Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:36 pm

    Fine, regarding AWACS planes & small lifts, they'll keep them on the flight deck or make bigger lifts. In the USN, they r seldom found in a hangar bay:
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 The-nimitz-class-aircraft-carrier-uss-stocktrek-images
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 CVN-70-USS-Carl-Vinson-photo-056
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 USS_Carl_Vinson_%28CVN_70%29_conducts_a_replenishment-at-sea_with_USNS_Yukon._%2827967789254%29
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Bilde?Site=M6&Date=20141013&Category=NEWS04&ArtNo=310130026&Ref=V5

    US F-35s poised to make first combat mission
    Defense officials say [STOVL] fighter jets will be in position to conduct airstrikes in Afghanistan in coming days
    Yes, they r the F-35Bs flown by the Marines. Another vindication for their utility!


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:04 pm; edited 2 times in total
    Isos
    Isos

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Isos on Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:35 pm

    regarding AWACS planes & small lifts, they'll keep them on the flight deck

    Salt and constant salted water exposure is not really good.

    the Krylov guy is directly quoted saying its a catamaran stern

    If it wasn't a catamaran it could touch the water with the deck. You can see videos of high evasive turns of ships, they roll by almost 45°. The catamaran makes it impossible and the turns can be achieved by turning faster one engine than the other in addition to the rudder.
    avatar
    kumbor

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  kumbor on Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:48 pm

    Isos wrote:
    regarding AWACS planes & small lifts, they'll keep them on the flight deck

    Salt and constant salted water exposure is not really good.

    the Krylov guy is directly quoted saying its a catamaran stern

    If it wasn't a catamaran it could touch the water with the deck. You can see videos of high evasive turns of ships, they roll by almost 45°. The catamaran makes it impossible and the turns can be achieved by turning faster one engine than the other in addition to the rudder.

    Every multi-shaft ship can in emergency steer with allowing different power on either shaft, such practice is more than 100 years old. Broad stern also decreases list in sharp turn, but it also depends on metacentric height.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2272
    Points : 2270
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Hole on Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:36 pm

    On an ami carrier only half of the aircraft fit inside the hangar. In Russia all carriers in the past could accommodate all planes/helicopters in the hangar. That´s why they always carried less planes than western carriers (with comparable size).

    You could clean the aircraft from time to time. But nobody said something of the Yak-44. Could be something like this:

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Su-33u10
    verkhoturye51
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 449
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:02 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Unless they'll have a large Russian overseas colony or dependency, I don't see a need for vital transoceanic SLOCs to be protected.

    Yes, Russia needs to trade and integrate with its partners. Beeing lonely when West tries to crush you with "coincidentially" simultanious sanctions, financial attack on ruble and surge of oil production driving oil price down, has almost brough Russia to its knees and dried their reserve found entirely. That was the time they started to value their partnership with China.

    This is the reason for their diplomatic offensive on Africa in 2017-18. They offered Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Sudan and CAR weapons and military instructors in exchange for diplomatic support in the UN, resources and military bases. But of course you need to be able to defend these SLOCs with blue water navy when Libyan scenario repeats. Same with Venezuela - largest oil reserves in the world. Russia needs it on its side to coordinate oil production and thus price. The difference between 60 $ and 40 $ is the difference between life and death for Russia. It's about this, not cocoa and coffee.

    Even with continental Asian countries like India it's more secure and cheap to trade via sea, rather than be dependable on countries in between like China, that have conflicting interests.

    Back to the topic: my point is that Russian need for a real, 70k ton or Shturm size CVN is growing. And I see some potential for getting a new CVN before Lider, since they will be temporarily substituted by Super Gorshkovs. By most optimistic scenario, a contract could be signed in 2025, as sources suggest, and production started in late 2020s.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:54 pm

    They have the Tartus base in Syria & the Med. Sea is close to the Black Sea, large blue water navy isn't needed there.
    Unless they have a forward deployed CV/N with escorts on a base in L. America, like the US has in Japan, Venezuela can be overrun by her neighbors &/ the US from the sea & air. It may happen soon:
    Colombia says world must act to end Venezuelan 'dictatorship'
    President Trump Says Venezuela Could Be 'Quickly Toppled' as U.S. Imposes Fresh Sanctions
    Russian economy will need to get off the oil needle, the sooner the better!
    verkhoturye51
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 449
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:37 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Unless they have a forward deployed CV/N with escorts on a base in L. America, like the US has in Japan, Venezuela can be overrun by her neighbors &/ the US from the sea & air.

    No, they can simply establish a naval base in Venezuela. Then an US attack on the country gives Russia right to do anything to defend their interest. Actually getting closer to US borders would be a great answer to NATO's appetites for Georgia and Ukraine.

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Russian economy will need to get off the oil needle, the sooner the better!

    What? 49 % of their exports are oil and gas. I guess they should just ignore their strategic natural resources endowment.

    It's about taking control of what's important for them, not giving hands up.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:57 pm

    Defending unstable Venezuela with American troops in Colombia is risky & isn't that important, as Cuba is even closer to the US & already hosted USSR & Russian presence that can be increased. Jungle warfare is a trap, as the US has learned in Vietnam. The Russians have no experience in such land campaigns in the tropics; they were miserable just manning AD in N. Vietnam.
    Russia should diversify her economy to not be so dependent on oil exports.
    verkhoturye51
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 449
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:19 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Russia should diversify her economy to not be so dependent on oil exports.    

    Russia should stick to exporting energents. It could export 100 different products in Germany and have them all rejected after sanctions start, but they decided to be their no. 1 provider of natural gas, structural backbone of entire economy and thus create a mutual dependency. Energy is very important. Now Germany is not being so hard on Russia when it comes to Ukraine and other focal points.

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Defending unstable Venezuela with American troops in Colombia is risky & isn't that important, as Cuba is even closer to the US & already hosted USSR & Russian presence that can be increased. Jungle warfare is a trap, as the US has learned in Vietnam. The Russians have no experience in such land campaigns in the tropics; they were miserable just manning AD in N. Vietnam.    

    Except that N. Vietnam has won that war.

    And what has US learnt in Bay of Pigs? Defending S-400 controlled jungle will be easy, besides Venezuelans know the territory. Jungle-unexperienced US soldiers won't have any luck there. Cuba may be strategically important, but Venezuela is tactically better entry point to the region, because of oil, economy size, current vulnerability, vicinity to Brazil and lower conflict of interest with distant US.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:39 am

    They r very territorial & the Monroe Doctrine hasn't collected any dust!
    Rest assured: the US & their L. American allies will preempt Russia in Venezuela, like they did after WWII with military juntas, interventions & coups/regime changes in the Caribbean, C. & South America "to keep them out of Communist hands". Their economy is dependent on the US economy; the region is under the US thumb.
    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 and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:11 am

    GarryB wrote:You can pretty much ignore Europe
    +++
    That means 1.5 billion Chinese... but they also generally have locally made alternatives that will also be cheaper.
    1.4 billion Indians, but Russia will be competing with the west here and you still can't send goods via rail or aircraft to India efficiently... most major international trade is by sea


    1) Europe. Still 400 billions of trade yearly.
    no you cannot ignore Europe.  I didnt see it Germany, Austria, Italy, Nederlands, Hungary or Finland  are trading with Russia. Poland too  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup .  True that energy products are topping now but it is in all directions.

    Because there were no money to invest in competitive products yet. If you spend on blue water navy you wont have them either for next couple of years. Everybody protects its market and Russia does it too.  But where product's competitive (titanium carriages for Airbus,  nuclear power plants Finland or Hungary). Will Russia have competitive products  they will be on EU markets too. If  they block Russia cuts but billions import from EU  and grow due to market (still machine building / aerospace or 30 blns € alone  on pharma...)

    http://www.worldstopexports.com/russias-top-10-exports/
    Check opportunities tab


    Ergo: economy first with client base with lowest access cost. Dont stretch outside your means and power. Romans once did.






    2) Asia
    Russian export to China will grow and including Hi-tech with India there are many projects due to made in India. Ka-226
    You cannot send good via rail? Damn you should tell this to Chinese, Japanese or Koreans who want to use Russian railways for new Silk Road. BTW China wants to build rail to Africa BTW with branches to India/Myanmar/Vietnam/Malaysia/Thailand


    3) Africa and South America
    So Africa and central and south america are potential growth areas of trade for Russia... for which a blue water Navy would be useful to support...


    Perhaps in 50 years is true. But Russian export  needs to develop export NOW. I can see a brilliant strategist  thinking here changing more populated and much richer clients for "prospective" in  50 years. So you were the one talking about retardation?  cheers  cheers  cheers

    Below numbers for 2018 after wiki
    .................................population.............................................% of wolds one
    South America: ............422,535,000......................................... 5.68%
    Africa.........................1,216,130,000 .......................................16.36%
    Asia...........................4,436,224,000........................................59.69%
    Europe.........................738,849,000......................................... 9.94%

    GDP PPP of only couple of richest now countries of Asia....................................................40,6 trillios $, (all is about 50trillions)
    (was quoted yesterday China/India/Japan/Korea/Taiwan
    South America (I added almost all countries except Guyana + dutch colony)........................6,9 trillions $
    Africa (I searched till below 100billions )..........................................................................4,6 trillions $







    France cannot afford 2. Has one: 42kts displacement, 30 fighters + 800 Marines
    France has "territories" around the world that act as unsinkable carriers.. as does the UK.

    Syria, Tartus. Resupply station in Camp-Rham Vietnam. Russia could have worked on bases in Iran/Eritrea or Cuba but why? there is NO MONEY now. It is better to spent couple of billions on investing in competitive civilian products then CV. Especially large one  






    UK: has built 2.  with  36 +14 helos VSTOL fighters, AWACS  Sea King based and no catobar , with ability to support  amphibious operations (marines onboard)  lol1  lol1  lol1  Kuz size (65ktons). Nowhere near US Ford/Nimitz.  
    Are you retarded?
    Why do you keep bringing up fucking stupid American white elephants... this is nothing to do with them.

    did you read your what you wrote?! with understanding  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect  
    1) I agreed that small universal carriers like France or medium as UK built is OK (IMHO  is  definitely the road)
    2)  You say : no this is not the way Russia should go and sam time you're   that US is not an example.

    Now focus. I know it might be hard for you but you need to try harder this time.  Kuz size bad,  Nimitz size bad, de Gaulle? crap.
    Then what precisely you need?







    What sort of thing are you thinking... Russian cargo ship being threatened by ships from Uraguay, and so it calls a nearby Chinese ship to help... really?
    China is International Rescue?

    lol1  lol1  lol1  Uruguay only if you are raider of the arc or German raider battleship  lol1  lol1  lol1  Then CSG with small universal carrier is more than enough. If you need carriers here at all.

    China is an ally in SCO and cooperation gets closer every year.  I dont think  Chinese would say no if Russia calls them for help. Especially that Chinese goodies go vie Northern Route...So if Chinese CSG is near what is the problem?






    The west accuses everyone else of doing what they are doing or what they intend to do.

    just plain Boolean logic: just negate all their statement and you got true meaning  lol1  lol1  lol1




    No, not the same. But avionics and element base was from 2000s.  And we talk about status in 2030s.

    No it isn't... MiG have been developing new avionics all the time... the AESA they put in their MiG-35s will not be from 2000s... the DAS is not from the 2000s, the engines are the most recent models, the avionics are their most recent models... and in 2030 they will likely have had 3-4 upgrade cycles since then too

    MiG-29k doesnt have MiG-35 avionics. It has old avionics, perhaps there will be some updates but none has been announced yet.





    Right now they have Su-33s and MiG-29KRs... by 2030 they will likely have put photonic radars and the latest in IIR sensors and other systems in their existing aircraft as upgrades.

    no they wont. 50 years air frames are not going to be used anymore. Same as  MiG-23 is not used today.




    They don't need to spend 20 billion and have two new CVNs in 2030... they already have one carrier so one CVN over the next 15 years and another 8-10 years after that means they wont have three carriers (CV + CVNx2) till the mid 2030s at the earliest.

    I would say the squadrons of stealthy STOVL 5th gen fighters (doubled so there are spare aircraft on the ground practising) are going to cost more than the carriers they are operating from.
    +++
    So it is a naval only carrier only aircraft of very limited use.

    Price of  Su-33 was 1,7 price of Su-27 I take per analogy Su-57.  LEts use low price so ~75mln$ unit.  24x1.7x75= 3 billions $.
    If you take an estimate for 100mln per unit you have 4 billions per Kuz only.

    IMHO Your misconception is that VSTOL is only for fleet. Not this is deck light fighter with VSTOL that can be used on land as well. Same as F-18 was. Vide  Canada, Finland or  Australia.
    The whole Rafale ordered by French Navy + AF is 180 pieces for 30 years...






    and?
    It might be worth it if it could do things other planes can't do... but an Su-57 can take off from a 300m strip of motorway at max weight... a VSTOL can destroy a 300m strip of runway and crash...

    300m  with MTOW? where's the source?   Suspect  Suspect  Suspect  Then why do Russians build special airbases for Su-57 then?  dunno  dunno  dunno  As for destroying airstrips by STOL I am afraid that personal phobias dont count in real world  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup  




    They considered your option for sure it turned out VSTOL is much better and cost efficient option

    No. Actually the opposite. They said the Yak-38 could replace the Su-25 and it was tested in Afghanistan and was total shit in the CAS role... what were the US Marines intending to use the AV-8 for? Ohh... that is right... CAS.To be fair, the AV-8 is a much better aircraft in every way to the Yak-38, but it is still crap as CAS.

    in your world tech time stands still since  80's ?   affraid  affraid  affraid   Yak-141 was way better then AV8 and in fighter role not really worse then contemporaries. New VSTOL will have top notch tech and perhaps add much to fighter drone development.



    If you have Moscow point defense you need 300km radius at least. But ok call it group area defense. What doestn change meaning.

    S-400 has a 300km radius with AWACS support...
    [/qute]

    And you will use guns to shoot CMs or fighters not missiles?  affraid  affraid  affraid
    BTW light fighters have  700-900 heavy 1200 but anyway it is too short to stop carriers of 1,600km US stealth CMs.




    The MiG-35 has nothing to do with this new STOVL fighter... this new design wont even be test flying prototypes for 10 years, and you think it is a MiG-35 replacement?
    I would suspect this new STOVL will be a joint project between Yak and MiG... Yak will be useful for the VL aspect, but they know nothing about designing and making a 5th gen light fighter...

    If it has nothing to do thats's why MiG-35 is on-hold? To me focusing resources for perspective tech and equipment. VSTOL is not MiG-35 replacement. That MiG-35  is the one to be a stopgap if VSTOL project delays. Who will design?  Borisov  said: "There will be "virtual teams" from all OAK (i.e. Sukhoi, MiG, Yak, Tu, Saturn and co) to make best design"





    No MiG-35 wont be cheaper but less effective and obsolete. Basically new design will take into account drone mode unlike 50 years old MiG-35 frame design.
    Look at what you are saying... (note: drone mode is secret code for easy to shoot down).
    The F-35 and Rafale and F-18 were never designed with drones in mind so there wont be any up to date designs in 2030... they can all be obsolete together...

    Yes they will be upgraded (Rafale F3R, USA  F-18 Block  III).  Drone mode is the future of fighter, faster decisions, ability to use microwave weapons and more much tighter turns.  This is just matter of AI and computing node processing power. With current level and billions spend yearly on AI by 2030 i am sure this will be possible.




    Also speaking at the briefing, United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) president Yuri Slyusar said that judging by their price-performance ratios, the Su-57 and MiG-35 represent the best solution in their classes...

    Yeah.... already obsolete you say...

    Nope this was stated by Supreme Commander + deputy PM for MIC and MOD by signing new programe.  But Sluysar wants to sell MiG-35 of course. India perhaps? Egypt? Iran?
    For  Iran: this readily available, quantum leap in tech for them. Perhaps can build it locally... Oh man this would piss USrael.




    Precisely! 10 years MiG-29k still will be  in service. At least on Kuz.

    The F-18 and F-35 and Rafale will also still be in service... so why are your panties in such a bunch... when they modify the Su-57 into a carrier based model it will rule supreme... because everything else will be obsolete

    F-18 had started retiring last year (legacy hornet) and is supposed to be retiring till 2030 (optimistically but this is the plan) . Rafale stays longer but only because new fighter will be in end of 2030s, beginning of 2040s.

    If you do Su-57 on kuz they will be like 24 and very expensive (2xprice is like 150 mln each x24 is cost of a 42ktons nuclear powered carrier).

    BTW French AF ordered only 180 Rafale ever...







    If population is so damn important why isn't India an economic or military power house?

    Labor was cheaper in China,  Japan? but in Sudan, Egypt or Cambodia had even cheaper than China and?  Look at population China 1,3bln  Japan 130mln (byt they had industrial traditions and had no army expenses)

    As for India Their GDP growth is for next 1o-15 years 8-9% i.e. more than Chinese. Their GDP makes then already 3rd worlds economy... Google says : $10.385 trillion (PPP; 2018 est)

    Or how about Indonesia?
    GDP PPP - 3,5 trillions $ 7th in the world anc catching with Germany/Russia




    Russia needs to be able to show it has muscle, so that it is seen as a real alternative to the west...
    yes, it is doing now. But this is unrelated with size of  air wing whatsoever.





    Thus unlikely next 15-20 years Russia will build one. Second number of ships and size of CVNs wont ever match US fleet.

    Why the fuck do you keep bringing this up?

    Who gives a flying fuck about the US fleet... the Russian navy can easily match the US fleet... it is called Zircon and Kinzhal... and in a few years time an IRBM design if fired from a land based platform would have a 2,000km range, but because it is air launched and has a scramjet sustainer engine can reach targets 6,000km away at mach 12...

    Hmm do you have double personality?  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect just before you argue that only big CVN has meaning. Then you say no meaning but Zircons and Kinzhals. Then you write Su-57 wont cost then you say it will be expensive.

    In general with your second personality i agree.  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup  With first one no, because numbers say otherwise.






    The cost of 3 small carriers will exceed the cost of 2 big ones when you include the cost of the escorts and port support requirements... and you also have to allow the fact that smaller carriers will be less well defended and not able to operate away from Russian waters as long as a larger vessel could.

    Ford class = 12,5 billions piece (3 units)
    de Gaulle  =  3 billions € a piece (one unit )

    Not sure what was your math grade at school but to me it looks like 1:4 ratio. 2 big is 8 small.

    Autonomy?
    De Gaulle: Food is indeed for 45days but it is nuclear powered.
    Resupply ships UK: Tide-class tanker 40ktn displacement global reach. ~ 200mlns $ Damn still 4:1


    No smaller CSG is not more expensive and has less supply. Weaker defense in what Midway?  in WW3? in all other has more than enough costing fraction of price. Show me only 1 scenario w/o IIIWW where 30-40 fighters is not enough now? so you buy 3 small instead of 2 big. The difference is 16 billions $. Those 25- 9 billions you  can better spend on microelectronic or machine building investments. You have better chance to compete with western goodies.





    A Syria like support intervention from Russia is not too hard, but one in Africa or central or south america where the west could simply get in the queue for the Suez canal and then abandon the ship to block it for a month would stop Russian support options...

    Syria is best proof for proxy war. And the real not Uruguay one.  - it lasts 4 years now with air wing like 8 fighters in peak and 30 fighter/bombers in total.  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup


    CIA covert ops are not gonna to be fought  with CSGs. Ukraine is perfect example. The whole Russian military might and? all other is misconception about color revolutions to me.

    BTW Were any time Russian/Soviet ships blocked when and how long ?
    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 and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:34 am

    my 2 eurocents about brochure from Krylov:

    1) sShe can sail up to 7 in Beaufort scale.

    2) Airwing : 12-14 heavy fighters (Su-33 given as an example) + 12-14 light fighters (MiG-29K an an example) 12-14 choppers (Ka family)

    3) AEW - this is explicitly stated 4 airplanes. (ДРЛО = AEW and not ДРЛОиУ = AEW&C)

    4) food supplies - 60 days

    5) range 8 thousand miles

    6) Gas turbines



    My critics:

    1) The hull is narrow I seriously doubt that air-wing and lots of supplies will fit there

    2) Parking air-wing on deck in Arctic, Im not sure if this is the best option. especially during storms

    3) IMHO bullshit with supplies and range. You can fit in 37 ktons standard displacement all?!!

    4) AEW - platforms. Not AWACS. What airplane? size of an elevator? only 1 ?! RN on QE2 decided to use Sea King AEW since no catobar.

    5) Lack of nuclear propulsion is bad for Russian blu seas navy. Even 15ktosn liders will have nuclear propulsion.

    BUT good side is they evolve in the right direction. Small 28 fighters CV (better 36 IMHO and less 4 planes, use choppers) is better fitted t Russian tasks and budget then 100kts shtorm.


    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:30 am

    Maybe this project is aimed mostly at export customers? For the VMF, they plan to have a larger CVN.
    Adm. K had a/c parked outside in the Barents Sea, & they won't be sailing the Arctic to the East & North of it.
    https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-su-33-multi-role-carrier-based-fighters-on-board-the-admiral-kuznetsov-22839993.html
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 1139917409
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:46 am

    Man this thread has gone off the rails.
    Even the old Russian gas station nonsense is here, surprised kvs hasn't shown up yet.

    As far as i can see, STOVL will be expensive, cumbersome and next to useless against any real fighters.
    It's use would be restricted to air-to-ground operations only.
    Of which any of the cheaper alternatives could do.

    As for carriers, Russia will need one that's capable of launching some AEWs, Migs/Su-57K, as well as lots of Kalibre missiles.
    And no amount of LHDs is gonna change this.
    This carrier also needs to be Nuclear, i don't think i need to explain why.

    I have hope that the 70kT design currently in the works, will for fill all these requirements, and more.
    Then again, i could just be kidding myself.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1986
    Points : 1976
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  hoom on Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:46 am

    But nobody said something of the Yak-44. Could be something like this:
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Su-33u10
    Thats Su-33UB which was prototype side-by-side trainer for K.
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Dd-8
    Su-34 uses a rework of the cockpit with the classic flattened duckbill nose rather than the round one on the Su-33UB.


    Just on that topic & since there has been much debate on F-35: Su-27/UB, 30, 33, 34, 35 series probably have more parts commonality & cover a wider range of uses than the F-35.
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:23 am

    Edit2: though I've presumed the 4* AEW referenced to be Ka-31s

    See what I mean... when the focus is being a cheap bastard you loose critical capabilities that are necessary to make it even worth bothering.

    Lack of real AWACS will make these carriers and the ships that operate with them horribly vulnerable.

    The whole point of a carrier is to be able to bring along an AWACS platform... everything else is just gravy.

    Russian economy will need to get off the oil needle, the sooner the better!

    If the Russian economy was on the oil needle it would be collapsing like Venezuela is right now even without the sanctions imposed on it currently.

    The fact that it isn't even in decline economically, shows it is not oil dependent, but it does benefit from its oil trade so US antics against Iran will actually benefit Russian and Venezuela in the short to medium term...

    Russia should diversify her economy to not be so dependent on oil exports.

    Perhaps you should compare the economic condition of Venezuela with Russia and make a few guesses as to why one is on the verge of collapse with its neighbour calling for invasion, and the other looks pretty damn stable... with its neighbour calling for invasion (Ukraine).

    Russia should stick to exporting energents. It could export 100 different products in Germany and have them all rejected after sanctions start, but they decided to be their no. 1 provider of natural gas, structural backbone of entire economy and thus create a mutual dependency. Energy is very important. Now Germany is not being so hard on Russia when it comes to Ukraine and other focal points.

    Lets be clear... in all the decades that the Soviet Union and Russia have been supplying energy to Europe the only times there have been problems was when the Ukrainians were stealing gas from Europe... they have otherwise never interfered with the flow of gas to what were and currently are her enemies.

    Russia has no history of using commerce as a weapon... that is a western thing. But the lesson they are getting now might have implications down the track...

    Rest assured: the US & their L. American allies will preempt Russia in Venezuela, like they did after WWII with military juntas, interventions & coups/regime changes in the Caribbean, C. & South America "to keep them out of Communist hands". Their economy is dependent on the US economy; the region is under the US thumb.

    If Russia can't have a sphere of influence in the Ukraine and the Baltics and Balkans, then why should she respect US interference anywhere?

    People aren't actually stupid... your control of media keeps them ignorant, but they are not actually stupid... even if they don't care... but the point is that as long as things are good they wont care, but when the three jobs they are working still doesn't pay the bills then you might start to have trouble shovelling that shit...

    no you cannot ignore Europe. I didnt see it Germany, Austria, Italy, Nederlands, Hungary or Finland are trading with Russia. Poland too thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup . True that energy products are topping now but it is in all directions.

    I am not suggesting ignoring Europe.... I am saying Europe is not a friend or an equal trading partner and can cut you off at a moments notice for something they accuse you have done... they will give no evidence and demand you admit your crime and promise never to do it again... that a future?

    Because there were no money to invest in competitive products yet. If you spend on blue water navy you wont have them either for next couple of years. Everybody protects its market and Russia does it too. But where product's competitive (titanium carriages for Airbus, nuclear power plants Finland or Hungary). Will Russia have competitive products they will be on EU markets too. If they block Russia cuts but billions import from EU and grow due to market (still machine building / aerospace or 30 blns € alone on pharma...)

    In Europe Russia would be competing with European and Asian and American products, and lets face it... what German is going to go out of their way to find a TV made in Russia?

    In Asia and Africa and central and south america... Russia products can also compete, but with no local competition things are much easier, and price advantages mean more... and if you can follow it up with good PR like support after an earthquake or flood and you can build good relations... something too late with the west because their media has already designated Russia as the bad guys... Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union too but are absolved of all guilt because the Soviet Union is Russia isn't it?

    Ergo: economy first with client base with lowest access cost. Dont stretch outside your means and power. Romans once did.

    A powerful but relatively small navy is useful no matter what, and access to the worlds market that doesn't go through Europe or China is a benefit to Russia.

    It is nordstream and south stream for trade... and western actions make it necessary rather than a luxury.

    Look at how much trade they previously sent through Baltic ports to support former allies, when Russian ports could have and can do the job... why reward Europe with trade when they can do the same with countries that don't hate Russia?

    Russian export to China will grow and including Hi-tech with India there are many projects due to made in India. Ka-226
    You cannot send good via rail? Damn you should tell this to Chinese, Japanese or Koreans who want to use Russian railways for new Silk Road. BTW China wants to build rail to Africa BTW with branches to India/Myanmar/Vietnam/Malaysia/Thailand

    Of course you can send by rail... there has been a planned rail through north korea to link to south korea so south korean goods can go via north korea through Russia to europe... but it still hasn't happened because the US said no.

    Now what happens at the other end with rail lines going through the Ukraine and Poland to Europe... is it possible they might say no too?

    Or impose enormous tariffs and make it non viable?

    The purpose of sea trade is to bypass the political shit..

    Perhaps in 50 years is true. But Russian export needs to develop export NOW. I can see a brilliant strategist thinking here changing more populated and much richer clients for "prospective" in 50 years. So you were the one talking about retardation?

    Richer clients that will do everything they can to block trade with you... Africa has been dealing with these richer clients for several hundred years and yet they have not developed and are considered poor... what future has Africa HAD with these wonderful rich clients you keep trying to convince Russia to keep trading with?

    These marvellous rich clients that are doing everything they can to overthrow governments and steal resources from any country including in the Middle East, but also including the Ukraine... I remember the shock and outrage at a war in Europe over the former Yugoslavian states... come the 21st century the US spends 5 billion and creates a civil war in the Ukraine and not only do the EU not give a shit... they blame Russia for it... and impose sanctions...

    But you think Russia should keep selling them stuff and buying their stuff?


    Syria, Tartus. Resupply station in Camp-Rham Vietnam. Russia could have worked on bases in Iran/Eritrea or Cuba but why? there is NO MONEY now. It is better to spent couple of billions on investing in competitive civilian products then CV. Especially large one

    Not the job of the Russian Navy to invest in Russian designed TVs... it needs small compact forces that can operate on there own anywhere in the world with minimal support. When I say small I don't mean all Corvettes...


    did you read your what you wrote?! with understanding Suspect Suspect Suspect
    1) I agreed that small universal carriers like France or medium as UK built is OK (IMHO is definitely the road)
    2) You say : no this is not the way Russia should go and sam time you're that US is not an example.

    Yes, of course... I am demanding Russia make ten CVNs 100K tons each... right now dammit...

    And WTF does a universal carrier mean?

    It carries aircraft... it does not go into space... why does it need to be universal if you are suggesting they only need three?

    Now focus. I know it might be hard for you but you need to try harder this time. Kuz size bad, Nimitz size bad, de Gaulle? crap.
    Then what precisely you need?

    Perhaps you need to focus... it does not matter at all what you or I WANT... the Russian NAVY have said they want something a little bigger than the Kuz.

    Not a lot bigger like an American money maker that is making some US companies disgustingly rich, and not smaller like the Kiev class of obsolete rubbish.

    Read Goldilocks and the three bears... they have said something slightly bigger than the Kuz is just right.

    China is an ally in SCO and cooperation gets closer every year. I dont think Chinese would say no if Russia calls them for help. Especially that Chinese goodies go vie Northern Route...So if Chinese CSG is near what is the problem?

    And what if, in return, they ask Russia to help defend all those artifical island in the South China sea... will Russia be able to say no?

    MiG-29k doesnt have MiG-35 avionics. It has old avionics, perhaps there will be some updates but none has been announced yet.

    The aircraft they are using is called MiG-29KR... but it has the avionics from the 1980s?

    The MiG-29KR is the same shape and size as the MiG-35, so if they NEED to upgrade the the KR they can do it easily...

    MiG have already said that the MiG-35 is carrier compatible.

    no they wont. 50 years air frames are not going to be used anymore. Same as MiG-23 is not used today.

    How the hell could the current MiG-29KRs have 50 year old airframes... they were made brand new in 2010...

    Price of Su-33 was 1,7 price of Su-27 I take per analogy Su-57. LEts use low price so ~75mln$ unit. 24x1.7x75= 3 billions $.
    If you take an estimate for 100mln per unit you have 4 billions per Kuz only.

    But you are claiming that a STOVL 5th gen fighter can be developed from scratch and produced in numbers of less than 150 for less money... right!


    IMHO Your misconception is that VSTOL is only for fleet. Not this is deck light fighter with VSTOL that can be used on land as well. Same as F-18 was. Vide Canada, Finland or Australia.
    The whole Rafale ordered by French Navy + AF is 180 pieces for 30 years...

    The F-18 and Rafale do not direct 20+ ton thrust jet engines directly downwards at the runway when they land... a STOVL aircraft DOES.

    It could only operate on land as a long take off and long landing aircraft because it will have no way at all to land any other way without destroying runways.

    As for destroying airstrips by STOL I am afraid that personal phobias dont count in real world

    So what engine will be used? ...I noticed you conveniently dropped the V... so we are talking about Mig-35s and Su-57s again now are we... Twisted Evil

    Yak-141 was way better then AV8 and in fighter role not really worse then contemporaries.

    Bullshit. It had a smaller radar than a MiG-29, plus shorter flight range... only four weapon pylons under the wings with no capacity for any ordinance or fuel tanks under the fuselage because of engine exhaust flows there... it was also rather slower, and less manouverable due to a rather small wing.

    New VSTOL will have top notch tech and perhaps add much to fighter drone development.

    And all that super tech you put in it to give it an edge over a normal fighter could also be fitted to the normal fighter much more cheaply to get a better aircraft.

    BTW light fighters have 700-900 heavy 1200 but anyway it is too short to stop carriers of 1,600km US stealth CMs.

    You don't get it do you...

    The fighters are there to defend the ships from missile attack... it doesn't matter if the missiles have travelled 50km from a nearby island or 50,000km and been round the world 5 times... their purpose is to stop the missiles. Hunting down platforms that threaten Russian surface groups is a different job and will likely be done with long range very high speed missiles...


    If it has nothing to do thats's why MiG-35 is on-hold?

    Who said it was on hold?

    Why would they order any at all let alone 6 if it was on hold?

    Maybe all its technologies need to transition from the concept and design phase to the ready for mass production phase...

    VSTOL is not MiG-35 replacement.

    VSTOL is Yak getting success in the ear of the Boss... when it costs too much... is fragile and not battle ready... and has a high loss rate because of its flawed fundamental design and it gets canned they will just keep using MiG-35s and Su-57s for the job.

    Even if it is a success, it will likely just operate along side Su-57s and MiG-35s... if the Yak-41 had been successful they would have probably had bought two dozen and they might have perhaps 6-7 left by now. They would only have bought more MiG-29KRs because the Indians paid for setting up production for it... O doubt they would have bought Yak-41s like the didn't buy Su-33s.

    Yes they will be upgraded (Rafale F3R, USA F-18 Block III). Drone mode is the future of fighter, faster decisions, ability to use microwave weapons and more much tighter turns. This is just matter of AI and computing node processing power. With current level and billions spend yearly on AI by 2030 i am sure this will be possible.

    So what are you talking about? The MiG-29KR and Su-33 are too old to upgrade but the ancient F-18 will be upgraded making it a wonderful super high tech future plane/drone/deathstar?

    [qutoe]Nope this was stated by Supreme Commander + deputy PM for MIC and MOD by signing new programe. But Sluysar wants to sell MiG-35 of course. India perhaps? Egypt? Iran?
    For Iran: this readily available, quantum leap in tech for them. Perhaps can build it locally... Oh man this would piss USrael.[/quote]

    But Mr Expert... you just said it was obsolete money pit crap... the Jooz and the yanks will be overjoyed... probably just like they are overjoyed now because S-300 is rubbish and they can walk right through it... that was the whole point of spending trillions for the F-35 wasn't it?

    F-18 had started retiring last year (legacy hornet) and is supposed to be retiring till 2030 (optimistically but this is the plan) . Rafale stays longer but only because new fighter will be in end of 2030s, beginning of 2040s.

    Cool, so the MiG-35 can stay cause those stupid Yanks and Frogs wont have any fighters it seems for the 2030s.... Razz


    Labor was cheaper in China, Japan? but in Sudan, Egypt or Cambodia had even cheaper than China and? Look at population China 1,3bln Japan 130mln (byt they had industrial traditions and had no army expenses)

    When the west was abusing labour laws in Japan, china was not an option... you know.... they were commies. It wasn't until the americans started the enemy of my enemy is my friend shit that they could use cheap chinese labour without ethics or morals... and look at what they created... hahaha.

    As for India Their GDP growth is for next 1o-15 years 8-9% i.e. more than Chinese. Their GDP makes then already 3rd worlds economy... Google says : $10.385 trillion (PPP; 2018 est)

    Which just really shows what western economics indicators are really worth...

    yes, it is doing now. But this is unrelated with size of air wing whatsoever.

    Syria is the limit of its reach because Russia is otherwise largely land bound.

    Hmm do you have double personality? Suspect Suspect Suspect just before you argue that only big CVN has meaning. Then you say no meaning but Zircons and Kinzhals. Then you write Su-57 wont cost then you say it will be expensive.

    You don't understand because you think Russian carriers will be US carriers...

    Big carriers are useful... little carriers are for has been countries that really should not bother with carriers at all.

    For fighting against an enemy with carriers Zircons and Kinzhals will decide the fight... a Russian surface group without a carrier would be at a huge disadvantage because of lack of AWACS and situational awareness , but its hypersonic missiles will deal with any enemy ship that comes within range and it would have to be much more alert because it will likely get very little warning if it comes under attack.

    Carrier based Su-57s will not be cheap, but you wont need a lot of them and the ships they will save make them worth the extra money.

    Cheaper planes will cost you expensive ships that might cost battles.

    Except the high loss rate and poor performance will mean the cheap planes will be value for money... pay peanuts and get monkeys or elephants...

    3) AEW - this is explicitly stated 4 airplanes. (ДРЛО = AEW and not ДРЛОиУ = AEW&C)

    Which makes it worse than useless.

    [qutoe]I have hope that the 70kT design currently in the works, will for fill all these requirements, and more.
    Then again, i could just be kidding myself.[/quote]

    The alternative is a smaller carrier, but also more, which wont end up being any cheaper, but will certainly be much less effective.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2272
    Points : 2270
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Hole on Thu Sep 27, 2018 10:36 am

    hoom wrote:
    But nobody said something of the Yak-44. Could be something like this:
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Su-33u10
    Thats Su-33UB which was prototype side-by-side trainer for K.
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Dd-8
    Su-34 uses a rework of the cockpit with the classic flattened duckbill nose rather than the round one on the Su-33UB.


    Just on that topic & since there has been much debate on F-35: Su-27/UB, 30, 33, 34, 35 series probably have more parts commonality & cover a wider range of uses than the F-35.

    I know, hoom. In this picture it is fitted with a radar system under the belly for AEW duties.
    avatar
    kumbor

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  kumbor on Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:32 am

    Hole wrote:On an ami carrier only half of the aircraft fit inside the hangar. In Russia all carriers in the past could accommodate all planes/helicopters in the hangar. That´s why they always carried less planes than western carriers (with comparable size).

    You could clean the aircraft from time to time. But nobody said something of the Yak-44. Could be something like this:

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Su-33u10

    Russian carriers must often operate in far north seas, in adverse climatic conditions, so their aircraft must be in hangar! US carriers haven`t such problem!
    avatar
    kumbor

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  kumbor on Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:34 am

    Hole wrote:
    hoom wrote:
    But nobody said something of the Yak-44. Could be something like this:
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Su-33u10
    Thats Su-33UB which was prototype side-by-side trainer for K.
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Dd-8
    Su-34 uses a rework of the cockpit with the classic flattened duckbill nose rather than the round one on the Su-33UB.


    Just on that topic & since there has been much debate on F-35: Su-27/UB, 30, 33, 34, 35 series probably have more parts commonality & cover a wider range of uses than the F-35.

    I know, hoom. In this picture it is fitted with a radar system under the belly for AEW duties.

    And because of such form of a nose cone, the plane is dubbed "duckling" -утёнок.
    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 and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:32 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:Man this thread has gone off the rails.

    and precisely what should be about if not aircraft carriers?hunch if requirements and usage scenarios dont count?



    As far as i can see, STOVL will be expensive, cumbersome and next to useless against any real fighters.
    It's use would be restricted to air-to-ground operations only.

    just curiosity here: do you have any data, tech info that proves your opinion or just you have a hunch ? hint: do you think Russian military and decision makers didn't to any analysis before making decision?
    Isos
    Isos

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Isos on Thu Sep 27, 2018 12:51 pm

    See what I mean... when the focus is being a cheap bastard you loose critical capabilities that are necessary to make it even worth bothering.

    It's big enough to have two true awacs at least. They only need to make biger lifts which is not an issue.

    The marketing however suck. Instead of presenting it only with mig 29K and say it can carry something like 40 fighter+ 2awacs + some helicopter for search and rescue, they make a stupid list of mig, sukhoi, awacs not specified, tens of ka-27.
    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 and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:17 pm

    GarryB wrote:If the Russian economy was on the oil needle it would be collapsing like Venezuela is right now even without the sanctions imposed on it currently.


    crude & gas & coal &aluminium &steel are like 65% of exports but only 35% of consolidated budget. Russia thanks to  Putin has very prudent social and spending policy. Unlike Msnduro in  Venezuela they dotn spend beyond their means.  Iran lives although gas&crude is almost 100% of export.


    no you cannot ignore Europe.  I didnt see it Germany, Austria, Italy, Nederlands, Hungary or Finland  are trading with Russia. Poland too  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup .  True that energy products are topping now but it is in all directions.

    I am not suggesting ignoring Europe.... I am saying Europe is not a friend or an equal trading partner and can cut you off at a moments notice for something they accuse you have done... they will give no evidence and demand you admit your crime and promise never to do it again...  that a future?

    In politics there are no friends only partners. If Russia has alternative can close gas pipe to EU. Now they cannot.
    BTW you've just said this last time  lol1  lol1  lol1



    Because there were no money to invest in competitive products yet. If you spend on blue water navy you wont have them either for next couple of years.

    In Europe Russia would be competing with European and Asian and American products, and lets face it... what German is going to go out of their way to find a TV made in Russia?

    if they will be competitive? They will but why on low end saturated markets? For TV sets is twilight of an era. But AR or holographic displays, 3D printers, genetic vaccines, AI commerce/medical systems, new materials, quantum computers , autonomous robots not?  


    Ergo: economy first with client base with lowest access cost. Dont stretch outside your means and power. Romans once did.

    A powerful but relatively small navy is useful no matter what, and access to the worlds market that doesn't go through Europe or China is a benefit to Russia.
    It is nordstream and south stream for trade... and western actions make it necessary rather than a luxury.

    In far away future perhaps. First you need to have money or invest in money making business not to show off.  So far there is no danger for Russian fleet anywhere.



    Look at how much trade they previously sent through Baltic ports to support former allies,

    countries dotn hate Russia, elites have interests the rest is propaganda. Still to me no relation to bunch of large carrier  dunno  dunno  dunno



    Of course you can send by rail... there has been a planned rail through north korea to link to south korea so south korean goods can go via north korea through Russia to europe... but it still hasn't happened because the US said no.

    for the moment, but both Korean leaders already stated otherwise.  Japan has no problem with sending via Russia and China nor India have to ask USA.



    Now what happens at the other end with rail lines going through the Ukraine and Poland to Europe... is it possible they might say no too?
    The other end is Germany or UK. Nobody in Poland, nor Belarussia nor Ukraine will stop silk road. All want to be on board. Their masters wont let them stop this. Too much money for west can be lost.  




    Richer clients that will do everything they can to block trade with you... Africa has been dealing with these richer clients for several hundred years and yet they have not developed and are considered poor... what future has Africa HAD with these wonderful rich clients you keep trying to convince Russia to keep trading with?

    These marvellous rich clients that are doing everything they can to overthrow governments and steal resources from any country including in the Middle East, but also including the Ukraine...

    Africans are poor because of India and China?  affraid  affraid  affraid Either you dont get that Asia is not USA or UK or you missed the point on purpose







    And WTF does a universal carrier mean?

    Russian TAKRS   had following set of tasks:

    a) anti-aircraft defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it;
    b) ensuring the security of strategic submarine cruisers in combat patrol areas;
    c) search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;
    d) detection, guidance and destruction of the enemy's surface forces;
    e) assurance of amphibious landing.


    Nothing changed since then really.  You need amphibious forces suppor too. That's why all carriers outside US navy can carry marines. Multirole means you can change airwing depending on mode of operation. (ASW, landing , AAD)



    It carries aircraft... it does not go into space... why does it need to be universal if you are suggesting they only need three?

    ¥€$ now you got it



    the Russian NAVY have said they want something a little bigger than the Kuz.
    Not a lot bigger like an American money maker that is making some US companies disgustingly rich, and not smaller like the Kiev class of obsolete rubbish.

    and navy didnt say where to take money from for those? if they got why not. Before this all stream of BS from navy there was discussion about either storm (100kts) or 30kts carrier nuclear posered.  Parts standardized   with Liders) . ~40ktons CVN can take enough fighters for doing tasks and is 2x cheaper then 70kts and 4 x cheaper than Shtorm.




    China is an ally in SCO and cooperation gets closer every year.  I dont think  Chinese would say no if Russia calls them for help. Especially that Chinese goodies go vie Northern Route...So if Chinese CSG is near what is the problem?

    And what if, in return, they ask Russia to help defend all those artifical island in the South China sea... will Russia be able to say no?

    stupid argument, you can do better  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup . If Russian ships are around they wont help an ally? That sthe reason for SCO




    MiG-29k doesnt have MiG-35 avionics. It has old avionics, perhaps there will be some updates but none has been announced yet.

    The aircraft they are using is called MiG-29KR... but it has the avionics from the 1980s?
    [/quote]
    you didnt read my words did you? frame desoign 80s avionics early 2000s




    The MiG-29KR is the same shape and size as the MiG-35, so if they NEED to upgrade the the KR they can do it easily...
    MiG have already said that the MiG-35 is carrier compatible.

    They can and they will but  only if VSTOL is delayed and obsolete MiG-29k  and obsolete and worn out Su-33 need to be replaced.





    How the hell could the current MiG-29KRs have 50 year old airframes... they were made brand new in 2010...

    designed in 1980s. Iranian F-5 also are brand new right?



    Price of  Su-33 was 1,7 price of Su-27 I take per analogy Su-57.  LEts use low price so ~75mln$ unit.  24x1.7x75= 3 billions $.
    If you take an estimate for 100mln per unit you have 4 billions per Kuz only.

    But you are claiming that a STOVL 5th gen fighter can be developed from scratch and produced in numbers of less than 150 for less money... right!

    why not? radar, electronics, engines, materials all is available. Production lines are working. Weapons are developed. BTW 10billions Su-57 is ordered in 12 pieces? 833mnl$ per unit.




    As for destroying airstrips by STOL I am afraid that personal phobias dont count in real world

    So what engine will be used?  ...I noticed you conveniently dropped the V... so we are talking about Mig-35s and Su-57s again now are we... Twisted Evil

    Because of you Freudian fixation about V I left it so you can foucs on short start.  No you dotn destroy if you land coupe of times not for years.  
    Engine?
    AL-41F3/FU (izd 30) 180kn or NK-32 (not sure about perimeters of new version though) . sizeboth comparable but NK is heavier.



    Yak-141 was way better then AV8 and in fighter role not really worse then contemporaries.

    Bullshit. It had a smaller radar than a MiG-29, plus shorter flight range... only four weapon pylons under the wings with no capacity for any ordinance or fuel tanks under the fuselage because of engine exhaust flows there... it was also rather slower, and less manouverable due to a rather small wing.
    [/quote]

    same radar performance (yefim gordon)  - 80km 3m2 before Zhuk MiG-29 had radar perhaps even worse, hud+helmet display, R77, R-27 . BTW Su-33 in AA configuration has not much different.  Speed 1800km/s,ceiling 15,500m.  Yes there were fuel tanks possible.

    Range both 2000km (Yak 141 for 10 km and 1ton payload)

    That what numbers say.  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil

    https://www.amazon.com/Yakovlev-Yak-36-Yak-38-Yak-41-Soviet/dp/185780287X





    New VSTOL will have top notch tech and perhaps add much to fighter drone development.

    And all that super tech you put in it to give it an edge over a normal fighter could also be fitted to the normal fighter much more cheaply to get a better aircraft.

    OK fnally got it! Russian aerospace engineers, MiC, govt and Putin all are stupid and make decisions without analysis.  lol1  lol1  lol1 but there are some vigilantes among us!






    The fighters are there to defend the ships from missile attack... it doesn't matter if the missiles have travelled 50km from a nearby island or 50,000km and been round the world 5 times... their purpose is to stop the missiles. Hunting down platforms that threaten Russian surface groups is a different job and will likely be done with long range very high speed missiles...

    then VSTOL is more then enough




    VSTOL is Yak getting success in the ear of the Boss... when it costs too much... is fragile and not battle ready... and has a high loss rate because of its flawed fundamental design and it gets canned they will just keep using MiG-35s and Su-57s for the job.

    oh yes MiG-35 with frame design 1980s in 2030s. Are you fan of oldies? Su-57 can do anything also replace Ka-31. Why not? costs doesnt matter,  pace for landing neither.





    Yes they will be upgraded (Rafale F3R, USA  F-18 Block  III).  
    So what are you talking about?  The MiG-29KR and Su-33 are too old to upgrade but the ancient F-18 will be upgraded making it a wonderful super high tech future plane/drone/deathstar?

    part wil be upgraded because F-35 is late for many years. F-18 wotn replace anything just extend  agony time. Su-33 in 2030s will be  worn out.  lines are closed. MiG-29k lines are closed too. Of course Us should work on F-5 it was oldie but goldie!





    [qutoe]But Mr Expert... you just said it was obsolete money pit crap... [/quote]

    For obsolete in comparison with new fighter but for Iran best what they can have. Quantum leap from F-5. Ergo older is worse always  lol1  lol1  lol1  




    yes, it is doing now. But this is unrelated with size of  air wing whatsoever.
    Syria is the limit of its reach because Russia is otherwise largely land bound.

    point here is: real war example (not imaginary one) proves that you all you need can be  transported by small CVN




    For fighting against an enemy with carriers Zircons and Kinzhals will decide the fight... a Russian surface group without a carrier would be at a huge disadvantage because of lack of AWACS and situational awareness.
    +++
    3) AEW - this is explicitly stated 4 airplanes. (ДРЛО = AEW and not ДРЛОиУ = AEW&C)

    Which makes it worse than useless


    mildly speaking who said no AEW&C? can be chopper but Id say drone or tilt rotor for AEW and C on ship. In your 80s tech world there wasnt possible but now we enjoy C4I . You dont have to take my word.. Can check yourself. Consider yourself empowered   thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup




    Cheaper planes will cost you expensive ships that might cost battles.
    no midways so what battles?! real ones not imaginary. in Syria what battles?





    I have hope that the 70kT design currently in the works, will for fill all these requirements, and more.
    Then again, i could just be kidding myself.

    The alternative is a smaller carrier, but also more, which wont end up being any cheaper, but will certainly be much less effective.

    numbers say 4 times cheaper. Do you have any other proving your opinion? Suspect Suspect Suspect


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1986
    Points : 1976
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  hoom on Thu Sep 27, 2018 4:29 pm

    I know, hoom. In this picture it is fitted with a radar system under the belly for AEW duties.
    Oh Shocked I see that context now, that is very interesting indeed Exclamation

    I imagined (& previously suggested) something like a navalised Su-34 with piggyback antenna but have had my doubts about weight since K arrestors seem to be struggling as is, possibly low speed handling issues from the pod messing up aero.

    Su-33UB with an underslung retractable antenna like that is a real neat & doable solution, wouldn't mess with aero more than normal munitions.
    I'm definitely a fan I love you


    Thinking about that, with Krylov using a tandem 2 seat model, work already being done on re-engining Su-30SM for Al-41 & a 2-seat navalised Su-57 likely being a very long way away, could we potentially see new-build navalised Su-30s with Al-41?
    I realise they're getting new-build MiG-29K to replace Su-33 but I feel a navalised Su-30 would be better & would give a basis for relatively minor changes to make the AEW version.
    avatar
    kumbor

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  kumbor on Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:03 pm

    hoom wrote:
    I know, hoom. In this picture it is fitted with a radar system under the belly for AEW duties.
    Oh Shocked I see that context now, that is very interesting indeed  Exclamation

    I imagined (& previously suggested) something like a navalised Su-34 with piggyback antenna but have had my doubts about weight since K arrestors seem to be struggling as is, possibly low speed handling issues from the pod messing up aero.

    Su-33UB with an underslung retractable antenna like that is a real neat & doable solution, wouldn't mess with aero more than normal munitions.
    I'm definitely a fan I love you


    Thinking about that, with Krylov using a tandem 2 seat model, work already being done on re-engining Su-30SM for Al-41 & a 2-seat navalised Su-57 likely being a very long way away, could we potentially see new-build navalised Su-30s with Al-41?
    I realise they're getting new-build MiG-29K to replace Su-33 but I feel a navalised Su-30 would be better & would give a basis for relatively minor changes to make the AEW version.

    They have already had decent CVN in construction in the beginning of 1990s - Ulyanovsk, project 11437, in Nikolayev yard! But USSR dissolved and the snow fell over Ulyanovsk and all famous projects. Russia wasn`t interested and there was "smuta" without money. Ukraina wasn`t eager to complete it for Russia. Ulyanovsk was some 30% complete when all work stopped. The hull was then broken up on slipway in 1992-3.

    Now, more than quarter of a century later,  Ulyanovsk project can be used partially, but with many modern improvements and substantial changes.
    eehnie
    eehnie

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  eehnie on Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:26 pm

    Gunship Democracy, your comments are a collection of false sentences.

    You saw multiple times the cost of the F-35 for the US, you saw multiple times the real costs of the US aircraft carriers, and the estimations for the Russian aircraft carriers.

    And you still continue with the same collection of false sentences.

    Sponsored content

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 4 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:15 am