Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:58 am

    Personally, I don't see the reason not to use existing blueprints just alter them for the timeline it's being built in change around how the inside of the ship works.

    Because when the existing blueprints for the Ulyanovsk were made they had totally different weapons and sensors and electronics equipment.

    They would have rooms space for electronics that these days could be done on a laptop... and their power distribution requirements will have changed too.


    The Russians should just pick one and start building it when possible, that would also shorten the time they need to develop it.

    Considering the amount of time it will take to set up shore facilities to berth a few carriers not to mention the rather large ships they will operate with, just what is the urgency in getting a carrier in the water?

    They already have the Kuznetsov, which together with a couple of upgraded destroyers and one of the two remaining Kirovs upgraded or a few upgraded Slava class vessels they have a reasonable but not amazing surface group.

    It is more important to get it right than to get it right now.

    What is not clear is if it will carry some UKSK VLS modules (I hope so).

    If we are right about the UKSK-M being able to carry cruise and ballistic missiles as well as SAMs then I suspect it will be equipped with rather large numbers of UKSK-M... most of which will carry short range and medium range SAMs as well as ABM missiles based on the S-500.

    Very unlikely. All the models have no uksk on them. Price will already be high without them.

    See above.

    Also the goal of a carrier is to carry fighters which can have their own cruise missiles. Like kh59mk2 which is smaller and cheaper than kalibr.

    The carrier will be protected by frigates and cruiser that will have their own uksk in very big numbers.

    These are not US carriers, their purpose is primarily air defence... for the Americans what they have is called a carrier group... a large group of ships centred around an aircraft carrier... the ships protect the carrier and the carrier delivers the strike by aircraft.

    Russian carriers are different and are there to support the ships, so a group of ships will have an aircraft carrier attached to it to protect it from enemy air attack via aircraft, drones, or missiles, and to extend the effective range of basically surface located radars and sensors. Those ships of course can use Ka-31s to detect low flying threats out to reasonable distances, but a carrier with AWACS does it better... out to greater ranges for longer periods of time.

    Price of a few UKSK modules is nothing compared to the rest of a 70-80Kton CVN.
    The model has 4* rectangles in the bow area about where K & Ulyanovsk had Granits.

    Keep in mind that at the very least they could load up the UKSK tubes with anti sub ballistic rockets to engage subs detected by bow sonar or by helicopters embarked on the ship.

    Nothing says go away to a sub like a mach 2.5 ballistic rocket silently delivering a torpedo to within a few hundred metres of your sub with no warning... the first warning you get is the splash of the torpedo hitting the water nearby...

    Idea of alaskan passageway is interesting but at this point it would be better to expand it further: i.e. transform it into a full angled deck that can be used to manage helo/stol operations separately from planes.

    The purpose of that feature is to create a line where aircraft can be prepared for launch that don't get in the way of launches or landings.

    You have to arm and fuel aircraft on deck which is not super fast, and once loaded these aircraft are "dangerous" so you can't load and arm them below decks in case of an accident.

    Using this feature they can fuel and load aircraft and at the same time launch the two fighters on the front launch positions lined up with the Ski ramp, and if they want to they can launch two aircraft via EMALS cats, or they could be landing aircraft, or set up two more aircraft on the long takeoff strips for the ski jump... ie two short run planes take off and then their blast shields are lowered and then the long range planes take off... and now you have four launch positions to fill... so the next four aircraft that have been loaded and armed can be moved into position... chocks raised to hold them in place and blast shields raised to protect deck crew and other aircraft and when they are ready they can launch too, while new aircraft are moved from their places on the deck to be armed and fuelled...

    It has all the advantages and features of an assembly line...

    Also the idea that catapult are needed to operate Awacs planes is IMHO worth of a second thought: Su-25UTG were able to operate from Kutnetzov so why not to try to design an high initial thrust radar carring plane?

    Well as I keep mentioning a long endurance airship could carry an enormous antenna and have enormous persistence... it could operate from a relatively small ship from a tether that provides power and two way communication via fibre optics, so it could operate in passive modes and indeed in some crazy frequencies that enemy aircraft wont even detect or can't get a lock on like L band or below...

    Aircraft with enough thrust to get airborne would have shorter endurance... the problem is that to get airborne their need a very high power to weight ratio... but once they are airborne a very low power to weight ratio makes them more efficient for cruising at moderate speed for very long periods.

    Some weight can be saved by launching with the minimum weight of fuel and also launching a refuelling aircraft to fill them up once they are airborne, but that refuelling aircraft will do better with cat launch as it will allow it to take off with more off loadable fuel... you end up shifting the requirement for the cat from the AWACS to the inflight refuelling aircraft based on the same design.

    There are lots of STOL designs... I even mentioned the AN-2 in its upgraded form has a stall speed of about 60km/h... so a carrier heading into the wind might already have that wind speed coming over the deck before the aircraft has even started its engine... some sort of biplane design where the wings can fold around to the fuselage and they can do something with the radar so it is not some huge draggy lump would be interesting... they are developing these new photon based radar... does it look like an AESA radar or is it an optical thing?

    You could fit two high bypass turbofan engines on an upgraded composite An-2 and put a huge radar antenna in the nose and the tail and large side panel arrays, with a main upper and lower wing that rotate 90 degrees to lie flush with the fuselage... fill it with electronics and fuel and give it fully retractable undercarriage and an extendible inflight refuelling probe and you might end up with something that wont need a cat launch from carriers and could be operated almost anywhere on land for the role of AWACS... it could even be used on helicopter carriers.

    It would not be fast, but AWACS aircraft don't need to be fast... it could be designed to operate at useful altitudes... perhaps 8-10km, and with a new generation radar system it will be rather interesting...

    The Yak-44 had a MTOW of 40t and a maximum installed power of 28 000hp.

    That is only 14,000hp per engine... I would expect they could manage rather more power from high bypass turbofans these days...
    avatar
    Swede55

    Posts : 16
    Points : 21
    Join date : 2014-08-28

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty EM catapults

    Post  Swede55 on Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:39 am

    EM cats are a bad idea for a Russian carrier IMHO.  The Americans have spent years and mucho $ on it and still can't get it to work reliably on the Ford class, plus I have read that an EM cat sends out a strong radio signal with each launch, bad if you are trying to hide. Why try to solve these problems on what will likely be a one off ship? Steam is a much more practical.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:35 pm

    New Sensors and electronics can be adjusted for in a design stage, yes they would need to rework it some but that's easy to do on a blueprint stage level, if the ship was already built sure that's different. This isn't a reason at all, there is a reason companies keep using it has a base because there is no reason to right now.

    The difference between a newly designed carrier and a reworked Ulky wouldn't be that big just minor.


    Again readjusting the inside of the ship wouldn't be hard, on a blueprint level. The Ulky's Hull is fine for a 21st Century carrier yeah they would need to shift around the guts some but not by much and extend the deck other than that. The work is mostly done for them,

    Your second response to me was also pointless you will notice I said "When Possible" not "RIGHT NOW".

    Russian Navy isn't the Soviet Navy they want Strike carriers, not defensive carriers. They have been clear about that get rid of that Soviet Era mentality.
    Isos
    Isos

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Isos on Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:25 pm

    This new Lamantin class has a lenght of 350m (330 at water lvl) so unlikely they start it anytime soon in their actual shipyards. It's even longer than Ford class and its 333m.

    The only one they could start is the Shtorm KM but it's nowhere near RuN expectation. Unless they find a foreign country that wants it.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:44 pm

    ???... somethings odd here.

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 D_ici610
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 D_h_el11
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Jul 14, 2019 12:18 am

    Nothing says go away to a sub like a mach 2.5 ballistic rocket silently delivering a torpedo to within a few hundred metres of your sub with no warning...
    the noise of it being launched would be detected by subs- sound travels through ship's haul & water better & faster than air.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4916
    Points : 4948
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:40 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    Russian Navy isn't the Soviet Navy they want Strike carriers, not defensive carriers. They have been clear about that get rid of that Soviet Era mentality.

    a strike carrier with 24 - 28 fighters? to strike what precisely? not US CSG of course.



    Isos wrote:

    The only one they could start is the Shtorm KM but it's nowhere near RuN expectation. Unless they find a foreign country that wants it.
    RuN expectations are beyond RuN budget so far. Why so long does it take to choose CV model do you think is Shtorm was more less ready in 2015?
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:22 am

    Are you talking about the Kuz? because you just made ZERO SENSE.. if so learn English, I said "WANT" not "THEY HAVE". What carrier is anyone talking about to build that would have 28 planes?.

    I don't recall anyone here or me mentioning a carrier of such light size, so where are you getting this 24-28 number? Are you making this up on the spot or something?.

    Whatever they need it to clearly. A carrier is a mobile airfield, That can access areas where your land-based planes do not have range.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8190
    Points : 8276
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:37 am

    Isos wrote:This new Lamantin class has a lenght of 350m (330 at water lvl) so unlikely they start it anytime soon in their actual shipyards. It's even longer than Ford class and its 333m.

    The only one they could start is the Shtorm KM but it's nowhere near RuN expectation. Unless they find a foreign country that wants it.


    They won't be starting anything at all for at least another 15 years (if they are lucky), they went on record with this

    By that time everything you see on this fanart expo will be long forgotten

    It's obsolete even by today's standards




    And it also demonstrates clearly that Russians have no clue about designing carriers, they seem to think that it makes sense to invest time and money into developing catapults only to build a ship around ski-ramp with catapults as an afterthought

    And those ski-ramps only use like 30% of deck length for launching aircraft, it's like they are trying on purpose to be as least efficient as possible

    To say nothing of the fact that any aircraft landing on the angled deck would risk slamming into aircraft ready for take off which is very real possibility given the Russian well documented incompetence with operating carrier aircraft



    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4916
    Points : 4948
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:55 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Are you talking about the Kuz? because you just made ZERO SENSE.. if so learn English, I said "WANT" not "THEY HAVE". What carrier is anyone talking about to build that would have 28 planes?.

    Kryvlov's 44ktons proposal. Didn't you read? that's first



    I don't recall anyone here or me mentioning a carrier of such light size, so where are you getting this 24-28 number? Are you making this up on the spot or something?.

    Whatever they need it to clearly. A carrier is a mobile airfield, That can access areas where your land-based planes do not have range.

    hmm first you should read Russian press perhaps where Krylov's proposals were discussed at nausea? as for CV/CV Lets assume Russian has 1 CVN with 70ktons/ So what you want to strike (assuming you got 40-50 fighters) ? 3 world country?

    but you dont want to strike US CSGs? well then you focus on own fleet defense or I am wrong?
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4916
    Points : 4948
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:59 am

    PapaDragon wrote:

    They won't be starting anything at all for at least another 15 years (if they are lucky), they went on record with this


    meh start wil lbe earlier in next 3-5 yars. The question iswhen CV goes into service?


    [quote="PAPS" ]
    To say nothing of the fact that any aircraft landing on the angled deck would risk slamming into aircraft ready for take off which is very real possibility given the Russian well documented incompetence with operating carrier aircraft


    [/quote]

    what do you mean well documented? there was only Syria so far dunno dunno dunno
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8190
    Points : 8276
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:57 am


    Yes there was Syria where they lost a fighter jet because they failed to properly calculate fuel consumption

    They want to have everything in one package again without thinking wether they need it or not

    Reactor, reasonable size, two catapults, flat deck, that's all there is to it

    Don't go stuffing weapons that are supposed to be on escorts and ski-ramps that are not needed with catapults

    USA, French, Chinese figured this out already,I doubt Russians have some secret elusive knowledge about carriers that magically eluded everyone else

    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:39 am

    EM cats are a bad idea for a Russian carrier IMHO. The Americans have spent years and mucho $ on it and still can't get it to work reliably on the Ford class, plus I have read that an EM cat sends out a strong radio signal with each launch, bad if you are trying to hide. Why try to solve these problems on what will likely be a one off ship? Steam is a much more practical.

    The Russians and Soviets never had a fully operational steam powered catapult system, so developing either is going to be a long expensive process. If steam is so wonderful why hasn't the current British carrier got steam cats... they know how they work...

    I would suggest what you have read regarding EM cats sending out strong radio signal is the US EM cat... there is such a thing as shielding...

    If they can perfect an effective and capable EM cat then it could be adapted to the Kuznetsov for use as well as on lighter helicopter carriers to allow the launch of MALE or HALE UAVs...

    The technology would be useful from things like high speed trains and all electric vehicles.

    Russian Navy isn't the Soviet Navy they want Strike carriers, not defensive carriers. They have been clear about that get rid of that Soviet Era mentality.

    Actually what they have been clear about is that all their ships need to be multirole, which means UKSK launchers for everyone.

    The primary purpose of their fixed wing carriers however is not power projection, but aircover for any surface fleet anywhere in the world.

    ???... somethings odd here.

    Probably a fisheye lens that distorts the bow to make it look short in the top picture... the lower image shows it being much longer...

    the noise of it being launched would be detected by subs- sound travels through ship's haul & water better & faster than air.

    Why do you think a rocket being launched from the deck of a carrier could be detected by a sub 50km away?

    As opposed to all the aircraft they are launching for instance, or other activities that are going on on board...

    Whatever they need it to clearly. A carrier is a mobile airfield, That can access areas where your land-based planes do not have range.

    You are confusing the Russians with America... the Russians see an aircraft rather differently than the US sees aircraft... for the American Navy a carrier group is a group of ships supporting a carrier that carries around aircraft that deliver air strikes against enemy ground and air and sea surface threats.

    For the Russians the aircraft are a layer of defence for the ships... land attack strikes and sea surface strikes will be mostly ship and sub launched... the aircraft are there to deal with enemy aircraft and missiles that try to attack the Russian ships and even then they are more early warning as a large volume attack will require a lot of ship based SAMs as well as AAMs to stop.


    And it also demonstrates clearly that Russians have no clue about designing carriers, they seem to think that it makes sense to invest time and money into developing catapults only to build a ship around ski-ramp with catapults as an afterthought

    Actually that suits their method of operation... their fighter aircraft don't and wont need cat launches even with full fuel and air to air weapons, so the cats are only for the AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft...

    They get the best of both worlds... fast launch operations with a skijump, and heavy long range AWACS aircraft via cats.

    And those ski-ramps only use like 30% of deck length for launching aircraft, it's like they are trying on purpose to be as least efficient as possible

    WTF else would they use it for... a nice vege garden so they can have fresh vegies on longer voyages?

    To say nothing of the fact that any aircraft landing on the angled deck would risk slamming into aircraft ready for take off which is very real possibility given the Russian well documented incompetence with operating carrier aircraft

    The deck shown is not an operational set up.... for fucks sake there is a helicopter sitting on the side of the fucking ski jump...

    Lets assume Russian has 1 CVN with 70ktons/ So what you want to strike (assuming you got 40-50 fighters) ? 3 world country?

    Better question... in what alternate reality has Russia become the US... ground strikes will generally consist of cruise missile attacks if that.

    but you dont want to strike US CSGs? well then you focus on own fleet defense or I am wrong?

    One converted Oscar with 72 Zircon missiles will deal with any US carrier groups...

    Yes there was Syria where they lost a fighter jet because they failed to properly calculate fuel consumption

    No, they lost two jets because the arrester gear system failed and they could not be recovered to land by the time they worked out the problem could not be fixed right away.

    They want to have everything in one package again without thinking wether they need it or not

    Reactor, reasonable size, two catapults, flat deck, that's all there is to it

    Brilliant... take away the ski jump and reduce their aircraft launch rate by 80% for no advantage at all.

    The only aircraft that need cat launch are the AWACS planes and the inflight refuelling plane based on the same airframe.

    All the other aircraft can take off from the ramp while any other aircraft could be landing at the same time... if there are no other aircraft landing at the same time they can launch four aircraft at a time from the Ski Jump, but you think they should get rid of their ability to rapidly get fighters in the air so they can launch their AWACS platform over the bow... their AWACS aircraft is fucking useless taking off all the time... the whole point of making it heavy (with fuel) is so you launch it once and leave it up there for 6 hours doing its job... after 6 hours you might send up an inflight refuelling aircraft to top it up again so it can stay there for another 6 hours... which means on average you will be using the EM cats once every 6 hours... the ski jump and angled landing deck on the other hand will be continuously used to launch and recover all the other aircraft... but if you had your way it would take 5 times longer to launch aircraft because without a ski jump you could only launch 2 aircraft at a time and when they were being launched one of the cat positions would cover the angled deck landing run so you can't land aircraft but you can only launch 2 at a time, or land one at a time... what a bad carrier designer you would make.

    [quote]Don't go stuffing weapons that are supposed to be on escorts and ski-ramps that are not needed with catapults[/qutoe]

    The carrier is multi role and requires UKSK launchers and probably UKSK-M launchers.

    The only aircraft that need cats are AWACS and they will only be carrying about 4, and refuelling aircraft, that might be 4 more... compared with perhaps 60 other planes that use the ski jump to operate from the carrier.

    USA, French, Chinese figured this out already,I doubt Russians have some secret elusive knowledge about carriers that magically eluded everyone else

    There you go.... AMERICAN DOES IT THIS WAY... RUSSIA IS STUPID TO TRY AND DO IT ANY OTHER WAY...

    But guess what... Russian fighters are just that... they are fighters, so they don't need heavy air to ground ordinance loads, the Su-33 can't even carry external fuel tanks... they don't need cat assisted launches, but what they do benefit from is ski jump launches because they have the raw engine power to benefit from running up a ramp for a jump in to the air. A big heavy overloaded truck on the other hand does not benefit from a ramp launch so the cats make more sense oriented via the angled landing deck.

    It is not a big deal on a Russian carrier because only the AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft need cat launches 90% of aircraft launches will be fighters via the ramp and the design with the path around the island it is even better because aircraft can be prepared for launch on the deck ready to go so launches via the ramp will be very very fast.
    avatar
    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 586
    Points : 596
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  ATLASCUB on Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:48 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:???... somethings odd here.

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 D_ici610
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 D_h_el11

    Lol no kidding...

    I do like the size tho... Str0nk!!! Laughing
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8190
    Points : 8276
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:..their fighter aircraft don't and wont need cat launches even with full fuel and air to air weapons..

    Their fighter aircraft can't take off with full fuel and weapons

    They have to carry minimum ordinance and they use up huge amount of fuel just to take off

    This is not some big mystery




    GarryB wrote:..No, they lost two jets because the arrester gear system failed and they could not be recovered to land by the time they worked out the problem could not be fixed right away...

    They lost one due to arrestor gear failure, other was lost because they dropped the ball with fuel calculations so crew had to bail



    GarryB wrote:...WTF else would they use it for... a nice vege garden so they can have fresh vegies on longer voyages?...

    Maybe to save some fuel on takeoff by not starting from very end?

    Although given the overall usefulness of Russian carrier a nice veggie garden would definitely be more useful than anything else they ever attempted doing with that bathtub



    GarryB wrote:...There you go.... AMERICAN DOES IT THIS WAY... RUSSIA IS STUPID TO TRY AND DO IT ANY OTHER WAY...

    Considering that Russia has been trying to do it the other way for half a century and failing miserably in the process maybe they should start getting their heads out of their asses for a change?

    They are not above humiliating themselves by buying electronics from French of all people but taking pointers over something that clearly works is beneath them all of a sudden?



    GarryB wrote:..But guess what... Russian fighters are just that... they are fighters, so they don't need heavy air to ground ordinance loads....

    We have actual Russians here screaming their faces off about their fighters not having useful air to ground payload or anything resembling range

    You may think that Russia is some hippie dreamland but reality is much different



    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:36 pm

    1. Papa is right, Planes cannot take off the Kuz full weight, this is WELLLLLLLLL KNOWN. Don't pretend otherwise.

    2. They lost one to arresting gears and they lost another since it couldn't land due to the broken arresting gear it was circling the carrier for a bit before it did eventually run out of fuel and crashed into the ocean.

    Isos
    Isos

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Isos on Sun Jul 14, 2019 3:43 pm

    Kuznetsov was build for Soviet navy and intgrated in their naval doctrine, i.e protect SSBN. The range and weapons of su-33 was enough to destroy p-3 and other maritime patrol aircraft trying to destroy soviet subs.

    It was never intended to be used to strike land neither fight other carriers.

    Their subs and bombers were supposed to destroy US carriers.


    Ulyanovsk was the first carrier build for a similar role to US carriers.  


    Stop comparing it with US way of using carriers.

    If you want to make fun of someone, try UK and the QE class which is supposed to be a "supercarrier" as US ones but is as good at power projection as Kuznetsov but with no protection.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:49 pm

    Why do you think a rocket being launched from the deck of a carrier could be detected by a sub 50km away?
    As opposed to all the aircraft they are launching for instance, or other activities that are going on on board...
    Sound travels in water for very long distances. Any rocket launch will be noisy. Air ops will also be detected, even if a CVN is just drifting wit its screws not moving. CAT launches & all recoveries r noisy, as well as SAR helos that fly low.
    Isos
    Isos

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Isos on Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:36 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Why do you think a rocket being launched from the deck of a carrier could be detected by a sub 50km away?
    As opposed to all the aircraft they are launching for instance, or other activities that are going on on board...
    Sound travels in water for very long distances. Any rocket launch will be noisy. Air ops will also be detected, even if a CVN is just drifting wit its screws not moving. CAT launches & all recoveries r noisy, as well as SAR helos that fly low.

    Tsavor is right. The launch will be very well detected. Nato already tracked the launches of kalibr from kilo subs and corvettes from Mediteranean and have it in their database just like Tomahawks are in russian database.

    But the rocket is traveling at mach 2.5, so the 50km will be made in 1 minute or so. The sub won't escape.
    x_54_u43
    x_54_u43

    Posts : 204
    Points : 222
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  x_54_u43 on Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:17 am

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Fetch?id=3658654&d=1558567315

    For morons in this thread.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:56 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:1. Papa is right, Planes cannot take off the Kuz full weight, this is WELLLLLLLLL KNOWN. Don't pretend otherwise.

    2. They lost one to arresting gears and they lost another since it couldn't land due to the broken arresting gear it was circling the carrier for a bit before it did eventually run out of fuel and crashed into the ocean.


    There were a couple of studies and articles that were arguing that the F-18 could take off from the ski jump in the indian carrier at max takeoff weight.

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

    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13883/boeing-says-super-hornet-fully-compatible-with-indian-navy-ski-jump-carriers

    From what I understand, the mig29 and su33 can takeoff with full load from the longest takeoff position available (180m?) on kuznetov (or on the Indian carrier), but that prevent takeoff and landing to happen at the same time.

    Since a full load is not always needed, most of the time they start from the "short" takeoff position (95m?), partially fueled and equipped, leaving so the angled deck free for landings.
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:25 am

    Their fighter aircraft can't take off with full fuel and weapons

    They have to carry minimum ordinance and they use up huge amount of fuel just to take off

    This is not some big mystery

    We are talking about the new carriers... with EMALS... which will either have light 5th gen fighters or upgraded Su-57s which have larger wing areas than the Su-33, and internal weapons carriage which means no external weapons drag or RCS, it also is smaller and lighter than the Su-33 with more powerful engines right now and in a year or twos time even more powerful engines... of course these fighters are going to be taking off a much bigger carrier with full fuel and air to air weapon load.

    They might struggle with a full weapon load as that would be 10 tons, but an air to air weapon load with internal weapons only we are talking about 3 tons maximum with no drag... that should be bloody easy... especially considering that in addition to being lighter and smaller but with a much larger wing area and no external weapon stores drag and more powerful engines, they also will have thrust vectoring engines which should make taking off a breeze.

    They lost one due to arrestor gear failure, other was lost because they dropped the ball with fuel calculations so crew had to bail

    No, they lost both aircraft because the arrester gear was faulty but they didn't know it was faulty straight away.... the symptom was that the cables were snapping, which is what happens when you have faulty cables or the arrester gear is not working and there is no give in the system to reduce the strain on the cables... after several landing attempts where the cables kept breaking they realised it was an arrester gear problem so they tried to fix it... broken arrester cables don't crash planes... planes land in full AB so that if the cables break they can get airborne again and fly around and have another go because eventually the cables do break even when everything is fine... that is why there are usually four wires to catch... they don't restring it instantly as soon as one breaks... there is no time... when four break they have to recable the system... aircraft waiting to land remain in orbit over the carrier till they get a landing spot... when it is clear the arrester gear is the problem and it wont be fixed that day let alone that week then aircraft are diverted and by the time the order for diversion was made neither aircraft had enough fuel to make it to land.

    Clearly with hindsight they should have immediately launched two fighters with buddy refuelling pods and refuelled the aircraft in the air and all four aircraft flown to a land base... I am sure the flight manual will get a few changes added to it... all part of the learning experience... that is what they sent the K to Syria for.. to learn how to do this sort of stuff.

    Maybe to save some fuel on takeoff by not starting from very end?

    They launch them right up the front because fighter jets with air to air payloads don't need 200m airstrips to get airborne.

    The long launch strip can be used by the Su-33 for a full payload full fuel takeoff... that is what the long run position on the Kuznetsov is for because the AEW aircraft is a helicopter.

    Considering that Russia has been trying to do it the other way for half a century and failing miserably in the process maybe they should start getting their heads out of their asses for a change?

    They are finally getting what they want, there is no reason to change back to stupid now... besides if they get rid of the ramp that would render them useless for your VSTOL money sinks...

    They are not above humiliating themselves by buying electronics from French of all people but taking pointers over something that clearly works is beneath them all of a sudden?

    Humiliation would be using 1980s electronics that are state of the Ark, but Russian.... Using French designed more modern equipment and getting it made by a Russian company so they can learn from the new tech and start developing their own stuff so that in one generation they can rid themselves of a need to use foreign stuff makes rather more sense than being all Russian all backwards and proud.

    We have actual Russians here screaming their faces off about their fighters not having useful air to ground payload or anything resembling range

    For a strike role why waste time and money using Su-57s at perhaps mach 1.8 in super cruise to attack a target 2,000km away from the carrier, when a smaller ship with a UKSK launcher can move 500km closer to the target and launch a mach 10 Zircon missile to do the job much faster... instead of flying into enemy controlled airspace that Su-57 can fly 500km and protect that smaller ship as it turns and heads back to the group.... or against a more capable and better equipped enemy replace the small ship with a sub...

    1. Papa is right, Planes cannot take off the Kuz full weight, this is WELLLLLLLLL KNOWN. Don't pretend otherwise.

    You genius... so if we are talking about the Kuz... take the ski jump off and just use its catapult system that it doesn't even have... ?

    Are you drunk?

    Papa wants no ski ramp on the new EMALS equipped carriers, yet that would render them ineffective as an air defence carrier because their fighters will operate from the ramp, not the cats. It will also mean any future VSTOL fighter will be worse than useless because it will only be able to operate from cat takeoff on a flat deck.

    BTW if Ramps are backward and no one has them WTF is that on the UK carriers?

    These planned Russian carriers have both ramps and EMALS... sounds like the best of both worlds... higher launch rates with lighter aircraft, but heavier long range aircraft for long endurance AWACS platforms and more fuel on inflight refuelling models.

    2. They lost one to arresting gears and they lost another since it couldn't land due to the broken arresting gear it was circling the carrier for a bit before it did eventually run out of fuel and crashed into the ocean.

    How did the arresting gear directly make them lose an aircraft? Both aircraft ran out of fuel and crashed into the sea. Both aircraft crashed in to the sea because they were unable to land on the carrier deck.

    Any rocket launch will be noisy.

    Why?

    I could understand a rocket launch from a sub is noisy because the noise is made in the water... tubes need to be flooded... outer doors opened and the rocket blast from launching a rocket all make noise directly in the medium of water, but a rocket launch on top of a carrier hundreds of metres away from the water... I just don't buy it.

    Air ops will also be detected, even if a CVN is just drifting wit its screws not moving. CAT launches & all recoveries r noisy, as well as SAR helos that fly low.

    There is a serious difference between helicopter passing overhead and torpedo in the water 700m away... there is little doubt the sub will know a rather large group of ships is nearby, but detecting a mach 2.5 rocket propelled torpedo flying on a ballistic trajectory to near its current location is nonsense... unless it has its radar sticking out of the water and operating... in which case it would expect to be attacked anyway.

    Tsavor is right. The launch will be very well detected. Nato already tracked the launches of kalibr from kilo subs and corvettes from Mediteranean and have it in their database just like Tomahawks are in russian database.

    NATO tracking with radar perhaps, but then any radar signals become targets too, so I doubt they would be operating them as openly in a situation where a Russian carrier will be launching torpedoes at submarines...

    Since a full load is not always needed, most of the time they start from the "short" takeoff position (95m?), partially fueled and equipped, leaving so the angled deck free for landings.

    Air to air payloads are less than half max weapon payloads, normally they operate with less than full fuel, but in combat they should be able to take off with a full AA load and full fuel from the short run.

    That is what they designed the Kuznetsov for.... MiG-29s and Su-33s operating without catapults... its size is scaled to allow normal operations at full load of fuel and air to air weapons.

    The Ulyanovsk was slightly bigger to allow the fitting of cats to allow AWACS platforms to operate too but it had a ski jump as standard as well.

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1566
    Points : 1568
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Big_Gazza on Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:49 am

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:From what I understand, the mig29 and su33 can takeoff with full load from the longest takeoff position available (180m?) on kuznetov (or on the Indian carrier), but that prevent takeoff and landing to happen at the same time.

    Since a full load is not always needed, most of the time they start from the "short" takeoff position (95m?), partially fueled and equipped,  leaving so the angled deck free for landings.

    Correct, but people with agendas don't care about facts and are happy to tell the same BS lies time after time in defense of their preferred narratives.

    Isos wrote:Kuznetsov was build for Soviet navy and intgrated in their naval doctrine, i.e protect SSBN. The range and weapons of su-33 was enough to destroy p-3 and other maritime patrol aircraft trying to destroy soviet subs.

    It was never intended to be used to strike land neither fight other carriers.

    ......

    Stop comparing it with US way of using carriers.

    Thanks for another great example of how perennial detractors ignore reality as it doesn't conform with their preferences. Laughing
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1566
    Points : 1568
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Big_Gazza on Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:25 am

    GarryB wrote:BTW if Ramps are backward and no one has them WTF is that on the UK carriers?

    Being of a suitably aged vintage, I remember the HMS Invincible being commissioned and how military "experts" proclaimed its ski-jump as a great military innovation. Funny how the official verdict changes when its the Russians who are using them.... Suspect
    Isos
    Isos

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Isos on Mon Jul 15, 2019 12:55 pm

    NATO tracking with radar perhaps, but then any radar signals become targets too, so I doubt they would be operating them as openly in a situation where a Russian carrier will be launching torpedoes at submarines...

    Sound doesn't stop at water level. It goes through. A submarine will detect the launch of a torpedo but also the launch of a rocket from a ship just like it will detect a helicopter in the air.

    Best sonars can even detect the noise made by humans in the ship.

    Sponsored content

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:21 am