Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Jun 28, 2019 12:57 am

    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?
    Isos
    Isos

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Isos on Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:02 am

    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.

    They can't really start the development since there is no carrier being developed. I suggested they start it and sell it to China and India. But the first will develop its own and India will make the mistake of buying a US boeing with Israeli avionics and radars for the same price as the carrier itself.
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:27 am

    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.

    Isos
    Isos

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Isos on Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:52 am

    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.

    I just saw the comparison with yak 44 and indeed it's not the same class. But it's still an interesting plane.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 499
    Points : 499
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:42 am

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

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Jun 28, 2019 6:05 pm

    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.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Jun 29, 2019 12:37 am; edited 7 times in total (Reason for editing : add text, corrections)
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:04 am

    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.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:42 am

    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 Razz

    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 Razz Razz Razz

    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.



    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:10 am

    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
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:36 am

    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.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:30 pm

    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.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:51 pm; edited 5 times in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    avatar
    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 600
    Points : 610
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  ATLASCUB on Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:11 pm

    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.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:39 pm

    ATLASCUB wrote: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.

    Decade from decision at least two until contract plus several more years after that until construction starts

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:40 pm

    I expect the UDK, which is a small carrier, will come sooner.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4785
    Points : 4906
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  kvs on Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:41 pm

    ATLASCUB wrote: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.

    Russia needs to focus at the NATO dogs cramming its borders. This includes the breakdown of the INF treaty and the START treaty.
    Imperial marine punitive airforce platforms are a distinct N-th level priority. Russia's economy will be developing regardless of NATO
    and military spending will give the GDP further stimulus. Tens years from now it will be better off and can engage luxury projects.

    BTW, 10 years from now is only possible if the ship contract is signed today. I think 20 years from now is more realistic.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:04 pm

    They already have modern symmetric & asymmetric means to deliver nukes & PGMs. More important tasks r preventing more anti-Russian color revolutions & civil wars on Russian perimeter & separatism in Russia itself, as well as land transportation to tie all the time zones of the country better. Some borders will also have to be redrawn, & soon.
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:09 am

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

    Well Russia wont warn them... all they are doing is sailing past... why would they warn them?

    And what is the US going to say to its fishing vessels... GTFO of there we are laying sea mines there shortly to start WWIII?

    The media might mention the tension and situation the Russian ships are being sent to, but they are hardly going to announce that the US navy has broken all international rules and openly mined an international water way without declaration of war...

    There r/were other mines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_mine

    In the title of that link it says it is a gold mine that has both ice road and air links... doesn't that prove my point?

    Gold mines don't produce thousands of tons of gold a week... so you could send the product out by truck or aircraft. Coal mines can produce thousands of tons of coal per day it is just not practical to take that out of the region by weather effected truck or aircraft.

    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.

    Doesn't need them and doesn't want them.

    Only in calm seas. VERTREPs r being done even in heavy seas.

    Amphibious aircraft can operate in a range of sea states, and most of the time sea states too rough for amphibious ops are generally also too rough to have a supply ship come along side and load with a crane.

    Those helos have the range to perform COD missions from the shore.

    Russia needs an aircraft carrier because it does not have military bases in every country around the world where they could base aircraft... most resupply for Russian vessels will be via Russian supply vessels.

    they r mastering it faster than the Russians & r already approaching their level.

    Says who? They haven't even managed to design and build their own naval fighter yet. We don't know what progress the Russians have made which makes your claim amusing at best.

    At least they didn't create extra work for themselves from a sunken drydock & a falling crane.

    No, they are too busy with their trade war with the US and occupation of Tibet and plans to take back Taiwan.

    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.

    Depends on the artist, I remember a lot of US DoD drawings showing new Soviet equipment being exact copies of western equipment...

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

    Why spend a lot of money on an alternative that has worse performance and higher operational costs... spend that money to get real more practical designs working properly.

    High speed helos makes sense because the technology and designs can be applied as upgrades to existing types... the Hind has been improved with wings and main and tail rotors and engines developed for the Havoc as an example.

    Don't count chicks before they hatch: EMALS may not be successful.

    Hahahahaha... a bit like saying man will never set foot on Mars... the first systems don't need to be perfect... the only aircraft on board they have to get airborne are the AWACS platforms and they already have Ka-35s as backup for that anyway.

    Or they may think otherwise & found that years later, after loosing more planes, pilots, & crews than they anticipate.

    Would not be any worse than the money and time wasted with the VSTOL programmes of the past. The knowledge gained in vectoring afterburning jet engine nozzles and automated ejection systems was probably useful but not much else. With EMALS there is plenty of useful technologies that need to be mastered involving large amounts of electrical current, control and transfer of power, plasma, and of course magnetism and superconductors, as well as all electric drive which they are also working on. All of which will be very useful in the full range of uses from land and sea and undersea vehicles to aircraft and also space craft.

    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.

    Large fuel capacity is still important... with a catapult to help accelerate the aircraft the extra weight is actually a good thing as it provides momentum... it also means when refuelling mid flight you can take on more fuel and operate for longer without needing to refuel in flight too.

    With a larger load of fuel on board an AWACS can also refuel fighters operating with it to extend their operational range too... if you are operating 400km away from your carrier all the aircraft around you are directing need to have the fuel to fly 400km to return to the carrier to land safely... with a lot of fuel on board your AWACS aircraft it could refuel aircraft operating with it with a little top up to get home safely... having such an aircraft operating over the Kuznetsov in Syria would have saved two aircraft... a Fulcrum and a Flanker... they could have been topped up and flown to a land base when it was realised they could not land on the carrier.

    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.

    No. It tells you they are thinking about what their actual needs are and are not just going to blunder forward with something bigger and more expensive than the previous model like the US does. Stealth will fix everything...

    Decade from decision at least two until contract plus several more years after that until construction starts

    They are already talking about laying down a carrier in about 2025, which makes that statement already wrong...

    I expect the UDK, which is a small carrier, will come sooner.

    There was an article mentioning a couple of Mistral replacements being started in the next few years...

    https://tass.com/defense/1065639

    More important tasks r preventing more anti-Russian color revolutions & civil wars on Russian perimeter & separatism in Russia itself, as well as land transportation to tie all the time zones of the country better.

    Russia needs to expand its access to the worlds countries outside of the west, and increase its trade with them, bypassing land and air trade routes that have to cross western controlled land and airspace... and by sea is the best way to do that.

    Russia also needs to push back and support anti west colour revolutions of their own... start interfering in spain and ireland and the US, there are oppressed people all over the west wanting support to get a fair deal in their own countries... start playing the game with the same rules the west applies to itself... but be careful to only do this with western countries... the rest of the world can be treated with dignity and respect so they don't confuse you for being more of the same (ie the west) when it comes to international relations...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:21 am

    GarryB wrote:Well Russia wont warn them... all they are doing is sailing past... why would they warn them?
    they'll warn their own; when they suddenly leave, others will follow.
    And what is the US going to say to its fishing vessels... GTFO of there we are laying sea mines there shortly to start WWIII?
    They won't need to reveal anything-just make something up- i.e. exercises, tests, etc.
    ..they are hardly going to announce that the US navy has broken all international rules and openly mined an international water way without declaration of war...
    there'll be all sorts of fake news & speculations, but the SVR/GRU will alert the VMF that something is up.
    In the title of that link it says it is a gold mine that has both ice road and air links... doesn't that prove my point?
    There r many resources undeveloped besides coal in Yakutia & Chukotka that can only be commercially exploited with year-round railroads extended there; to build them, V/STOLs r needed before, during & after their construction, to speed it up by improving logistics/supply/trade/firefighting/disaster relief/passenger service & save lives.
    Doesn't need them and doesn't want them.
    If true, that may change.
    Amphibious aircraft can operate in a range of sea states, and most of the time sea states too rough for amphibious ops are generally also too rough to have a supply ship come along side and load with a crane.
    tandem-rotors r more stable in the air & those amphibians in the water; UNREPs r safer as they can move against the wind/waves for more stability with a set speed. A freak wave/squall can slam 1 ship against the other at anchorage, toppling cranes/cargo & killing people/causing fires & other damage. The USN, FN & RN done UNREPs for decades for a reason.
    most resupply for Russian vessels will be via Russian supply vessels.
    most, but not all- emergency supplies of something they run out of can be flown to a closest country to be picked up by a deck based long range helo. The same with personnel transfers & medevacs.
    They haven't even managed to design and build their own naval fighter yet.
    That may not be true:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_FC-31#Future

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

    They also have trainers that could be used as light fighters:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongdu_L-15#Design_and_development
    No, they are too busy with their trade war with the US and occupation of Tibet and plans to take back Taiwan.
    They recently done a refit of CV-16 while testing/building 2 new CVs & so far managed to avoid embarrassing accidents.
    Depends on the artist, I remember a lot of US DoD drawings showing new Soviet equipment being exact copies of western equipment...
    Didn't see those or they got smarter/fired by the time I saw the pics I'm referring to.
    Why spend a lot of money on an alternative that has worse performance and higher operational costs... spend that money to get real more practical designs working properly.
    They had tandem rotor helos before, but not fixed wing AWACS for CATOBAR ops; by trial & error, they'll learn what's best for them. Russian conditions r different, thus there's no need to emulate the USN & the PLAN. U can find a 100% guarantee only on a cemetery- most, if not all of the folks there paid taxes before being laid to rest.
    High speed helos makes sense because the technology and designs can be applied as upgrades to existing types...

    But COD helos don't need high speed.
    the only aircraft on board they have to get airborne are the AWACS platforms and they already have Ka-35s as backup for that anyway.
    I bet the CODs/ASW too; there was another 1: http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/ka-35.php

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K0zCz_aikvA/TfootqBnG3I/AAAAAAAACAo/xD5_HvIZlao/s1600/Kamov_Ka-35.jpg
    With EMALS there is plenty of useful technologies that need to be mastered involving large amounts of electrical current, control and transfer of power, plasma, and of course magnetism and superconductors, as well as all electric drive which they are also working on.
    all that may take more time than they have before putting a CVN to sea.

    Large fuel capacity is still important... with a catapult to help accelerate the aircraft the extra weight is actually a good thing as it provides momentum...
    when land based, they can take less fuel & later get topped off mid-air, if need be.
    With a larger load of fuel on board an AWACS can also refuel fighters operating with it to extend their operational range too...
    bad idea- the turbulence from radome may not allow it. If something goes wrong u may lose a tanker/fighter instead of a more expensive AWACS + its entire crew.
    There was an article mentioning a couple of Mistral replacements being started in the next few years...
    https://tass.com/defense/1065639
    dead link!
    Russia needs to expand its access to the worlds countries outside of the west, and increase its trade with them, bypassing land and air trade routes that have to cross western controlled land and airspace... and by sea is the best way to do that.
    For that, they'll need overseas bases/artificial islands as the West still dominates/controls all the oceans except the Arctic. Plus canals across Iran, Nicaragua, & Thailand. As mentioned, most of their trade is within Eurasia & they need to secure their perimeter 1st before venturing to W. & S. Hemispheres. For ops in & around Syria, Venezuela & Cuba, they didn't fail so far w/o a CVN.
    What can Argentina, Brazil, Australia & NZ offer to Russia in terms of trade Russia can't get from Asia & Africa? Coffee, lamb, beef, & kangaroo meat? Minerals?They now have better agriculture; Siberia, Arctic & the FE has all the periodic table of elements; exotic products that most can't even afford r not in high demand there.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:31 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:40 am

    they'll warn their own; when they suddenly leave, others will follow.

    They are fishermen... when they see someone else leave they wont leave too... they will steal their spot...

    And again... what is Russia going to say to its fishermen?

    We are on our way to a dispute in central or south america, things might get a bit hot... everyone stop earning a living and go home... I don't think they would say that and even if they did I don't think they would listen...

    They won't need to reveal anything-just make something up- i.e. exercises, tests, etc.

    So even if they got their way and all the civilian craft left the region and they filled the place with sea mines and the Russian carrier and several major Russian ships are sunk... WWIII and the remaining ships in that little group can stop and launch cruise missiles at the US of A because it would be nice and close.... but then they could also mine the Med so what is your point?

    As long as America is prepared to start WWIII the Russian fleet is not going to be effective?

    But the obvious question is how do you get everyone out of there without tipping off everyone that something is up... and when they realise what you are doing, what is really to stop them doing exactly the same to you... a passing roll on roll off ferry dropping mines through the persian gulf or the med or outside the main international port of rotterdam or new york or london... mines are cheap and easy to mass produce and you can booby trap them easily enough too.

    there'll be all sorts of fake news & speculations, but the SVR/GRU will alert the VMF that something is up.

    And what do you expect to happen then? The VMF sends out some minesweepers and finds lots of live current model US mines all over the place... defuse them and put new fuses in them and lay them in the Persian gulf or just the waters of the US coast as paybacks?  Who cares if anyone gets sunk... after all they will be American mines, made in the US of A.

    There r many resources undeveloped besides coal in Yakutia & Chukotka that can only be commercially exploited with year-round railroads extended there; to build them, V/STOLs r needed before, during & after their construction, to speed it up by improving logistics/supply/trade/firefighting/disaster relief/passenger service & save lives.

    Yeah because that is what V-22s do all day... build rail lines through the Sahara desert and other desolate places... except it is actually cheaper to go into Siberia and use local wood and build rail lines by using rail cars carrying the people and materials needed to build rail lines... land an aircraft like an Il-476 first with heavy machinery like graders first to clear out and build a proper all weather runway and then bring in more heavy machinery with bigger aircraft like An-124s and start preparing the ground from that end and of course at the other end of the rail line you can use normal railcars for people and vehicles and tracks while a mobile mill can make all the wooden components you will even need... you are in Siberia after all.

    Helicopters are never used for building railways... they just are not efficient... you can use them to transport a group of people from anywhere to anywhere and small cargo loads, or individual trees in a selective logging operation but you don't use them to make roads or rails... or ports either.

    If true, that may change.

    Currently not trying to buy any. They tried tandem rotor design helos and didn't like them.. the Yakovlev design bureau made one from memory and it was useless... it lost in competition to the Mi-6 or something.

    tandem-rotors r more stable in the air & those amphibians in the water; UNREPs r safer as they can move against the wind/waves for more stability with a set speed. A freak wave/squall can slam 1 ship against the other at anchorage, toppling cranes/cargo & killing people/causing fires & other damage. The USN, FN & RN done UNREPs for decades for a reason.

    Coaxial rotor helos are just as stable and less effected by crosswinds, and several of their planned future high speed helicopter types are coaxials like the Kamov range of helos they already operate at sea.

    most, but not all- emergency supplies of something they run out of can be flown to a closest country to be picked up by a deck based long range helo. The same with personnel transfers & medevacs.

    With the current state of western sanctions and general hostility Russia can't rely on any country to cooperate, if it is emergency supplies a transport aircraft could fly direct to the carriers location and drop the supplies by parachute either onto the deck or to be picked up by SAR Ka-27... it would actually be faster.

    A carrier related light transport aircraft should have better range and much better speed than any tandem helicopter or tiltrotor aircraft.

    That may not be true:

    They can't even make their own engines...

    This is another paper aircraft and there is no evidence it is anywhere near operational... let alone its actual performance.

    They had access to the plans for the F-35 and they can monitor reports and information about problems and issues with the F-35 so there is every chance they might actually make a better aircraft and avoid some issues and problems with the original design, but I wont be holding my breath.

    They also have trainers that could be used as light fighters

    There is a common thought around the place that jet trainers are currently so expensive that the only way you can justify buying them is to pretend they can also replace light fighter aircraft.

    The problem there of course is that they are expensive for what they are so converting them into fighters makes a fairly weak fighter, that really isn't that cheap anyway. To make a current trainer useful as a fighter it needs new engines, new radar, new avionics suite, new self defence suite... you know... all the stuff that makes good fighters expensive.... and you end up with a small fighter that is not cheap that has short range and small payload because it was only supposed to be a trainer anyway...

    They recently done a refit of CV-16 while testing/building 2 new CVs & so far managed to avoid embarrassing accidents.

    And how would we know if they were having problems or not, their media seems geared to talking about success rather than defeat... it is very much modelled on western media you could say.

    Didn't see those or they got smarter/fired by the time I saw the pics I'm referring to.

    I remember T-80 drawings showing Abrams type vehicles, and of course the Tunguska, or ZSU-30-2 as it was known then looked exactly like Gepard but with single barrel 30mm cannon.

    They had tandem rotor helos before, but not fixed wing AWACS for CATOBAR ops;

    They had tandem rotor helos and rejected them because conventional rotor design models were better.

    For the problem of fixed wing CATOBAR ops for AEW they developed the Yak-44, not any tiltrotor or tandem helicopter design.

    But COD helos don't need high speed.

    Doesn't matter. The extra speed is there if wanted but they can fly as slow or as fast as they want. COD fixed wing aircraft can fly further and faster and likely with a better payload capacity too.

    I bet the CODs/ASW too; there was another 1

    Ka-35 is the new designation for the upgraded Ka-31 AEW helo.

    all that may take more time than they have before putting a CVN to sea.

    What makes you think that?

    Even if they layed down the keel tomorrow the ship would not be in the water for a good 8-10 years...

    when land based, they can take less fuel & later get topped off mid-air, if need be.

    They could do that at sea too.

    bad idea- the turbulence from radome may not allow it. If something goes wrong u may lose a tanker/fighter instead of a more expensive AWACS + its entire crew.

    Depends on the situation... and who says it will have a radome?

    The new photonic radar designs sound like they can be surface mounted on an aircrafts skin... a nose mounted array, a tail mounted array, and an array down the each side of the fuselage or even wingtip pods...

    dead link!

    26 Jun, 23:08
    Russia to start building 1st helicopter carrier in 2021, says source
    There are plans to build the lead universal amphibious assault ship and deliver it to the customer under the state armament program through 2027
    © Vitaly Nevar/TASS

    KUBINKA /Moscow Region, June 26. /TASS/. Russia plans to build two universal amphibious assault ships capable of carrying 15-20 helicopters under the state armament program through 2027, a source in the domestic defense industry told TASS on the sidelines of the Army-2019 international military and technical forum on Wednesday.

    "In the coming months but no later than the end of the year, the Defense Ministry will complete developing technical specifications for a universal amphibious assault ship and send them to the United Shipbuilding Corporation. The state armament program through 2027 includes two universal amphibious assault ships. A preliminary design has been worked out. Technical design work will begin in 2020 and the construction of the lead ship will start in 2021," the source said, adding that the work’s chief contractors had not yet been determined.

    There are plans to build the lead universal amphibious assault ship and deliver it to the customer under the state armament program through 2027 while the work on the first serial-produced vessel will be completed before the early 2030s, the source said.

    "Although the technical specifications have not yet been formulated, it is possible to speak already now that universal amphibious assault ships will get a large dock chamber to house assault boats and will also be capable of carrying a large air group of helicopters of various designation, including 15-20 permanently based attack gunships," the source said.

    Head of Russia’s United Shipbuilding Corporation Alexei Rakhmanov earlier said that Russia needed to build its own helicopter carriers in the future for the prompt deployment of a large grouping of forces. Moreover, these helicopter carriers should not repeat France’s Mistral project.

    Universal amphibious assault ships, also called helicopter carriers, are distinguished by their large displacement (20,000 tonnes and more) and can carry a large group of heavy helicopters of various designation (up to 16 helicopters aboard Mistral ships and more than 30 aboard US Wasp-class vessels), and also vertical take-off rotorcraft.

    Universal amphibious assault ships can carry from several hundred to over one thousand marine infantry personnel, boats and other craft for landing the assault force and transport the armor. Universal amphibious assault ships normally feature a powerful combat control system and can act as a command and control vessel for a grouping of forces.


    For that, they'll need overseas bases/artificial islands as the West still dominates/controls all the oceans except the Arctic.

    During the cold war teh Soviets simply created artifical moorings out in the open water for Soviet ships to dock and change crews and refuel and resupply.

    As mentioned, most of their trade is within Eurasia & they need to secure their perimeter 1st before venturing to W. & S. Hemispheres.

    They had a lot of trade with Europe but that is diminished because of EU sanctions. They need to look to alternative markets and trade partners that wont sanction them and bully them the way the west does... there are actually plenty of countries that don't want to tell Russia how to treat its gays and don't expect Russia to tell them the same... trading with Russia would be a refreshing change from dealing with the west.

    For ops in & around Syria, Venezuela & Cuba, they didn't fail so far w/o a CVN.

    They don't need any navy at all, but they have one, so they might as well make it safer in open waters away from Russian air cover.

    What can Argentina, Brazil, Australia & NZ offer to Russia in terms of trade Russia can't get from Asia & Africa? Coffee, lamb, beef, & kangaroo meat? Minerals?They now have better agriculture; Siberia, Arctic & the FE has all the periodic table of elements; exotic products that most can't even afford r not in high demand there.

    I wouldn't bother with Australia and New Zealand for the moment... we are too far up Americas arse to hear anything anyone else says... eventually we can improve trade links. Central and South America really don't know what normal international trade is because America has not allowed it... giving them alternatives will both help them and help Russia, and of course in Africa there is plenty of wealth, both mineral, vegetable, and human wealth too. There are plenty of countries in Africa that the west has branded bad and wont deal with normally... this is a real opportunity for Russia and China to go in and trade and help them grow and develop in a more healthy and normal way...


    Last edited by GarryB on Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:44 am; edited 1 time in total
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:43 pm

    GarryB wrote:They are fishermen... when they see someone else leave they wont leave too... they will steal their spot...
    They all got sat. comm./internet & can listen to each other- if the CG/VMF tells any of them to leave, &/ they see things heating up, they will all return to port or go elsewhere, instead of risking their lives, boats, catch, & insurance rates.
    So even if they got their way and all the civilian craft left the region and they filled the place with sea mines and the Russian carrier and several major Russian ships are sunk...
    During high tensions, the VMF won't risk getting caught in a narrow strait- they remember the Tsushima disaster in the wider strait. Losing even capital ships r not the same as losing armies & cities; they r not worth starting WWIII that would kill 100s of Ms. Mines can be used to delay/slow ships down or close some areas to traffic. Subs & planes then can use LR AShMs against them. They may save time using the NSR but not ships, aircraft, & lives.
    Helicopters are never used for building railways...
    They r accompanied with power/pipelines & other construction:
    The total time for constructing transmission lines was reduced by half in comparison with the usual methods.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02380168

    https://www.fairlifts.com/construction-helicopters/transmission-line-construction/
    https://www.tdworld.com/features/helicopters-lift-linemens-efficiency

    https://www.corporatehelicopters.com/helicopter-services/helicopter-utility/powerline-helicopters/

    https://air2.com/helicopter-utility-construction-projects/

    http://www.heli.co.nz/powerlinepipeline-construction/

    https://helihub.com/tag/pipeline-patrol/

    https://www.helicopterlinks.com/utility/
    They tried tandem rotor design helos and didn't like them.. the Yakovlev design bureau made one from memory and it was useless... it lost in competition to the Mi-6 or something.
    Not completely useless: the Mi-6 appeared 4 years later:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-24#Design_and_development

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-6

    If it was a dead end concept, those designers wouldn't make fools of themselves. The West has the CH-53s but still keeps the CH-47s that can lift more, (even the CH-53K when flying hot/high over the mountains):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53_Sea_Stallion#Operators
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53K_King_Stallion#Operators

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53_Sea_Stallion#Specifications_(CH-53D)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_CH-47_Chinook_operators

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#CH-47F
    Coaxial rotor helos are just as stable and less effected by crosswinds, and several of their planned future high speed helicopter types are tandems like the Kamov range of helos they already operate at sea.
    IMO, they may not be big enough for more demanding AWACS/COD roles. With pulling props their speed will be sufficient.
    ..a transport aircraft could fly direct to the carriers location and drop the supplies by parachute either onto the deck or to be picked up by SAR Ka-27... it would actually be faster.
    if the shutes don't open, the cargo is lost &/ causes damage on deck.
    In a storm, a diver lowered from a helo can die while attaching a hook to it.
    A carrier related light transport aircraft should have better range and much better speed than any tandem helicopter or tiltrotor aircraft.
    true, but having a common tandem/tilt-rotor airframe with ASW/SAR/Marine/VDV assault/COD/tanker variants will save a lot of $. A plane can only spot & drop survival gear while a helo/tilt-rotor can however/land & lift them out of the water/ground.
    They can't even make their own engines...
    wait a couple more years!
    and you end up with a small fighter that is not cheap that has short range and small payload because it was only supposed to be a trainer anyway...
    that's besides the point: they have them!
    And how would we know if they were having problems or not,..
    their own local fans would've spilled the beans by now;
    u can't hide a disaster in China- even before Mao died in 1976, the West learned of famines & earthquakes there that killed Ms.
    They had tandem rotor helos and rejected them because conventional rotor design models were better.
    that was then; now new models can be as good, if not better in some applications.
    For the problem of fixed wing CATOBAR ops for AEW they developed the Yak-44, not any tiltrotor or tandem helicopter design.
    again, that was during the CW when the arms race was in full swing & every American system had to have its Soviet counterpart. Being so late, its development stopped with a mock up.
    What makes you think that?
    as a rule, most things there take longer to develop, if at all.
    They built the Buran but never used it. The US has USS Ford but may never use its EMALS as intended. The VMF may never even get a CVN. Russia may have a regime change & go quasi-socialist again. the process of re-building it with modern features will put the current naval buildup well "into the right".
    and who says it will have a radome?
    still, mixing 2 very different functions on expensive plane with a trained crew is dangerous. The USN had the S-3s that acted as ASW/EW/COD & tankers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_S-3_Viking#Variants
    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19789/the-insanely-logical-case-for-turning-s-3-vikings-into-the-navys-new-mq-25-tanker-drone
    During the cold war the Soviets simply created artificial moorings out in the open water for Soviet ships to dock and change crews and refuel and resupply.
    there rn't that many places outside of balmy Med. Sea to do it safely. China could do the same in the SC Sea but built permanent artificial islands on reefs & rocks instead.
    ..trading with Russia would be a refreshing change from dealing with the west.
    still, that volume of trade won't pay for CVNs.
    They don't need any navy at all, but they have one, so they might as well make it safer in open waters away from Russian air cover.
    they need it, but if it's used wisely, it won't need as much air cover as CVN would bring. A UDK group can use its helo/drone AWACS to ID & shot down/sink attackers just as well.
    this is a real opportunity for Russia and China to go in and trade and help them grow and develop in a more healthy and normal way...
    Most of those countries trade will be with China, as her middle class will be as big, if not bigger than the entire RF population. The VMF may bankrupt Russia even more than it did the USSR if it gets more CVNs & escorts, etc. that the country can support. Better to invest in Atomflot that can help on the NSR & be militarized in war time.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:29 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:34 am

    They all got sat. comm./internet & can listen to each other- if the CG/VMF tells any of them to leave,

    You haven't explained why either of those groups would order civilian vessels in the area to leave... and even if they did most are fishing boats, not nuclear cruisers operating at 30 Knots.

    &/ they see things heating up, they will all return to port or go elsewhere, instead of risking their lives, boats, catch, & insurance rates.

    It is a big ocean I rather doubt they would see the US mine layers or the Russian grouping heading through... and once it became common knowledge that the US was mining the areas where they fish they can forget about insurance anyway.

    During high tensions, the VMF won't risk getting caught in a narrow strait- they remember the Tsushima disaster in the wider strait. Losing even capital ships r not the same as losing armies & cities; they r not worth starting WWIII that would kill 100s of Ms. Mines can be used to delay/slow ships down or close some areas to traffic. Subs & planes then can use LR AShMs against them. They may save time using the NSR but not ships, aircraft, & lives.

    But the reverse is true too, the VMF have plenty of mine countermeasures vessels in service... more than NATO combined and are actually making a lot more, plus their new carriers and destroyers have mine countermeasures and anti sub capacity... plus western antiship missiles are no where near as lethal as current Russian anti ship missiles let alone the new ones they are in the process of introducing.

    Any evidence of US forces mining the strait between Russia and Alaska and they can simply use tactical nukes to clear the way... nothing sets off a mine field like an underwater nuclear detonation... quick and easy...

    They r accompanied with power/pipelines & other construction:

    For things 20m or more above the ground they are useful because they are quicker than using scaffolding, but for roads and rails and indeed runways then they are not useful at all.

    Not completely useless; the Mi-6 appeared 4 years later:

    That is my definition of useless... they made a few but didn't come up with a real replacement till four years later... in other words they had every chance to fix it and make it work but in the end something else that was much better was made instead.

    If it was a dead end concept, those designers wouldn't make fools of themselves. The West has the CH-53s but still keeps the CH-47s that can lift more, (even the CH-53K when flying hot/high over the mountains):

    Yeah, but American helos have proven useless in afghanistan and they have had to resort to using a real helicopter at least two times to recover aircraft they would otherwise have had to leave there...

    IMO, they may not be big enough for more demanding AWACS/COD roles. With pulling props their speed will be sufficient.

    They don't have to be, they are fine for what they do... it makes sense to develop a new platform for AWACS/COD based on a more conventional aircraft using EMALS.

    if the shutes don't open, the cargo is lost &/ causes damage on deck.

    The VDV could manage their parachutes, they are pretty much world class experts.

    In a storm, a diver lowered from a helo can die while attaching a hook to it.

    Why would they deliver cargo during a storm. Why recover cargo during a storm. If they operate during storms then they just have to accept a level of death amongst their crews.

    true, but having a common helo/tilt-rotor airframe with SAR/COD variants will save a lot of $.

    You mean like the VSTOL model of the F-35 saves money too... the programme is costing 1.5 trillion dollars.

    It only makes sense to use standardised airframes if that airframe is also suitable to the job... it actually works the other way around if they are not.

    A plane can only spot & drop survival gear while a helo/tilt-rotor can however/land & lift them out of the water/ground.

    We are talking about a carrier group that likely has a dozen rather massive ships in the group with all sorts of sensors and equipment... high speed small boats used for carrying small teams of special forces could be sent out to recover pilots or people in the water if needed too there are plenty of options available.

    that's besides the point: they have them!

    Most countries have jet trainers...

    their own local fans would've spilled the beans by now;

    Spilled what beans... there were lots of cases of Chinese engines bought by Russia having mechanical problems... logically speaking it would be fairly natural therefore to assume Chinese ships with the same engines probably had problems too... how many local fans posted info on that exactly?

    It is not a rip at China... good reliable engines are hard to make even when you have some to copy... Russia thought the Chinese engines would be good so they bought some, but it turns out they need a lot of work to get them to be reliable... clearly mistakes were made during copying, likely in terms of the materials parts were made of and their durability.

    Time and operational experiences would lead to clues as to which components need to be stronger or better made and over time the problems could be solved, but why would Russia waste time and money waiting for China to get that right, when they could use their own immature engines and do the same and get reliable Russian engines eventually.

    u can't hide a disaster in China- even before Mao died in 1976, the West learned of famines & earthquakes there that killed Ms.

    Simple satellite imagery showing missing houses that are not rebuilt or food crops damaged by weather or disease or insects will give indications of such things, but wont tell you if that aircraft they have built that looks like an F-35 is actually as stealthy as a real American F-35 or if it can even effectively use its weapons and systems in combat or not.

    that was then; now new models can be as good, if not better in some applications.

    Some calculations on paper or computer model might suggest that, but who is going to fund production on the suggestion that it might be an OK helo that fits in the middle of the current Russian helicopter range. Especially now that Russia and China are making a new middle weight heavy lift helo that is really in between the Mi-38 and Mi-26 performance range anyway.... a new tandem type would be expected to sit in there somewhere too which makes them rather less likely to be built or needed.

    again, that was during the CW when the arms race was in full swing & every American system had its Soviet counterpart. Being so late, its development stopped with a mock up.

    When funding was cut for the carrier that it was going to operate it, its funding stopped too, but AFAIK it was not cancelled as such.

    They built the Buran but never used it.

    They used it once in unmanned mode and it worked fine.

    The VMF may never even get a CVN. Russia may have a regime change & go socialist again. Re-building it with better features will put naval buildup well "into the right".

    A socialist change wouldn't effect the future of the VMF that much... if they are to expand in the future they need to do it by sea.

    there rn't that many places outside of balmy Med. Sea to do it safely. China could do the same in the SC Sea but built permanent artificial islands there instead.

    There aren't many places they actually need to do it.

    still, that trade won't pay for CVNs.

    If they don't have a world wide naval surface group then who is going to trade with little Russia... the US can just park an aircraft carrier off that countries shore and claim their leader is not an elected leader but is a dictator and try to overthrow that country after crushing it with economic sanctions.

    If Russia can't defend its friends with sea power they wont end up having many friends.

    they need it, but if it's used wisely, it won't need as much air cover as CVN would bring. A UDK group can use its helo/drone AWACS to ID & shot down/sink attackers just as well.

    JUST AS WELL... hahahahahahahahahahahhaha... are you going to tell the PVO or can I tell them that all their MiG-31 and MiG-29/35 and Su-27/30/34/35/57 are just an expensive waste of time and what they really need is tiltrotors with AWACS and they will be fine...

    Any real enemy air force would cut through such a defence like butter.

    Most of their trade will be with China, as her middle class will be as big, if not bigger than the entire RF population.

    The Chinese middle class seem to want American shit, not Russian. Besides only trading with each other would not be healthy for either state, they need to trade with the rest of the world and the rest of the world wants to trade with them.

    The VMF may bankrupt Russia even more than it did the USSR if it gets more CVNs & escorts that the country can support.

    So you keep claiming, yet even a 5 billion dollar CVN will take 10 years to build so spreading 5 billion dollars over 10 years is a tiny fraction of what NATO countries are going to be paying to keep their F-35s operating... not buy them or their over priced weapons... just operational costs.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:42 am

    GarryB wrote:You haven't explained why either of those groups would order civilian vessels in the area to leave...
    even w/o being ordered, they'll leave in high tensions knowing the US will/may be waiting for them in the strait.
    It is a big ocean I rather doubt they would see the US mine layers or the Russian grouping heading through...
    the Bering Strait isn't that big; it's a choke pint like Gibraltar, Bab El Mandeb, Tsushima & Malakka straits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait
    plus western antiship missiles are no where near as lethal as current Russian anti ship missiles let alone the new ones they are in the process of introducing.
    a dozen B-52s/1Bs/P-3/8s + 1 SSGN from within Alaskan airspace/waters & launchers on the shore can saturate them with new LRAShMs - it's irrelevant what AShMs the VMF has in this case.
    Any evidence of US forces mining the strait between Russia and Alaska and they can simply use tactical nukes to clear the way..
    & then having to go through the radioactive cloud worse than USS Reagan got into during the Fukushima disaster, aircraft, armaments & decks, besides sickening the crew, killing tons of fish/crabs &  contaminating 100s of miles of rich fishing grounds for years.
    ..but for roads and rails and indeed runways then they are not useful at all.
    I never said they r; other things r best done by helos in remote areas even with railroads present. Trains take long time to come & they can't leave rails; other vehicles they may bring r also slow & may not be able to get too far in the taiga & mountains to inspect/repair el./pipelines, suppress fires, protect forests/wildlife, conduct surveys, do med. evacuations, deliver mail/supplies, etc.
    That is my definition of useless... they made a few but didn't come up with a real replacement till four years later...
    Yakovlev built this single & most plane-like helo & later worked on planes only. If he was ordered to improve it or design another & better 1, he would have done it. The Mil kept producing classic helos (except the 2 Mi-12s) & Kamov specialized in coaxial naval/civ. helos. They didn't really need CH-46/47-like helos, but now their mil. doctrine/tactics changed & they may need them, along with tilt-rotors, esp. for the VDV/SOF/VMF/Marines/NG/FSB/MChS.
    Yeah, but American helos have proven useless in Afghanistan..
    Not the CH-47s: they did/do their jobs despite crashes & shot downs; Soviet/Russian helos were also shot down there, in Chechnya & Georgia before:  https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14540/chinooks-over-afghanistan-the-unsung-workhorse-of-americas-never-ending-war

    Many other current & new users will keep ordering them:
    https://www.rotorandwing.com/2018/07/24/indias-first-ch-47-takes-flight-boeing-prepares-massive-foreign-chinook-campaign/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwu-HoBRD5ARIsAPIPenfRprA_9eF-yRYsReWPjdEtf6HW13QN6yAujkX5Dh1nEa7cxY3CZrQaAvSrEALw_wcB
    Why would they deliver ..recover cargo during a storm.
    It may last many days & they may need something/some1 in/out of there quickly.
    You mean like the VSTOL model of the F-35 saves money too... the programme is costing 1.5 trillion dollars.
    It's not like combining an attack helo with large transport/SAR/AWACS/ASSAULT/ASW/COD helo. But OTH they did it with the Mi-8/17s; the Mi-24/35s r assault/attack flying BMPs. They r more successful in Afghanistan then US helos, & they didn't bankrupt them or any1 else.
    It only makes sense to use standardized airframes if that airframe is also suitable to the job...
    with large internal volume, tandem helos r like planes that can carry more people, cargo, sensors, avionics, weapons, survival/rescue gear, & fuel.
    small teams of special forces could be sent out to recover pilots or people in the water if needed..
    not as fast & far as helos can.
    Most countries have jet trainers...
    not all can be navalized for light attack role off a CV/N.
    a new tandem type would be expected to sit in there somewhere too which makes them rather less likely to be built or needed.
    later, they may still decide to have it. 1 doesn't exclude the other. 2 main rotors r better than 1. The CH-53s & CH-47 co-exist for decades now & will soldier on together for decades more.
    They used it once in unmanned mode and it worked fine.
    it was a test flight, not a real world mission to orbit.
    ..if they are to expand in the future they need to do it by sea.
    they did expand already into Alaska, California & Hawaii, but had to sell or abandon them. Their Hadrian Wall r their borders & coast. I doubt they need to expand any farther than USSR border & perhaps a few more overseas bases (not colonies), at the max. Their resources r estimated to be worth ~$400T & they better defend what they already have.
    There aren't many places they actually need to do it.
    amen, see above!
    If Russia can't defend its friends with sea power they wont end up having many friends.
    they put BMs/SAMs/Mig-25s in Cuba/Vietnam/Egypt & it worked well; a DDG/CG/SSGN/Tu-22M3s/160s with LACMs can do the same with less drama. https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/06/26/US-Navy-tracking-movement-of-advanced-Russian-frigate-in-Cuba/7091561566932/
    ..all their MiG-31 and MiG-29/35 and Su-27/30/34/35/57 are just an expensive waste of time and what they really need is tiltrotors with AWACS and they will be fine...
    some of those fighters could be used on UDKs.
    The Chinese middle class seem to want American shit, not Russian.
    I mean trade with those other countries u listed, not Russia.
    So you keep claiming, yet even a 5 billion dollar CVN will take 10 years to build so spreading 5 billion dollars over 10 years is a tiny fraction of what NATO countries are going to be paying to keep their F-35s operating...
    it's still big $ for them. I'm afraid their CVNs won't be spending as much time at sea to justify having them & occupying piers, yards, airfields, hangars & crew barracks for many months at a time. It's a death spiral: too expensive to deploy them & not deploying while maintaining them isn't cheap either. 1-2 would be more than enough; $ & manpower saved can be better used on UDKs, nuclear icebreakers, other ships/subs, ekranoplans, & aircraft.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:20 am; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : add text, links)
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:41 am

    even w/o being ordered, they'll leave in high tensions knowing the US will/may be waiting for them in the strait.

    I really don't understand the scenario you are describing... are you suggesting WWIII has already started and the US and Russia is at war, so when the Russian fleet moves through the Bering Strait, then the US Navy might openly attack them?

    Big whoop... with their current level of armament their might be problems but this future carrier group with 7K ton Gorshkov destroyers and 20K ton Gorshkov cruisers and a carrier plus other support vessels and subs then the US is going to have to mount a fairly full on enormous force to counter them there because they will have Backfire and Foxhound support launching Kinzhals and likely the air launched Zircons... even if the US had 5 carrier groups sitting there waiting in ambush it is going to be a Massacre and I really don't think it will be in favour of the US because they have no defence and their naval F-35s have very ordinary performance...

    the Bering Strait isn't that big; it's a choke pint like Gibraltar, Bab El Mandeb, Tsushima & Malakka straits

    You are quite right, but that also puts the entire region within range of Far East based Foxhounds with Kinzhals and Backfires with Zircons and Kh-32s... which is no where the US Navy wants to be.

    a dozen B-52s/1Bs/P-3/8s + 1 SSGN from within Alaskan airspace/waters & launchers on the shore can saturate them with new LRAShMs - it's irrelevant what AShMs the VMF has in this case.

    Russian missiles have multi role guidance and can just as easily target land based targets and aircraft from far east airfields could easily carry nuclear armed cruise missiles to take down airbases in Alaska... they will probably use the attack as an excuse to wipe out any ABM radar and missile locations too while they are at it because the next step will be SLBMs and ICBMs.

    & then having to go through the radioactive cloud worse than USS Reagan got into during the Fukushima disaster, aircraft, armaments & decks, besides sickening the crew, killing tons of fish/crabs & contaminating 100s of miles of rich fishing grounds for years.

    Given the choice of losing ships or clearing the way of mines I think the choice is pretty obvious.

    The new ships are not just stealthy they are Chem/bio/nuke rated... all their old ships are designed to operate in an NBC environment too... not really a huge deal.

    I never said they r; other things r best done by helos in remote areas even with railroads present. Trains take long time to come & they can't leave rails; other vehicles they may bring r also slow & may not be able to get too far in the taiga & mountains to inspect/repair el./pipelines, suppress fires, protect forests/wildlife, conduct surveys, do med. evacuations, deliver mail/supplies, etc.

    They already have those helicopters and don't need any new designs except the new designs already designed... (ie Ansat, Ka-60/62, Mi-8 family, Mi-38 etc).

    They didn't really need CH-46/47-like helos, but now their mil. doctrine/tactics changed & they may need them, along with tilt-rotors, esp. for the VDV/SOF/VMF/Marines/NG/FSB/MChS.

    They didn't need new tandem designs because their conventional designs already did and do the job at hand... not really going to change IMHO.

    It may last many days & they may need something/some1 in/out of there quickly.

    Yeah... storms that prevent conventional amphibious and conventional fixed wing operations on carriers normally also preclude tilt rotors and helos operating too...

    Many other current & new users will keep ordering them

    Yeah, that is mainly because America is a spoilt little bitch that throws their toys if anyone buys weapons from someone else.

    But OTH they did it with the Mi-8/17s; the Mi-24/35s r assault/attack flying BMPs. They r more successful in Afghanistan then US helos, & they didn't bankrupt them or any1 else.

    The Mi-8 transport helo was the basis for the Mi-24 attack helo and also the Mi-14 naval helo... but they didn't try to make it do everything... they only adapted it to roles where its modifications made it suitable, they didn't try to force it on everything.

    with large internal volume, tandem helos r like planes that can carry more people, cargo, sensors, avionics, weapons, survival/rescue gear, & fuel.

    As I keep saying to you, that large internal volume creates a larger external volume, but with all the speed and range limitations of a helicopter. A fixed wing aircraft can have the volume advantages plus the flight speed and range of a small fixed wing transport aircraft...

    not as fast & far as helos can.

    They have helos too.

    not all can be navalized for light attack role off a CV/N.

    And how many countries actually have light trainers in the light attack role on aircraft carriers?

    The Soviets and Russians haven't. Their only trainer ironically the opposite... it was a variant of the ground attack Su-25, but it was only a trainer and had no ground attack capacity at all.

    it was a test flight, not a real world mission to orbit.

    It was designed so it could operate completely automatically so for their first mission they flew it without a human crew.

    they did expand already into Alaska, California & Hawaii, but had to sell or abandon them. Their Hadrian Wall r their borders & coast. I doubt they need to expand any farther than USSR border & perhaps a few more overseas bases (not colonies), at the max.

    America has spent enormous efforts over the past decade or so trying to isolate Russia and limit its ability to find foreign partners... do you think that is by accident. Given the choice should Russia remain isolationist and inward looking and refuse to grow as a country?

    They don't need to invade or occupy other countries, but when offering trade deals with countries they have no land or sea border with it would be critical that they can get their products to those countries and get those countries products to Russia, or where they need to go.

    Just having a carrier is not enough... Argentina had a CV during the Falklands war.

    Their resources r estimated to be worth ~$400T & they better defend what they already have.

    If they don't find new trading partners those 400 trillion dollars in resources will go to increasing the wealth of the 1 or 2% in the west... what a terrible waste that would be for both the west and Russia and the rest of the world.

    some of those fighters could be used on UDKs.

    You are missing my point... if the Russian Navy doesn't need carriers with potent fighter interceptors then why does Russia need an air force?

    Surely helicopters and some tiltrotors and so civilian aircraft with hundreds of AAMs could do the job...

    I mean trade with those other countries u listed, not Russia.

    That would be fine too, Russia is not the US... it doesn't demand exclusive trading rights with its trading partners...

    It's a death spiral: too expensive to deploy them & not deploying while maintaining them isn't cheap either. 1-2 would be more than enough; $ & manpower saved can be better used on UDKs, nuclear icebreakers, other ships/subs, ekranoplans, & aircraft.

    It could easily become one, like it has in the US, but I suspect Russians are just a bit too patriotic to be that stupid/selfish.

    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:44 am

    To be clear the Russian carriers are not for WWIII or to fight the US Navy or NATO navy... they are an instrument to support a surface group of Russian ships that will actually be doing the job at hand.

    How very different the situation in Venezuela could have turned out if the US decided to invade... if Russia had an operational carrier and a few ships to operate with her... they could send them to the Venezuelan coast for last minute organised exercises... the US would never have invaded...
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

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

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:39 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    ATLASCUB wrote: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.

    Decade from decision at least two until contract plus several more years after that until construction starts


    meh, a decision is made already. They start in 3-34 years. To design in the meantime we can follow Russian CV soap   Razz Razz Razz




    Tsavo Lion wrote:I expect the UDK, which is a small carrier, will come sooner.

    I wouldn't count on that. IMHO It will be closer to Mistral (Priboi/Lavina) then LHD Wasp

    Sponsored content

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 39 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:13 am