Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

1) If Su-33 was so easy then why production was never restarted? Chinese wanted, Russia needed and ? apparently neither costs nor size were adequate. Su-57 we'll live to see. Though I didnt see F-22 navalized only smaller F-35 (actually smaller than F-18).

GarryB wrote:

Their new STOVL will likely perform = to Yak-141, if not better, so it's worth to go that route.

A Yak-41 today would be worse than a MiG-29K2.

What they need now is a light 5th gen fighter... making it VTOL will make it weak and limited... and it is going to take 10 years to design and get even close to serial production level.

MiG has a light 5th gen fighter design... that would be much quicker to get into service but I seriously doubt it is VTOL.

GarryB wrote:

Wrong, Yak -141 without ski jump Su-33 with. Yak 2400kg Su-33 3300kg

Don't be a stats fanboi... the Yak-41 would have two R-77s and four R-73s, so we are talking about 350kgs for the two BVR missiles and about 450kgs for the four WVR missiles. The Su-33 will likely have 4 R-27ER missiles and 2 R-27ET missiles and four R-73s, so 350kgs for each R-27E and 450kgs of WVR missiles so the Yak-41 will have about 900kgs of payload and the Flanker will have about 2,2 tons of weapons.

It is pretty clear which offers the best payload performance...

garryb wrote:

There are 24MiGs only produced and this is cheap?!

It only happened because it was cheap and it was cheap because set up production was paid for by the Indian order.
No Indian order and no new MiGs for the Russian navy.

It enables LHDs to be used as light ACs for example.

You said in another thread they have no Zircon and no MiG-41... they also have no LHDs either.

Why you compare Yak 141 with current jets? Yak-141 and MiG-29k are relics of the past. Compare with F-35B because new Russian fighter will have similar class characteristics. F-35B payload is ~7tons.

Because it does not exist right now even on paper... the cost of developing a new VSTOL fighter will be enormous and take a lot of time... the Americans could not even afford it on their own and had to force most of their allies to buy into the programme of making the F-35 and it is still stupid expensive and not that impressive.

Investing rather less money in a conventional take off light 5th gen fighter that can share all design and components with a land based equivalent that could be sold on the international market makes rather more sense. All that requires is slightly bigger carriers and EM cats which they are developing anyway.

the bigger carriers will be more useful and only slightly more expensive.... operationally compared with the fleet of other ships they would operate the difference in cost is negligible and well worth spending to get real carrier capabilities.

I still believe that cheaper is to have 2-3 universal smaller ships like 30-40ktons. As LHDs, Helicopter ASWs and light ACs (vide Juan Carlos or Wasp class). Then 2-3 LHDs, 2 pure ACs and some heli cruisers.

fair enough, but my opinion is that the money and cost (VSTOL aircraft crash a lot... look up the history of the Yak-38M) they would be better off keeping the helicopter carriers as helicopter carriers and have 2 proper medium carriers with the Kuznetsov also kept and upgraded with some of the stuff the new carriers will get just to test... ie EM cats and nuke propulsion.

The Mistral type helicopter carriers will have landing capability and helicopter capability and would be ideal for emergency operations/disaster and goodwill visits as well as for landing forces to deliver troops to places around the world when needed.

Aircraft carriers would be needed at the same time and for other purposes, so when landing forces you will need aircraft carriers too... not instead of.

Having three ships means two will be available and one will be in overhaul... so having three Mistral type vessels means only one helicopter lander and one carrier with maybe 6 fighters.

I would say two helicopter carriers and two real carriers means two ships landing vehicles and distributing supplies while one carrier offers air cover and support...

garryb wrote:

They'll spend a lot less on their STOVL than the US had, & it will perform better, considering the above data.

If they use a development of the NK-32 engine for the VTOL role they actually have to develop it.
They can't just rock up to a Tu-160 in a hangar and unbolt and engine and just fit it into the Yak-43 and it is all done.

/

They announced they will be developing STOVLs, they are allocating money, you think they are doing it for shits and giggles?

STOVL is happening, decided by people who are actually at the top.

they will get to a prototype stage and it will be cancelled because it will be too expensive if the EM cats are successful they can use them on any sized ship to get aircraft airborne...

Isos wrote:

Su 33 is bigger than su 57 so if they wanted su 33 why would the size of su 57 be a problem ?

Singular_Transform wrote:

You mean those guys doesn't care about the engineering problems an the laws of nature, any decision by them is final and all natural law has to bend in accordance : )

did you see picture? size comparison of Su-57 vs F-35? so instead of 10 PAK FAs you got almost 2x F35

Isos wrote:

did you see picture? size comparison of Su-57 vs F-35? so instead of 10 PAK FAs you got almost 2x F35

Russia can't buy f 35 ... the only small fighter they could have is the mig 29k. I personnaly would take 10 Su-57 over 20 mig 29k any say.

The-thing-next-door wrote:How about a navalised TU-22 wich would allow you to greatly outrange the us carriers and kill them all in a miway style battle before they have a chance to engage you.

But seriously VTOL is a wast of time money and storage space a navalised SU-57 operated form a Shtorm class is ultimatley cheaper and more effective.

So save up and buy a Shtorm class and do not get tempted by the failed concept that is VTOL.

PapaDragon wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:How about a navalised TU-22 wich would allow you to greatly outrange the us carriers and kill them all in a miway style battle before they have a chance to engage you.

But seriously VTOL is a wast of time money and storage space a navalised SU-57 operated form a Shtorm class is ultimatley cheaper and more effective.

So save up and buy a Shtorm class and do not get tempted by the failed concept that is VTOL.

Save up and buy Shtorm-class... sure, I guess it makes sense

Saving money, design, development, construction, building infrastructure, testing, etc... they should be done before century is out....maybe... 

Why not just skip all this and build Metal Gear or something, odds or getting it done are similar. 

LMFS wrote:Andrei Martyanov with preliminary comments on the STOVL news:

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/08/it-is-official-now.html

It Is Official Now.


Read this attentively:

I will comment in depth on this later but one thing which is absolutely clear--STOVL concept in Russian Navy will lead, inevitably, to some sort of a hybrid carrier akin to US Navy's LHA-6 America-class amphibious assault ships but, in Russian case, most likely with greater emphasis on the air-wing and self-defense—even most likely making it closer to HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier of the Royal Navy conceptually.

The main question now thus is this: is co-existence of CATOBAR and STOVL carriers possible in Russian Navy? My answer is: why not.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Now we wait to see how long it takes them to get one in the water if they ever do.

Russia designing a STOVL isn't odd, Feelings regarding these types of warships are always mixed.

There is strong points but also weak points to a ship like this, the question is where if they do make afew will they find home in the navy.

PapaDragon wrote:
They need new transports, they need helicopter carriers so from that angle they should definitely get these built. Not really optional for them given the age of fleet.

Fighter jet carrier feature is just a bonus.

Like I said before, they are doing same thing that Japanese did with Izumo-class. Makes perfect sense.

Also, new STOVL aircraft is probably tied into fact that it will use derivatives of NK-321 same as Tu-160 which has been restated recently. Two birds, one stone.

SeigSoloyvov wrote: There is strong points but also weak points to a ship like this, the question is where if they do make afew will they find home in the navy.

LMFS wrote:@hole: Thanks! BTW, the F-35B has no folding wings, so capacity of a LHA is rather weak:

Taking reference from plant views, the wingspan of the F-35C with folded wings is 9 m

LMFS wrote: BTW I am confused, for me the Kuz is a TAKR.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
America Class LHA can carry 23 F-35. Is more less size of Russian fixed wing contingent which won war in Syria.
For Midway too little tho      

rrrright, you can fold 50% longer length of Su-57 too?  OK size of hangar an deck is flexible with Su-35.

So you say Su-57 has foldable  wings? But F-22 doesn't and for some reason want navalized. BTW Su-57 wingspan is like 14m and length 20m (22 with this funnu needle  vs 15,7m/11m   wingspan  f-35

LMFS wrote:

rrrright, you can fold 50% longer length of Su-57 too?  OK size of hangar an deck is flexible with Su-35.

Nooo, you are not exaggerating a bit right?  

Su-57 is 19.8 m long, MiG-29 is 17,3 m, Yak-141 was 18.4 m, F-35 is 15,5 m. So Su-57 is 28% longer than the thick and short F-35 which is hopeless as supersonic fighter... but we don't know if it would be narrower. F-35C is 20% wider than Su-33 once folded, mind you!

So you say Su-57 has foldable  wings?

This, apart from other political issues that may have been more important than mere technical considerations.

GarryB wrote: Let me guess  "heavy aviation cruiser" concept is back. Uparm Wasp class and you can have either small AC (~24 VSTOL) or LHD or helo antisub carrier. Simply cost effectiveness.

Remember the Yak-41 was funded too... right up until they cancelled it

Of course... a super cheap 5th gen fighter that takes off vertically and will be produced in numbers of perhaps 50 or 100 max... yeah... that is going to be real cheap... Of course if they want to operate them for more than 5 years they will need to make 200... to allow for operational losses...

Yak -141 (actually Yam41M) wasn't latest. Yak-141M was latest then Yak43 and Yak-201 according to Yefn Gordon books. Perhaps some blueprints remained?

Why not try to find some Nazi plans from WWII to base it on?

Yeah... that is what Russia needs... very short range low payload fighters...

 but lets equip them with something even less capable than a MiG-35... I mean how could they possibly manage a long runway in Russia... there is simply no room... or am I confusing Russia with Hong Kong?

Su 57 wont start from Kuz. Too short lane and Su-57 takes 2x so much space on AC then F-35B.

Who told you that?

The Su-57 is smaller and lighter than an Su-33 but has more powerful engines... and is getting even more powerful engines soon...

Guess why USN builds 100k monsters?

Invasions require a lot of planes.

hoom wrote:That Yak canard is pretty interesting.
No V, just STOL right?

Big canards, big flaps, limited thrust vectoring on the main nozzle & bleed air from the compressor run forward to a what?
Fan powered by the compressed air? Combustion chamber directly producing thrust? or With a turbine also powering a fan?

This is in my thinking the right way to do it: [].
If its always moving forward at decent speed (STOL no V) that'd be much less of an issue though.