Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

GarryB wrote:..the US can't make the ice too thick for Russian icebreakers to operate and anyway by 2030 there probably wont be much ice anyway.
Mining international waterways is an act of war and after several european cargo ships taking the NSR are sunk by US mines...

That E. Arctic area may still have thick ice/icebergs- at a time the CVN may need to transit there. Not worth the risk IMO! They'll know beforehand that a CVN is coming & warn civ. shipping to stay away.

Sinking such vessels would be very straight forward... after appropriate warnings of course.

a big ship takes a long time to stop, even after it gets hit.

..finding flat open areas in Russia where you remove big rocks and flatten hollows in the ground over an area a km long is not actually that difficult and most of their transport aircraft can operate from fairly rough strips of ground.

The permafrost & snow/icing conditions req. frequent repairs & clearing ops.

rail lines and air fields end up saving money because things can be transported in and out much faster and much easier and much cheaper than using slow helicopter links.

they take years to build- the AYM road, started on/off in 1975/85, from BAM to Yakutsk is supposed to open for passenger traffic only this summer:
http://www.nemiga.info/rossiya/amuro-yakutskaya_magistral.htm
http://www.ng.ru/economics/2018-10-17/4_7334_yakutia.html?print=Y
https://lenta.ru/articles/2018/10/23/ayam/  https://777hawk.livejournal.com/2186936.html
https://territoryengineering.ru/proekty/amuro-yakutskaya-magistral-klyuch-k-osushhestvleniyu-vazhnejshih-proektov-xxi-veka/
 

And a more conventional design similar to the Yak-44 but more modern would be much much better still... and cheaper in the long term.

It'll need the expensive CAT, extra maintenance & personnel.

It was a commercial operation... they could as easily have hired a Chinook for the job.

NZ isn't Siberia/RFE.

A Chinook would take an enormous amount of space inside a carrier...

They'll only be brought inside for repairs, won't be deployed in big #s on flight decks, & will replace SAR/ASW/AWACS helos, so the size/performance trade off is worth it IMO. They could also be based on other ships, if need be. A tanker could be modified with a hangar carrying fuel & spare parts will free up a lot of space. If they r going to send an ocean tug along anyway, it could also tow a medium/large barge with a dozen of them.


https://www.alamy.com/stock-image-171116-n-om854-038-strait-of-juan-de-fuca-nov-16-2017-a-ch-47-chinook-165911114.html

http://www.clker.com/clipart-42126.html

The 4 Yak-44s may take more space than proposed large tandem-rotor helo, which can have 4-5 variants- ASW/SAR/AWACS/Marine assault/COD, while  the Yak-44 only 2: AWACS & COD. IMO, a lot of $ can be saved by not fielding them.
Also, they could be made amphibious (& replace/augment the Mi-14, unlike the Yak-44.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_helicopter#Limited_water_capability

The Russian helo will be a lot more capable than the CH-47, so it shouldn't be used as a yardstick.

Frankly, I don't see any indication whatsoever of any work being restarted on he Yak-44. AFAIK, they r not dusting off its blueprints; knowing that it usually takes them longer than expected, they should've done it "yesterday", if their plans r as u all envision them to be.
Btw, China started testing a radar for her own E-2 counterpart a few years ago, & now is getting ready the plane itself:
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2018/08/china-secretly-building-its-copy-of-us-navys-e-2-hawkeye-says-will-be-a-game-changer/

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/more-hints-about-beijings-aircraft-carrier-ambitio-458339/

https://topwar.ru/134575-kitay-stroit-samolet-dlya-obnaruzheniya-stels-samoletov-protivnika.html

http://www.sohu.com/a/322017519_100007345



I'm sure they'll have it by the time their 1st CATOBAR CV-18 sails.

Since they don't work on it or similar plane, at least to me it looks like it's been placed on a back burner, or "for later". Why spend $ now if the CVN design isn't finalized, much less ordered by the VMF?

I have found an interesting aircraft that could be used as a carrier based AWACS/Refueler/Elint aircraft. It's the sukhoi-80. Very interesting design. And it is designed as STOL aircraft so it is already optimzed for short runways like on kuznetsov.

It was an interesting design proposal, but it was a STOL design... the amount of space on a carrier deck means it practically has to be a VTOL or use catapults to operate.

I have seen ground attack variants of it armed with all sorts of air to ground weapons, but AFAIK it was never actually a serious project with future prospects.

interesting, but maybe a bit small. I would prefer to see the Yak-44 concept being restarted, since it was already conceived for carrier use

I agree that it needs to be a custom designed aircraft, rather than something off the shelf that might get the job done.

That E. Arctic area may still have thick ice/icebergs- at a time the CVN may need to transit there. Not worth the risk IMO

It has aircraft and 250kg aerial bombs... it is not a problem... they could send five icebreakers to deal with the ice... by that stage they would have them.

They'll know beforehand that a CVN is coming & warn civ. shipping to stay away.

If they are going to be laying mines in Russian waters then Russia will be doing the same in european and US waters... do you really think they would risk that?

Besides... which is it... ice too thick or mines?

a big ship takes a long time to stop, even after it gets hit.

I am sure the icebreaker that is leading the CVN would destroy any tanker or cargo vessel with a good solid hit to the side that rips it in half... the extra mass from all that extra water onboard would slow it down real fast.

The permafrost & snow/icing conditions req. frequent repairs & clearing ops.

All airfields need to be monitored for FOD and other issues.

they take years to build- the AYM road, started on/off in 1975/85, from BAM to Yakutsk is supposed to open for passenger traffic only this summer:

Airfields are much easier to build than roads and are in more demand most of the time.

The rail line from Europe to Asia is one thing, but if it was a road it would need settlements along the way for stops... rail lines need fewer stops as it is more self sufficient... with no regular petrol stations and rooms to stay in for the night it is a bit harder by car... not so bad by plane.

It'll need the expensive CAT, extra maintenance & personnel.

So if the cat and systems are expensive that is fine... it makes no sense to spend big money on EM cats and then piss away even more money on faulty failed dead end designs like tilt rotors and vstol aircraft.

They have helos and are looking in to high speed designs, and they are investing in EMCATS because those two directions offer the best potential payoff for the most reasonable investment.

NZ isn't Siberia/RFE.

Which is worse for your argument as a NZ company is less likely to want a Russian aircraft over an American one, yet they chose the Russian one every time the contract came up.

They'll only be brought inside for repairs, won't be deployed in big #s on flight decks, & will replace SAR/ASW/AWACS helos, so the size/performance trade off is worth it IMO. They could also be based on other ships, if need be. A tanker could be modified with a hangar carrying fuel & spare parts will free up a lot of space. If they r going to send an ocean tug along anyway, it could also tow a medium/large barge with a dozen of them.

Oh come on... if they are bringing along extra barges with helos on then bring one with a Mi-26 on it. It has already be developed and is better than the Chinook in every regard. And it is already in service.

I believe it was mentioned somewhere that the Yak-44 was designed to operate both from a catapult and from the sky jump of the kuznetov.

No, a big aircraft like a Yak-44 or Hawkeye wouldn't be able to use ramp on a carrier, and the Kuznetsov was not supposed to have a catapult, that was the slightly larger Ulyanovsk that the Yak was designed to operate from.

The ski jump is for fit healthy athletes... MiG-33, Su-33, Yak-141...

Afterall they were supposed to have two quite powerful d-27 propfan engines (maybe the Yak-44M will have PD-12 derivative turboprop or propfan).

That is important... they have serious engine power... unlike the Su-80 which is designed for low cost cruise...

Any new russian carrier will be equiped with catapults. RuN has clearly expressed that.

Keep in mind that their current and likely planned fighters wont need catapult launch assistance, so this clearly means a large heavy AWACS platform is the main reason for these cats... now this might be manned or unmanned...

The 4 Yak-44s may take more space than proposed large tandem-rotor helo, which can have 4-5 variants- ASW/SAR/AWACS/Marine assault/COD, while the Yak-44 only 2: AWACS & COD. IMO, a lot of $ can be saved by not fielding them.

The Yak will take up a lot of space, but unlike a tandem rotor helicopter that does not exist yet in Russian service, the Yak will be able to fly at very useful heights and carry a rather large and powerful radar and a benefit of rather powerful engines will mean plenty of electrical power generation for running those electronics and systems it will be carrying. A transport version could be fitted out as an inflight refuelling aircraft and cargo transport aircraft too.

However the amphibious version is really interesting for ASW as they could sit on the water and deploy their sonar without using fuel. Should be used from a a dedicated ASW helicopter carrier.

Indeed, with the cost of sonar equipment you would think a dipping sonar on a helicopter or amphibious aircraft that could land on the water surface and do proper detailed searches through the various salt layers would be useful. Perhaps even an airship design that can land on the water surface and deploy dipping sonar...

Frankly, I don't see any indication whatsoever of any work being restarted on he Yak-44. AFAIK, they r not dusting off its blueprints; knowing that it usually takes them longer than expected, they should've done it "yesterday", if their plans r as u all envision them to be.

Yeah, if they are working on cats then wouldn't it make sense they are also developing something that would actually need cats to operate?

Technology has moved on since the Yak-44... new composite materials and new engines and indeed new radar...

We have not heard about progress with an AWACS platform but then we have not heard about progress with the EM cats either...

Btw, China started testing a radar for her own E-2 counterpart a few years ago, & now is getting ready the plane itself:

China has a different attitude to Russia, they just want something in service and don't seem to care whether it is state of the art or state of the ark.

Certainly even if it is only a copy of an E-2 it would really be something because an E-2 is a good aircraft and miles ahead of anything Russia or the Soviet Union has ever operated from a carrier in terms of AWACS performance, but Russia seems to want better.

Since they don't work on it or similar plane, at least to me it looks like it's been placed on a back burner, or "for later". Why spend $ now if the CVN design isn't finalized, much less ordered by the VMF?

Aircraft don't drop from the sky, development takes time, so they have clearly decided on the fundamentals... 70K ton, nuclear powered, EMCATS, which requires an AWACS... so they would at least approach a few design bureaus to start basic preparation for design options... the fact that they are not talking about it doesn't mean nothing is happening.

They will most likely take the "light a-100 radar" of the tu-214 awacs that is currently being developed and use it on a carrier based plateform and make it even lighter. So that all the AWACS arefrom the same family.

Certainly no point in wasting effort that has already been expended, but these photonic radar systems sound interesting and relevant in terms of making a small system as effective as possible.

If they are going to be laying mines in Russian waters then Russia will be doing the same in european and US waters... do you really think they would risk that?
Besides... which is it... ice too thick or mines?

The Bering Sea/Strait has Alaskan & international waters- mines can be released there to be carried by currents, in the waters that r ice free.

Airfields are much easier to build than roads and are in more demand most of the time.

By the same token, helipads & short strips r easier to build & maintain than runways.

Which is worse for your argument as a NZ company is less likely to want a Russian aircraft over an American one, yet they chose the Russian one every time the contract came up.

Russian companies charge le$$ & a lot closer than US based 1s that may be busy at home & elsewhere.

if they are bringing along extra barges with helos on then bring one with a Mi-26 on it.

In certain circumstances it could be a good idea, but that helo is too heavy- it could upset the barge's balance, it's needed more on land & will not be as feasible as Mi-38s & other smaller helos, & tandem/tilt-rotors. Brazilian Navy’s PHM Atlantico recently had two-week aviation training in January 2018 that involved British Apache, Chinook, and Merlin helicopters.
https://www.janes.com/article/89574/brazilian-navy-s-phm-atlantico-takes-centre-stage

CH-47 Fuselage length: 15.85m, vs. 26.97m/30.2 m of the CH-53D/K:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Specifications_(CH-47F)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53_Sea_Stallion#Specifications_(CH-53D)
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/ch53k/CH-53K-Brochure-2018.PDF

By other data, the fuselage is still 20.5m, 4.65m longer than CH-47's:
http://all-aero.com/index.php/contactus/35-helicopters/copters/10145-sikorsky-s-65--ch-53-sea-stallion--s-80

Their tail boom can be folded, but even then, the length is reduced by ~5.53m (measured from the schematic below), bringing it to ~24.67m, or > the CH-47 length by ~8.82m:
http://www.flyboyzblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ch53-folded-300x205.jpg

If it's not too big there, a similar or 25% bigger helo will still fit well on future RF UDKs & CVNs. Btw, the Mi-38 is 19.7m long, exceeding the CH-47 by 3.85m:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-38#Specifications_(Mi-38)

https://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/Pages/AmphibiousAssualtShip.aspx
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/USS_Wasp_%28LHD_1%29.jpg

https://bluejacket.com/usmc/images/ch53e_b.jpg

https://navylive.dodlive.mil/2016/07/27/interoperability-enhances-adaptability-in-amphibious-operations/

https://news.usni.org/2016/08/17/21198_underway_uss_america

https://news.usni.org/2019/05/20/lincoln-strike-group-and-kearsarge-arg-exercise-together-outside-persian-gulf#more-60089

Certainly even if it is only a copy of an E-2 it would really be something because an E-2 is a good aircraft and miles ahead of anything Russia or the Soviet Union has ever operated from a carrier in terms of AWACS performance, but Russia seems to want better.

it's not a copy, but a counterpart that may not be inferior to it. If the VMF won't get anything better, they could get a few &/ their designs from China & put their own engines, weapons, & avionics on them.

..the fact that they are not talking about it doesn't mean nothing is happening.

the USSR secrecy rules r over; some1 would have leaked the news of it by now, as with other things they r working on. Journalists & bloggers need to make their living too.

The Bering Sea/Strait has Alaskan & international waters- mines can be released there to be carried by currents, in the waters that r ice free.

Yeah, lots of American and Russian and Japanese fishing boats operate in that area... when several of them explode and sink and the next Snowden stands up and squeals that it was the US government that ordered the mining of open sea waters then the US would be in the shit.

By the same token, helipads & short strips r easier to build & maintain than runways.

Are you crazy? I guess where you live there are only helipads and short strips because they are cheaper and easier to build and maintain?

It doesn't matter where it is or what the conditions are helipads and short strips will always be cheaper and easier to build and maintain than proper airfields but guess what.... helipads and short strips are only good for short range aircraft like Helicopters and small light aircraft so if you have a mine that is producing 20 million tons of coal a year that simply does not cut it... you need a rail line.

If that coal mine is to be operated properly you need lots of people and those people are not going to be living off the land... the rail line can take coal and bring in other stuff but with lots of people an airfield becomes justified and worth the money.

Russian companies charge le$$ & a lot closer than US based 1s that may be busy at home & elsewhere.

If it didn't get the job done they wouldn't rent it no matter how cheap it was.

CH-47 Fuselage length:

I am not understanding why you keep talking about the chinook and the super stallion like they would even be options for the Russian navy...

it's not a copy, but a counterpart that may not be inferior to it. If the VMF won't get anything better, they could get a few &/ their designs from China & put their own engines, weapons, & avionics on them.

I doubt the VMF will be looking to China for aircraft for their carriers.

the USSR secrecy rules r over; some1 would have leaked the news of it by now, as with other things they r working on. Journalists & bloggers need to make their living too.

Show me all your photos of the PAK DA and indeed the MiG-41 then please... Hell we don't even have an idea of what sort of carrier it will be operating from yet either.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Furthermore the yak-44 and for sure its eventual replacement will have foldable wings, reducing the space occupied on the deck.

some AWACS platform for sure but unlikely Yak-44 as this is almost 50 years' old design now, not to mention in 2030s



The RuN aircraft carriers' soap continues...in short till 2023 we know that we dont know

26th of June 2019 Tass:

Krylov center showed a project of an atomic aircraft carrier carrying up to 100 aircraft

The ship for 76 thousand tons is equipped with an electromechanical catapult and springboard

KUBINKA / Moscow Region /, June 26. / Tass /. The Krylov State Scientific Center presented at the International Military-Technical Forum Army-2019 a concept project of an average aircraft carrier with a nuclear reactor and an auxiliary gas turbine unit with a displacement of 76 thousand tons, capable of carrying up to 100 aircraft. The ship is equipped with an electromechanical catapult and springboard, TASS reported on Wednesday at the forum. general director of the center Pavel Filippov.

"The proposed average modification of the Storm-KM project by our center is a 76,000-ton aircraft carrier with a nuclear reactor and an auxiliary gas-turbine installation. The hull is a semi-tamara ship, due to which the ship is approaching by the number of aircraft - up to 100 vehicles to an aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type, said Filippov.

He noted that the electromechanical catapult offered for installation on an aircraft carrier in combination with a springboard reduces the load on deck pilots during takeoff to “quite comfortable” - 2 g.

The head of the center said that the innovations offered by the center's specialists, including a unique hull shape, an improved propulsion control system, the combined use of an electromechanical catapult and springboard, "make it possible to maximize the operation of deck aircraft to the operation of aircraft and helicopters."

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6593379


25th of June 2019, Tass

Scientific Director of KGNC: at the forum "Army-2019" we will present the solution of the aircraft carrier project

https://tass.ru/interviews/6584440

First of all, a fundamentally new solution of the aircraft carrier project. This is a full-fledged aircraft carrier. But with certain limitations. The first version of the conceptual project is a large aircraft carrier with a nuclear (energy) installation with the possibility of accommodating up to 100 aircraft and a displacement of about 100 thousand. tons. We demonstrated this option at the “Army-2017”. Last year, we demonstrated a light aircraft carrier. We are not ashamed of this term - a light aircraft carrier. This is the traditional design of the ship, which was used and used by experts. This year we are demonstrating a fully-fledged aircraft carrier with a displacement of about 60 thousand tons with a very serious, balanced fleet of aircraft.

- What are the features of the ship and its advantages?

A distinctive feature of the variant that is being offered to the fleet today is an aircraft carrier with a non-nuclear power plant. It is offered with a gas turbine power plant, roughly speaking - with full electric propulsion. To a certain extent, it can be compared with the English aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth. They are about the same in terms of displacement, but in terms of the number of aircraft, autonomy and, most importantly, the number of points of launch of aircraft, the advantage of the concept project of the Krylov Center takes place.

GarryB wrote:Yeah, lots of American and Russian and Japanese fishing boats operate in that area...

In higher tensions they'll leave the area long before Russian CBG enters it.

..if you have a mine that is producing 20 million tons of coal a year that simply does not cut it... you need a rail line.

There r gold fields & oil/gas wells w/o any railroads for 100s of miles around. That's why they r going to build them from Yakutsk to Magadan & on to Chukotka & Kamchatka.

I am not understanding why you keep talking about the chinook and the super stallion like they would even be options for the Russian navy...

they r of similar dimensions & the USN carriers have no problems accommodating them. If the VMF get Mi-38s & tandem/tilt-rotors of comparable/bigger sizes, it wouldn't be any different.

I doubt the VMF will be looking to China for aircraft for their carriers.

A time may come when they'll have to swallow their pride. They r already co-developing a big helo & an airliner.

Show me all your photos of the PAK DA and indeed the MiG-41 then please...  Hell we don't even have an idea of what sort of carrier it will be operating from yet either.

Those r still paper planes & u can find their speculative cg pics/videos in seconds: https://www.mk.ru/politics/2018/08/21/zaranee-boyatsya-ekspert-obyasnil-kritiku-mig41-v-ssha.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0vf--CLkUk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZgHwxJMHZ4

If there was a Yak-44 style plane in the works, they would've boasted about it by now. Even if the VMF rejects it, there would be other uses for that airframe, so the investment would be worth it. In the US, the retired S-2 Trackers were converted to fire bombers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_S-2_Tracker#Civil_operators

The C-1 Trader had proposed passenger & tanker variants:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_C-1_Trader#Variants

In higher tensions they'll leave the area long before Russian CBG enters it.

How would they know... civilian fishing boats don't have radar... and why would they leave... their fishing season is fixed if they don't fish they don't get paid...

And what level of tension do they stop fishing?

There r gold fields & oil/gas wells w/o any railroads for 100s of miles around. That's why they r going to build them from Yakutsk to Magadan & on to Chukotka & Kamchatka.

Gold fields don't require enormous volumes of product to be taken out like a coal field for instance, and gas and oil are easier to move by pipeline.

There are lots of ways of moving things... rail or sea or air, but some are better suited than others. Moving coal by rail, you don't have one coal car per engine, you have two or three engines and a few hundred coal cars. The weight and volume of product means it is not efficient to move coal by air, so it would be mostly people and building materials by air.

they r of similar dimensions & the USN carriers have no problems accommodating them.

Still not interesting for the VMF who could not buy either aircraft from the US even if they wanted to.

If the VMF get Mi-38s & tandem/tilt-rotors of comparable/bigger sizes, it wouldn't be any different.

Makes very little sense for them to do so. Normally resupply can be sorted out much easier and faster with ships coming along side the carrier and offloading via cranes. There are few jobs they will be using transport helos for on their carriers. Remember the Russian carriers are air support for their carrier groups... not the other way around.

A time may come when they'll have to swallow their pride. They r already co-developing a big helo & an airliner.

Pride has nothing to do with it. The Chinese are not experts in aircraft design or carrier warfare yet.

Those r still paper planes & u can find their speculative cg pics/videos in second

But are those speculative pics accurate? And there are just as many speculative pics of Russian AWACS designs mostly based on the Yak-44...

For all we know they might create something radically different, their new photonic radar might lead to a biplane design for their AWACS platform that looks like a scaled up An-2 updated with a much more powerful engine.

The radar might be built in to the second wing and the huge wing area means the aircraft can operate from 50m strips of ground.... it might not even need EMALS... and its small engine might allow it to operate for enormous periods of time at high altitude because of its low wing loading... it wont be fast but speed is not really an important factor for an AWACS platform... it might even be amphibious... and able to land in the water next to the carrier and be lifted back on board with a crane for max payload takeoffs it could take off from the water and use kms of space for takeoffs.

We really don't know.

If there was a Yak-44 style plane in the works, they would've boasted about it by now. Even if the VMF rejects it, there would be other uses for that airframe, so the investment would be worth it. In the US, the retired S-2 Trackers were converted to fire bombers:

But we haven't heard anything about anything... you are claiming there is no Yak-44 equivalent because we haven't heard about it... by the same logic there can be no tandem helicopter or tiltrotor AWACS either because we haven't heard about them either.

We have heard about EMALs cats, which means they want to operate a heavy aircraft from their new carrier... you don't use EMAL cats or any cats on VTOL or helicopters, so why are they developing that?

A carrier based fixed wing aircraft used for carrying a large radar and radar processing electronics and lots and lots of fuel is not really related to anything you would want on shore. Very simply the requirements for engine power to operate from a carrier conflict directly with the requirement for long range and long endurance... a land based small AWACS would have weak engine power because even if every air field was nuked it could operate from straight flat bits of motorway all over Russia... 2-3km long sections would be plenty and the bonus of being underpowered would be very low fuel burn and low cruise speed... when you are scanning an area for air threats you don't need to and don't want to cover a lot of ground.

There is no point in resurrecting the Yak-44 which was custom designed for the Ulyanovsk if the new ship will have major differences in design.

I would suggest what they most likely would do is have at least two teams... one will likely take the Yak-44 design and fully update it and modernise it with new materials to dramatically reduce weight and increase fuel volume and of course new engines to improve flight performance and new radar and electronics to maximise performance. The second team I would set the task of starting from scratch and using their imagination to make the best possible aircraft that can carry radar and cargo and fuel in the AWACS, transport, and inflight refuelling roles.

GarryB wrote:How would they know... civilian fishing boats don't have radar... and why would they leave... their fishing season is fixed if they don't fish they don't get paid...

The US/Russia will warn them. The media may also have news of it.

Gold fields don't require enormous volumes of product to be taken out like a coal field for instance, and gas and oil are easier to move by pipeline.

There r/were other mines:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_mine
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/stunning-photos-of-a-siberian-gold-mine-only-accessible-by-air-or-ice-road

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLtc0RAV1fI

https://www.rbth.com/history/326157-kolyma-russias-far-eastern-land

Still not interesting for the VMF who could not buy either aircraft from the US even if they wanted to.

they could get some CH-47s from Iran & their spares from others, if only for training/eval. purposes, or build their own from the designs I posted.

Normally resupply can be  sorted out much easier and faster with ships coming along side the carrier and offloading via cranes.

Only in calm seas. VERTREPs r being done even in heavy seas. Those helos have the range to perform COD missions from the shore.

The Chinese are not experts in aircraft design or carrier warfare yet.

they r mastering it faster than the Russians & r already approaching their level. At least they didn't create extra work for themselves from a sunken drydock & a falling crane.

But are those speculative pics accurate?

Some may be close to the real thing. I saw many drawings in old magazines & books of possible future Soviet aircraft from the Cold War- they were pretty close to what was later actually produced.

by the same logic there can be no tandem helicopter or tiltrotor AWACS either because we haven't heard about them either.

my point is that they could build them later as an alternative to fixed wings for CVNs, UDKs, etc.

We have heard about EMALS cats, which means they want to operate a heavy aircraft from their new carrier... you don't use EMAL cats or any cats on VTOL or helicopters, so why are they developing that?

Don't count chicks before they hatch: EMALS may not be successful. Or they may think otherwise & found that years later, after loosing more planes, pilots, & crews than they anticipate.

A carrier based fixed wing aircraft used for carrying a large radar and radar processing electronics and lots and lots of fuel is not really related to anything you would want on shore.

FYI, not only the USN & FN operates them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye#Other_operators

The Argentine Naval Aviation received seven S-2As in 1962, six S-2Es in 1978 and three S-2Gs in the 1990s. They were used from both aircraft carriers, ARA Independencia and ARA Veinticinco de Mayo and used in the COD (US-2A conversions), Maritime Patrol and ASW roles. They were extensively used in the 1982 Falklands War, first from Veinticinco de Mayo, from where they detected the British Task Force and then from the mainland when the carrier returned to port after the sinking of the cruiser ARA General Belgrano. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-2_Tracker#Argentina

When the PRC gets them (with IRPs- no need to carry lots of fuel), some may be based on Hainan &/ their SC Sea islands.
Russia could use hers off their Arctic/Kuril islands & perhaps Syria, & India hers off the Nicobars & the mainland. In fact, they'll do well in Tibet/Himalayas too, using less hangar space & fuel than their 4 engine AWACS & ASW planes, saving a lot of $ on shorter range missions.

All these new proposals and the continuing back and forth year after year after year only tell you one thing.... A new Russian carrier is at least a decade off.