirations, but countering Germany has its costs.

    Examples from other navies are brought as examples for the discussion, you are doing it constantly.
    oops you forgot to mention US has 15x bigger military budget by nominal value and "only" 8 times higher in PPP.
    Compensated by the 10 times better use of the budget that would mean a pretty big navy  lol1

    you are always talking about proposals? proposal of precisely what?! i am no aerospace engineer neither are you. How and what would you require?
    STOL Su-57 can be? we'll live to see what OAK
    Just to tell us what propulsion concept would be used. You don't need to make the development documentation, just explain how the fighter would lift, based on existing technology. Where the vertical lift HW would be placed, thrust, size, weight. What happens with the rest of the existing elements on the plane like fuel tanks and weapons bays, undercarriage. Only most general things, no need to make big calculations or being a Davidenko for this.
    good news then ! it is not that much crap then, only medicore performance and being obsolete  cheers  cheers  cheers
    I can feel your sincere happiness about this success of the Russian defence industry  thumbsup
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:13 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    There is no real scale economy in CVN business, which is going to build 2 or 3 units of a type. They are built, fitted and tested one by one, not in a serial production.
    The Nimitz class CVNs were built in batches of 3, 5, & 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier#Ships_in_class

    The Ford class CVNs will repeat that:
    There are expected to be ten ships of this class. To date, five have been announced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier#Ships_in_class

    Series production reduces their overall costs.
    Can you imagine a car manufacturer talking about economies of scale because they are going to manufacture 10 cars?
    Please tell us how much cheaper the tenth unit of the Ford class will be compared to the third or fourth ones, so we see the difference between series sizes that could apply to Russia and to US. Just from intuition, the tenth unit will be built in 15-20 years with completely new systems and hence redesigned to a substantial degree (not serial production). But if you have better information I stand to be corrected of course.
    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 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:17 am

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Russia didnt announce anything yet. Unless one interview with manager form shipyard you take as official.
    Statements from industry people with name and reputation at stake are not a bad source to me. There have been repeated reports that Russia is developing EMALS. I am completely neutral to the issue to be honest, if there was a simpler solution I would prefer it, the thing is military planers of the main nations seem to have clear ideas about its need.

    Great,  then we both agree that EMALS might eventually can materialize but it is announcement only if MoD says - money in allocated and programme started. Anyway we'll see within next ~6 months what concept won this round of MoD CVN competition.  Will it be SHTORM or similar then likely catapult, will it be something small well then no.



    LMFS wrote:
    France is negotiating with USA so they didn't actually announce anything about their own.
    So they are taking the needed steps to have EMALS, which is BTW critical for the type of carrier and naval aircraft they are planning to use. Own development or not is not the matter here, they are in NATO after all.

    I'm afraid that money is the major determent from development on their own. US they have spent so far ~$1bn on EMALS,
    AWACS platform? A-400M is what €10bn? lest slash it to 1/3 or AWACS so we have cost of 1 new carrier by investing in emals and awacs platforms alone!


    France luckily for themselves can just buy all for a fraction of price. Russia from the other hand has to develop all by itself. This is not only money question but also taking human resources from other projects.
    I frankly  dont see here any resources'  spent justification. Especially with small number carriers envisaged.






    LMFS wrote:
    US and China budgets are well beyond Russian one. By order of magnitude US and Chinese soon too.
    Effectiveness of Russian procurement is also an order of magnitude better than American one. But nobody is talking about 10 or 11 100kT Russian CVNs. We have discussed the costs estimations and they are in line with what the navy has at disposal, you can think what you want of course.

    no wonder that they asked USC to prepare small universal carriers' plans. Building big carriers with tiny amount of escort ships, little subs makes little sense, it is similar to me being midget and giant in one. Especially that Russian carriers wont ever have any chances in sea battles with USN.For all other tasks small ships will be enough.



    LMFS wrote:
    Besides in US and China there is economy of scale which in Russian case wont be ever.
    There is no real scale economy in CVN business, which is going to build 2 or 3 units of a type. They are built, fitted and tested one by one, not in a serial production. Of course first unit will take more time than subsequent but that is all.

    and for each CVN US  designs new AWACS, catapults, reactors, software, radars? you know development of this is couple of billions + you still need to develop LHS equipment and radars and all stuff.



    LMFS wrote:
    Building large CVNs makes absolutely no sense in Russian in any foreseeable future.
    Depending what you call large. MoD has stated they intend to get carriers of about 70 kT.

    so far I've heard admirals saying this not MoD. Admirals dotn have cash. But I always can be wrong here. BTW abut recent  USC news I dont think concept was prepared without MoD knowledge.


    Lets be patient. spring 2019 shall unveil what concept won. I bet on 5( required) 3 agreed universal ships   Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3039
    Points : 3037
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:26 am

    LMFS wrote:Please tell us how much cheaper the tenth unit of the Ford class will be compared to the third or fourth ones, so we see the difference between series sizes that could apply to Russia and to US. Just from intuition, the tenth unit will be built in 15-20 years with completely new systems and hence redesigned to a substantial degree (not serial production). But if you have better information I stand to be corrected of course.
    Each carrier incorporates changes from its previous
    sister ship. At times, the changes—the redesigned island and bulbous bow added to CVN 76, for example—are fairly significant; most changes, however, are minor, incorporating the latest equipment or weapon systems.

    https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR948/MR948.chap7.pdf
     
    That's why the r grouped in "subclass" categories. I don't have the data to break down the costs as u asked, but:
    A figure of about 10% has sometimes been mentioned in
    discussions of a two-ship buy, and might be viewed as a preliminary rough estimate of the combined savings from accelerating the procurement of CVN-81 and using a block buy contract
    to procure both CVN-80 and CVN-81 (i.e., of using the third option above).
    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf

    According to Vice Adm. Tom Moore, commander of Naval Sea Systems Command, purchasing two carriers at once has a historical precedent for reducing costs and expediting delivery. While it isn’t uncommon for smaller vessels to be purchased in bulk, or in “blocks,” the massive expense associated with just a single new carrier (projected to be $11.5 billion each) makes this methodology prohibitively expensive… unless the overall cost of developing the fleet is reduced by enough to make the initial cost of doubling an order worth it.
    "The facts are pretty clear: when we’ve had a chance to do two-ship buys on the carrier side, with CVN-72 and 73 and then again with 74 and 75, in terms of the total cost performance of the ships and the number of man-hours it took to build those ships, within the Nimitz-class those four ships were built for the fewest man-hours and the lowest cost. So you’re clearly getting benefit out of that, but you have to balance it against the other competing needs of the budget.”
    https://thenewsrep.com/101031/the-us-navy-is-considering-a-cost-saving-plan-to-buy-2-new-aircraft-carriers-this-year/

    10% of $11.5B = $1.15B.
    Maximum estimated Russian CVN will cost 250B rubles; at 10% savings= 25B rubles; but even 5%, or 12.5B rubles it would be still worth it! They'll need at least 4-6 of them anyway, & as quickly as possible:
    https://army-news.ru/2018/12/grustnyj-vzglyad-na-vmf-rossii-eshhyo-chut-chut-o-krejserax/?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

    Russia from the other hand has to develop all by itself.
    Not necessarily- China is already ahead of them on this & could sell the technology. Why duplicate the effort? They r already developing an airliner & a heavy helicopter together. See corresponding treads.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:50 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    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 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:55 am

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:in this case, since you said that in Russia naval development you see long range fighters and emals the best way to sort it out is simply  quote of that fragment which mentions:
    ELMALS, large CVNs  and only CATOBAR fighters.   Suspect  Suspect  Suspect
    None of us has such statements in either way, don't be silly. CVs and LHDs are mentioned as separated items in the document, which makes sense since they cover different roles. Outside of the document, parallel to statements about LHDs and STOVL there are others about Su-57K, CVs and EMALS that cannot be ignored, that's all

    There are no parallel statements. The only official statement so far  was: we replace Su-33 and MiG-29k by VSTOL fighter for our carriers.
    If you believe in rumors , recent talk about the universal ship is to be carrier too. Why are you ignoring this message then? selective hearing I suspect.



    LMFS wrote:Requirements are 600 ft on US flat deck and 450 on UK ski-jump carrier, carrying 2 x 1000 lb JDAM and 2 x AIM-120, fuel for 450 NM radius mission. That is like 2.4 tons load and full fuel, still not clearly better than the MiG but we could make a simulation and check it out. There is not going to be a huge difference in favour of any of the two I think.

    MiG-29k can even better! 125m ! ok then without any payload and i presume little fuel. F-35 lengt is defined fo rworst ocnditions or I am wrong? i wonder what MiG-29k can do in worst conditions from 195m runway...






    LMFS wrote:This is as crappy a source as it gets and you know it. No weight indication so no clarification, MiGs also take off from short runs close to 100 m on the K.
    same as F-35B vertically  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup



    LMFA wrote: No idea how they will design their LHDs. No reason for not using springboard, agreed.

    It is utmost stupidity since actually Brits were first to implement skijumps... USMC is that hard that doesn need europeon tech  lol!  lol!  lol!  



    LMFS wrote:
    Cheaper then deck arresters IMHO (also tried for Yaks - 7m  STOL)
    Yeah no arrestors for STOVL on LHDs, otherwise they would be full blown carriers.

    wait wait does it mean that VSTOL and arresters can make up a fully pledged CVN?  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect


    LMFS wrote:
    so better in start and landing by 200-300% and you still dont see advantage for navies?  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect

    Maths are not your main strength I see. But STOVL is ok for navies in the assault support role as discussed.

    Yak 60m - MiG-195m
    F-35-90m MiG-195m

    so what your math says? did you indent new one? kudos!




    LMFS wrote:Check out the rolling landing on the QE by the way and tell me how much space they save. In terms of TO as proved above they save practically nothing.

    Mig-29 -   90-150m (wiki)
    F-35B   -  53m  - link I've  already quoted couple of times.

    so what did you say about math? no difference?



    LMFS wrote:
    abandoning in new designs doesnt mean existing are going ot be discarded immediately. Same with MiGs on KUZ.
    Chinese are both modifying the J-15 for CATOBAR operations and developing the J-31 which is hinted as future naval fighter. In contrast, they spoke a couple of times about the STOVL. Roughly the same state of development of PAK-FA in year 2000 or 2001, supposing the program will go forward.

    hmm J-15 is outgoing one based on Su-27 . Made in tatatdaaam 40 units (Chinese wiki). this unlikely wil be main fighter for future 10 Chinese carriers. Will it be J-31 nobody knows yet. OK Chinese do.

    But how does it influence Russian any status I sincerely dont know. Chinese have their own "weight", budget, resources and plans.




    LMFS wrote:
    LMFS wrote:
    Russians decided to switch from STOBAR  to VSTOL
    so now skijump is more important than MiG-29k?  affraid  affraid  affraid
    MiG-29K will be used because is already bought, we don't give a damn about it but it is what RuN has at disposal now. And it is capable and perfectly ok for the next years, stop going full drama queen about it.

    adequate you mean? of course it is. BTW me a drama queen ?  affraid  affraid  affraid


    LMFS wrote:France is IMO the Western country with the best understanding of national power elements, specially in what regards to military development. So not exactly the lowest level vassal, rather the contrary, and very probably US would be happier with France being less demanding and settling for lesser naval aspirations, but countering Germany has its costs.

    you mean France countering Germany?!  or US? OK as for France I've made a mistake. A vassal. I didnt say in any case a willing vassal.  Germany is not a vassal of US. It is an occupied country. I bet German naval ambitions will grow once US occupation weakens.

    Alliance with France is the way to achieve this.  Both countries have natural need to protect themselves from US/UK. And the same time no global  ambitions so Russia is not thei natural enemy as for Anglosaxons.





    LMFS wrote:
    good news then ! it is not that much crap then, only medicore performance and being obsolete  cheers  cheers  cheers
    I can feel your sincere happiness about this success of the Russian defence industry  thumbsup

    of course  I do !  one failed navalization of MiG-29k  is an exception and in any case not a rule for Russian MIC. Im sure that MiG
    has improved its quality before started to market MiG-35.  
    MiG-35 should  be a decent fighter. Unfortunately appeared for RussianAF 10-15 years too late.





    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:06 am; edited 1 time in total
    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 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:04 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote: They'll need at least 4-6 of them anyway, & as quickly as possible:

    well they need is one thing what kind and how many Russia decides to fiel dit another. In case this "universal 4 roles ship" wins competion I bet on 5 requested ships (mostlikely 3 granted budget)to is is only my betting now




    Tsavo wrote:
    ]Russia from the other hand has to develop all by itself.
    Not necessarily- China is already ahead of them on this & could sell the technology. Why duplicate the effort? They r already developing an airliner & a heavy helicopter together. See corresponding treads.

    I know but I dotn see anytime soon any serious military cooperation in building new models. IMHO if any India could be first choice as for joint project (vide Brahmos i and II, T-90, Su-30MKI, Ka-226)
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:35 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:France luckily for themselves can just buy all for a fraction of price. Russia from the other hand has to develop all by itself. This is not only money question but also taking human resources from other projects.
    You could argue Russia can buy it at minimum costs from the state-owned developers and use the technology resulting from the development as they want while France will pay a premium, cannot sell the technology and will remain hostage of US political will. Being independent is more difficult but it has advantages too.

    @Tsavo Lion:
    thanks for the info. This is what I mean, carriers are built on a one by one, max two each time base. Pretty much like nuclear power plants and similar singular projects, so they are very expensive. Of course the more you can order at a time, the better the prices, but you cannot really organize a serial production for carriers. Development costs of course dilute the bigger the series as Gunship said, but due to the extremely long periods of building, first unit of the type and last are going to have very different systems.

    See PLAN planned carrier types for instance:

    - Type 001, bought from Ukraine and modified
    - Type 001A, self built based on 001 but with many modifications
    - Type 002, self built and designed, flat deck with EMALs but similar in size to type 001
    - Type 003, Chinese equivalent to Ford class.

    They will make one or two units of each, after type 002 or 003 we will see how many of those are built.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22384
    Points : 22928
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:10 am

    Will it be SHTORM or similar then likely catapult, will it be something small well then no.

    A small carrier would need EMALS more than a bigger ship...

    US they have spent so far ~$1bn on EMALS,

    So $50 million of Russian investment money should do the job...

    Not necessarily- China is already ahead of them on this & could sell the technology. Why duplicate the effort? They r already developing an airliner & a heavy helicopter together. See corresponding treads.

    Because Chinese requirements are unlikely to match Russian requirements...

    Besides Russia wants new technology... not improved old Soviet technology.

    MiG-35 should be a decent fighter. Unfortunately appeared for RussianAF 10-15 years too late.

    Lucky EU and US waste time with dead end F-35 super expensive dog then.

    IMHO if any India could be first choice as for joint project

    A light 5th gen fighter would be interesting, but with India it would take 10 years to write out the agreement to develop and then another 20 years to actually make the damn thing.


    And even then after 15 years they still might cancel.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:55 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:b]The only official statemen[/b]t so far  was: we replace Su-33 and MiG-29k by VSTOL fighter for our carriers.
    I am sure you have the quote?
    If you believe in rumors , recent talk about the universal ship is to be carrier too.

    America class is a carrier too.
    Why are you ignoring this message then? selective hearing I suspect.
    Not ignoring, have already explained to you what sense it makes for me.

    MiG-29k can even better! 125m ! ok then without any payload and i presume little fuel. F-35 lengt is defined fo rworst ocnditions or I am wrong? i wonder what MiG-29k can do in worst conditions from 195m runway...
    So, I finally did the simulation since you are so lazy. Taking 22400 kg MTOW acc. to Rosoboronexport, considering 4500 kg max load. So TOW with 2400 kg payload like the F-35 would be 20300 kg. Thrust is 2x9000 kgf.
    The plane could take off from the ramp of the Vikramaditya in <95 m. So it is in fact quite shorter than the 450 feet of the F-35B in the QE. To be considered though:
    - I don't have the aero parameters of the MiG-29K and I am using those of the F-18 instead.
    - Simulation considers 30 kt wind over deck, you can play around to check effects of higher and lower wind speed

    http://cppcms.com/files/skijump/

    BTW see F-35B requirementsRuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 21 Kpps_f10


    Yak 60m - MiG-195m
    Yak was cancelled and had a serious accident due to hot air ingestion. After checking the design, Lockheed went for the lifting fan design instead of direct lift. You prefer to ignore this, for me these are reasons to suspect the design may have issues. I stick to serially produced fighters.
    F-35-90m MiG-195m
    Nope, see above.

    Mig-29 -   90-150m (wiki)
    F-35B   -  53m  - link I've  already quoted couple of times.
    Have seen no link sorry. Checked the videos again and it is true they stop very fast and more importantly with little impact. Deck was empty, would be good to see the real operating conditions at sea, since it is not clear to me if landing and TO can take place in parallel (TO run very long) and how many fighters can be parked at the deck during these operations.

    BTW me a drama queen ?  affraid  affraid  affraid

    About MiG-29K? Totally!  lol1
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3039
    Points : 3037
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 08, 2018 7:21 pm

    Because Chinese requirements are unlikely to match Russian requirements...
    Besides Russia wants new technology... not improved old Soviet technology.
    Since EMALS r adjustable, they can be used even with CATOBAR compatible French Rafales. I doubt the future Chinese CVNs will be much different/bigger than the future Russian CVNs, assuming they'll be built at all.
    The Chinese didn't use any old Soviet technology to develop their EMALS. Nor did they needed to:
    Breakthrough announced in South China Morning Post by China in developing its own Improved EMALS technology which was done by use of advanced insulated-gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) chips. This sudden development of in house EMALS technology by China was only made possible due to acquisition of semiconductor companies-WeEn, Ampleon and Nexperia, which were acquired via sale of Freescale Semiconductors (NXP)'s Bipolar Power Division, RF Power division and Standards Products Division respectively and also by acquisition of some other European semiconductor companies.
    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=19455&page=0


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 08, 2018 7:37 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add a quote)
    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 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:07 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Will it be SHTORM or similar then likely catapult, will it be something small well then no.

    A small carrier would need EMALS more than a bigger ship...

    no you dont need catapults at all, thisis only your vision. Will Russian planners require catapults and sending billions Rubles in near useless product after 1 installation? I seriously doubt.



    GB wrote:
    US they have spent so far ~$1bn on EMALS,
    So $50 million of Russian investment money should do the job...
    {/quote]

    then at most $200m is cost of new fighter programme.


    GB wrote:
    MiG-35 should  be a decent fighter. Unfortunately appeared for RussianAF 10-15 years too late.

    Lucky EU and US  waste time with dead end F-35 super expensive dog then.

    So far 300?350 F-35 are in line? Russia has how many fielded 5g fighters?

    Russian budget = .$46bn........Su-57.....$60m
    USA Budget......= $700bn.......F-35.......$90m


    gen Bondaryeev

    " There are other arguments, in some respects opposite. Like, why do we need the fifth generation, if the fighters of the 4 ++ generation are flying fine, for example, the same Su-35. On this occasion,[b] I will say: fourth-generation fighters, even those upgraded to the “++” version, are already outdated and do not meet new challenges. [/b.[/quote]

    But you know better then Bondaryev. Kudos.




    GB wrote:
    IMHO if any India could be first choice as for joint project
    A light 5th gen fighter would be interesting, but with India it would take 10 years to write out the agreement to develop and then another 20 years to actually make the damn thing.

    interesting then why Russians want to cooperate with India,and India with Russia.




    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 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:08 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:b]The only official statemen[/b]t so far  was: we replace Su-33 and MiG-29k by VSTOL fighter for our carriers.
    I am sure you have the quote?

    so many times you had chance to read thsi and never did? wow. Bondayrev you read: 4++ (which MiG-29k is not even) are obsolete already.



    “Of course, it was logical to assume that during such a time those models, meaning the MiG-29, Su-33, they
    will become obsolete morally, and in 10 years, of course, will require the creation of a new aircraft,
    such plans exist: shortened takeoff and landing and vertical takeoff, "Borisov told reporters.


    https://ria.ru/20171123/1509476781.html




    LMFS wrote:
    If you believe in rumors , recent talk about the universal ship is to be carrier too.
    America class is a carrier too.

    I can see LHA there






    MiG-29k can even better! 125m ! ok then without any payload and i presume little fuel. F-35 lengt is defined fo rworst ocnditions or I am wrong? i wonder what MiG-29k can do in worst conditions from 195m runway...
    So, I finally did the simulation since you are so lazy [/quote]

    simulation how close to reality?  did you calculate MiG-29 empty weight 13,700kgs mass too?
    F-18 EW is ~10,000kg

    +++

    LMFS wrote:
    F-35-90m MiG-195m
    Nope, see above.


    wiki:
    takeoff strip is 110-195m. Let me think 110m with ho many and 195m only to annoy MiG-29kfans?
    Длина разбега: 110—195 м

    empty weight  ~13,700kg
    Масс пустого: ~13700 кг

    Ski Jump is no wonder, just helps to "buy" shorter takeoff.
    F-35B you should compare with J-39 for example 500m takefff and MiG-29 with Yak.



    LMFS wrote:

    Yak 60m - MiG-195m
    Yak was cancelled and had a serious accident due to hot air ingestion. After checking the design, Lockheed went for the lifting fan design instead of direct lift. You prefer to ignore this, for me these are reasons to suspect the design may have issues. I stick to serially produced fighters.

    Did you check in Russian sources? Yak wasn't even cancelled . Programme was closed in 2003. Was never cancelled due any accident. Again Like I heard "flying concrete slabs on Yak landing affraid affraid affraid "

    MiG has many serious accidents killing many pilots. But if you prefer  MiG-29k was cancelled and cannot be  topic of our discussion. Prod is discontinued 2 years ago. Is dead.
    The only task of 23 remaining fighters is to wait until Yak 141 successor will replace it  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup

    But as soon as Russian VSTOL is to replace it we can return to talking about parameters, shall we? russia  russia  russia






    LMFS wrote:

    Mig-29 -   90-150m (wiki)
    F-35B   -  53m  - link I've  already quoted couple of times.

    Have seen no link sorry.

    https://theaviationist.com/2018/10/15/uk-f-35b-performs-worlds-first-shipborne-rolling-vertical-landing-during-hms-queen-elizabeth-trials/


    175ft is lets say -ish number of course but this IMHO a good illustration that every vSTOL is intrinsically better in takeoff/landing distances.   That's the feature traded for 10% of less internal fuel or ~10% more weight.


    LMFS wrote:Checked the videos again and it is true they stop very fast and more importantly with little impact. Deck was empty, would be good to see the real operating conditions at sea, since it is not clear to me if landing and TO can take place in parallel (TO run very long) and how many fighters can be parked at the deck during these operations.

    me too  Smile  Smile  Smile



    LMFS wrote:
    BTW me a drama queen ?  affraid  affraid  affraid

    About MiG-29K? Totally!  lol1

    I'd prefer you call me a realist with this regard respekt respekt respekt
    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 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 08, 2018 11:22 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Because Chinese requirements are unlikely to match Russian requirements...
    Besides Russia wants new technology... not improved old Soviet technology.
    Since EMALS r adjustable, they can be used even with CATOBAR compatible French Rafales. I doubt the future Chinese CVNs will be much different/bigger than the future Russian CVNs, assuming they'll be built at all.


    You have right to think Russia buys emals form China. I find it very very unlikely. As for Russia carrier programme., to em it looks like Russian already decided at least in foreseeable future to go vSTOL instead of CATOBAR direction.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3039
    Points : 3037
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:09 am

    The rolling technique is intended to allow pilots to recover to the ship with more stores: the combination of thrust from its rotating nozzle, lift-fan and lift generated by the wing as an effect of the (slow) forward movement of the aircraft can save up to 7000lbs greater all up weight (UAW). Without the SRVL technique, the F-35B would be forced to jettison some or all of its external store when returning to the ship.
    According to some sources the Soviet Yak-38 “Forger” jets could perform rolling landings on carrier decks but required the use of a safety barrier net; however, it’s not clear whether actual tests were conducted at sea.

    https://theaviationist.com/2018/10/15/uk-f-35b-performs-worlds-first-shipborne-rolling-vertical-landing-during-hms-queen-elizabeth-trials/

    To be sarcastic, if need be, Russia could build China nuclear icebreakers, open free commercial use of the NSR & airspace, in exchange for Chinese single men coming to work (like N Koreans did) &/ marry their surplus single ladies (see the Russian Population tread), FFG/DDGs, & CVNs.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:33 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add a quote)
    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 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:35 am

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:France luckily for themselves can just buy all for a fraction of price. Russia from the other hand has to develop all by itself. This is not only money question but also taking human resources from other projects.
    You could argue Russia can buy it at minimum costs from the state-owned developers and use the technology resulting from the development as they want.

    minimum cost means = low salary and no profits otherwise I've never heard about such thing  as low cost in hi tech.
    + thousands of engineers and skilled workers distracted from hi tech industry R&D  to achieve what? single use product, with no commercial application, little to offer over existing LIM powered transportation lines. Not to mention investing same resources into electric aircraft or magnetic/LIM powered mass transportation development  should give by order, or 2, of magnitude better RoI.

    I my understanding current arms race is not sprint to make dash and then rest 60minutes. It might be nto even a marathon but it is a triathlon. each move has to be optimized with energy spending ...




    I guess the choice of VSTOL direction is also because cost effects analysis. Not only short term but military what do we need and how much do we need to invest.  High "bycosts" of conventional CVN and better RoI in terms of new tech  brought (VSTOL). If you look at FPI/Rostech many projects are now around efficient STOL/VSTOL/VTOL





    LMFS wrote:while France will pay a premium, cannot sell the technology and will remain hostage of US political will. Being independent is more difficult but it has advantages too.

    no Sir, in foreseeable future how France can do anything engendering sales of US emals?[/quote]
    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 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:38 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:

    To be sarcastic, if need be, Russia could build China nuclear icebreakers, open free commercial use of the NSR & airspace, in exchange for Chinese single men coming to work (like N Koreans did) &/ marry their surplus single ladies (see the Russian Population tread), FFG/DDGs, & CVNs.

    we all can dream but those dreams unlikely materialize though. I hope Russia and China could closer work in space but first clean on the ground is needed.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:40 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:so many times you had chance to read thsi and never did? wow. Bondayrev you read: 4++ (which MiG-29k is not even) are obsolete already.

    “Of course, it was logical to assume that during such a time those models, meaning the MiG-29, Su-33, they
    will become obsolete morally, and in 10 years, of course, will require the creation of a new aircraft,
    such plans exist: shortened takeoff and landing and vertical takeoff, "Borisov told reporters.
    https://ria.ru/20171123/1509476781.html
    Well, believe it or not, I had not seen this precise quote before, it sounds very conclusive. This is how TASS reported it, same day news:
    "Naturally," he said when asked whether works on a vertical take-off plane for aircraft carriers are being conducted.

    "It is logical to surmise that over this time the existing models, I mean the MiG-29 and the Su-33, will become morally obsolete and a new aircraft will be needed in a span of ten years. We do have such plans," he said.

    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/977195

    Whose transcription is literal?

    Little earlier, from July same year:
    "The Defense Ministry’s plans, the long-term ones likely to be implemented toward the end of the 2018-2025 state program for armaments, include a project for building a new aircraft carrier. A new generation of planes is to become available by then… Also on the Defense Ministry’s plans that we are discussing with our aircraft manufacturers is the creation of a short takeoff and landing (STAL) aircraft. Possibly, it will be a vertical takeoff and landing plane," Borisov said.

    The United Aircraft Corporation has not yet received any terms of reference for such planes but UAC chief Yuri Slyusar says he knows about such plans.

    "We are waiting for the customer to formulate proposals. We are aware of such plans. For now the work on finalizing the plane’s shape and the expected technical parameters has not been completed yet," Slyusar said.
    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/958156

    "The Defense Ministry’s plans … somewhere at the finish of the state armament program for 2018-2025 envisage the commencement of the construction of a new aircraft cruiser and, of course, a new generation of aircraft will emerge by that time," Borisov said.

    "Today, Su-33 and MiG-29 aircraft are the backbone of aircraft carriers, specifically, the Admiral Kuznetsov. The Defense Ministry’s plans envisage developing an advanced short take-off and landing aircraft and, possibly, a vertical take-off and landing plane, and we are discussing this with our aircraft-building companies," he said at the MAKS-2017 international airshow outside Moscow.

    "This is the development of the Yakovlev family of aircraft that was terminated. Such plans exist and we are discussing them, including the possible development of these areas for an advanced plane for aircraft carriers," he said.

    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/956811

    Which sounds to me, formulated as vaguely as possible (and besides in Russian so I cannot really grasp the nuances of the language), as "we need substitutes like in one decade for the naval planes and we are working on STOL or VTOL". But every plane operating from a carrier is STOL by definition (see MiG-29KVP for instance), so was not very conclusive, considering MoD has also not the biggest interest in informing in advance of all details of what they plan to do and besides are yet to take many decisions regarding carrier-related topics.

    So as of July last year UAC had not completed a preliminary design and there was no official request from the MoD to develop. Yet Borisov talks of 7-10 years to series... if I have to judge the whole statement by bits like this I remain more than cautious, since this schedule estimation is, based on previous experience, simply false. Rest of evidence (constant hints at naval Su-57 and its STOL performance, carrier models presented, development of EMALS, existing doctrine and capability analysis) point out to future carriers operating STOBAR or CATOBAR.
    So, we will see but I admit there is a support for your claim that they plan to substitute the existing STOBARs with STOVL. thumbsup
    I can see LHA there
    Yes, that carries fixed wing aircraft. That is, with carrier function. Remind you, for Russians aircraft carrying is a function of a vessel, not a concrete type of ship and all recent carriers were called "cruisers"
    simulation how close to reality?  
    Do not know, have you checked the calculations? The ones I made (a more simple approximation I admit) were giving similar values
    did you calculate MiG-29 empty weight  13,700kgs mass too?
    You did not understand did you? Empty weight is not relevant here but TO weight. Besides your number has no official source. I take the official (not wiki) MTOW and remove 2100 kg from it, considering the 4500 kg of the also official maximum load and the ca. 2400 kg load stated for the F-35B case. If you have a better number name it and your sources.
    F-18 EW is ~10,000kg
    Only 45% more than what you say, 14.550 kg.
    What was your point here?

    wiki:
    takeoff strip is 110-195m. Let me think 110m with ho many and 195m only to annoy MiG-29kfans?
    Длина разбега: 110—195 м
    Try a corrector, I don't understand what you mean if words are incomplete
    TO run depends on the vessel, of course. I referred above the run that would be needed considering acceleration only.

    empty weight  ~13,700kg
    Масс пустого: ~13700 кг
    See above, Russian wiki is no different than any other data taken from somebody's arse... only because is a Russian one.

    Ski Jump is no wonder, just helps to "buy" shorter takeoff.
    No it is no wonder, only clever design
    F-35B you should compare with J-39 for example 500m takefff and MiG-29 with Yak.
    F-35B with J-39? You mean JAS-39??? Why???

    Did you check in Russian sources? Yak wasn't even cancelled . Programme was closed in 2003.
    Closed, cancelled, not produced in series. Put the name you want, it is the same for the case.
    Was never cancelled due any accident. Again Like I heard "flying concrete slabs on Yak landing  affraid  affraid  affraid "  
    I have not said any of both.
    But if you prefer  MiG-29k was cancelled and cannot be  topic of our discussion.
    Serially produced plane unlike Yak is what I am saying
    Prod is discontinued 2 years ago. Is dead.
    Yet Rosoboronexport keeps offering it on their site? Where is the closing of the line, do you have a link?
    But as soon as Russian VSTOL is to replace it we can return to talking about parameters, shall we? russia  russia  russia
    With a Russian STOVL of course we will discuss the parameters

    https://theaviationist.com/2018/10/15/uk-f-35b-performs-worlds-first-shipborne-rolling-vertical-landing-during-hms-queen-elizabeth-trials/
    175ft is lets say -ish number of course but this IMHO a good illustration that every vSTOL is intrinsically better in takeoff/landing distances.   That's the feature traded for 10% of less internal fuel or ~10% more weight.
    Ok I thought you had something official

    Sponsored content

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 21 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:09 pm