Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:42 am

    Oh no no no I am just his trusted  VSTOL adviser   russia  russia  russia
    Awesome, don't forget to include that in your CV  thumbsup

    Well they have the K. And then, having a functional shipbuilding industry is a must for Russia, it doesn't matter if it takes one or twenty years.
    It does actually. Challenges are being faced  all the time. You just need to build economically viable ships that fit purpose. Im afraid if you'd start to build mammoth-ware you'll end up with obsolete design still on shipyard. After years.
    Bad phrasing from my side. You were following PapaDragon's logic of using the aerospace industry (and concretely STVOL fighters) to compensate / hedge against potential shortcomings in shipbuilding. What I mean is that in the long term Russia MUST set itself to the task and solve such shortcomings, not build expensive excuses for failing to do so. That means, being capable in the mid-long term of building vessels carrying robust numbers of high performance multirole fighters and their supporting assets.

    How could they use their prowess in aerospace industry? By developing the shipborne Su-57. With its extreme capability gap to rest of potential naval fighters in the world it could more than compensate for less vessels of smaller size than US CSGs. Put two squadrons of them in a light carrier and arm them with Kinzhals... and watch the seas empty almost 2000 km around you Wink

    R-77M-1? like5 years iike 180 BD not yet tho. But doest it really matter which model?  There will me always missiles with similar performance in both sides. Light and heavy fighters can carry the alike.
    I know R-77-1, not that M-1. It of course matters what model because you want to be capable to shoot the enemy while you are still not in range of their missiles. USAF or USN do not have to my knowledge a missile capable of matching the R-37M. I agree that both sides pursue the range extension of their MRAAMs and they do not seem too far away in that regard, with the possible exception of the Meteor for which Russia does not seem to have an analogue yet (no news of R-77-PD or Izd. 180 BD), though It could be said that at least they have an alternative in the R-37M, which is way better even when also much bigger.

    and what in which characteristics? in ASW capabilities? for transport or perhap ship grouping point defense? Kuz is 60ktons  Wasp 40ktons / Juan Carlos I 26ktons
    LHA is an universal ship.  Sea-control is one of roles. If you go CV you still need build something for amphibious forces (and eventually ASW ships) .  
    The roles I mean are air defence and strike, of course. It is clear that if you go for the classic CV you will need additional forces for the rest of roles.

    Did you see any bombings in Syria by RuAF? how many KABs-500 were carrying Su-34 in most of sorties?  1-2?  and what was radius of action? 300-400kms?
    Once you have created a huge "no enter" zone around your fleet with heavy fighters you can indulge in having other fighters of lesser capacity doing the bombing yes. But unless you create the safety conditions you can be harassed as we saw in Syria before deployment of S-400, Su-35s etc.

    OK then we agree that not a fighter but missile is a key here?
    No we don't agree, both are very relevant since they constitute a weapons system. Above you say yourself that MRAAMs of both sides are always going to have similar characteristics, in such conditions it would be the fighter that would make the difference with its kinematic contribution among other things.

    Kinematics- if you have 1,8 of 2Ma is so different in ~180kms?
    Don't exactly know, this would need to be calculated with very concrete data considering burning time of the rocket engine, end-game dynamics, acceleration of the aircraft, launching altitude etc. But conversely to the point above, if the kinematics of both aircraft are similar, the missiles will need to make the difference. For instance if both sides have planes that do 20 km altitude, 2+ M dash speed, then I would bet on the one carrying the longer stick (R-37M) instead of the one with the shorter one (AMRAAM)

    and you said thet this is not about Midway scenario.  lol1  lol1  lol1  They are not designed for this task as well as those you'd love to see. Russia cannot respond with same resource scale. So always will be less and smaller CVGs forces. If Russia would build 2 very expensive CSGs  they can 4  more CSGs just to extr cover them.  Tsi is a game costly for you that you cannot win.
    It is about creating safety conditions for you fleet to operate in, that is the reason for CVs. See above one proposal to ensure deterrence without needing to outspend USN.

    Iraqi destruction Freedom took 5 CSGs same time you know. That is bombing foreign lands  Conflict with Nigerian pirates or Syria is say "colonial low insensitivity war " category.
    Ok I see. Yes, Russia should not need to bomb countries that way and as discussed for a Syrian type operation 2-3 squadrons are enough.
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:47 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Besides projecting power ashore, they may also be sent to help confront the reformed US 2nd Fleet in the N. Atlantic & the Arctic Oceans, the banal Med. Sea, i.e. the classic Soviet TAKR mission.
    https://www.axios.com/us-navy-reinstates-fleet-to-explore-russian-military-52aecf7b-73cd-4ead-832a-f888a924a4a6.html
    https://news.usni.org/2018/08/24/cno-new-2nd-fleet-boundary-will-extend-north-edge-russian-waters
    https://www.rt.com/news/437001-us-second-fleet-arctic-atlantic/
    https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2161337/us-navy-re-establishes-atlantic-fleet-russian

    Perhaps it'll be their main role. Most stationary targets (inc. ships & subs in port) can be hit by Surface/Sub/ALCMs from Med., Black, White, Red, Caspian, Baltic, Okhotsk, & Japan Seas with less risk & inve$tment, leaving less targets to CVN AWs.

    The fight for the Arctic is on Wink
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:41 am

    LMFS wrote:The fight for the Arctic is on Wink

    you 've heard this only now?  affraid affraid affraid you should have listened to the Supreme Commander you'd know already russia russia russia


    @Tsavo

    not possible but for sure. Not only Arctic if important as a resource zone but there is there one of 2 main SSBN patrol terrains and possible way for B-2 to sneak in.
    The second one is in Far East.

    Not sure about Mediterranean tho. I mean about second priority Laughing Laughing Laughing

    Last but not least - I love TAKR mentioned there thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:22 am

    LMFS wrote:
    Oh no no no I am just his trusted  VSTOL adviser   russia  russia  russia
    Awesome, don't forget to include that in your CV  thumbsup

    I thought that you as my intellectual sparring partner to refine concept  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup




    Bad phrasing from my side. You were following PapaDragon's logic of using the aerospace industry (and concretely STVOL fighters) to compensate / hedge against potential shortcomings in shipbuilding. What I mean is that in the long term Russia MUST set itself to the task and solve such shortcomings, not build expensive excuses for failing to do so.

    agreed then  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup



    How could they use their prowess in aerospace industry? By developing the shipborne Su-57. With its extreme capability gap to rest of potential naval fighters in the world it could more than compensate for less vessels of smaller size than US CSGs. Put two squadrons of them in a light carrier and arm them with Kinzhals... and watch the seas empty almost 2000 km around you Wink

    Kizhal too heavy indeed  but why not shipborne Zircons?  1000km range.  Way beyond reach of any fighter ot their AShM. Either you add 2x8 UKSK-M or use Husky below or Gorskhov next to you. .






    have to my knowledge a missile capable of matching the R-37M.

    yup you're right AIM-152 was cancelled I ' ve missed that   Embarassed  Embarassed  Embarassed
    it was to have almost 2x Phoenix range




    The roles I mean are air defence and strike, of course. It is clear that if you go for the classic CV you will need additional forces for the rest of roles.

    That's the rationale behind this you can send LHA to Arctic ASW/CV role. Amphibious/transport: to kick some terrorists/rebels'   butts during personnel evacuation. Also humanitarian   humanitarian situation.  




    But unless you create the safety conditions you can be harassed as we saw in Syria before deployment of S-400, Su-35s etc.


    scratch  scratch  scratch Why you think that covered with  smaller fighters they would be harassed?  BTW were there ever more then 8 fighters same time?
    S-400 - That's why you need Something like 2 Gorskhovs with Redut  group.

    or xtra (my speculation) use own 2xUKSK-M with wit 64 Redut AAD (S-350)





    . But conversely to the point above, if the kinematics of both aircraft are similar, the missiles will need to make the difference. For instance if both sides have planes that do 20 km altitude, 2+ M dash speed, then I would bet on the one carrying the longer stick (R-37M) instead of the one with the shorter one (AMRAAM)

    and what if they send simple drones with AMRAAM?
    1) option one - you dont shoot them they kill you. Result: you're dead

    2) You shoot them all. But spent all rockets. Then fighters are coming.  Result: you're dead

    3) alternative 2 : even after fighters you survived (not all though). Do you have time to land -reload- return? is for how many cycles can you perform? Result: you're dead

    Its simply a game of numbers not thrones.  Unlike Danerys you cannot count on magic and dragons

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Game-of-thrones-season-7-daenerys-jorah-dragons-wallpaper





    If Russia would build 2 very expensive CSGs  they can 4  more CSGs just to extr cover them.  Tsi is a game costly for you that you cannot win.
    It is about creating safety conditions for you fleet to operate in, that is the reason for CVs. See above one proposal to ensure deterrence without needing to outspend USN.

    Extra cover?  of course  yes sir  yes sir  yes sir   but why  smaller fighters  cannot perform this task?!





    Iraqi destruction Freedom took 5 CSGs same time you know. That is bombing foreign lands  Conflict with Nigerian pirates or Syria is say "colonial low insensitivity war " category.

    Ok I see. Yes, Russia should not need to bomb countries that way and as discussed for a Syrian type operation 2-3 squadrons are enough.[/quote]

    glad we  agree again  cheers  cheers  cheers
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1984
    Points : 1974
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  hoom on Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:27 am

    So the guy who stated work would start on a new STOL/V, did he actually specify a fighter?
    I think he didn't actually specify a fighter, just everyone assumed he meant that.
    Could it have been reference to a medium size STOL plane like the newer suggestion of working on a tilt-rotor?

    As has been discussed its a medium size plane thats needed for a decent AEW etc.
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:34 pm

    I thought that you as my intellectual sparring partner to refine concept  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup
    Appreciate it, we share the profit 50-50 then Very Happy


    How could they use their prowess in aerospace industry? By developing the shipborne Su-57. With its extreme capability gap to rest of potential naval fighters in the world it could more than compensate for less vessels of smaller size than US CSGs. Put two squadrons of them in a light carrier and arm them with Kinzhals... and watch the seas empty almost 2000 km around you Wink
    Kizhal too heavy indeed  but why not shipborne Zircons?  1000km range.  Way beyond reach of any fighter ot their AShM. Either you add 2x8 UKSK-M or use Husky below or Gorskhov next to you. .
    Well, we now Kinzhal can be carried by a heavy fighter, but we know nothing about Zircon, only that it will probably be compatible with UKSK launchers, that means 8-10 meters long missile....
    You want it air-launched to increase its range with the range of the plane. How long until US decides they need something similar? Then you need longer ranged planes and even tankers to keep enemy away

    yup you're right AIM-152 was cancelled I ' ve missed that   Embarassed  Embarassed  Embarassed
    it was to have almost 2x Phoenix range
    Weapons bays in F-35 are very limited in size, so it needs to be seen what kind of LRAAM they can develop which is compatible with them.

    scratch scratch  scratch Why you think that covered with  smaller fighters they would be harassed?  BTW were there ever more then 8 fighters same time?
    S-400 - That's why you need Something like 2 Gorskhovs with Redut  group.

    or xtra (my speculation) use own 2xUKSK-M with wit 64 Redut AAD (S-350)
    It depends on the theater conditions, but I meant air superiority fighters. If you manage to make them small ok, but normally they are the heavy ones.

    and what if they send simple drones with AMRAAM?
    1) option one - you dont shoot them they kill you. Result: you're dead
    2) You shoot them all. But spent all rockets. Then fighters are coming.  Result: you're dead
    If that threat turns to materialize, there will be parallel development of smaller, simpler missiles like the CUDA concept of which you can carry not 8 but maybe 16 or 24. Since the simple drones are not going to be super fast or manoeuvrable you don't need high-performance missiles to shoot them down. In fact the CUDA does not even carry a warhead. You can also have UCAVs as "magazine extender" for your fighters, I doubt Russia is not taking a look at this (Okhotnik B?)

    3) alternative 2 : even after fighters you survived (not all though). Do you have time to land -reload- return? is for how many cycles can you perform? Result: you're dead

    Its simply a game of numbers not thrones.  Unlike Danerys you cannot count on magic and dragons
    Ok, if you are so massively outnumbered that you are not shooting down planes but swarms of them and still they keep coming then you are screwed. A Flanker can carry 10-12 missiles. For the Su-57 we have seen the double pylon externally plus internal carriage. If you get a exchange rate of 4:1 (very well within possible in the scenario I described) you would practically need two CVNs to defeat a single K-sized carrier. That is very robust IMO.
    BTW, with STOVL dragons there would be no chance, with STOBAR ones maybe...  clown

    It is about creating safety conditions for you fleet to operate in, that is the reason for CVs. See above one proposal to ensure deterrence without needing to outspend USN.
    Extra cover?  of course  yes sir  yes sir  yes sir   but why  smaller fighters  cannot perform this task?!
    See above, you need positive exchange rates because your numbers are smaller. So you need better planes and missiles than the enemy (payload, range, speed, altitude, avionics etc), and you need top notch airspace surveillance too.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:43 pm

    [quote="LMFS"]
    I thought that you as my intellectual sparring partner to refine concept  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup
    Appreciate it, we share the profit 50-50 then Very Happy
    [quote]

    I wouldn't go THAT far lol1 lol1 lol1




    Well, we now Kinzhal can be carried by a heavy fighter, but we know nothing about Zircon, only that it will probably be compatible with UKSK launchers, that means 8-10 meters long missile....

    not probably but this is a requirement, unlikly would be carried by any other fighter then MiG-31 though. Vide: why Indian Su-30s carry only "mini Brahmos"?



    [quote]You want it air-launched to increase its range with the range of the plane. How long until US decides they need something similar? Then you need longer ranged planes and even tankers to keep enemy away


    The point is , you dont need it airborne. You use ship based version only.


    Weapons bays in F-35 are very limited in size, so it needs to be seen what kind of LRAAM they can develop which is compatible with them.
    in every way you can assume they have it




    It depends on the theater conditions, but I meant air superiority fighters. If you manage to make them small ok, but normally they are the heavy ones.

    you dont go thusands km inlands, you have point defense. That's the Idea to me.


    and what if they send simple drones with AMRAAM?
    1) option one - you dont shoot them they kill you. Result: you're dead
    2) You shoot them all. But spent all rockets. Then fighters are coming.  Result: you're dead
    If that threat turns to materialize, there will be parallel development of smaller, simpler missiles like the CUDA concept of which you can carry not 8 but maybe 16 or 24. Since the simple drones are not going to be super fast or manoeuvrable you don't need high-performance missiles to shoot them down. In fact the CUDA does not even carry a warhead. You can also have UCAVs as "magazine extender" for your fighters, I doubt Russia is not taking a look at this (Okhotnik B?)

    true but again they can use longer range missiles then oryet another mix of tech and tactics. None the less result remains the same you are dead just in a different fashion.


    [quote]
    3) alternative 2 : even after fighters you survived (not all though). Do you have time to land -reload- return? is for how many cycles can you perform? Result: you're dead

    Ok, if you are so massively outnumbered that you are not shooting down planes but swarms of them and still they keep coming then you are screwed. A Flanker can carry 10-12 missiles. For the Su-57 we have seen the double pylon externally plus internal carriage. If you get a exchange rate of 4:1 (very well within possible in the scenario I described) you would practically need two CVNs to defeat a single K-sized carrier. That is very robust IMO.

    Apart form vision starting wth full load and little fuel (ot the other way around) and gaining heights, range and maneuverability. Can you imagine that they have also FA-18 Growlers (or something like that) ,drones, same range missiles, perhaps their fighters are a bit less maneuverable but still capable .

    Of course I am talking about very postive scenrion for you. When you get CV? 2030s? it is abut time drne tech will be much better, perhaps lasers to shoot missiles too. And F-X just about horizon.

    1 Ford - 75 fighters
    1 Kuz -24 Su's

    OK so you have 2 CVNs they 16. Result: you are dead.


    BTW, with STOVL dragons there would be no chance, with STOBAR ones maybe...  clown

    As long as you dont have Daenerys personally on your side regardless if you have stol or stobar. Result: you're dead.



    [
    See above, you need positive exchange rates because your numbers are smaller. So you need better planes and missiles than the enemy (payload, range, speed, altitude, avionics etc), and you need top notch airspace surveillance too.

    So why do you think US doennt have fighters /missiles/EW ? like time sands still there? with 10x bigger military spending?
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:04 pm

    hoom wrote:So the guy who stated work would start on a new STOL/V, did he actually specify a fighter?
    I think he didn't actually specify a fighter, just everyone assumed he meant that.
    Could it have been reference to a medium size STOL plane like the newer suggestion of working on a tilt-rotor?

    As has been discussed its a medium size plane thats needed for a decent AEW etc.

    and how tiltrotor could replace MiG-29K/Su-33 on CV? to be VSTOL based on experiences Yak 141 but a new construction? scratch scratch scratch
    eehnie
    eehnie

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:36 pm

    hoom wrote:So the guy who stated work would start on a new STOL/V, did he actually specify a fighter?
    I think he didn't actually specify a fighter, just everyone assumed he meant that.
    Could it have been reference to a medium size STOL plane like the newer suggestion of working on a tilt-rotor?

    As has been discussed its a medium size plane thats needed for a decent AEW etc.

    Smart observator.
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:06 am

    November 2017, Yuri Borisov:

    "Certainly, - said Borisov, answering the question, does the work on the aircraft vertical takeoff to an aircraft carrier. - It is logical to assume that during this time those models, I mean the MiG-29 and su-33 are morally outdated and in ten years would require the creation of new aircraft. There are such plans," - said Borisov.

    If he is meaning tiltrotors after mentioning MiG-29 and Su-33 he should win the prize for the trolling of the century... Rolling Eyes

    BTW a tiltrotor like V-22 Osprey is not a STOVL but rather a V/STOL
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:48 am

    I wouldn't go THAT far  lol1  lol1  lol1
    Ok 49-51, don't want to steal protagonism hahaha

    not probably but this is a requirement, unlikly would be carried by any other fighter then MiG-31 though. Vide: why Indian Su-30s carry only "mini  Brahmos"?
    Hey I don't know why exactly Su-30s cannot carry the full 3 ton Brahmos and use a 2.5 ton version instead. Payload of MiG-31 is like 5 tons, so Su-57 should not have a problem regarding MTOW but only possibly to get the suspension points strong enough for it (don't know the weight but IIRC the estimated weight was below 4 ton, being 3.8 ton the weight of the Iskander which is ground launched) Weapon bays of Su-57 should allow to carry above 3 tons ordnance (4 x Kh-59MK2 estimated 3,080 kg) so the structure may be be strong enough. You are not supposed to make hectic manoeuvres with a Kinzhal in the belly or to land on a carrier with it! And besides both the plane and the missile are completely new, there is time to develop compatibility between them, this is a potential game changer that US would need decades to emulate.

    Diagram by paralay:

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 T50big10

    The point is , you dont need it airborne. You use ship based version only.
    Planes are massively more flexible and bigger ranged than a disposable booster. A Su-57 with 3500 km range could fly 1000 km, dash and launch the missile (giving it an enormous increase in range) and return to the carrier. With IFR you could even extend that. It is not nice having to operate under that threat even staying at 2000 km distance!

    Weapons bays in F-35 are very limited in size, so it needs to be seen what kind of LRAAM they can develop which is compatible with them.
    in every way you can assume they have it
    No you can't, do you suggest they have it but it is completely secret or what??

    you dont go thusands km inlands, you have point defense. That's the Idea to me.
    Air superiority means taking the fight to your enemy's court, not hiding behind your defences and pray for them to hold the attack of an overwhelming amount of forces (much less in a vessel potentially far from home). Adopting that last strategy is not setting yourself for big success IMHO. NATO loves that situation as much as they dislike an enemy that actually fights back and ruins the PR / prestige returns of the operation.

    true but again they can use longer range missiles then oryet another mix of tech and tactics.  None the less result remains the same you are dead just in a different fashion.
    Not even suggesting defeating US military far from Russia is a cake walk man. Just saying you can play deterrence effectively with the right tools. But you need to be credible for that and actually capable of damaging the aggressor seriously.

    Apart form vision starting wth full load and little fuel (ot the other way around) and gaining heights, range and maneuverability. Can you imagine that they have also FA-18 Growlers (or something like that) ,drones,  same range missiles, perhaps their fighters are a bit less maneuverable but still capable .  

    Of course I am talking about very postive scenrion for you.  When you get CV? 2030s? it is abut time drne tech will be much better, perhaps lasers to shoot missiles too. And F-X just about horizon.

    1 Ford - 75 fighters
    1 Kuz -24 Su's

    OK so you have 2 CVNs they 16. Result: you are dead.
    Ok we are dead in any case then. What is your proposal? To go to a geopolitically disputed region and displace US influence just because you are so nice? Play the nuclear bluff outside existential threat for the RF, do you really think this is not going to be called out? Either you have the teeth needed for the fight in conventional war or you are a victim more, they are always on demand by NATO so your LHD, air wing and sailors will be welcome...
    avatar
    kumbor

    Posts : 286
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  kumbor on Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:46 am

    LMFS wrote:
    I wouldn't go THAT far  lol1  lol1  lol1
    Ok 49-51, don't want to steal protagonism hahaha

    not probably but this is a requirement, unlikly would be carried by any other fighter then MiG-31 though. Vide: why Indian Su-30s carry only "mini  Brahmos"?
    Hey I don't know why exactly Su-30s cannot carry the full 3 ton Brahmos and use a 2.5 ton version instead. Payload of MiG-31 is like 5 tons, so Su-57 should not have a problem regarding MTOW but only possibly to get the suspension points strong enough for it (don't know the weight but IIRC the estimated weight was below 4 ton, being 3.8 ton the weight of the Iskander which is ground launched) Weapon bays of Su-57 should allow to carry above 3 tons ordnance (4 x Kh-59MK2 estimated 3,080 kg) so the structure may be be strong enough. You are not supposed to make hectic manoeuvres with a Kinzhal in the belly or to land on a carrier with it! And besides both the plane and the missile are completely new, there is time to develop compatibility between them, this is a potential game changer that US would need decades to emulate.

    Diagram by paralay:

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 T50big10

    The point is , you dont need it airborne. You use ship based version only.
    Planes are massively more flexible and bigger ranged than a disposable booster. A Su-57 with 3500 km range could fly 1000 km, dash and launch the missile (giving it an enormous increase in range) and return to the carrier. With IFR you could even extend that. It is not nice having to operate under that threat even staying at 2000 km distance!

    Weapons bays in F-35 are very limited in size, so it needs to be seen what kind of LRAAM they can develop which is compatible with them.
    in every way you can assume they have it
    No you can't, do you suggest they have it but it is completely secret or what??

    you dont go thusands km inlands, you have point defense. That's the Idea to me.
    Air superiority means taking the fight to your enemy's court, not hiding behind your defences and pray for them to hold the attack of an overwhelming amount of forces (much less in a vessel potentially far from home). Adopting that last strategy is not setting yourself for big success IMHO. NATO loves that situation as much as they dislike an enemy that actually fights back and ruins the PR / prestige returns of the operation.

    true but again they can use longer range missiles then oryet another mix of tech and tactics.  None the less result remains the same you are dead just in a different fashion.
    Not even suggesting defeating US military far from Russia is a cake walk man. Just saying you can play deterrence effectively with the right tools. But you need to be credible for that and actually capable of damaging the aggressor seriously.

    Apart form vision starting wth full load and little fuel (ot the other way around) and gaining heights, range and maneuverability. Can you imagine that they have also FA-18 Growlers (or something like that) ,drones,  same range missiles, perhaps their fighters are a bit less maneuverable but still capable .  

    Of course I am talking about very postive scenrion for you.  When you get CV? 2030s? it is abut time drne tech will be much better, perhaps lasers to shoot missiles too. And F-X just about horizon.

    1 Ford - 75 fighters
    1 Kuz -24 Su's

    OK so you have 2 CVNs they 16. Result: you are dead.
    Ok we are dead in any case then. What is your proposal? To go to a geopolitically disputed region and displace US influence just because you are so nice? Play the nuclear bluff outside existential threat for the RF, do you really think this is not going to be called out? Either you have the teeth needed for the fight in conventional war or you are a victim more, they are always on demand by NATO so your LHD, air wing and sailors will be welcome...

    USN hasn`t 16 carriers for 50 years already. Now there are only 10 active CVNs, with Trump`s intention to have 11 again. It is still the ultimate naval power, but the gap will be narrowing with chinese carrier building programme. Russian carrier programme will stay in defensive role, if any will be built!
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1007
    Points : 1048
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 32
    Location : portugal

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  dino00 on Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:32 am

    Aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy: for and against

    A universal "floating airfield" should not be a dependent ship surrounded by "seven nannies"

    Alexei Leonkov, military expert of the magazine "Arsenal of the Fatherland"

    https://zvezdaweekly.ru/news/t/2018971129-w9XWi.html
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:08 pm


    Offer one of these things to VMF and they would thinks it's the mother of all Christmases:

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 7ugs0r34kkl11

    Stick with what you need, not what you would like to brag about

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3895
    Points : 3885
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:24 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Offer one of these things to VMF and they would thinks it's the mother of all Christmases:

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 7ugs0r34kkl11

    Stick with what you need, not what you would like to brag about


    Connect another part that consists of a runway that has the length of the ship and a skijump 20m width at the right like catamaran.

    Between them add some UKSK.

    Take off all the facilities for landing plateforms and make accomodation for mig-29k and naval 5th gen fighters.

    And you have a nice carrier with easily 30 modern jets onboard + easily 100 UKSK for punch.

    A runway of 250m with skijump could allow the use of yak-44M as awacs.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:45 am

    LMFS wrote:
    I wouldn't go THAT far  lol1  lol1  lol1
    Ok 49-51, don't want to steal protagonism hahaha
    99-01  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup






    the suspension points strong enough for it (don't know the weight but IIRC the estimated weight was below 4 ton, being 3.8 ton the weight of the Iskander which is ground launched) Weapon bays of Su-57 should allow to carry above [] so the structure may be be strong enough. You are not supposed to make hectic manoeuvres with a Kinzhal in the belly or to land on a carrier with it! And besides both the plane and the missile are completely new, there is time to develop compatibility between them, this is a potential game changer that US would need decades to emulate.

    well perhaps you can do this technically. Why not? My question would be what why? you already have Zircon securing ~ 1000km radius around your fleet without need for development of  costly, redundant, risky

    IMHO Kinzhal is a stopgap before new missiles/or better hypersonic weapons pop up.  GZUR Phase II (is to be ~14Ma)






    The point is , you dont need it airborne. You use ship based version only.
    Planes are massively more flexible and bigger ranged than a disposable booster. A Su-57 with 3500 km range could fly 1000 km, dash and launch the missile (giving it an enormous increase in range) and return to the carrier. With IFR you could even extend that. It is not nice having to operate under that threat even staying at 2000 km distance!



    Occam's razor: you can solve problem in many ways the question to me is which one is best in terms invested resources vs. return. Before you develop Su 57, Kinzhal +integrate with new aircraft carriers => 10-15 years. Kinzhal might be not first choice because of technology.  Zircon is now  (OK in 2 years).
    To me they always plan a marathon not sprint.






    Weapons bays in F-35 are very limited in size, so it needs to be seen what kind of LRAAM they can develop which is compatible with them.
    in every way you can assume they have it
    No you can't, do you suggest they have it but it is completely secret or what??


    do you suggest Su-57 is on new shiny Russian  CVNs are happily navigating around the world now ?   I thought we were talking about 2030s.





    you dont go thusands km inlands, you have point defense. That's the Idea to me.
    Air superiority means taking the fight to your enemy's court, not hiding behind your defences and pray for them to hold the attack of an overwhelming amount of forces (much less in a vessel potentially far from home). Adopting that last strategy is not setting yourself for big success IMHO. NATO loves that situation as much as they dislike an enemy that actually fights back and ruins the PR / prestige returns of the operation.

    Actions against US fleet in conditions of numerical air-superiority was already tried in Japan. They called it Kamikaze. Fighters in such numbers will be treated as extra cover not and major force. Me thinks you mix US approach to the Russian one.



    Not even suggesting defeating US military far from Russia is a cake walk man. Just saying you can play deterrence effectively with the right tools. But you need to be credible for that and actually capable of damaging the aggressor seriously.


    Agreed that's why idea of small aircraft carriers fits good here.



    Ok we are dead in any case then.
    precisely this is what I am talking about - in conventional war you cannot win with larger opponent, with better demographics and economy. III Reich  had not  attacked USSR they had good chances to   win. Enough to conquer UK and US couldnt  come close t europe without large losses. Landing would be virtually impossible.   here so easily. How they move fleet here close to German shores?

    But that's why UK/US was so lenient with Hitler developments and crediting his development in 30. Hitler was bred to bone with anti Russian hate to remove 2 economical competitors with one stone. Germans and USSR.



    What is your proposal? To go to a geopolitically disputed region and displace US influence just because you are so nice? Play the nuclear bluff outside existential threat for the RF, do you really think this is not going to be called out? Either you have the teeth needed for the fight in conventional war or you are a victim more,.

    The situation in Syria wouldn't be different if you had 40 Russian fighters there too. They'd ask 2 more CVNs and what?
    Russia doesn't play sea control strategy but sea denial. Both are working second one is much much cost effective.  

    BTW NATO?  doves of piss to me thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:05 am

    kumbor wrote:
    USN hasn`t 16 carriers for 50 years already. Now there are only 10 active CVNs, with Trump`s intention to have 11 again. It is still the ultimate naval power, but the gap will be narrowing with chinese carrier building programme. Russian carrier programme will stay in defensive role, if any will be built!

    Agreed . Why Russia should to this on that level? Russia has neither economy nor population to support sea control strategy ,sea denial works just if besides carriers you have start ready nukes Smile
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:14 am

    dino00 wrote:Aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy: for and against

    A universal "floating airfield" should not be a dependent ship surrounded by "seven nannies"

    Alexei Leonkov, military expert of the magazine "Arsenal of the Fatherland"

    https://zvezdaweekly.ru/news/t/2018971129-w9XWi.html



    @dino Obrigadinho thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup I love experts to confirm my reasoning cheers cheers cheers

    @LMFS -thsi is a must read for you Razz Razz Razz
    avatar
    kumbor

    Posts : 286
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  kumbor on Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:37 am

    Isos wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Offer one of these things to VMF and they would thinks it's the mother of all Christmases:

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 7ugs0r34kkl11

    Stick with what you need, not what you would like to brag about


    Connect another part that consists of a runway that has the length of the ship and a skijump 20m width at the right like catamaran.

    Between them add some UKSK.

    Take off all the facilities for landing plateforms and make accomodation for mig-29k and naval 5th gen fighters.

    And you have a nice carrier with easily 30 modern jets onboard + easily 100 UKSK for punch.

    A runway of 250m with skijump could allow the use of yak-44M as awacs.

    @Papadragon & Isos, You think it is so simple to add skyjump, side runway and put some UKSK to the hull of assault heli-carrier so as to get fully capable "light" aircraft carrier. I think you simply don`t know what you are talking about! Projecting and building successful aircraft carrier has nothing to do with childish ideas, Jane`s yearbooks and plastic scale models as the main source of information. It is not what major warship are all about and how they are built!
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:04 pm

    kumbor wrote:
    @Papadragon & Isos, You think it is so simple to add skyjump, side runway and put some UKSK to the hull of assault heli-carrier so as to get fully capable "light" aircraft carrier. I think you simply don`t know what you are talking about! Projecting and building successful aircraft carrier has nothing to do with childish ideas, Jane`s yearbooks and plastic scale models as the main source of information. It is not what major warship are all about and how they are built!

    during Soviet Union this "childish" approach was called TAKRs and build like 10 units. With no ski-jump tho.
    Regardless of history please share your ideas I am always interested in learning something new
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3895
    Points : 3885
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:36 pm


    @Papadragon & Isos, You think it is so simple to add skyjump, side runway and put some UKSK to the hull of assault heli-carrier so as to get fully capable "light" aircraft carrier. I think you simply don`t know what you are talking about! Projecting and building successful aircraft carrier has nothing to do with childish ideas, Jane`s yearbooks and plastic scale models as the main source of information. It is not what major warship are all about and how they are built!

    It is easy if you design the ship from the begining with those ideas.

    They also added a ski jump to a kiev class which is more like america class than like a true carrier with success. So it's not that much childish. Your reaction is however.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:01 pm

    Isos wrote:

    @Papadragon & Isos, You think it is so simple to add skyjump, side runway and put some UKSK to the hull of assault heli-carrier so as to get fully capable "light" aircraft carrier. I think you simply don`t know what you are talking about! Projecting and building successful aircraft carrier has nothing to do with childish ideas, Jane`s yearbooks and plastic scale models as the main source of information. It is not what major warship are all about and how they are built!

    It is easy if you design the ship from the begining with those ideas.

    They also added a ski jump to a kiev class which is more like america class than like a true carrier with success. So it's not that much childish. Your reaction is however.

    If you're going to have UKSK mounted into the hull it's going to limit how many aircraft a ship can have, It's a trade off really, one I think isn't worth it very much for an assault carrier. Because at that point you taking away from its primary goal which is transporting troops to make room for all these systems.

    So yeah strapping UKSK and all that stuff on a ship like that isn't a good idea.

    They wouldn't have enough missiles to make a difference really, the problem here is you have people who think something is a good idea but that good idea may not work so well in reality, I'd also like to remind all of you guys with more experience building actual ships and spent their entire lives doing it has said things like this don't work.

    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:04 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    kumbor wrote:
    @Papadragon & Isos, You think it is so simple to add skyjump, side runway and put some UKSK to the hull of assault heli-carrier so as to get fully capable "light" aircraft carrier. I think you simply don`t know what you are talking about! Projecting and building successful aircraft carrier has nothing to do with childish ideas, Jane`s yearbooks and plastic scale models as the main source of information. It is not what major warship are all about and how they are built!

    during Soviet Union this "childish" approach was called TAKRs and build like 10 units. With no ski-jump tho.
    Regardless of history please share your ideas I am always interested in learning something new

    only six TAKR's where ever made.

    The four Kiev's and the two Kuz's unless you wanna go all the way back to WW2.

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3895
    Points : 3885
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:53 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    If you're going to have UKSK mounted into the hull it's going to limit how many aircraft a ship can have, It's a trade off really, one I think isn't worth it very much for an assault carrier. Because at that point you taking away from its primary goal which is transporting troops to make room for all these systems.

    So yeah strapping UKSK and all that stuff on a ship like that isn't a good idea.

    They wouldn't have enough missiles to make a difference really, the problem here is you have people who think something is a good idea but that good idea may not work so well in reality, I'd also like to remind all of you guys with more experience building actual ships and spent their entire lives doing it has said things like this don't work.


    I was thinking into making it a small carrier without landing capabilities. A second part would not be stuck to it but connected with a space of some meters between the two. I mean two different parts connected and where there would be only a small "road" between the two to allow the aircraft to go on the second smaller part for taking off.

    So beteween them you can put some uksk. If you achieve to have more than 6 uksk with 48 missiles total, it is enough for protection or attacking enemy airfields to destroy for exemple the runways so that enemy fighters can't take off.

    With two modernized oscar with 72 cruise missiles each and two yassen with 32 each and some gorshkov and a lider or a modern kirov, you have enough to destroy any small/medium country.

    That's exactly US diplomacy. Bring cruise missile and destroy enemy air force with it.

    Most countries have not more than 10 big airbases that concentrate a big part of their airforce planes. Destroy their runways with 200 cruise missiles and send the migs from the carriers (imagine two carrier with 28 mig each=56) bomb the planes before the runways are repaired, 4-5 jets per aibase. And you win.

    It won't work against a big country but it could be very good for smaller countries that have issues with other smaller countries. Pakistan against india, algeria vs maroco, south american countries could be interesed.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2869
    Points : 2867
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:57 pm

    Bigger bombs, not CMs r needed to crater runways. The US & UK didn't do it with their CMs, but imposed no-fly zones instead.
    It's also worth noting that how the disposal of Enterprise shakes out could have an impact on how the U.S. government views the costs associated with nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and could impact the growing debate about whether it makes sense to invest in smaller, conventionally-powered types. Since taxpayers will be responsible for the bill, a more accurate estimated life cycle cost of a nuclear supercarrier should include this $1 billion or more to dispose of it at the end of the day. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22607/the-navy-could-need-more-than-15-years-and-over-1-5b-to-scrap-uss-enterprise
    1 more argument against even a 70K T CVN, even though labor & other costs in Russia r going to be lower.
    The NS Lenin is a museum:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_(1957_icebreaker)#Retirement
    NS Arktika was withdrawn from service in 2008.. Rather than be scrapped, there are calls for her to be converted to a museum ship, like her predecessor Lenin.
    NS Sibir ("Siberia") ceased operation in 1992 and is awaiting scrapping. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker#Arktika_class
    But to scrap CVNs will be a lot more costly.

    Sponsored content

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:31 pm