Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1806
    Points : 1801
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu May 30, 2019 12:05 am

    Let's be honest here, the only reason anyone is talking about VTOL/STOVL is being discussed is because there's very little chance the Russian Navy will get any proper carriers anytime soon.
    So the VTOL concept is looked at again for the upcoming smaller Carriers.

    As for UCAVs, it's more a pipe-dream, against some insurgency sure no prob, but against a Peer-Opponent their usefulness almost go's out the window.
    I just don't see them doing well in a hostile electronic environment.
    Unless maybe as a strike aircraft, but they'd just use Cruise missiles for that.

    Although, they might be useful as a defensive force with EW support withing Russia itself.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2635
    Points : 2633
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu May 30, 2019 12:13 am

    Let's be honest here, the only reason anyone is talking about VTOL/STOVL is being discussed is because there's very little chance the Russian Navy will get any proper carriers anytime soon.
    So the VTOL concept is looked at again for the upcoming smaller Carriers.
    Including the planned UDKs. they'll be more useful than pure CV/Ns/TAKRs for which there r not enough escorts & will cost le$$.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21517
    Points : 22067
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 30, 2019 12:17 am

    Pretty one sided text. This guy is referring to Yak-141 (almost 50 years old design) and comparing to Su-57 with II stage engine? The new deck fighter (either 57 derivative of a new, light one) will be something like 5+, 6G . What if this will be a light fight yer optionally manned? Why is should be like F-35B without same requirements?

    Unless there is some technology breakthrough what else are you expecting him to compare it with?

    He did describe a Yak-141M that never actually flew which the F-35 is based upon, are you expecting something better than the F-35?

    The Yak-141 was not the aircraft it was described as... it was never fully developed so all its performance figure were estimates and optimistic ones at that...

    The cost of spending money developing a new light 5th gen fighter make sense because an alternative to the land based Su-57 would be useful, though I think non stealthy aircraft will be much much cheaper than any light stealthy design and therefore vastly more affordable, but to demand it has vertical landing capacity just makes it too expensive and fragile and complicated... you can ruin a potentially good design and a clever idea by trying to do too much... example for the jury is the F-35... if they just tried to replace the land based CTOL aircraft they would have been fine but they added the Harrier and a vertical landing component that screwed the entire design and made it even more eye wateringly expensive...

    If they are talking about 70K ton carriers, or even that multi hull 45K ton design they don't need vertical landing... so why waste the time and effort and money trying to fix something that isn't broken.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2635
    Points : 2633
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu May 30, 2019 12:58 am

    I wonder why they even don't consider building an Adm. K follow on like the Chinese CV-17 which a modified Liaoning (CV-16) with 30m longer deck & a different island? They want to jump ahead of themselves with CVNs & will end up with nothing for years to come.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 437
    Points : 437
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Thu May 30, 2019 11:39 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:I wonder why they even don't consider building an Adm. K follow on like the Chinese CV-17 which a modified Liaoning (CV-16) with 30m longer deck & a different island? They want to jump ahead of themselves with CVNs & will end up with nothing for years to come.
    Actually CVN refers only to the propulsion that have to be nuclear. As an example the french carrier is a CVN but it is smaller than kuz (about 42000 tons).

    And Russia has already modern marine nuclear reactors to be used in the artika and lider nuclear icebreakers.

    The problems are others.

    Anyway did you read that trump want to pull the plug on EMALS catapult for carriers?


    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/trump-steamed-over-delays-pulls-plug-on-electric-carrier-catapults/
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2635
    Points : 2633
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu May 30, 2019 6:12 pm

    Actually CVN refers only to the propulsion that have to be nuclear. As an example the french carrier is a CVN but it is smaller than kuz (about 42000 tons).
    But in Russia building a CVN under 70K Tons is defeating the purpose IMO. Otherwise, how many Su-33/57 size & EW aircraft + helos & UAVs would fit on it, & how well it'll sail in the stormy Arctic, N. Atlantic /N. Pacific waters?
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4916
    Points : 4948
    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 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri May 31, 2019 1:11 pm

    flamming_python wrote:They're going to keep fantasizing about these new ideas every year, and never actually get anything done.
    +++
    AlfaT8 wrote:Let's be honest here, the only reason anyone is talking about VTOL/STOVL is being discussed is because there's very little chance the Russian Navy will get any proper carriers anytime soon. So the VTOL concept is looked at again for the upcoming smaller Carriers.


    they're keeping temp high so to speak  lol1  lol1  lol1


    FP wrote: If they want a carrier, then they have to create it with today's technology in mind, but of course with scope for modernization in the future.
    The Su-57 is a thing, and the naval version has been talked about for years. It's a perfectly sound concept with the capabilities that Russia currently has. Later on the Su-57 will be developed into an unmanned version and with it the naval Su-57 can be turned into an unmanned model too.

    With 1 in mind this makes sense, but then why talk about new fighter programme and 10 years time? to add an arresting hook? and SW update? Two different fighters for 1 CVN? guess we need to wait until anything materializes Smile


    well so far speculation only big size small size, we need to wait Im afraid




    Alfa wrote:
    As for UCAVs, it's more a pipe-dream, against some insurgency sure no prob, but against a Peer-Opponent their usefulness almost go's out the window.
    I just don't see them doing well in a hostile electronic environment.
    Unless maybe as a strike aircraft, but they'd just use Cruise missiles for that.


    like S-70 ?




    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Fri May 31, 2019 1:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4916
    Points : 4948
    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 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri May 31, 2019 1:30 pm

    GarryB wrote: Unless there is some technology breakthrough what else are you expecting him to compare it with?

    He did describe a Yak-141M that never actually flew which the F-35 is based upon, are you expecting something better than the F-35?

    then why don't you compare F-16 with MiG-35?

    You cannot require from a fighter to be maneuverable, super stealthy, light, with one engine with enormous payload. Officially F-35 can carry a bit less then Su-57. Check wiki.



    GB wrote:
    The cost of spending money developing a new light 5th gen fighter make sense because an alternative to the land based Su-57 would be useful, though I think non stealthy aircraft will be much much cheaper than any light stealthy design and therefore vastly more affordable, but to demand it has vertical landing capacity just makes it too expensive and fragile and complicated...

    this was discussed at nausea here so lets wait till anything materializes. The only what was said is new fighter programme was started. If it was Su-57k then 10 years for adding arrester hooks a bit strange.


    Since new fighter programme was started then most sense would be to build something light and advanced. Not only for navy.




    GB wrote: If they are talking about 70K ton carriers, or even that multi hull 45K ton design they don't need vertical landing... so why waste the time and effort and money trying to fix something that isn't broken.

    Nothing is broken yet. Assuming that this unofficial news is true, then there will be one CVN entering service when Kuz is about to be scraped. So no qualitative change really comparing to current status.




    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4916
    Points : 4948
    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 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri May 31, 2019 1:32 pm

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote: Anyway did you read that trump want to pull the plug on EMALS catapult for carriers?


    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/trump-steamed-over-delays-pulls-plug-on-electric-carrier-catapults/

    it is difference between Russians and US. US applies tech then thinks how to make it work. In Russia they test fo ryears before going to series.


    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Actually CVN refers only to the propulsion that have to be nuclear. As an example the french carrier is a CVN but it is smaller than kuz (about 42000 tons).
    But in Russia building a CVN under 70K Tons is defeating the purpose IMO. Otherwise, how many Su-33/57 size & EW aircraft + helos & UAVs would fit on it, & how well it'll sail in the stormy Arctic, N. Atlantic /N. Pacific waters?

    true, my only cocnern is that big and expensive means likely 1 an donly.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2635
    Points : 2633
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri May 31, 2019 6:21 pm

    ..big and expensive means likely 1 and only.
    If built, it'll have as "busy" life as the Adm K- it's current & future role is mostly to show the flag & as a prerequisite to belong in the blue water navy club.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1954
    Points : 1944
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  hoom on Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:27 am

    I'm intrigued by part of the sentence from https://flotprom.ru/2019/%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8F16/
    On" Army 2019 "we will demonstrate three models: a non-nuclear aircraft carrier up to 70 thousand tons, which will provide the most effective launch positions to increase the launch intensity of the aircraft, a landing ship with a displacement of 25–27 thousand tons and the Leader destroyer - told Polyakov.
    Has Krylov been working on a cunning layout that allows simultaneous launch & retrieve?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21517
    Points : 22067
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:26 pm

    You cannot require from a fighter to be maneuverable, super stealthy, light, with one engine with enormous payload. Officially F-35 can carry a bit less then Su-57. Check wiki.

    Officially the F-16 can carry a payload of 7 tons but I have never seen such a loadout ever as anything like a practical loadout...

    An F-35 has ordinary performance in terms of dogfight performance... with the payload they claim it would be a real dog... but then the US claim the B-1B can carry an enormous payload... but that included external stores which it never had the capacity to have because such weapon points were wielded over by international agreement...

    The only what was said is new fighter programme was started. If it was Su-57k then 10 years for adding arrester hooks a bit strange.

    I agree, a hook and a wing fold shouldn't take 10 years but then the Navy is notorious for not spending money on their aircraft just like the Air Force... they ignored capable multi role MiG-29SMT upgrades that reduced operational costs by 40% because they didn't want to spend money on all the new guided air to ground ordinance that would make them useful.

    They got rid of MiG-27K and MiG-27M and Su-17/20/22 fighter bombers and also MiG-21 and MiG-23 fighter/interceptors and could have replaced them with MiG-29SMT and Su-27SM aircraft that were fully multi role and significantly better than all the previous types by several times, but they just wanted interceptors and dumb bombers like the original Su-25...

    Since new fighter programme was started then most sense would be to build something light and advanced. Not only for navy.

    Agree to a degree, but if you look at the current US situation... the F-22 seems to be more capable than the F-35 despite the new level of avionics fitted to the F-35... because the new stuff does not seem to be working properly.

    A bigger aircraft can carry bigger sensors and more weapons and equipment and carry it further.

    I really don't think new aircraft will be carrying 10 ton payloads into battle most of the time except bombers... for air to air use they will likely carry a lot less weight so it is more about the number of weapons capacity rather than max weight... the F-35 with 6 internal weapons... is in trouble.

    Nothing is broken yet. Assuming that this unofficial news is true, then there will be one CVN entering service when Kuz is about to be scraped. So no qualitative change really comparing to current status.

    I rather suspect the Kuznetsov will remain in use for a very long time to come... certainly a lot longer than many think because most of the time something is better than nothing... even if it is just reduced to a UCAV carrying platform in the future...

    true, my only cocnern is that big and expensive means likely 1 an donly.

    Yeah, forget what you read from Papadragon... there is no way these CVNs are going to cost Russia 13 billion US dollars each... maybe 3 or 4 but not 13...

    If built, it'll have as "busy" life as the Adm K- it's current & future role is mostly to show the flag & as a prerequisite to belong in the blue water navy club.

    If the K was in the water it would be in Venezuela as we speak... being useful... and potential Russian trade partners in the region will be thinking their might actually be an alternative to being the US's bitch.

    Has Krylov been working on a cunning layout that allows simultaneous launch & retrieve?

    The traditional angled deck is tried and true, but that is not to say other alternatives are not possible and should be ignored... I would love to see something innovative and clever and lead to a new layout and design.

    It is generally held that a CVN has a rule of thumb capacity of one aircraft per 1,000 ton displacement... so a 100K ton ship can carry 100 odd aircraft of all types, but it also relates to cost with every thousand tons increasing purchasing and operational costs dramatically...

    If that wide hulled multi hull design with larger capacity than the Kuznetsov (which is what they want) that weighs a mere 45K tons which would make it cheap to buy and to operate would be some sort of miracle of modern ship design... you would need to test it in all sorts of conditions and sea states, but it would be a bit of a panacea in terms of aircraft carrier design...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2635
    Points : 2633
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:41 pm

    If the K was in the water it would be in Venezuela as we speak...
    China invested more there & still didn't send her combat ready CV-16; the VMF could send its CGN, as before, if 1 was ready instead, for a lot le$$. A few DDG/FFGs & SSGNs that occasionally surface, supported by the Russian &/ allied AFs would be more useful than a TAKR in the USA's backyard.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3673
    Points : 3665
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Isos on Tue Jun 04, 2019 4:38 pm


    If the K was in the water it would be in Venezuela as we speak... being useful... and potential Russian trade partners in the region will be thinking their might actually be an alternative to being the US's bitch.

    It would have been useless. Venezuelan economy is destroyed because of US sanctions not US troops.

    Sanctions would be still there even with K off Venezuelan coast.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21517
    Points : 22067
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:55 am

    China invested more there & still didn't send her combat ready CV-16;

    What makes you think it is combat ready?

    What operational deployments has it been on recently or ever?

    What is the air component of operational fighters and AWACS aircraft that it will carry?

    A few DDG/FFGs & SSGNs that occasionally surface, supported by the Russian &/ allied AFs would be more useful than a TAKR in the USA's backyard.

    The N in SSGN means Never... that is they never surface during an operational mission... you never see a sniper put on a high viz vest and run around for an hour in a conflict to make sure the enemy know he is there...

    It would have been useless. Venezuelan economy is destroyed because of US sanctions not US troops.

    Sanctions would be still there even with K off Venezuelan coast.

    Having a Russian carrier off their coast would show support and give them the reassurance that their painful transition from a western focused economy based on international trade organisations controlled or dominated by the US to an eastern economic focus with other countries that perhaps have also been shunned by the US or the west for various reasons will at least will not involve the risk of a US invasion which is pretty much what happened to Iraq when Saddam suggested not using US dollars for oil sales and also to Libya when Gaddafi suggested the same...

    What they should also do is build a refinery in Venezuela to process their oil so they can pretty much sell to anyone they please...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2635
    Points : 2633
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:15 am

    What makes you think it is combat ready?
    What operational deployments has it been on recently or ever?
    What is the air component of operational fighters and AWACS aircraft that it will carry?
    Good questions!
    ... it was reported in November 2016 that the Liaoning is now combat ready. In mid-December 2016, China staged the first live-fire drills involving the Liaoning. ..The physical and operational limitations of the Liaoning and its associated personnel and equipment indicate that the Liaoning might be best suited for regional missions short of high-intensity conflict. As the PLAN improves its capabilities, future missions could take the Liaoning and its accompanying sailors, fleet escorts, and aircraft farther from China’s periphery.
    The Liaoning’s lack of an aircraft catapult, inefficient power plant, and the relative inexperience of its aviators and support team do not augur well for sustained high-intensity combat operations—even within waters close to the Chinese Mainland, where the Liaoning could expect support from land-based aircraft and radars. Accordingly, Chinese strategists advocate using the Liaoning for regional missions—including humanitarian aid and disaster relief (HADR), training exercises with other nations, showing the flag, and asserting Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea—for which the Liaoning appears better suited.5 Furthermore, the Liaoning has considerable utility as a tool of naval diplomacy—providing helicopter lift for HADR missions and engaging in multinational training exercises will signal to other countries that China is a responsible rising power. Such efforts would complement China’s growing commitment to multilateral initiatives, such as UN peacekeeping efforts. As the PLAN improves its combined arms capabilities and the Liaoning’s personnel become proficient in higher-tempo operations, the Liaoning’s repertoire could expand to include fleet air defense and maritime and land strike further afield from Chinese waters. These missions would require enhanced personnel as well as greatly improved situational awareness, communications, and logistical support far from current Chinese bases—assets that the PLAN may not yet possess in sufficient quantity or quality.

    https://chinapower.csis.org/aircraft-carrier/

    Shortcomings aside, the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan & Cuban AFs could assist the PLAN CBG if ever get deployed there. The likely route is via the Suez Canal & Med. Sea or around S. Africa & S. Atlantic - the very areas they may be glad to show the flag! But since they didn't so far, it's not politically & militarily justified/feasible.
    The N in SSGN means Never... that is they never surface during an operational mission...
    They could make an exception that proves the rule; a former Soviet VMF sailor told me years ago that his SSGN went on the surface all the way to Guinea. This mission would be more political to make a statement a CGN would otherwise be called to perform.
    Having a Russian carrier off their coast would show support and give them the reassurance..
    That still wouldn't stop infiltration of proxies/SOFs from Colombia & Brazil. Is Russia prepared to bomb their camps in Colombia & Brazil?If so, they better hone their power projection skills!
    The USN used CVNs to bomb Afghanistan & Iraq while the insurgents in both were coming from Pakistan, Syria & Iran to kill Americans & their allies. It goes both ways!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21517
    Points : 22067
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:38 pm

    Shortcomings aside, the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan & Cuban AFs could assist the PLAN CBG if ever get deployed there. The likely route is via the Suez Canal & Med. Sea or around S. Africa & S. Atlantic - the very areas they may be glad to show the flag! But since they didn't so far, it's not politically & militarily justified/feasible.

    I suspect their focus is to counter US carriers, but I very much doubt they want to start off doing it in Americas back yard as they could call it... it is for intimidating Japan and the US regarding taiwan and south china sea issues first... maybe down the line they might use it to protect their investments... but for now I don't think they want to risk it.

    They could make an exception that proves the rule; a former Soviet VMF sailor told me years ago that his SSGN went on the surface all the way to Guinea. This mission would be more political to make a statement a CGN would otherwise be called to perform.

    Was probably at a time when tracking them was not the problem... attacking and sinking them before they launched all their missiles was probably the issue of the time.

    That still wouldn't stop infiltration of proxies/SOFs from Colombia & Brazil.

    Actually I think it would make Trump step back a bit.... infiltration could be called terrorism and therefore stamped upon... hard...

    Having a Russian carrier down there means having Su-33s and MiG-29KRs there too... they could easily be transferred to land bases and used against an insurgent force from another country.

    Of course lets be realistic... the US doesn't give a fuck about the Venezuelans or bloodshed... their previous plan involved breaking out criminals from prison and giving them assault rifles... I am sure most real Venezuelans would prefer to be protected from such people...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2635
    Points : 2633
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:29 pm

    Was probably at a time when tracking them was not the problem...
    The Oscars r still noisy & keeping them submerged the whole time won't make much difference to the USN SSNs & MPA. But surfacing there will send a clear message to every1 in the region that they mean business. SSN/SSK escorts could be given them as well.
    Having a Russian carrier down there means having Su-33s and MiG-29KRs there too... they could easily be transferred to land bases and used against an insurgent force from another country.
    For a lot le$$, they & AF fighters can deploy to those bases with tanker support, like they did/do in Syria w/o the Adm. K. that needs to last a long time, as u wrote, w/o adding more wear & tear on the other side of the world which would add more time in the yards/dry docks that they don't have enough of.

    Navy's F-35C Stealth Fighters Won't Fly From Troubled New Ford Class Carriers For Years
    Now, lawmakers want to make it illegal for the Navy to take delivery of the next carrier in the class if it can't deploy the jets.
    I doubt the EMALS can ever be debugged to perform as good as the steam CAT. In the long run, it could be safer to use STOVLs & rumps.
    Instead of up to 4 Yak-44 size AEWAC, they could have 5-6+ smaller UAVs & helos/tilt-rotors to control & assist them to give the same, if not better, radar coverage & situational awareness. It's also possible to have more powerful equipment & bigger range on Mi-38s:
    https://www.defenseworld.net/news/24866/Russia_to_Develop_Mi_38_helicopter_Based_AWACS#.XPgHA4hKiyI

    https://www.urdupoint.com/en/world/russia-to-create-new-airborne-command-post-mo-634626.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-38#Specifications_(Mi-38)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-31#Specifications_(Ka-31)


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:28 pm; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : add links, text)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21517
    Points : 22067
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:38 am

    The Oscars r still noisy & keeping them submerged the whole time won't make much difference to the USN SSNs & MPA. But surfacing there will send a clear message to every1 in the region that they mean business. SSN/SSK escorts could be given them as well.

    Doesn't matter if they are noisy... if they upgrade them with 72 Zircon missiles which fly at mach 9 to over 1,000km or 72 Kalibr subsonic 2,600km range cruise missiles it wont matter if the USN can track them... they still have to deal with them before they can launch an attack on US forces in the region...

    You could have SSKs and SSNs there in ambush to attack any US platform that tries to sink the noisy easy to track Oscars... and the Oscars can have anti torpedo torpedos so the first few weapons you use to kill those Oscars might not get the job done and might alert nearby more quiet Russian assets to the presence and general location of US SSNs...

    For a lot le$$, they & AF fighters can deploy to those bases with tanker support, like they did/do in Syria w/o the Adm. K. that needs to last a long time, as u wrote, w/o adding more wear & tear on the other side of the world which would add more time in the yards/dry docks that they don't have enough of.

    If they want to be a global power with global reach expecting enemy forces to allow you to ship your air power into a region is a little naive and certainly something that could bit you on the ass... a container ship the British used to transfer helos to the Falklands war was hit and sunk which really changed their plans and timetables because it cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in aircraft at a time when they were about to be put into use.

    I doubt the EMALS can ever be debugged to perform as good as the steam CAT.

    The Russians don't have steam cat technology so if they want to operate any heavy aircraft from carriers then it makes rather more sense to develop and then debug EMALS than to try to invent Steam cats first.

    When developing a new sniper rifle they don't start by developing a flintlock version first and then upgrade to a cap firing model...

    The technology involved in EMALs will be very useful in terms of all electric drive vehicles on land, sea, and air, and in space... it wont be super cheap or super easy but will be useful across a wide range of fields... from EM boosted powder charge guns to EM guns and beyond.

    In the long run, it could be safer to use STOVLs & rumps.

    In the short term they can continue to use ramps, but there are currently no STOVL alternatives unless you count the Ka-31/35 whose performance is rather too limited to be the primary AWACS platform.

    Investment in EMALS makes enormous sense and will lead to new materials and new technological capabilities that will improve all sorts of things in Russian military and civilian production.

    Instead of up to 4 Yak-44 size AEWAC, they could have 5-6+ smaller UAVs & helos/tilt-rotors to control & assist them to give the same, if not better, radar coverage & situational awareness. It's also possible to have more powerful equipment & bigger range on Mi-38s:

    Technology has moved on since the Yak-44 was proposed and their new radar technology looks rather promising... the high speed helos offer potential performance that would make tiltrotor designs redundant... the cheapest and lowest risk option would be a rigid airship design that could temporarily land on a carrier or be tethered to a cruiser or destroyer or frigate even.

    An EMALS assisted Yak-44 type platform offers low flight costs with good endurance and altitude without needing extra propulsion power to get such a heavy aircraft off the surface of such a ship.

    Of course another option could be a Be-200 sized amphibian AWACS aircraft that could be operated from a large container like ship... ie have four aircraft stored on a large semi covered deck with a large crane to lower the aircraft onto the water where they could take off or land and be recovered back on to the ship for refuelling or changing crews. The centre section of the deck could be covered, with each end open to allow cranes at each end to recover or launch aircraft from the sea... large doors could be closed for storms... make the vessel an ice breaker and the aircraft able to operate on water and land (with wheels) or Ice (with skis)... or perhaps modify it with a small hovercraft type undercarriage like those cool Bartini designs so it can operate from ice or land or sea...[/quote]
    [/quote]


    Last edited by GarryB on Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:58 am; edited 1 time in total
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2635
    Points : 2633
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:10 am

    The Russians don't have steam cat technology so if they want to operate any heavy aircraft from carriers then it makes rather more sense to develop and then debug EMALS than to try to invent Steam cats first.
    They can get steam CAT technology from the Chinese that r testing it along with the EMALS. The latter can be improved, but still may have unacceptable failure rate; the benefits may not justify the costs. 1-2 steam CAT will be enough, but helos & tilt-rotors may be an alternative to heavy fixed wing COD & AEWC aircraft.
    CAT requires extra space, personnel, power, & maintenance time.

    Of course another option could be a Be-200 sized amphibian AWACS aircraft..
    They can't take off in heavy seas.
    A Chinook-style helo could perform well as COD & AEWC as well, with
    Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (6100 m)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Specifications_(CH-47F)

    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14540/chinooks-over-afghanistan-the-unsung-workhorse-of-americas-never-ending-war

    There was the Yak-24 in production & the abandoned Yak-60 tandem helos, so they could develop a scaled down follow on with new materials & powerplants:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-24
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-60
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21517
    Points : 22067
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:21 am

    They can get steam CAT technology from the Chinese that r testing it along with the EMALS. The latter can be improved, but still may have unacceptable failure rate; the benefits may not justify the costs. 1

    What makes you think Chinese steam Cat tech is so perfect... how long have they had it operational... which of their aircraft currently use steam cats to operate from Chinese carriers? How many years of operational experience does china have in operating these cats in different areas of the worlds oceans including arctic areas where the Russians will demand it be able to be used?

    Have you noticed US carriers with steam cats and plenty of years of operational experience don't operate in the arctic very much because steam is made of water which freezes in the arctic... I have seen people in minus 40 degrees C temperatures throw boiling hot cups of coffee into the air which turns into a mist of ice crystals and does not reach the ground as a liquid... how do you think a steam catapult system will get on in those sorts of conditions... even an experienced mature system.

    Of course there is a simple fix for the US... don't sail into the polar regions with aircraft carriers but such a solution is not much use for Russia who will likely be basing its carriers in arctic and semi arctic regions.

    Not trying to rip off the Chinese, but the Russians need new technology here... EMALS technology might also be useful for designing electric high speed trains and many other things that involve accelerating large heavy objects around the place... imagine a fully reusable vertical launch missile lofter that throws missiles into the air before their rocket motors are started... they already use gas powered systems and hot rocket systems for that but an EMALS might be more efficient and fully reusable immediately without replacement so new missiles can be cheaper and smaller and lighter because they wont need to include the gas booster section to be carried around as reloads.

    1-2 steam CAT will be enough, but helos & tilt-rotors may be an alternative to heavy fixed wing COD & AEWC aircraft.
    CAT requires extra space, personnel, power, & maintenance time.

    Considering the location of the Granit launch tubes on the Kuznetsov they might be able to install an EMALS cat system there for testing... its location on the deck and the firewalls around it would mean it would not really be much use for anything else except carrying a different type of missile.

    If you are going to be building a large carrier with slightly better capacity than the Kuznetsov as they keep saying they want, then why go half-arse on something as critical as its AWACS component?

    It is like spending millions of dollars on a brand new tractor but using the old 3m wide grass cutting trailer your old ride on motor mower used...

    Things are going to be changing over the next few years regarding radar technology... these new photonic radars sound very very interesting... but of course their might be problems. Talk of photographic like performance against stealth targets at more than 400km suggests an amazing resolution... but also the problem of seeing the world through a telescope... only seeing a small area at a time... like seeing the world through a straw... they might need wide FOV normal radars to find things worth looking at more closely, so a combination of short, medium and long wave radar antenna as well as these new photonic radar sensors too... sounds a lot for a helo, which over its operational life will cost rather more than a light fixed wing aircraft to operate and maintain.

    They can't take off in heavy seas.
    A Chinook-style helo could perform well as COD & AEWC as well, with
    Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (6100 m)

    And how often do you see any carrier based aircraft take off in heavy seas?

    Also why bother with a Chinook design... as you mention they already tried that layout and it was inferior to other designs like the Mi-6 and Mi-26...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2635
    Points : 2633
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:51 am

    GarryB wrote:What makes you think Chinese steam Cat tech is so perfect... how long have they had it operational... How many years of operational experience does china have in operating these cats in different areas of the worlds oceans including arctic areas where the Russians will demand it be able to be used?
    They may have them long before the VMF does. The Bohai Gulf gets cold enough to freeze & there r icebreakers for that. For training, they can fly AEWCs from land bases; during deployments, they can launch them in warmer waters so the CAT won't create ice buildup on their decks.
    Of course there is a simple fix for the US... don't sail into the polar regions with aircraft carriers but such a solution is not much use for Russia who will likely be basing its carriers in arctic and semi arctic regions.
    The USN deployed CV/Ns into the cold N. Atlantic & Norwegian fiords before, practicing flight ops there.
    Considering the location of the Granit launch tubes on the Kuznetsov they might be able to install an EMALS cat system there for testing..
    I doubt they will remove missiles & change other things for that. A barge can be used to test it at sea/lake.
    If you are going to be building a large carrier with slightly better capacity than the Kuznetsov as they keep saying they want, then why go half-arse on something as critical as its AWACS component?
    Even on the CVN/TAKRN, with all the armament, radars, & other equipment, there may not be enough power generated left for the EMALS for their simultaneous use. They operated nuclear ice breakers & subs for a long time but not CVNs, unlike the USN, as u correctly mentioned; there will be many kinks to be corrected & learned to avoid.
    And how often do you see any carrier based aircraft take off in heavy seas?
    They can still do it in the sea states that an amphibian would break apart.
    Also why bother with a Chinook design... as you mention they already tried that layout and it was inferior to other designs like the Mi-6 and Mi-26...[/quote] Those 2 r not deck helos & r too big; as land based, they r perfect. But a tandem helo the size of between CH-46 & CH-47 is more power efficient & safer; it could serve as COD, AEWC, SAR/ASW/Marine/VDV/SOF/gunship platform for less $ & time to develop than the tilt-rotors, even if its performance is not as good:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Vertol_CH-46_Sea_Knight#Variants

    The CH-47F can fly at speeds of over 175 mph (282 km/h) with a payload of more than 21,000 lb (9.5 t). ..
    A CH-47F Block 2 is planned to be introduced after 2020. The Block 2 aims for a payload of 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) with 4,000 ft (1,200 m) and 95 °F (35 °C) high and hot hover performance, eventually increased up to 6,000 ft (1,800 m),..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Variants

    The USAF uses them alongside their CV-22s.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Specifications_(MV-22B)

    Such a helo can be very useful in the Far North, Siberia & the RFE:
    The civilian version of the Chinook is the Boeing Vertol 234. It has been used for a variety of purposes by a range of different civil operators, having often been used for passenger and cargo transport, along with niche roles such as aerial firefighting and to support various industrial activities, including logging, construction, and oil extraction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook
    http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/bvertol_234.php
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Helicopters
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21517
    Points : 22067
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:17 am

    They may have them long before the VMF does.

    Steam cat technology is not good for the Russian Navy because they want to be able to operate their carriers in arctic waters... their two major naval bases are in arctic or near arctic regions.

    If China wants to operate their carrier in the Arctic then it is something they need to consider too, but I suspect once they have perfected the technologies associated with aircraft carriers, they will be more interested in projecting power to South and Central america and Africa than the north sea route which will largely be under the control of Russia... which will likely be managed in a way that does not hurt Chinese interests...

    The Bohai Gulf gets cold enough to freeze & there r icebreakers for that. For training, they can fly AEWCs from land bases; during deployments, they can launch them in warmer waters so the CAT won't create ice buildup on their decks.

    Most of Russias northern border is frozen much of the year, for them very cold weather is more of an issue which makes the EMALS much more attractive for many many reasons.

    China is much less effected by such considerations and the quicker easier steam cats could be a realistic stopgap, but for Russia there wont be that much difference in the time and energy and money needed to develop a working and mature steam system and the time and energy and money to develop a working and mature EMALS system... the difference is that the technology and materials that would be needed to make the latter work will be applicable in a much wider range of areas... electrical power manipulation, generation and storage, as well as magnets and plasma technologies can be applied to other areas like maglev trains and EM accelerators.

    Imagine a 5km long maglev train line that at the end curved up like a rollercoaster to point vertically that could be used to accelerate an object to several kms per second that could replace the first and biggest and heaviest and most expensive component of a space launch rocket... electrical propulsion is going to be way more efficient than chemical propulsion especially for large heavy loads...

    Some where in the Ural mountains the side of a mountain that offers a useful angle could have a similar track ready to launch objects upwards with a better supported track able to handle enormous weights up to reasonable flight speeds... remember the first stage rocket of most space launch systems are the most powerful and filled with the most fuel just to get the rest of the spacecraft moving and climbing... by the time they reach 10,000m altitude they are often only slightly supersonic but they are on their way... getting a much smaller object moving rather faster at 4km altitude could reduce the launch costs by an enormous amount...

    The USN deployed CV/Ns into the cold N. Atlantic & Norwegian fiords before, practicing flight ops there.

    Minus 40 degrees?

    How many are based in Alaska and normally operate only in the Arctic ocean... like a Russian carrier might need to?

    I doubt they will remove missiles & change other things for that. A barge can be used to test it at sea/lake.

    Not to test the EMALS... to upgrade the Kuznetsov to make it able to carry a heavier aircraft AWACS platform...

    Even on the CVN/TAKRN, with all the armament, radars, & other equipment, there may not be enough power generated left for the EMALS for their simultaneous use.

    A Russian CVN would only be using EMALS to launch AWACS aircraft... their fighters wouldn't need them for normal operations... so one launch every 6-8 hours is hardly going to require the entire ship to power down for a launch... and with AWACS aircraft operating those radars on the ship will spend most of their operational lives listening and not transmitting so the power they will be using will be fairly minimal.

    They operated nuclear ice breakers & subs for a long time but not CVNs, unlike the USN, as u correctly mentioned; there will be many kinks to be corrected & learned to avoid.

    All their ships use radar and have weapon systems that use power, so power management wont really be a brand new thing for them I suspect.

    The time it takes to prepare an aircraft to launch means it can charge up capacitor banks over a period of time before a launch without demanding full power from the power source.

    They might want to launch two heavy aircraft at once but they wont be launching dozens at a time... as I mentioned above only the AWACS and perhaps eventually a heavy strike model aircraft might be launched but most of the aircraft will be fighters that could take off conventionally...

    They can still do it in the sea states that an amphibian would break apart.

    If that were true then an AWACS aircraft taking off or landing on a heaving deck should also break apart for the very same reasons... in high sea states very few ships will be operating normally...

    Those 2 r not deck helos & r too big; as land based, they r perfect. But a tandem helo the size of between CH-46 & CH-47 is more power efficient & safer; it could serve as COD, AEWC, SAR/ASW/Marine/VDV/SOF/gunship platform for less $ & time to develop than the tilt-rotors, even if its performance is not as good:

    At a time when new high speed helos are being developed, why would Russia want to dig up a dinosaur and build a new copy of it?

    Why build a tandem rotor design helo when they could built a very large coaxial rotor model that they can put a forward driving tail mounted propeller or turbofan engine for better speed?

    With folding main rotors it could be interesting, but at the end of the day a fixed wing aircraft will be cheaper to buy and operate and have better performance.

    The CH-47F can fly at speeds of over 175 mph (282 km/h) with a payload of more than 21,000 lb (9.5 t). ..
    A CH-47F Block 2 is planned to be introduced after 2020. The Block 2 aims for a payload of 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) with 4,000 ft (1,200 m) and 95 °F (35 °C) high and hot hover performance, eventually increased up to 6,000 ft (1,800 m),..

    Nice features but all vastly inferior to existing Russian helicopters...


    ... from wiki unfortunately:

    Afghanistan Chinook recovery

    In the spring of 2002, a civilian Mi-26 was leased to recover two U.S. Army MH-47E Chinook helicopters from a mountain in Afghanistan. The Chinooks, operated by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, had been employed in Operation Anaconda, an effort to drive al Qaeda and Taliban fighters out of the Shahi-Kot Valley and surrounding mountains. They found themselves stranded on the slopes above Sirkhankel at altitudes of 2,600 metres (8,500 ft) and 3,100 metres (10,200 ft). While the second craft was too badly damaged to recover, the first was determined to be repairable and estimated to weigh 12,000 kilograms (26,000 lb) with fuel, rotors, and non-essential equipment removed. That weight exceeded the maximum payload of 9,100 kilograms (20,100 lb) at an altitude of 2,600 metres (8,500 ft) of the U.S. military's Sikorsky CH-53E.[6]

    The Mi-26 was located through Skylink Aviation in Toronto, which had connections with a Russian company called Sportsflite that operated three civilian Mi-26 versions called "Heavycopters". One of the aircraft, aiding in construction and firefighting work in neighboring Tajikistan, was leased for $300,000; it lifted the Chinook, flew it to Kabul, then later to Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan to ship to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, U.S. for repairs. Six months later, a second U.S. Army CH-47 that had made a hard landing 160 kilometres (100 mi) north of Bagram at an altitude of 1,200 metres (3,900 ft) was recovered by another Sportsflite-operated Mi-26 Heavycopter.[6]

    Such a helo can be very useful in the Far North, Siberia & the RFE:
    The civilian version of the Chinook is the Boeing Vertol 234. It has been used for a variety of purposes by a range of different civil operators, having often been used for passenger and cargo transport, along with niche roles such as aerial firefighting and to support various industrial activities, including logging, construction, and oil extraction

    They already have Mi-8/17 and Mi-26 and will soon add Mi-38... there is little point in adding a brand new design they haven't even started on yet...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2635
    Points : 2633
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:31 pm

    How many are based in Alaska and normally operate only in the Arctic ocean... like a Russian carrier might need to?
    They'll train & transit there, but operate in warmer waters like Atlantic, Med. Sea, W. Pac., & the Indian Ocean. We discussed this already: CVNs have nothing to do in the high Arctic, with other assets to defend approaches to Russia from that vector can do it better & safer. Their A-50/100s, Il-38s & Tu-142s can provide better radar coverage there than any organic AEWC/AWACS deck asset- no need to launch them at all, unlike the ASW/SAR/ice recon helos.
    If that were true then an AWACS aircraft taking off or landing on a heaving deck should also break apart for the very same reasons...
    A large CVN is a lot more stable in heavy seas than an amphibian; fixed wings can CATOBAR on it up to certain sea/wind state/speeds, while an amphibian will be marooned in the same weather. More argument to use rotary wings for those missions!
    Why build a tandem rotor design helo when they could built a very large coaxial rotor model that they can put a forward driving tail mounted propeller or turbofan engine for better speed?
    Well, the Ka-102 is now being developed: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ka-102.htm https://www.aviaport.ru/conferences/40762/45.html

    Why discard a very successful concept that can outdo the CH-47 & help Mi-26s? Also this 1 is interesting, although slower (speed isn't essential for it), it would be able to lift more than a tilt-rotor (a variant of it is also possible): https://dspace-erf.nlr.nl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.11881/3487/3-A-paper.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

    The Russians could also design a similar helo, but they now have better designs, listed above: http://www.avxaircraft.com/programs
    https://newatlas.com/radical-helicopter-design-has-dual-tilting-blades-and-can-travel-at-over-270mph/32840/

    If an AWACS & COD variants r built, they won't need the CAT at all.
    Better invest time $ in them than in steam or EMALS catapults that may not work as required, causing losses of aircraft & crews.
    As with everything,  there r trade offs. IMO Russia won't gain much & will loo$e more by having CATOBAR on her future CVN/TAKRs.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21517
    Points : 22067
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:22 am

    We discussed this already: CVNs have nothing to do in the high Arctic, with other assets to defend approaches to Russia from that vector can do it better & safer. Their A-50/100s, Il-38s & Tu-142s can provide better radar coverage there than any organic AEWC/AWACS deck asset- no need to launch them at all, unlike the ASW/SAR/ice recon helos.

    Correction: US CVNs might have nothing to do with the Arctic... With icebreakers making the north sea route viable they will want to base their CVNs with the northern fleet or the pacific fleet or both so operations in arctic conditions will be normal and necessary... there will be a lot of commercial traffic moving through there... which of course will make Greenpeace squeal because it will be killing polar bears of some such crap, but it will be mostly Russian territorial waters which they will want a military presence and will be used to transit from Pacific to Atlantic or back fairly quickly giving them access to most of the planet most efficiently.

    The US can put pressure on Panama or Egypt to block the relevant canals but they can't stop the Russians using the NSR...

    A large CVN is a lot more stable in heavy seas than an amphibian; fixed wings can CATOBAR on it up to certain sea/wind state/speeds, while an amphibian will be marooned in the same weather. More argument to use rotary wings for those missions!

    Helicopter operations are severely restricted in conditions of high cross winds... for fixed wing aircraft the carrier could simply turn in to the wind and use the high winds to its advantage.

    Well, the Ka-102 is now being developed:

    At 36 metres long they might as well use the 40 metre long Mi-26 which is already operational... and with much greater lifting capacity...


    Why discard a very successful concept that can outdo the CH-47 & help Mi-26s? Also this 1 is interesting, although slower (speed isn't essential for it), it would be able to lift more than a tilt-rotor (a variant of it is also possible

    Did you even read the chart at the end showing potential performance?

    Payloads were 2 tons... an Mi-17 can already do better than that, and while it is slower speed is irrelevant to an AWACS platform... carrying lots of electronics and lots of fuel is what is important.

    If an AWACS & COD variants r built, they won't need the CAT at all.
    Better invest time $ in them than in steam or EMALS catapults that may not work as required, causing losses of aircraft & crews.

    All those blades and engines will create more problems than they solve and will likely kill more crew and pilots than conventional aircraft using CATs... even if EMALS fails the Russians have excellent ejection seats. The Yak-38 probably has the record for most aircraft lost in non combat situations but didn't lose very many pilots because of its excellent crew evacuation systems...

    EM cats offer much better performance and would actually be safer than steam cats... with steam cats you set the pressure and fire... a small plane with a light weapon load and a light fuel load will have a light setting and a big heavy aircraft with full payload and fuel will have a very high setting... get the setting wrong and the small light plane gets its nose wheel ripped off as it is taking off or the big heavy plane lands directly into the water because it did not get enough of a boost from the cat system to get airborne.

    An EM cat system can sense resistance from its load and increase power or decrease power in a fraction of a second to prevent a problem... you could have it so that it adapts as the aircraft takes off so you might only have to set the type of aircraft being launched and it will do the rest which is always better than having someone work it out and make a choice that cannot be changed during launch.

    As I have mentioned the technologies that need to be developed for EM cats will be very useful and will have broad uses across the field of military and civilian products.

    Their new nuclear powered space tug could use an EM catapult to launch the rendered down parts of satellites down into a steep reentry path to burn them up in the atmosphere to get rid of space junk for instance. With control it could launch smaller satellites into different higher orbits or to approach the ISS to be captured and taken on board for reuse or study... from the moon a large flat area could have a large EM cat build where you could put material to be sent back to earth with electricity from solar panels or nuclear power instead of hydrogen and oxygen rocket fuels which could otherwise be used for supporting life on the base for breathing and drinking... without an atmosphere to slow it down if you accelerate horizontally an object to escape velocity it will continue horizontally but as the moon curves away from it it will continue out into space... cheap and simple transport...

    As with everything, there r trade offs. IMO Russia won't gain much & will loo$e more by having CATOBAR on her future CVN/TAKRs.

    The technology will be useful in a range of fields, and the benefit of having fixed wing reliable and stable AWACS will make any surface action group much much safer and better able to defend itself which will save rather more money in the long run.

    Most of the time... ie during peace time it is hard to justify launching missiles at any air or sea blip on a radar... being able to scan for groups of things and to send aircraft to rapidly and conclusively investigate makes the commander of the surface fleets job much much easier and much less stressful.

    Unlike US cruiser commanders, Russian ones wont get medals for shooting down Iranian airbus aircraft from Iranian territorial waters... so being able to launch an aircraft to have a look and be certain instead of barking out radio orders on the wrong frequencies and leaving it till the last second and then launching a missile to shoot the perceived threat down only to find out it was not what you thought it was can be eliminated... sounds worth it to me.

    With new long range scramjet powered missiles they could put half a dozen missiles slightly bigger than the R-37M on their AWACS platform with double the flight speed and double the range of the current missiles to engage enemy AWACS and inflight refuelling tankers too along with a dozen 9M100 missiles to shoot down any missiles fired at it...

    Sponsored content

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 37 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:20 am