Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+32
marcellogo
hoom
Rodion_Romanovic
kumbor
magnumcromagnon
George1
Tsavo Lion
higurashihougi
miketheterrible
jhelb
dino00
Gibraltar
LMFS
Isos
verkhoturye51
Borschty
GunshipDemocracy
Hole
ATLASCUB
The-thing-next-door
Peŕrier
Azi
medo
AlfaT8
flamming_python
Kimppis
eehnie
Singular_Transform
kvs
SeigSoloyvov
PapaDragon
Firebird
36 posters

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5922
    Points : 5878
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Nov 10, 2018 6:52 pm

    D-27 is made by Motor Sich in the Ukraine... I doubt they could make one now and they certainly would not sell any to Russia.
    They could probably use more powerful An-22/Tu-95 engines but with smaller diameter props:
    Maximum power output: 11,033 kW (14,795 ehp)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-12#Specifications

    Maximum power output: 14,000 horsepower (10,440 kW)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_D-27#Specifications_(D-27)
    Yeah... Nah... at 40 tons it would be the heaviest aircraft operating from a carrier...
    A C-130 didn't use CAT in trials on the CV-59: At 85,000 pounds (39,000 kg), the KC-130F came to a complete stop within 267 feet (81 m), and at the maximum load [~19T, MTOW 68T], the plane used only 745 feet (227 m) for take-off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal_(CV-59)#1963%E2%80%931967
    Powerplant: 4 × Allison T56-A-15 turboprops, 4,590 shp (3,430 kW) each  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules#Specifications_(C-130H)

    From these data, carrier ops w/o the CAT with just two 3,21x more powerful engines & 1.7x less MTOW is not impossible!
    They also rejected the Mi-28 and Ka-52 for the Apache... go figure...
    The MD could bribe the Indian officials to get those orders; it doesn't mean the Mi-28 and Ka-52 r less capable/suitable.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Indian_helicopter_bribery_scandal

    Airships can be disabled/destroyed by hyper-sonic missiles or subs/missile boats with cannons/MANPADs.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5111
    Points : 5107
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  LMFS Sat Nov 10, 2018 7:26 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    As a summary: please stop this non-stop imposition of your opinions to the rest of us above facts, physics and the rules of a honest discussion. We have better things to do than dealing with this crap.

    But we are totally wrong and he is always right...

    Reminds me of that joke about the man who searched and he searched for Miss Right, and he found her... but it wasn't until he married her that he found out her first name was Always...  Razz
    Exactly, and when things get this way you are not respected as a discussion counterpart for helping getting closer to the truth, whatever it is, but basically used by the other person to satisfy its ego. Have dealt enough with this kind of selfishness in my professional life to do it in my free time too.

    Regarding the issue at hand and to respect the thread:

    > CVs are definitely in the works, sooner or later, as said over and over by officials and stated in the naval strategy documents. It is pointless disputing tirelessly this issue, specially when all other powers, big and small, have similar plans.

    > Russia is the biggest country on Earth, a relevant economy, one of the most important civilizational poles, the biggest reserve of resources left and one of the two military superpowers. This notion that they should just dig a hole in the ground and disappear is just absurd, and perhaps results from Western projection, so aptly summarized by Gavin Williamson when he said that Russia should "go away and shut up". Russia (and so many others that do not bow to the West imposition) are not going anywhere and are not shutting up, sorry for existing. And of course Russia will not limit itself to self defence but will also project power as any other country does. And they need a navy for that.

    > A naval industry is a strategic asset. And in the Russian case (contrary to other branches of the MIC that managed to keep some activity during those years), it was completely destroyed during the collapse of the Soviet Union, so the recovery will take decades. There are simply no shortcuts for this painful process. Due to its size and capabilities, Russia does not need Chinese ships, Russia needs a domestic, fully developed industry with which they can guarantee the defence of their sovereignty and interests abroad and besides making money by exporting equipment. Anything less than that is not viable for a country with the history of Russia.

    > STOVL could make sense for LHDs, I think most of us could agree on that... many of us just doubt they make economical sense. But since I don't have all the info I wont say it cannot happen, maybe Russia sees many nations developing small assault ships and therefore a reasonable market for STOVL fighter. Russia may come up with a very good design that minimises the downsides of STOVL, or could accept that even not being as good as other options, STOVL can be acceptable for deterrence, but I think this is not a closed issue at all. What I feel confident to say is that if Russia had 3-4 carriers and naval Su-57s with proper armament (long range ALBM or ALCM, modern AAM) and supported by airspace control and refuelling assets, then not even the current number of US CVNs could expect to easily bully RuN in a contested remote area. That is, the Su-57 with a full fledged carrier allows significant economies of forces because it is reasonable to expect highly asymmetric exchange rates when confronted by the rest of potential naval fighters. This, together with the news we are receiving from Sukhoi regarding the landing distance, make it IMO a more potent and readily available option than a STOVL fighter for the defence of the fleet.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5922
    Points : 5878
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:19 pm

    Due to its size and capabilities, Russia does not need Chinese ships, ..
    If they r short of FFGs & DDGs, some could be ordered in China, esp. for the Pac. Fleet, until they rebuild their industry. China's entire coastline length of ~14,500 km (around 9,010 mi) is comparable with Russia's E. Coast (~11,902 km, or 2,598 km less, calculated from the info. below, can't find her insignificant Azov coastline length) which is also the most remote from the rest of her coast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_of_China  
    https://www.indexmundi.com/russia/coastline.html
    https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/countries/russia/
    http://www.azerbaijan.az/_Geography/_Caspian/_caspian_e.html?caspian_02   https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Results-for-the-Black-Sea-coastline-length_tbl1_263533472
    https://www.ccb.se/documents/Nationalreport_RUSSIA.pdf
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6069
    Points : 6089
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sun Nov 11, 2018 4:32 am

    Facts first. After  facts section we can submerge into speculations, shall we? if you have doubts about facts I have brought please provide your links and Im happy to talk about them.


    1) Gen Yuri Borisov, Deputy PM for MIC. 3rd in command chain in Russia after Putin and Shoigu. He said in August 2018 about VSTOL programe:

    a) "This work is really included in the state armament program, it is being carried out on behalf of the supreme commander-in-chief. We are currently working on the development of conceptual models and prototypes," he said.

    b)  Borisov stressed that this is about creating a new aircraft, and not about developing on the basis of some existing machine.

    c) “Certainly, this is the future for all aircraft carrying ships, a new fleet of aircraft there will be needed - and for this purpose that various technologies are needed to ensure a shortened take-off or just vertical take-off,” said Borisov.

    d) According to him, "conceptually such work has already been carried out in the Ministry of Defense since last year." “The terms are determined by the technological cycle of creation, as a rule, it is 7-10 years, if we go into the series,” said the Deputy Prime Minister.

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5475420

    e) (in 2017) Borisov suggested that the MiG-29 and Su-33 models in ten years may become obsolete morally. Therefore, according to him, it is logical that in the future it will be necessary to create a new aircraft.
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201711232106-gpni.htm



    2) First flight of  MiG-29.........=.1977 and MiG-29k.......=.1988
    Current MiG-29k and MiG-35 are deep modernization of MiG-29


    3) Besides MiG-35 (6 units) there were no official announcements of MoD to augment any of MiG-29 derivatives so far, none of new contracts signed too. .


    4) reliability according to Indian auditors. After wiki
    In a 2016 report, India's national auditor CAG criticized the aircraft due to defects in engines, airframes and fly-by-wire systems. The serviceability of Mig-29K was reported ranging from 15.93% to 37.63% and that of MiG-29KUB ranging from 21.30% to 47.14%; with 40 engines (62%) being rejected/withdrawn from service due to design defects. These defects are likely to reduce the service life of the aircraft from the stated 6000 hours.[48][49][50]


    One remark to GarryB - when we are talking about either Russian VSTOL or CVN we talk about 2030s timescale.



    GarryB wrote:
    This is not technical but questions of doctrine or philosophy. Do you consider airwing your first striking force or auxiliary one.  I dont believe that in Russian case large airwing is good idea. In every scenario you are outnumbered in the air by opponent forces.

    Granit is 7 tons and enormous... much smaller newer missiles could greatly increase the flight range at much higher speeds... and few opposition air wings can operate that far from their carriers without inflight refuelling support... support that would be sitting ducks to a long range shot with an R-37M that is reportedly compatible with all 4+ and 5th generation Russian fighters.

    These foreign carriers all seem so well protected, yet Russian carriers are so vulnerable... yet the evidence is currently the opposite.
    And the best attack component of a US carrier group is its air power and the best way to fight air power is with a mix of ground/surface defences and air power



    This proves you have problems with math on elementary school level.  Who is gonna be a sitting duck? US carriers are so powerful because they can mobilize numerical superiority against comparable adversary and both tech and numerical over weaker one.

    Russians dont have here meaningful qualitative superiority in fighters but clear numerical disadvantage. So building carrier with 70k tons gives you not what 36 -40 fighters of Su-57 size.  
    R-37 is designed against AWACS aircrafts not maneuverable fighters.

    What i your combat radius 1200km? +300km with missile ? lets  make it 1,400km (of course subsonic) +300km with missile? We dont know its guaranteed radiu of target destruction either. AS I can see form other AAD missiles is roughy 2/3.


    Every US carrier can take 90 fighters/drones. 2 is 180, 3 is 270.  Lets take smaller ones with 75 fighters.  in 2030s FA-XX will be the air, The one with DEW against missile defense . So far 260 F-35C was ordered. If you have 75 fighters on every carrier?  then you got 24 F-35, rest  FA-XX and drones.

    Neither  stealth drones nor fighters wont be seen by you in 1600km (range of Us standoff weapons). FA-XX can operate in access denial environment.  You raise all 36 in the air? how long can you keep them there? not all?  and if they attack from different directions then genius  you give one fighter here and one here?

    Yo you genius tell me what you do?  




    GB wrote:
    (2) VSTOL decision was made later in 2018.  10 years later.

    What makes you think the decision is related to anything except one department wanting to gain funding... it is like WIG aircraft... a dead end... for VSTOL aircraft they never achieve what they claim to offer... just like WIG aircraft have to fly at low altitude which makes jet engines inefficient and the aircraft slow.

    because Russian MoD is not populated by idiots,
    Putin has never never driven by emotions.
    And aerospace engineers know their job.

    You might disagree with reality. Even live in parallel one but this wont affect the real world outcomes
    thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup  




    GB wrote:
    6) Using running manufacturing lines  RuN ordered 24 only MiG-29k. Delivery till 2015
    With only one operational carrier why order more?

    True, 22 is enough when you have ~30+ Su-33 which life cycle was extended till 2025 so just about  retiring both Su and MiG form carriers.




    GB wrote:
    7) Short after MiG-29k were in use in RuN service life of Su-33 was extended till 2025
    The Su-33s don't have that many hours on the clock...

    Ru Navy says otherwise. The rest is in previous answer.






    GB wrote:
    10) in 2018 officially MoD stated that VSTOL program started in 2017
    Just like the VSTOL programme that resulted in the Yak-36 that led to no practical aircraft..... which led to a new VSTOL programme for the Yak-41 which ended up being cancelled because it was resulting in an aircraft with shorter range, lower flight speed, less payload, worse manouver performance than a MiG-33 that was pretty much already ready for service but refused because it was too expensive... yet still cheaper than the Yak-41 if you counted survival rate...

    Yak-141 had reduced funding after cancelling of Ulyanovsk when SU was falling. There is no source info  it wa closed  closed  because of poor performance, and closed only in 2003. Long after MiG-29k was frozen indefinitely. And resurrected only because of  Indians.



    GB wrote:
    After 30 years failure story with MiG-29k and MiG-35 indeed military should be prudent in wasting money.  
    It would only be a waste of money if you had nothing to show for it at the end... when they have made 250 MiG-35s they will have value for their money invested...

    virtually no MoD money though.  Much worse it to keep wasting on unpromising fighters.




    GB wrote:
    EMALS of course can be beneficial  when you build in many instances.
    EMAL technology could be used to greatly extend the firing range of various artillery systems, not to mention rail transport and experience and work with electrical systems...

    Do you mean railgun or ETC guns? both projects are funded although, not generously, for long time in Russia and have little connection with EMALS.  OK plasma and electric current  lol1  lol1  lol1

    Russians are already working on electric aircrafts. Superconductors for particle accelerators (and perspectively for aerospace) . Russian are also very advanced in plasma tech. No EMALS needed here







    GB wrote:
    (3) Helicopters or any virtual lift system yes. Especially with airborne Hermes they can have ~200km range.
    Ship launched cruise missiles could have a 4,000km range...

    wow and you need $1mln to hit couple of goat fuckers on shore? so no need for AGTMs only calibrs on every chopper?!  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect



    GB wrote:
    I dunno whether they would decide to use many smaller ships or less bigger. Less bigger has little value for Russia  since one in Arctic, second in pacific and third? oh no no third can afford.

    They are not going to be able to afford four carrier groups... the carrier support vessels cost more than the carrier so if you save with smaller carriers you end up spending more with multiple extra carrier support vessels not to mention the land based support infrastructure each carrier group needs.

    We both dont know, we ate just speculating. , we both are speculating. TAKR unlike CVN needs much smaller group. Besides Arctic RuN needs CVNs basically to fight Syria conflicts.






    GB wrote:
    Russia with current budget restrictions is very unlikely to build large CVN. And if in 15 years of so will be operational second might never come.

    So why waste money on VSTOL, they have zero use except from a decent sized carrier... look at how tight the British are and their replacement for the Hermes VSTOL carrier is a much bigger carrier... and they can't afford it either.... except they seem to.

    let's face it you are neither military, admiral   nor aerospace engineer. You were designing any fighter.
    But but Russians that made decision are. Questioning their decisions it really childish and stupid. ok you are here for giggles? ok hihihi





    GB wrote:
    In air superiority against 2 Ford carriers you cannot even dream of. With 14 US+allies' CSGs Russia can withstand how many? 1?2?3? depending on size. It cannot ensure neither local not global superiority on high seas.

    Describe what threat they represent to Russia... all 11 of their carrier groups could not together stop one Kinzhal missile let alone more, so what sort of performance can we expect from them in real combat?

    Stop with 1 kinzhal? are you serious genious?  affraid  affraid  affraid  first of all not every kiznah gets to the target. On its own. Why do you think 4 are carried by Tu-22?
    Second Kiznahl  can be effective for perhaps 10 or so years. Sooner or later they will find counter measure.



    GB wrote:Which approaches to Russian territory could they try that would allow them to attack Russia from a position of safety... they certainly could not enter the Black Sea and any attack in the baltic would fail, and the northern fleet would be pretty safe too... Pacific fleet? The S-400s will keep them away from land and the Kinzhals will push them further back... they would be pretty useless against Russia.

    US is planning stealth drones, stealth long range fighters that can survive in c Access Denial environment, armed also with DEW. They all can use  stealth standoff weapons of 1,600km class range. So tell me how would you use S-400 to stop them?


    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6069
    Points : 6089
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sun Nov 11, 2018 5:00 am

    GarryB wrote:
    As a summary: please stop this non-stop imposition of your opinions to the rest of us above facts, physics and the rules of a honest discussion. We have better things to do than dealing with this crap.

    But we are totally wrong and he is always right...

    @GB you  deny reality knowing better then all Russian military their job? and it's my fault because I am wrong quoting them. Wow congrats



    @LMFS From you post I can see that you are frustrated at work what might actually explain your emotional outbursts. But trying to make personal rants instead on any factual discussion is sad.


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Sun Nov 11, 2018 5:20 am; edited 2 times in total
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6069
    Points : 6089
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sun Nov 11, 2018 5:01 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Due to its size and capabilities, Russia does not need Chinese ships, ..
    If they r short of FFGs & DDGs, some could be ordered in China, esp. for the Pac. Fleet, until they rebuild their industry. China's entire coastline length of ~14,500 km (around 9,010 mi) is comparable with Russia's E. Coast (~11,902 km, or 2,598 km less, calculated from the info. below, can't find her insignificant Azov coastline length) which is also the most remote from the rest of her coast

    I dont understand why Russia should buy anything like FFG/DDGs in China?! neither economically nor politically justified
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5922
    Points : 5878
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Nov 11, 2018 5:27 am

    In 1984, under the Russian Air Force development program, the MiG-29K was conceived as a multi-role fighter and was supposed to be developed almost simultaneously with the Su-27K (Su-33). In 1989 - 1991 the MiG-29K underwent tests aboard the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft-carrying cruiser simultaneously with the MiG-29M (a ground-based гtwinх of the MiG-29K). In December 1991, following these successful tests, Russia's Defense Ministry authorized the commencement of its series production and service with Russia's naval aviation, including its operation on board the Admiral Kuznetsov cruiser. https://web.archive.org/web/20091002212230/http://milparade.udm.ru/34/014.htm

    The problem of lack of aircraft-carrier based AWACS platform may be tackled by further development of dual-seat MiG-29KUB. It is theoretically possible to outfit the MiG-29KUB with powerful radar, and encrypted data links, to permit networking of multiple MiG-29KUB aircraft for AEW coverage. The MiG-29KUB may also be enhanced in areas such as electronic warfare and long-range interdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29K

    I dont understand why Russia should buy anything like FFG/DDGs in China?! neither economically nor politically justified
    On the contrary, it may be justified to quickly plug some gaps in their fleet. As I & some1 else said, their hulls may be outfitted with Russian systems from A to Z. Russia may also build a few nuclear icebreakers for the Chinese- they r going to build them anyway & bypass the NSR entirely, so why not make some $?
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5111
    Points : 5107
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  LMFS Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:48 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:@LMFS From you post I can see that you are frustrated at work what might actually explain your emotional outbursts. But trying to make personal rants instead on any factual discussion is sad.
    You are right, florist is such a hard profession.
    Could you do me a favour and stop making personal comments about me? You know shit about my life. Thanks
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6069
    Points : 6089
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:53 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:@LMFS From you post I can see that you are frustrated at work what might actually explain your emotional outbursts. But trying to make personal rants instead on any factual discussion is sad.
    You are right, florist is such a hard profession.
    Could you do me a favour and stop making personal comments about me? You know shit about my life. Thanks

    you started personal rants, I thought you liked it.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6069
    Points : 6089
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:58 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    I dont understand why Russia should buy anything like FFG/DDGs in China?! neither economically nor politically justified
    On the contrary, it may be justified to quickly plug some gaps in their fleet. As I & some1 else said, their hulls may be outfitted with Russian systems from A to Z. Russia may also build a few nuclear icebreakers for the Chinese- they r going to build them anyway & bypass the NSR entirely, so why not make some $?


    and all taxes, payrolls would go to China receiving in return? nothing Russians cannot build on their own. Why would they need to plug any gaps with such hurry?
    avatar
    hoom


    Posts : 2352
    Points : 2340
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  hoom Mon Nov 12, 2018 1:22 am

    a new fleet of aircraft there will be needed - and for this purpose that various technologies are needed to ensure a shortened take-off or just vertical take-off,” said Borisov
    Then it may be STOL without the V afterall!
    I wasn't imagining that sunny
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5922
    Points : 5878
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Nov 12, 2018 2:14 am

    Why would they need to plug any gaps with such hurry?
    Because they don't have enough FFGs & DDGs now & must deploy smaller boats & sometimes ships from the Baltic, Caspian & Pac. Fleet to the Med. Sea to maintain a permanent squadron there.
    Will they have needed # of deployable ships after UDKs & CVNs r ready? I doubt it!
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6069
    Points : 6089
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:21 am

    hoom wrote:
    a new fleet of aircraft there will be needed - and for this purpose that various technologies are needed to ensure a shortened take-off or just vertical take-off,” said Borisov
    Then it may be STOL without the V afterall!
    I wasn't imagining that sunny

    That's true. FPI ("Russian DARPA" ) is working on STOL transport. 50 m take off + reaching height 15m. Same with landing AFAIK hybrid with usage of electrical motors too. Look at below vid it is something like this.





    Talking about V, vertical is there since 2017. BTW China is also developing VSTOL. So my educated guess is rather high probability it gonna be there. Boriosv also couple of times AFAIR mentioned technologies needed to build this fighter. Me thinks technologies nd breakthrough is same important as creation of fighter itself.

    Totally crazy would be using electrical powered fans to give vertical vector of lift. But very innovative too. Jet engine generates electric current. current is distributed to fans powered electric engines. Since you have
    Electric motor can reach 10kW per kg what is on level of high bypass GE turbofan engine General Electric GE90.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-weight_ratio

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6069
    Points : 6089
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:29 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Because they don't have enough FFGs & DDGs now & must deploy smaller boats & sometimes ships from the Baltic, Caspian & Pac. Fleet to the Med. Sea to maintain a permanent squadron there.
    Will they have needed # of deployable ships after UDKs & CVNs r ready? I doubt it!

    All true but you forget timeline. Russia needs both ffg/ddgs but desnt need them now. In 5-7 years shipyards will build up (they are being built for some time already) and till 2030 can build many ships of this kind. Still ~10 FFGs will be built till 2030 (8 Gorskhov is in order . For Baltic/Black Seas you need no FFG/DDG size ship. Why do you think BSF have FFGs if not Mediterranean?
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5922
    Points : 5878
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:17 pm

    Still ~10 FFGs will be built till 2030 (8 Gorskhov is in order . ..
    So far, it's been taking too long to build them; there's no telling if the speed of construction will increase. The Pac. Fleet with its long 12K+ km coastline & Kurils to defend certainly needs more FFGs & DDGs; its ships also deploy to the Indian Ocean & sometimes to the Med. Sea. The JMSDF has many of them:
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6069
    Points : 6089
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:26 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Still ~10 FFGs will be built till 2030 (8 Gorskhov is in order . ..
    So far, it's been taking too long to build them; there's no telling if the speed of construction will increase. The Pac. Fleet with its long 12K+ km coastline & Kurils to defend certainly needs more FFGs & DDGs; its ships also deploy to the Indian Ocean & sometimes to the Med. Sea. The JMSDF has many of them:


    1) Well, Russia is defending its borders pretty well. Kiznhal, Tu-22M3Ms make long arm in any direction + 22800 ship can defend against any surface ships. Fact ASW ships could be more but that's why 20386 will be mostly ASW + 5 1155 will be refurbished and continue ASW duties. A new ASW air platform joins soon - Be-42 in modernized version.


    3) Pacific coastline? You mean Kamchatka from both sides and below Chukotka? you dont need any FFGs there ;-) Kuriles? Why Japan would want to commit nationwide seppuku? 4 large metropolitan areas with 90% infrastructure/factories/population in range of Kalibrs from Vladivostok?


    In short there is no expediency in building any FFGs / DDGs. Buying them in China should be court-martial case for anybody in Rusaian MoD.

    As for recent shipbuilding troubles, since 2008 West tried to attack Russia. Since 2013 in Ukraine US declared war on Russia. If you check all geopolitical events with what happened to shipbuilding perhaps you can see there is nto that bad after all.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5922
    Points : 5878
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:58 am

    ..with the money that the fleet wants to spend on ten ships of Project 20386, you can build twenty ships of Project 20380.
    And this will replace all the rapidly becoming obsolete small anti-submarine ships of Project 1124, which are even more in the Navy 20 units. Today, these ships are vital to cover the combat duty areas of ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs),..
    The second drawback of the project 20386 is its armament. Excluding modules with replaceable weapons , the project ship 20386 is armed almost as much as the twice cheaper corvette of the project 20380. The differences are as follows: it has 4 more anti-aircraft missile launchers and there is no towed sonar station available on projects 20380 and 20385, which can be installed as a removable module. Is it worth doing for this new ship? Of course, it is possible to install on this ship a module with cruise missiles "Caliber", but when it is installed, the possibility of basing a helicopter on the ship disappears!
    ..With a helicopter on board, the ship of the project 20386 is almost identical in design to the corvette of the project 20380 at twice the price. ..Even worse, the armament of the new ship looks in comparison with the project 20385 corvettes. This ship has identical to the project 20386 anti-aircraft armament, a high-tech integrated radar mast, the universal ship-firing complex 3S14 for eight Caliber and Onyx cruise missiles or anti-submarine-launched torpedoes . With all this heavy weapons, the ship carries a helicopter. And the commander of the formation, or the commander of the organization to which the ship is subordinate, does not have to choose between its anti-submarine and strike capabilities. At the same time, the corvette 20385 is also cheaper than the project 20386, by at least one third. .. For the long-range maritime zone in Russia, frigates of the project 22350 are built, the most powerful ships of this class in the world, possessing absolutely incomparable capabilities with the project 20386. For the ocean zone need even larger ships with even more powerful weapons. For the near-sea zone, as a replacement for the IPC of the project 1124, the ships of the project 20386 are completely redundant - to perform combat missions in this zone do not need such a range as theirs, you do not need to have modularity, but you need to have a lower price, and the maximum possible anti-submarine capabilities for this price.
    In fact, the ship of the project 20386, although it is called the word "corvette", but in terms of its displacement, seaworthiness and cruising range it is a frigate. And most importantly - it is a frigate and at a price too, and at the same time it is armed at the level of a corvette! Calling this ship a corvette, as the developers and the Navy do, is wrong; it is not. It is simply a complex, high-tech, expensive and weakly armed frigate. If a group of two frigates of Project 22350 theoretically has a chance to fight off a raid of a squadron (14-16 vehicles) of deck F / A-18 fighter planes armed with a pair of anti-ship or anti-radar missiles each, then a pair of project 20386 ships have no such possibility even in theory. So what tasks will this ship perform in the far sea zone? Why does he need a long range? ..
    The final argument against building ships of project 20386 is technical risk. It is not so easy to create a weapon system from components that have never been built or used before (radar, electric propulsion), while ensuring its reliability and reliability. Most likely, the commissioning of the project 20386 ship will take more than one year. ..Production of ships of project 20386 should be stopped and henceforth not considered its resumption. As was shown above, the technical innovations used in this ship are not justified for the tasks that the Corvette class ship should perform. ..It is necessary to cancel the construction program for ten ships of project 20386, to cancel the decision to cease production of corvettes of projects 20380 and 20385 and to resume their production in the amount of at least 20-25 units in addition to the ships already laid, and to replace them partially or fully with small anti-submarine ships of project 1124. ..
    In modern foreign policy conditions, neither doubtful experiments with combat capability nor delay are acceptable. Unfortunately, the project 20386 combines the one and the other, and must be canceled.

    https://topwar.ru/137547-huzhe-chem-prestuplenie-stroitelstvo-korvetov-proekta-20386-oshibka.html
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8B_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0_20380#%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_20386
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0_1124

    If all 8 of them, spread across 2 fleets, r modernized, Project 1155 ships will be multi-purpose:
    “Thanks to this alteration, the BOD will actually become destroyers and will be able to destroy not only submarines, but also surface ships, airplanes, missiles and ground targets.” That is, they will become universal warships, ”the source explained.
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0_1155#%D0%9E%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0

    Pacific coastline? You mean Kamchatka from both sides and below Chukotka? you dont need any FFGs there ;-) Kuriles?
    What if enemy subs sneak past the Kurils to sink SSBNs in the big & stormy Okhotsk Sea or land spies/SF/conduct recon. missions as USS Halibut did? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Halibut_(SSGN-587)#Special_operations_missions,_1965_%E2%80%93_1976

    Also, in the coming years Bering Strait will have more traffic & its approaches will need to be patrolled.
    1+7 Project 22350 will also be spread across 4 fleets:
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0_22350#%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0

    IMO, that may not be enough.
    AFAIK, the Be-42s r for the BSF, & not intended for the Pac. Fleet. Not surprising, as the seas there r stormy &/ icy:
    https://lenta.ru/news/2016/03/03/albatros/
    https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/552009-aviasalon-beriev-samolyoty
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Japan#Climate
    http://pacificinfo.ru/data/cdrom/2/HTML/e_3_00.htm
    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/02/05/ice-dance-in-the-pacific/

    Back to the topic:
    ..within the framework of this project, the Ministry of Defense is considering the option of turning to the Yakovlev Design Bureau. ..
    In the mid-1990s, the Yakovlev Design Bureau was working on the draft design of the Yak-201, which was supposed to be a further development of the deck Yak-141 and its land-based counterpart Yak-43. According to some information, this project became the prototype of the American fighter of the fifth generation F-35, including its ship version F-35B. ..“These planes are not offensive, but defensive ... They can be based not only on aircraft carriers, but also on the ground without any runways. A convenient option is what I can tell you as a former commander of front aviation. Comfortable aircraft. The main thing is to make it good, ”Antoshkin said. ..
    In turn, Honored Test Pilot of the Russian Federation, Honorary President of the MAKS aerospace showroom Magomed Tolboev told RT about the high relevance of the creation of aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing.
    This is shown by events in Syria. In the 1970s, this was shown by the Falklands War, when British Harrier aircraft destroyed the Argentine air force and fleet. Very relevant. Apparently, now is the time to return to the topic, it remains to reanimate, ”said Tolboev.
    At the same time, Vladimir Popov, Honored Military Pilot, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Aviapanorama magazine, stated that the urgency of creating an aircraft of vertical takeoff and landing “did not go beyond the limits of technical creativity and engineering thought of modernity”. “We have very good models based on the Su-27 (Su-30SM, Su-33, Su-34) - airplanes that can be used on short runways, but still high-performance airplanes on limited terrain or while in the sea from ships, of course, they must also work with vertical takeoff and landing. For example, on ships without a large runway, ”the expert noted. ..in the light of the creation of a new aircraft, the most promising is the restoration of developments under the Yak-141 program and their full use, adjusted for the fact that recently new materials and technologies have appeared.
    “There is an opportunity to improve by 10–15% the efficiency of the quality of work with the efficiency of fuel automation, new engines, which means a lot. Today, it will be much easier to create such a device for vertical takeoff and landing on the material part, on materials and automated control systems than 20 years ago
    , ”noted Popov. .. Russia has experience of operating VTOL aircraft not on full-fledged aircraft carriers, but on aircraft-carrying cruisers, such as the Admiral Kuznetsov, and smaller ships that can simultaneously act as both a naval strike unit and an aircraft carrier.. “We are engaged in defensive systems today, it is important for us to protect our state, our people, and not to conquer something, somewhere and once, and this approach is closer to us in the development strategy of the armed forces and aviation.

    https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/547228-rossiya-samolyot-vertikalnyi-vzlyot-posadka
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39449
    Points : 39947
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:28 pm

    They could probably use more powerful An-22/Tu-95 engines but with smaller diameter props:
    Maximum power output: 11,033 kW (14,795 ehp)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-12#Specifications

    Maximum power output: 14,000 horsepower (10,440 kW)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_D-27#Specifications_(D-27)

    Wouldn't work... look up the Tu-91...

    A C-130 didn't use CAT in trials on the CV-59: At 85,000 pounds (39,000 kg), the KC-130F came to a complete stop within 267 feet (81 m), and at the maximum load [~19T, MTOW 68T], the plane used only 745 feet (227 m) for take-off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal_(CV-59)#1963%E2%80%931967
    Powerplant: 4 × Allison T56-A-15 turboprops, 4,590 shp (3,430 kW) each https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules#Specifications_(C-130H)

    And what payload did it land and what payload did it take off with... because if it was operating light then WTF would be the point?

    You do understand that a truck designed to tow an enormous load is not really the same vehicle when it is empty right?

    When you take the train off the back of the diesel engines their performance is quite impressive and they can do all sorts of things they can't do when they are towing trailers... but what they can do with the trailers attached is really all that is important, and all the rest is just bullshit.

    Does the US navy have any plans for operating C-130s from their carriers any time soon?

    If they can operate fine then why would they not use them?

    If they are too big to operate with any useful weight then they are not really relevant to this discussion are they?

    From these data, carrier ops w/o the CAT with just two 3,21x more powerful engines & 1.7x less MTOW is not impossible!

    Not impossible, but not very practical or likely.

    The MD could bribe the Indian officials to get those orders; it doesn't mean the Mi-28 and Ka-52 r less capable/suitable.

    To be fair the two Russian helos were less mature, but my point was that the best tool for the job does not always get selected.

    Airships can be disabled/destroyed by hyper-sonic missiles or subs/missile boats with cannons/MANPADs.

    Airships are not invulnerable but less vulnerable that any other aircraft... if you were to fly down to near sea level and the enemy popped up with a MANPADS and launched the weapon at the airship do you think a 5kg HE warhead would destroy a 300m long airship with 50,000 cubic metres of internally bagged hydrogen?

    Even an ideal hit you might burst a dozen bags of hydrogen which likely could be countered by dropping 500kgs of water ballast... but lets get real... there is no reason for the airship to operate below 20,000m which means no surface based gun and very few aircraft could even get to the altitude it is operating at... and while you are climbing it can see you coming and transmit your details to its friendly surface vessels that it is flying over... so as you are climbing to reach it from behind you might find you have an S-400 missile coming up your ass... the 9M96E2 has a range of 120-150km and an altitude of 30km so you will be in serious trouble because that warhead probably wont do very much to the airship because at that altitude blast warheads are ineffectual because the air is so thin blast waves don't do squat, but the fragments from that missile will rip the ass off your plane and gravity is a bitch at that altitude...


    Exactly, and when things get this way you are not respected as a discussion counterpart for helping getting closer to the truth, whatever it is, but basically used by the other person to satisfy its ego. Have dealt enough with this kind of selfishness in my professional life to do it in my free time too.

    But he can't be right unless we are idiots and totally wrong... only he has thought about this.... and only he knows the future...

    > Russia is the biggest country on Earth, a relevant economy, one of the most important civilizational poles

    It also has a thriving aircraft industry, so developing all sorts of aircraft designs does not hurt that much, but it also does not mean development of a VSTOL aircraft will result in small carriers and VSTOL fighters... for all we know they might want a V-44 type VSTOL transport to fly with their new super fast helos...

    This, together with the news we are receiving from Sukhoi regarding the landing distance, make it IMO a more potent and readily available option than a STOVL fighter for the defence of the fleet.

    Even just information about new generation radar technology and hypersonic missiles making stealth and aircraft carriers and all other surface vessels vulnerable means the threat posed by the US carriers is not what it used to be... which is to say if Russia wants new carriers to beat the US Navy in a conventional war they are pushing sht up hill, but they are not wanting carriers for that and the fact that air power makes surface activitiy whether on land or at sea easier and safer means they need carriers.

    They wont be able to afford dozens of carriers so they ones they do get need to be self sufficient and have combat persistence... in other words bigger than western carriers so the logistics tail is shorter and easier to defend so the carrier group is easier to support no matter where it operates.

    If they r short of FFGs & DDGs, some could be ordered in China, esp. for the Pac. Fleet, until they rebuild their industry.

    You are not getting it... buying ships from China puts money into their economy and helps them with their problems and does nothing for the Russian ship building industry and does nothing to help its problems... which are the problems that need to be solved.

    There is no urgency... even if they decided on building a carrier right now they would not get it layed until at least 2022 because of all the other things they are doing and after 10 years on the slipways it will be 2032 before it hits the water... fitting out and initial training it wont be ready for combat until at least 2035 at the earliest... they might lay down a second keel in 2028 or so and that will likely hit the water in 2038 so 2038 will be the first date they could have three operational carriers... assuming the have the support vessels and land infrastructure to operate them.

    c) “Certainly, this is the future for all aircraft carrying ships, a new fleet of aircraft there will be needed - and for this purpose that various technologies are needed to ensure a shortened take-off or just vertical take-off,” said Borisov.

    So worse than an A model MiG-29 in terms of air defence aircraft defending the airfield...

    d) According to him, "conceptually such work has already been carried out in the Ministry of Defense since last year." “The terms are determined by the technological cycle of creation, as a rule, it is 7-10 years, if we go into the series,” said the Deputy Prime Minister.

    If... the biggest word in the English language...

    e) (in 2017) Borisov suggested that the MiG-29 and Su-33 models in ten years may become obsolete morally. Therefore, according to him, it is logical that in the future it will be necessary to create a new aircraft.

    With current upgrades (MiG-35 and Su-35 respectively) they should be fine for the next ten years... or are you suggesting that in 10 years time there will be no Flankers and no Fulcrums in service at all and the Russian AF will be Su-57s and MiG-31/41s?

    Current MiG-29k and MiG-35 are deep modernization of MiG-29

    You haven't said what was wrong with that yet.

    The Su-35 is a deep modernisation of the Su-27 is it also obsolete and ready to remove from service?

    4) reliability according to Indian auditors. After wiki
    In a 2016 report, India's national auditor CAG criticized the aircraft due to defects in engines, airframes and fly-by-wire systems. The serviceability of Mig-29K was reported ranging from 15.93% to 37.63% and that of MiG-29KUB ranging from 21.30% to 47.14%; with 40 engines (62%) being rejected/withdrawn from service due to design defects. These defects are likely to reduce the service life of the aircraft from the stated 6000 hours.[48][49][50]

    Like I said.... brand new aircraft... they will of course have to iron out the bugs... are you suggesting this new VSTOL fighter will have 100% readiness immediately?

    So by the 2030s the MiG-29KR will be a mature fighter with pretty much all the bugs worked out and the new VSTOL fighter may or may not get into service and until it gets experience will test the ejection system severely.

    This proves you have problems with math on elementary school level. Who is gonna be a sitting duck? US carriers are so powerful because they can mobilize numerical superiority against comparable adversary and both tech and numerical over weaker one.

    Except to deliver that power they need to be operating above sea level... when the first Russian hypersonic missile rips through their structure how long can they maintain numerical superiority?

    Russians dont have here meaningful qualitative superiority in fighters but clear numerical disadvantage. So building carrier with 70k tons gives you not what 36 -40 fighters of Su-57 size.
    R-37 is designed against AWACS aircrafts not maneuverable fighters.

    R-37 moves so fast a manouvering fighter is not a manouvering fighter... when something blasts past at mach 5 there is no option to dodge because to dodge you need to see it coming... the R37M is cleared for 8g targets because its directional warhead means it can direct the fragments to where the target is most vulnerable (for Scud type missiles) or where the target will be when the missile blasts past (for highly manouverable targets).

    There is no reason why Zircon missiles could not be carried by Su-57s to take down US carriers and render any advantages moot.

    Either way Russia does not need carriers to fight the US as I keep saying... it needs carriers to be able to expand its influence around the world despite the US or UK or EU or anyone else trying to stop them by not assisting in keeping open the Sea lines of communication.

    Russia needs to reach its new trade partners itself and for that it needs a navy and to have a navy it needs aircraft that can protect those surface and subsurface vessels... hense they need carriers.

    Yo you genius tell me what you do?

    You make me feel like a genius.... you keep talking about Russia taking on the US with these new carriers... why?

    Do you really think that your little VSTOLs would do any better at anything?

    Of course not.

    So what you are saying is that the USN is invincible so Russia should not spend too much on her navy because it will all be sunk.

    What I am saying is that during WWIII the Russian navy would never try to take on the US Navy... there is no point... what the hell would they achieve even if they won?

    Russian carriers are not for beating the USN at WWIII they are for supporting and expanding Russian influence and trade around the globe in a way that is not restricted by western whims... right now the west could demand a naval blockade of the Black Sea and that the Panama and Suez canal do not let through any Russian military ships and all sorts of other crap... right now there is not much the Russians could actually do in practical terms about that.

    With carriers and a modern surface fleet then there are things they could do about that... certainly the west would be rather less keen to push the Russians around if they had a stronger surface fleet. and other countries would be less likely to fall in line with western dictates if the Russian navy was stronger.

    We are headed towards a multipolar world... how is a country to stake its claim to be heard if it has no global reach?

    Strategic bombers don't give you global power.


    You might disagree with reality. Even live in parallel one but this wont affect the real world outcomes

    They failed the last three times to develop a useful affordable VSTOL fighter, but sure... it is my problem with reality that is the issue here... lockheed martin say of course they can make a super 5th gen VSTOL fighter that can defeat anything flying in the 2030s...

    True, 22 is enough when you have ~30+ Su-33 which life cycle was extended till 2025 so just about retiring both Su and MiG form carriers.

    By 2025 they will be mature and capable systems... and you will be claiming the new VSTOL fighter is really worth putting it into service... it will be a Canadian Arrow, or a British Blue Streak... or a British TSR-2... you know... the best system never put into service... and it only had small problems and they were pretty much fixed when the project was cancelled... of course.

    [quote]Yak-141 had reduced funding after cancelling of Ulyanovsk when SU was falling. There is no source info it wa closed closed because of poor performance, and closed only in 2003. Long after MiG-29k was frozen indefinitely. And resurrected only because of Indians. [/qutoe]

    The Yak-41 was cancelled... the Yak-141 was the hope of an export order but no one was interested... certainly not enough to fund development... well except LM and they were interested in only certain pieces of technology rather than the whole design.

    virtually no MoD money though. Much worse it to keep wasting on unpromising fighters.

    Yeah, it is as bad and this new VSTOL fighter is going to be wonderful... I hear you... but that doesn't make you right.

    Do you mean railgun or ETC guns? both projects are funded although, not generously, for long time in Russia and have little connection with EMALS. OK plasma and electric current

    So mr expert you know all about such projects in Russia... of course there could be no connection between using enormous concentrated amounts of electricity to accelerate small very fast projectiles using plasma and magnets and such like with using magnets and enormous concentrations of electrical current to accelerate a range of objects to significant speeds.... yeah... like chalk and cheese... totally different... like totally...

    Russians are already working on electric aircrafts. Superconductors for particle accelerators (and perspectively for aerospace) . Russian are also very advanced in plasma tech. No EMALS needed here

    Yeah, of course... electric motors, energy storage, energy transfer, magnets, accelerators, plasma... why waste money on EMALS at all because you say so...

    wow and you need $1mln to hit couple of goat fuckers on shore? so no need for AGTMs only calibrs on every chopper?! Suspect Suspect Suspect

    Of course... flying into enemy controlled airspace with a helicopter to kill a few goat fuckers... risking a 20 million dollar aircraft and two crew... great stuff...

    BTW if it is just a goat fucker then an Su-33 with a dumb bomb from 12,000m would be a very similar price but the Su-33 would be better able to defend itself from SAM attack or interception... but all this would require eyes on the ground to find those goat fuckers...

    Questioning their decisions it really childish and stupid. ok you are here for giggles? ok hihihi

    So when you question their decision to develop EMALS are you being childish?

    Or when they talk about needing a carrier with slightly bigger capacity to the Kuznetsov are you being childish then when you say they just need a few extra helicopter carriers and some VSTOL fighters and they will be right...

    Stop with 1 kinzhal? are you serious genious? affraid affraid affraid first of all not every kiznah gets to the target. On its own. Why do you think 4 are carried by Tu-22?
    Second Kiznahl can be effective for perhaps 10 or so years. Sooner or later they will find counter measure.

    One Kinzhal = one US ship. Four are carried by Tu-22M3Ms because it has the capacity to carry four... this was an afterthought... the original design and requirement was the MiG-31K which carries one.

    In 10 years time they will have all manner of new IRBMs they can base air launched missiles on with all sorts of ABM evading warheads that US ABM systems will have necessitated they develop for all their ground and sea and air launched systems.

    Who knows better what is hard to intercept than the Russians?

    They carry more than one missile because there will be more than one vessel in the US carrier group that attacks.

    US is planning stealth drones, stealth long range fighters that can survive in c Access Denial environment, armed also with DEW. They all can use stealth standoff weapons of 1,600km class range. So tell me how would you use S-400 to stop them?

    Russia is planning new types of radar that can detect even stealth targets at enormous ranges... and any DEW weapon you can make small enough to fit into an aircraft in an operational way could easily be fitted into buildings and large modular vehicles in a much more powerful longer ranged version...

    Any US attack on Russia means nuclear destruction of the US.... stealthy 1,600km range weapons simply wont come in to the final equation.

    @GB you deny reality knowing better then all Russian military their job? and it's my fault because I am wrong quoting them. Wow congrats

    Of course... you are not giving your opinion, you are merely passing on what the Russian military think... tell me... do you agree with them or do they agree with you?

    @LMFS From you post I can see that you are frustrated at work what might actually explain your emotional outbursts. But trying to make personal rants instead on any factual discussion is sad.

    When is this discussion going to get factual?

    Because they don't have enough FFGs & DDGs now & must deploy smaller boats & sometimes ships from the Baltic, Caspian & Pac. Fleet to the Med. Sea to maintain a permanent squadron there.

    They have plenty of older ships, including Sovremmeny, Udaloy, and Slava class vessels for the moment.

    The new Corvettes are comparable in fire power to Frigates and Destroyers, but they lack the range and persistence of a bigger ship... the need for new ships is there but it is hardly critical because there is no mission they would need to perform right now.

    In 15 years time there would be carrier escort duties that would need to be performed and visits to foreign countries to show the flag and stimulate trade relations, but that is a long way down the track yet.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5922
    Points : 5878
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:26 pm

    And what payload did it land and what payload did it take off with... because if it was operating light then WTF would be the point?
    Does the US navy have any plans for operating C-130s from their carriers any time soon? ..If they are too big to operate with any useful weight then they are not really relevant to this discussion are they?
    No, it's not relevant, but the Yak-44 is a lot smaller with MTOW of 40,000 kg (88,200 lb) & with those or similar engines they could have a COD & S-3 like ASW/MPA/Tanker variants too:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-44#Specifications_(Yak-44E)  
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_S-3_Viking
    ..and after 10 years on the slipways it will be 2032 before it hits the water..
    It may take less than that. OTH, if they order some ships in PRC, there will be less workload on their shipyards & thus bigger ships could be started earlier. $ not spent domestically can be offset by other lucrative deals with China.
    Airships are not invulnerable but less vulnerable that any other aircraft...
    Swarms of UCAVs with explosives or shooting depleted uranium shells at a fat target can overwhelm & turn it to another Hindenburg:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ_129_Hindenburg#Use_of_hydrogen_instead_of_helium
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:37 pm; edited 4 times in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5111
    Points : 5107
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  LMFS Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:It also has a thriving aircraft industry, so developing all sorts of aircraft designs does not hurt that much, but it also does not mean development of a VSTOL aircraft will result in small carriers and VSTOL fighters... for all we know they might want a V-44 type VSTOL transport to fly with their new super fast helos...
    I don't know, but starting a project and finishing it are two different things. Putin also instructed personally to develop NK-93 engine and here we are, with the PD-14 and thinking about the PD-35. If you read Yakovlev's article I posted it is obvious that STOBAR/CATOBAR are crap and STOVL the way to go, but then reality gets in the way of the narrative and high-end navies use the first rather than the later. At blog ak-12 it is argued BTW, than a development like the new high-speed Kamov, due to the difficulties for Doppler radars to detect stationary helos at low altitude, would be quite dangerous even in AD role against jet fighters, if armed with the right missiles. Maybe stealthflanker can comment on that. And of course, such an aircraft would be wonderful for strike roles and render the case for a STOVL fighter on board of assault ships weaker.

    On the other hand, Su-57 is already such a good way towards being operational and has so many advantages that it just would seem odd not to use it on the navy. We will see.

    Even just information about new generation radar technology and hypersonic missiles making stealth and aircraft carriers and all other surface vessels vulnerable means the threat posed by the US carriers is not what it used to be... which is to say if Russia wants new carriers to beat the US Navy in a conventional war they are pushing sht up hill, but they are not wanting carriers for that and the fact that air power makes surface activitiy whether on land or at sea easier and safer means they need carriers.

    They wont be able to afford dozens of carriers so they ones they do get need to be self sufficient and have combat persistence... in other words bigger than western carriers so the logistics tail is shorter and easier to defend so the carrier group is easier to support no matter where it operates.
    In this regard I do think Russia may indeed need to show deterrent capacity against conventional attacks from USN in a remote area. Each time they could enjoy an advantage and embarrass Russia, they have done it, be it by proxy or directly. The only way to avoid this is making sure the agressor will get a bleeding nose if they try, even without need of escalating into WWIII. Conflicts for influence abroad are not direct attacks to the existence of the homeland and it is not practicable to threaten end of the world each time you are challenged. So you don't need to match the USN numbers, but you do need to be capable to threaten them with the forces in theater regardless. At least you cannot be an easy prey. Therefore, high performance assets are needed. We have seen this in Syria with the progressive mobilization of each time better equipment after each provocation, to ensure nobody tries anything silly. And it has worked.

    That is where the Su-57 on board of medium-heavy carriers makes sense. With its range, payload and capabilities you would not need to match USN numbers to be respected.

    R-37 moves so fast a manouvering fighter is not a manouvering fighter... when something blasts past at mach 5 there is no option to dodge because to dodge you need to see it coming... the R37M is cleared for 8g targets because its directional warhead means it can direct the fragments to where the target is most vulnerable (for Scud type missiles) or where the target will be when the missile blasts past (for highly manouverable targets).
    R-37M would in fact be overkill against fighters, rather than ineffective. But in case a Russian air wing would need to repel a massive attack, I think the first wave would not hesitate to use them at long distance, long before enemy MRAAM are in range.

    And then, look what are the allowable overloads of naval fighters: F-18E 7.6 g, F-35C/B 7.5 g.

    There is no reason why Zircon missiles could not be carried by Su-57s to take down US carriers and render any advantages moot.
    True. To prevent this, USN is deploying in short term the MQ-25, so that they can keep their air patrols at much longer range. They know what is coming, but Russia should follow with their own tanker.

    Russia needs to reach its new trade partners itself and for that it needs a navy and to have a navy it needs aircraft that can protect those surface and subsurface vessels... hense they need carriers.
    Venezuela, Cuba, Honduras and many others could appreciate Russian muscle being around. South Yemen too. There are many places where Russia could offer stability, which is the premium trade of our time.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39449
    Points : 39947
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:51 am

    No, it's not relevant, but the Yak-44 is a lot smaller with MTOW of 40,000 kg (88,200 lb) & with those or similar engines they could have a COD & S-3 like ASW/MPA/Tanker variants too:

    At MTOW they need more ground to take off and land... and I would suggest neither the Yak-44 nor the S-3 could land at MTOW... they would need to burn a lot of fuel to lose weight before they could recover again on any carrier.

    And a MTOW the Yak-44 would only get airborne with a cat.

    It may take less than that.

    It certainly could but the advantage of it taking that long means costs are spread out over time making the final cost easier to absorb into the normal navy budget, and it also gives time to train and prepare crews to operate it let alone expand the navy to include all the support vessels and land based infrastructure that will be needed to operate such vessels... it is actually a good thing.

    OTH, if they order some ships in PRC, there will be less workload on their shipyards & thus bigger ships could be started earlier. $ not spent domestically can be offset by other lucrative deals with China.

    Not going to happen. They will order barges and cranes and all sorts of things but not warships... South Korea is building them a whole shipyard.... but not a single Corvette.

    Swarms of UCAVs with explosives or shooting depleted uranium shells at a fat target can overwhelm & turn it to another Hindenburg:

    DU shells would just punch neat tiny little holes in the hydrogen bags... explosives would damage bags with fragments but at 20km altitude there is not enough air for fire to burn.

    The hindenburg burned because the materials it was made of was the same materials used in smokeless powder... what you see in the video is the external shell burning... hydrogen itself burns invisibly... and at 20km altitude would not really burn because of a lack of oxygen.

    You could further reduce the fire risk by filling the gaps between the internal hydrogen filled bags with nitrogen which is abundant and cheap (70% of the atmosphere) and totally inert.

    the structure could be made of nomex and carbon fibre and glassfibre... which are fire retardant.

    In comparison a fixed wing aircraft like a Yak-44 would be just as vulnerable to attack... much easier to bring down.... much higher risk of accident because every 4-6 hours it would need to land or refuel.

    And airship could operate higher and therefore see low flying targets out to much greater ranges... including periscopes and such things, it could operate practically continuously... with fuel cell technology and electric motors and nuclear power generation systems you could operate continuously and safely without having to drop ballast or release expensive helium in normal operations.

    In old airships you flew to the pick up point where you picked up the cargo and passengers, but to get airborne you had to dump an amount of ballast equal to the passengers and cargo you take on. Then you fly to the destination... as you burn fuel you get lighter so on the way you release gas to stop flying too high... water condensers can be used to create ballast water from the air to compensate for the loss of fuel weight but when you get to the destination you have to take on water ballast before the passengers and cargo come off or you will rapidly climb into the air with the loss of weight.

    Most critically helium is rare and expensive, so dumping it was a no no.

    Ideally the Hindenburg would have had a mixed load of helium and hydrogen... helium is safer but not as effective as a lifting gas, it is also way to expensive to release for any reason... so you would have a mix of bags throughout the hindenburg with some having helium and others having hydrogen.

    the helium would stop the fire spreading from bag to bag, but the hydrogen was cheap and could be released to descend if needed.

    In a modern airship the ability to use a fuel cell to create hydrogen from ballast water or use hydrogen to generate electricity and create heat and water ballast as the byproduct makes things much more flexible... you could still use helium if fire safety is critical in some areas and hydrogen in others where lift and ballast can be managed directly.

    Solar panels and nuclear batteries can be used but also diesel engines or natural gas powered engines or whatever...

    If you read Yakovlev's article I posted it is obvious that STOBAR/CATOBAR are crap and STOVL the way to go,

    No I didn't read it... the file format was weird and didn't display properly.

    At blog ak-12 it is argued BTW, than a development like the new high-speed Kamov, due to the difficulties for Doppler radars to detect stationary helos at low altitude, would be quite dangerous even in AD role against jet fighters, if armed with the right missiles.

    Yeah... modern radars have moved on and so doppler radars are no longer an issue... you just have to look at the specs for the R-77 which can engage even a hovering helo only a few metres off the ground... and its radar is not amazing...

    The amount of processing going on with radar signals these days... and AESA radar moves part of that processing to the actual TR module to further improve things.

    On the other hand, Su-57 is already such a good way towards being operational and has so many advantages that it just would seem odd not to use it on the navy. We will see.

    They are not going to have a lot of aircraft carriers with fixed wing fighters... which means you want the best fighters you can manage... which in my mind is Su-57... they have mentioned carrier capable versions, as have MiG with their MiG-35.

    In this regard I do think Russia may indeed need to show deterrent capacity against conventional attacks from USN in a remote area. Each time they could enjoy an advantage and embarrass Russia, they have done it, be it by proxy or directly.

    GZUR is a 1,500km range rather fast missile being developed... it should easily be carried in the belly position of a Su-57, and with inflight refuelling its reach should be pretty good.

    The last attempt to embarrass the Russians by the US Navy was the attempt to make Sevastopol a NATO base... and I believe that backfired...

    R-37M would in fact be overkill against fighters, rather than ineffective.

    And a 130mm naval artillery shell would probably be over kill for use against a small enemy fishing boat but its effect would be spectacular... if the target is a threat and needs to be dealt with... who cares what you use?

    But in case a Russian air wing would need to repel a massive attack, I think the first wave would not hesitate to use them at long distance, long before enemy MRAAM are in range.

    When they are coming at you in enormous numbers you will use what you have.

    The R-37M has enormous range and would be better used against more distant targets which means refuelling aircraft and AWACS and JSTARs type aircraft are the most likely to get locks and launches, but if it was fired at the odd F-18 that would not be a problem either.

    And then, look what are the allowable overloads of naval fighters: F-18E 7.6 g, F-35C/B 7.5 g.

    AFAIK there are no naval aircraft with folding wings that can pull more than 8g.

    True. To prevent this, USN is deploying in short term the MQ-25, so that they can keep their air patrols at much longer range. They know what is coming, but Russia should follow with their own tanker.

    And what happens when that MQ-25 stops transmitting because it received an enormous radar pulse from a huge airship carrying a 300m long AESA radar that blew its little mind... from 40km altitude 2,000km away.

    Venezuela, Cuba, Honduras and many others could appreciate Russian muscle being around. South Yemen too. There are many places where Russia could offer stability, which is the premium trade of our time.

    Once they get over the stereotypes most countries are happy to trade with countries that don't tell them what to do or how to act.

    Russia continues to trade with Saudi Arabia despite killing one Washington Post reporter... but then they have also made quite a few political opponents disappear, and of course they are murdering tens of thousands of people in Yemen... but then if Russia didn't trade with them for that why on earth would they trade with the US who murders innocent people every day with drone strikes all over the world... summary executions for those they think might be guilty and anyone nearby at the time... we have seen how much proof they need before they act... no WMDs in Iraq and of course the Skripal case...
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5111
    Points : 5107
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  LMFS Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:06 pm

    GarryB wrote:Yeah... modern radars have moved on and so doppler radars are no longer an issue... you just have to look at the specs for the R-77 which can engage even a hovering helo only a few metres off the ground... and its radar is not amazing...

    The amount of processing going on with radar signals these days... and AESA radar moves part of that processing to the actual TR module to further improve things.
    My bad, this was related to modern radars too, as far as they use Doppler effect (which they do AFAIK). If you want to check out for yourself:

    https://ak-12.livejournal.com/84418.html

    They are not going to have a lot of aircraft carriers with fixed wing fighters... which means you want the best fighters you can manage... which in my mind is Su-57... they have mentioned carrier capable versions, as have MiG with their MiG-35.
    Exactly

    AFAIK there are no naval aircraft with folding wings that can pull more than 8g.
    I know no one either, only Rafale which has obviously no folding wing. I would not be surprised if, considering overload demands to fighters 5G and beyond, naval Su-57 would not have folding wing. You could even devise the hangar floor to store planes at slightly different levels, in order to save space. And a bigger carrier could maybe have space for two sqd. of Su-57 even without folding, which could be a sufficient amount IMO, considering potential rivals.

    And what happens when that MQ-25 stops transmitting because it received an enormous radar pulse from a huge airship carrying a 300m long AESA radar that blew its little mind... from 40km altitude 2,000km away.

    How could you deploy such monster to a remote, contested area? I think airships have future, but for naval use the relationship size / capability is still not very good. I think you should be capable of storing them on board in case of need (I am a friend of distributed architectures rather than of big centralized assets that must be atom bomb-proof, if you know what I mean). But it is also true that a big one, accompanying the CSG and with nuclear propulsion would be protected by its SAMs while having great capabilities for surveillance and EW. Servicing it at sea would be a nightmare but it is an interesting idea in any case. Of course drones will be more autonomous with each passing day and can be hardened to great levels so I doubt a very distant airship could reliably disable the operations of a CSG

    As to the tanker issue, I still think they will play a big role. For USN they are their only chance to stay effective against adversaries with good area denial capabilities. MQ-25 could offset the range advantage of the Su-57, so Russia will need to follow suit and therefore EMALS deserves being researched further, as launching tankers is where payload is really critical. BTW, apparently Yak-44 was springboard-capable from what I read in the comments at ak-12 blog.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39449
    Points : 39947
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Thu Nov 15, 2018 6:57 am

    My bad, this was related to modern radars too, as far as they use Doppler effect (which they do AFAIK). If you want to check out for yourself:

    Improvements in processing radar data means ground clutter can be removed from the radar screen to make spotting targets easier... in the past it was based on speed and was basically clutter rejection... anything that didn't move above a certain speed was not displayed... so cars on motorways were not shown as air targets... but also An-2s operating near stall speed and hovering or slow flying helos also did not appear on the display either.

    These days that would also remove UAVs and other things they want to see, so instead the signals are processed and unwanted data is removed, but things like hovering helos and low flying slow aircraft are also displayed...

    And a bigger carrier could maybe have space for two sqd. of Su-57 even without folding, which could be a sufficient amount IMO, considering potential rivals.

    It would also effect the size of the aircraft lifts used to get aircraft on and off deck, but I think it makes more sense to have the best.

    How could you deploy such monster to a remote, contested area? I think airships have future, but for naval use the relationship size / capability is still not very good.

    It doesn't need any support structures... no airstrips or refuelling... if you keep a destroyer below it that should offer all the air defence it would need to keep it safe with the added bonus of no chance of sneaking up and surprising that ship either.

    Most of the time it will be the eyes and ears of the fleet so it will actually more likely have a cruiser operating with it or more than a few surface ships... it is going to be as safe as an A-100 operating over Moscow most of the time.

    The new short range Morfei self defence missiles could be all over it... as well as DIRCMS for optically guided weapons... and launching an AMRAAM at it... a 10 metre high 250 metre long radar antena with millions of AESA modules at 20Kw each.... its active jamming mode would probably set a BVR missile on fire at 500km range...

    I am not saying it will be invincible, but what AWACS platform is?

    It will have better persistence... ie more time on station doing its job than any other platform... its potential for very high altitude work is a benefit in terms of self protection and visual range for low flying threats.

    I think you should be capable of storing them on board in case of need (I am a friend of distributed architectures rather than of big centralized assets that must be atom bomb-proof, if you know what I mean).

    It would certainly benefit the fleet to have inflatable aerostats that could be carried on smaller vessels... military or converted container ships, that could pop up a radar to say 5km on a tether to find out what is about in any conditions, but it is like ships... small ones are cheaper but less multirole and less able to protect themselves.

    The force needed to defeat a corvette would be smaller than the force needed to defeat a destroyer and the force needed to destroy a a destroyer with air support and AWACS support will be much bigger than either to destroy a corvette or destroyer on their own.

    A corvette with an AWACS platform might even fight off an attack better than an unsupported destroyer because it eliminates the potential for surprise.... AWACS means better able to use available defences and more efficient use of systems for any platform.

    But it is also true that a big one, accompanying the CSG and with nuclear propulsion would be protected by its SAMs while having great capabilities for surveillance and EW.

    It would eliminate the need for fixed wing or UAV AWACS at sea or on land, which means more fighters and more weapons and fuel for fighters for any given carrier.

    Servicing it at sea would be a nightmare but it is an interesting idea in any case. Of course drones will be more autonomous with each passing day and can be hardened to great levels so I doubt a very distant airship could reliably disable the operations of a CSG

    Forget old designs... this new design could have all the sensors and systems internal of the frame that could be shaped as a wing for low drag high volume capacity... it could have a design that allows it to land and take off from water or snow/ice.

    BTW, apparently Yak-44 was springboard-capable from what I read in the comments at ak-12 blog.

    Would like to see that first... there were lots of claims regarding VSTOL fighters... they were going to be the only operational fighters a day after WWIII started for quite a while because all normal airfields would have been destroyed... yeah right...

    Ironically the one thing they could not do is just take off from any strip of flat land or supermarket carpark...

    The Yak-44 might have been able to use a ski jump, but without a catapult it would likely not have gotten airborne afterwards... IMHO.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6069
    Points : 6089
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:06 am

    GarryB wrote:  So mr expert you know all about such projects in Russia... of course there could be no connection between using enormous concentrated amounts of electricity to accelerate small very fast projectiles using plasma and magnets and such like with using magnets and enormous concentrations of electrical current to accelerate a range of objects to significant speeds.... yeah... like chalk and cheese... totally different... like totally...

    yo,yo genius: EMALS is using linear induction motor  coupled with  big flywheels called disk alternators. Where do you see plasma here? affraid  affraid  affraid


    Japan has biggest rail network using LIM so far no EMALS. Yes Russia should invest in this tech for transportation without EMALS tho.  




    GB wrote:
    Questioning their decisions it really childish and stupid. ok you are here for giggles? ok hihihi
    So when you question their decision to develop EMALS are you being childish?


    yo yo adult, nobody in MoD  said nothing yet about funding nor requesting EMALS.  All your source is a word of a shipyard employee who wants to do PR. And you take it a real programme?   cheers  cheers  cheers




    GB wrote:It also has a thriving aircraft industry, so developing all sorts of aircraft designs does not hurt that much, but it also does not mean development of a VSTOL aircraft will result in small carriers and VSTOL fighters... for all we know they might want a V-44 type VSTOL transport to fly with their new super fast helos...

    yo yo admiral, V-44 and helicopters to replace MiG-29ks /Su-33 ?   affraid  affraid  affraid











    GB wrote: which is to say if Russia wants new carriers to beat the US Navy in a conventional war they are pushing sht up hill, but they are not wanting carriers for that and the fact that air power makes surface activitiy whether on land or at sea easier and safer means they need carriers.

    They wont be able to afford dozens of carriers so they ones they do get need to be self sufficient and have combat persistence... in other words bigger than western carriers so the logistics tail is shorter and easier to defend so the carrier group is easier to support no matter where it operates.

    +++


    Either way Russia does not need carriers to fight the US as I keep saying... it needs carriers to be able to expand its influence around the world despite the US or UK or EU or anyone else trying to stop them by not assisting in keeping open the Sea lines of communication.

    Russia needs to reach its new trade partners itself and for that it needs a navy and to have a navy it needs aircraft that can protect those surface and subsurface vessels... hense they need carriers.


    A) No way after months of fighting me you've just repeated what I've been saying from very beginning?  lol1  lol1  lol1
    RuN Carriers will be used mostly for dick flag waving and colonial wars.

    What Russians approach will choose it is another question. Mind that they need amphibious ships and large groups too. 2 CVNs means 1 is effectively available 100% time. Unless they navy budget will increase  expotentially I dont think thye build anything bigger then kuz,  more likely something WASP/De Gaulle size.



    B) Bigger then western? so 100+ kton?  Once big CVN gets empty you need more ships to replenish supplies. Where do you see here savings precisely?  Nothing gets shorter here unless amount supplies per person/fighter would change with displacement,  isnt it?

    Strike group escort ships need supplies anyway. PtG has autonomy 60 days, none of destroyers of FFGs will bet better.  


    Kuz has 45days
    De Gaulle 40 days
    Ford is supposed to have 90 days

    In US case bases do the trick with logistics.













    GB wrote:
    c) “Certainly, this is the future for all aircraft carrying ships, a new fleet of aircraft there will be needed - and for this purpose that various technologies are needed to ensure a shortened take-off or just vertical take-off,” said Borisov.

    So worse than an A model MiG-29 in terms of air defence aircraft defending the airfield...

    any facts on top of emotions?






    GB wrote:
    d) According to him, "conceptually such work has already been carried out in the Ministry of Defense since last year." “The terms are determined by the technological cycle of creation, as a rule, it is 7-10 years, if we go into the series,” said the Deputy Prime Minister.
    If... the biggest word in the English language...

    i wouldn't worry on your place, he was speaking in Russian.





    GB wrote:
    e) (in 2017) Borisov suggested that the MiG-29 and Su-33 models in ten years may become obsolete morally. Therefore, according to him, it is logical that in the future it will be necessary to create a new aircraft.

    With current upgrades (MiG-35 and Su-35 respectively) they should be fine for the next ten years...

    That's precisely what he said.  





    GB wrote:
    Current MiG-29k and MiG-35 are deep modernization of MiG-29
    You haven't said what was wrong with that yet. The Su-35 is a deep modernisation of the Su-27 is it also obsolete and ready to remove from service?

    Neither Su-35 not MiG-35 are perspective fighters. They are final upgrade of 30+ old platforms to keep them alive. Decent now and for some time and then will start loosing ground to new western counterparts.  in 2030s process of generation change begins in the west.



    There are 2 differences, however, between MiG-35 and  Su-35

    1)  10  years  between Su-35 and MiG-35 deliveries.   And by 2020 almost 100 units vs 6 units contracted and 84 Su-35 delivered vs 0 MiG-35.  

    2) MiG-35 was never in ordered nor requested by RuAF unlike Su. And suddenly whole 6 are ordered with laud talk about bigger procurement. Never wondered why?

    MiGs CEO answers:

    - The answer is very simple: all operators of the MiG-29 are interested in this new fighter,
    we are talking about 29 countries. Why? Because these countries are already ready to take this plane,
    they will not need to rebuild their infrastructure under it - all the training of technicians and pilots is already there,
    they just need to complete their education, it will take a little time. In fact, the number of countries operating
    the MiG-29 is much more - 56 countries, all of these countries,
    in fact, express interest in our new product


    РИА Новости https://ria.ru/interview/20170214/1487925313.html





    GB wrote:
    The serviceability of Mig-29K was reported ranging from 15.93% to 37.63% and that of MiG-29KUB ranging from 21.30% to 47.14%; with 40 engines (62%) being rejected/withdrawn from service due to design defects

    So by the 2030s the MiG-29KR will be a mature fighter with pretty much all the bugs worked out

    Pathetic serviceability record, low payload and obsolesce is not necessarily what Borisov wanted to see in 2030s.And he it the one to decide neither me nor you.
    New times need capable and innovative platform to match adversaries.  BTW Recently Komersant (AFAIR) wrote that Borisov told off MiG for trying to sell old non innovative design concept of MiG-41 (details in MiG-41 thread).    MiG becomes known for  "innovations" after Soviet times as I can see...






    GB wrote:
    This proves you have problems with math on elementary school level.  Who is gonna be a sitting duck? US carriers are so powerful because they can mobilize numerical superiority against comparable adversary and both tech and numerical over weaker one.

    Except to deliver that power they need to be operating above sea level... when the first Russian hypersonic missile rips through their structure how long can they maintain numerical superiority?

    Except that they likely develop hypersonic countermeasures till that time. Soviets could do that in70/80s against 7kms warheads so yes it is doable.





    GB wrote:
    Russians dont have here meaningful qualitative superiority in fighters but clear numerical disadvantage. So building carrier with 70k tons gives you not what 36 -40 fighters of Su-57 size.  
    R-37 is designed against AWACS aircrafts not maneuverable fighters.
    R-37 moves so fast a manouvering fighter is not a manouvering fighter... when something blasts past at mach 5 there is no option to dodge because to dodge you need to see it coming...


    Seriously there is no way you can see Ma=6 object flying in red plasma ball?  even if not radar optical means can see you in 100km.  What gives you a minute for maneuvering.





    GB wrote:There is no reason why Zircon missiles could not be carried by Su-57s to take down US carriers and render any advantages moot.

    Because Russians already are building airborne only AShM ?  why to use 2xheavier one to do same job? Not to mention nobody said yet in MoD about Su-57k.





    GB wrote: right now the west could demand a naval blockade of the Black Sea and that the Panama and Suez canal do not let through any Russian military ships and all sorts of other crap... right now there is not much the Russians could actually do in practical terms about that.

    and how CVN would help there? Bosporus?  affraid  affraid  affraid  
    Panama it would  be declaring war to USA.




    GB wrote:
    You might disagree with reality. Even live in parallel one but this wont affect the real world outcomes
    They failed the last three times to develop a useful affordable VSTOL fighter, but sure... it is my problem with reality that is the issue here... lockheed martin say of course they can make a super 5th gen VSTOL fighter that can defeat anything flying in the 2030s...

    They failed with MiG-29k tens of times and still has pathetic performance, so no worry. I'm gonna tell you a  secret: in 2030s tech after  50 years more advanced then in 1980s where your mind seems to be stranded (all that Harriers, MiG-29ks, Yaks) . Now even space rockets can land vertically.  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup

    My next guess is that V is gonna be here not only for fighter. This is gonna be tech live testing it for any military plane that needs this functionality. Let's see if  I ma right in couple of years.







    GB wrote:
    Yak-141 had reduced funding after cancelling of Ulyanovsk when SU was falling. There is no source info  it was closed  closed  because of poor performance, and closed only in 2003. Long after MiG-29k was frozen indefinitely. And resurrected only because of  Indians.

    The Yak-41 was cancelled... the Yak-141 was the hope of an export order but no one was interested... certainly not enough to fund development... well except LM and they were interested in only certain pieces of technology rather than the whole design.

    all Russian sources I've seen say closed.  Where did you see cancelled? any link?




    GB wrote:
    wow and you need $1mln to hit couple of goat fuckers on shore? so no need for AGTMs only calibrs on every chopper?!  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect

    Of course... flying into enemy controlled airspace with a helicopter to kill a few goat fuckers... risking a 20 million dollar aircraft and two crew... great stuff...

    yo you admiral and genius in 1: Russian Hermes was built for such purpose. 20-100 km range for airborne version. And tested in Syria. Damn you should work in Russian MoD, you again know better their job then themselves!  cheers  cheers  cheers







    GB wrote:
    Stop with 1 kinzhal? are you serious genious?  affraid  affraid  affraid  first of all not every kiznah gets to the target. On its own. Why do you think 4 are carried by Tu-22?Second Kiznahl  can be effective for perhaps 10 or so years. Sooner or later they will find counter measure.

    One Kinzhal = one US ship. Four are carried by Tu-22M3Ms because it has the capacity to carry four... this was an afterthought... the original design and requirement was the MiG-31K which carries one.

    They carry more than one missile because there will be more than one vessel in the US carrier group that attacks.

    I've never heard that kill probability of any missile is 100%, looks like you've just invented new laws of statistics. If your reasoning is correct then why Russian need 30 Tu-22M3Ms and ??? MiG-31ks? 12 should be ok.

    Guess why it isnt[/quote]
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6069
    Points : 6089
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:21 am

    LMFS wrote:
    GB wrote:They are not going to have a lot of aircraft carriers with fixed wing fighters... which means you want the best fighters you can manage... which in my mind is Su-57... they have mentioned carrier capable versions, as have MiG with their MiG-35.
    Exactly

    and that's exactly what is not happening. @GB youagreed that Russian CVN will be likely operational in 2030s . And you want to see MiG-35 based on 1976 design? 70 tradition. whoa.
    As for  Su-57k they can do if anybody form Military requests and funds what is no the case so far.

    LMFS wrote:
    AFAIK there are no naval aircraft with folding wings that can pull more than 8g.
    I know no one either, only Rafale which has obviously no folding wing. I would not be surprised if, considering overload demands to fighters 5G and beyond, naval Su-57 would not have folding wing. You could even devise the hangar floor to store planes at slightly different levels, in order to save space. And a bigger carrier could maybe have space for two sqd. of Su-57 even without folding, which could be a sufficient amount IMO, considering potential rivals.

    and potential rivals will be FAXX , Tempest and German/French fighters?

    Sponsored content


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 15 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Jun 25, 2024 6:06 pm