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


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 10003
    Points : 10081
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

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

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:30 pm


    Yo moron, it's been three years since 2015

    Check the fucking calendar

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6941
    Points : 6931
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos on Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:32 pm

    And you pretend to look serious calling "propaganda" the Russian Maritime Doctrile of 2015?

    Do not have you the Su-57 in front of you? The first unit is done and the serial production will begin when Russia wants.

    And you are known because of?

    Yeah it got its official engines, oups I mean it got its 1 ENGINE last week and is testing it right now ... and for you Su-57 is ready. I've also never heard of testing weapons from weapon bays but it's ok if you say we see that in front of us it means it is ready.

    I assume in your head things are as easy as putting in service a 100 million $ fighter on a 10 billion $ carrier as fast as you draw it on a paper but in reality it doesn't happen like that.

    Russian Maritime Doctrile of 2015 represent what they want not what they will get. That's just bullshit made by Ministry of defence to put pressure on the government but when you want a carrier first you check with the Ministry of Economy and according to what they say (most probably in the next 10 years they will laugh at Choigu when he will ask for the money for a carrier) and then they discuss the real needs and then start studies about that and then present many concept and then chose one and then choose a shipyard ...

    You don't just ask 2 or 3 high ranked military guys and put an article on sputnik and build it.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2251
    Points : 2235
    Join date : 2016-04-08

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

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:47 pm

    wow...dude that doctrine isn't happening the Russians have shown that. It was designed at a different time during a different situation.

    It's not RL and the MOD knows this which is why the biggest ship they will lay down in the until what 2024 is an 8k ship, they themselves said this not me.

    You are at this point some delusional kid, carrier by 2021 lawls.

    Let me know when that happens in fantasy land.

    But hey guys it seems now the Russian navy is joining the Intoxcator ranks.
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2454
    Points : 2463
    Join date : 2015-05-13

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

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:23 pm

    The Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 includes explicitly the naval variant of the Ka-52 and a reference to the landing ships that use them.

    https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/russias-new-maritime-doctrine.391893/

    Surface fleet

    In the first phase Russia's Admiral Gorshkov-class (Project 22350) frigates and Steregushchy-class (Project 20380) corvettes and their variants will become the core of the surface force for long- and short-range operations.

    In the mid term a new-generation destroyer featuring advanced strike, air defence and missile defence capabilities will become the navy's main oceangoing ship. Between 2021 and 2030 a new class of modular multirole surface combat ship will be designed and enter series production as the successor to the Project 22350/20380 classes. It is envisaged that these will be armed with novel weapon systems and will carry unmanned vehicles of various sorts.

    The marine rapid-response force is intended to be capable of conducting missions in the maritime, aerial and land domains in any part of the world. For this, new aircraft carriers will be the core of its capability, along with multirole landing ships. Work to design a new class of Russian aircraft carrier is to be completed before 2020, with construction and entry into service planned for the second phase of the doctrine (2021-2030).

    Unlike the heavy aircraft cruisers of the previous generation of Russian aircraft carriers, the new carrier design will be multirole. It is envisaged to be equipped with manned and unmanned combat systems operating in the air, at sea, underwater and possibly in space. The carrier's air groups will include radar surveillance and C2 aircraft, alongside reconnaissance and strike UAVs.

    Naval Aviation

    For the Russian Naval Aviation the focus in the first phase will be the development and serial production of an advanced maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) by 2020.

    Additionally, Russia will look to develop and produce a new shore/ship-based multirole helicopter (to replace the Ka-27) and acquire a ship-based combat helicopter (the Ka-52K). Russia will also seek to develop advanced airborne strike systems.

    The second phase will see the deployment of the new Russian ship-based radar surveillance aircraft, ship-based UAVs, and ship-based strike aircraft. The 2021-2030 period will see the Russian Naval Aviation transition to optionally piloted aircraft, including those derived from existing manned aircraft. Obsolete aircraft are to be replaced by modern, multirole manned and unmanned aircraft. During the 2031-2050 phase naval aviation focus will switch to a new generation of multirole aircraft and UAVs and field a new generation of airborne precision weapon systems.

    Unfortunately for the reality deniers, that try to distort the reality, Russia says all this clearly. And not only that, the references of the Russian Maritime Doctrine 2015 are becoming real projects, that are in early stages still, but will become realy by the end of 2030.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 8347
    Points : 8492
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:39 pm

    It would be nice to see the 2015 doctrine critics present some actual proof that the doctrine and associated development
    programs have been dropped. Russia's financial situation is very far from the state where it has "no choice but to do without".
    That is just NATO sanctions propaganda self-delusion.
    Kimppis
    Kimppis

    Posts : 618
    Points : 618
    Join date : 2014-12-23

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

    Post  Kimppis on Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:33 pm

    Isos wrote:
    And you pretend to look serious calling "propaganda" the Russian Maritime Doctrile of 2015?

    Do not have you the Su-57 in front of you? The first unit is done and the serial production will begin when Russia wants.

    And you are known because of?

    Yeah it got its official engines, oups I mean it got its 1 ENGINE last week and is testing it right now ... and for you Su-57 is ready. I've also never heard of testing weapons from weapon bays but it's ok if you say we see that in front of us it means it is ready.

    I assume in your head things are as easy as putting in service a 100 million $ fighter on a 10 billion $ carrier as fast as you draw it on a paper but in reality it doesn't happen like that.

    Russian Maritime Doctrile of 2015 represent what they want not what they will get. That's just bullshit made by Ministry of defence to put pressure on the government but when you want a carrier first you check with the Ministry of Economy and according to what they say (most probably in the next 10 years they will laugh at Choigu when he will ask for the money for a carrier) and then they discuss the real needs and then start studies about that and then present many concept and then chose one and then choose a shipyard ...

    You don't just ask 2 or 3 high ranked military guys and put an article on sputnik and build it.

    I agree with you 'intoxicators' for the most part (there will certainly be no supercarriers before 2030), but to be fair that is just - what kvs would call 'propaganda' - about the Su-57.

    The new engine was never supposed to be ready before 2020, right? The first 50-60 PAK-FAs (2016-20) were planned to be equipped with the current engine. So the engine program is either only minimally behind the original schedule or not at all and the fact that they already flight tested it on a Su-57 this year is actually a huge success.

    And isn't that "weapon bays have no been tested" a pure BS myth? Why would that be the case, makes no sense? They have already built many prototypes, with very considerable improvements compared to the first one and it really does seem that the plane is almost ready for production at this point, i.e. next year (2018).

    So Su-57 was never supposed to be ready earlier than 2016 and even then with the current engines, let's not exaggerate.

    I have to admit that the Russian media and Sputnik seem to have really fucked up in many ways with their overhyping, which was totally unnecessary.

    The talk about over 2,000 Armatas by 2020, which was probably a mistranslation to begin with (they meant over 2,000 'modern' tanks, not only T-14s).

    Storm carriers and Lider cruisers any day now... It was obvious from the beginning that those "projects" were never realistic before the mid-2020s at the earliest. It was always necessary to build smaller ships first before those behemoths.

    Not that most people understand that or understand military procurements and numbers in general (including many of the journalists who write those articles lol), so now it's just an embarrassment. Huge hype about Lider probably 15 years before the first ship is even LAUNCHED. Great job guys, fucking idiots...
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 4126
    Points : 4210
    Join date : 2012-01-30

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

    Post  flamming_python on Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:55 pm

    They're definately talking about VTOL fixed-wing fighters GazB
    If they were talking about helicopters they'd just call them helicopters. Who in God's name calls a helicopter a 'VTOL aircraft'?

    Anyway, here's a recent Sputnik News article on it; not my favoured source but they do bring in good experts sometimes. I've highlighted the interesting stuff in bold:

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201712151060040750-new-russian-vtol-aircraft-analysis/

    VTOL for the 21st Century: Why Russia's Working on New Vertical Takeoff Fighter

    Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov has confirmed that work is underway on the design of a new vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft. Military observer Vadim Saranov outlines what's driving the military's interest in this class of aircraft, and considers whether Russia's aviation industry has the resources and know-how to build it.

    Last month, the Russian Defense Ministry confirmed that work is under way on a new VTOL plane design. Deputy Defense Minister Borisov said that the naval aviation variants of the MiG-29 and Su-33 fighters in use by the Navy today face becoming obsolete in the next decade. Accordingly, he said, it's logical to start development of a new plane to replace them. Borisov's remarks follow revelations this summer that the MoD has been discussing the issue of a new VTOL design with Russia's military aircraft manufacturers, and that the plane could be "a development of the Yak line."

    The Yak-38, first introduced in 1976, quickly became the USSR's most heavily-produced VTOL aircraft, and enjoyed widespread deployment aboard the Soviet Navy's fleet of Project 1143 heavy aircraft carrying cruisers, including the Kiev, the Minsk, the Novorossiysk and the Baku.

    The Yak-38 garnered a poor reputation among pilots due to a high accident rate (with several dozen of the 231 Yak-38s built destroyed or scrapped following accidents). As military observer and RIA Novosti contributor Vadim Saranov pointed out, the planes' capricious nature limited flight time aboard aircraft-carrying Navy ships to a paltry 40 hours a year.

    "The planes' combat characteristics were also questionable," the journalist wrote. "Due to the lack of on-board radar, it was only conditionally able to engage in aerial combat. The Yak-38's use as a pure attack aircraft looked rather ineffective, since its combat radius in VTOL mode amounted to just 195 km, and even less in a hot climate."

    Given their less-than-stellar record, production of the Yak-38 was stopped in 1989. Gradually withdrawn and scrapped throughout the 1990s, the remaining VTOL Yaks were retired from the Russian Navy in 2004.

    Owing to the Yak-38's difficult operational history, Soviet designers almost immediately began development of a new aircraft – the Yak-141.

    Considered a highly promising design by Soviet and Western observers, the Yak-141 program was canceled after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Lockheed Corporation entered into a partnership with Yakovlev with the official aim of funding the program. Years later, many Russian observers suggested that Lockheed, already working on its X-35 F-35 prototype, effectively bought out the Yak-141's technical documentation for about $400 million.

    A New VTOL for the 21st Century

    Speaking to Saranov about the prospects for a new Russian VTOL design, Russian Navy captain first rank (ret) Konstantin Sivkov said that if the aircraft were developed and fielded, they would become a boon not just to the Navy, but to Russian military aviation as a whole.

    "The main problem in contemporary aviation today is that a jet fighter requires a good runway," Sivkov explained. "There are very few airfields of this kind, and it's quite easy to destroy them through a first-strike attack. Aircraft equipped with VTOL can be dispersed, to a clearing in the woods, for example. The use of VTOL by combat aviation would give it exceptional staying power."

    Not everyone agrees. Oleg Panteleev, editor-in-chief of Russian aviation news agency Aviaport.ru, said that VTOL fighters' heavy consumption of fuel on takeoff, combined with the flexibility of traditional aircraft designs, makes fielding a large fleet of air force VTOL fighters impractical.

    "Conventional fighters can carry out combat missions in conditions of partially destroyed airfield infrastructure from shortened airstrips of less than 500 m," the analyst noted. "The military's plans to build a carrier fleet is something else entirely, however. There, the use of VTOL aircraft would indeed be highly rational."

    The VTOL design would enable strike aircraft to be deployed even aboard small aircraft-carrying cruisers, perhaps even foregoing the need to build a new, expensive, conventional aircraft carrier.

    Sikvov emphasized that Russian design bureaus have no time to lose for creating a new VTOL design. "Aircraft with VTOL capability can be based not just on conventional carriers, [but on much smaller ships.] For example, a tanker equipped with a ramp becomes a kind of aircraft carrier; we had similar projects during the Soviet era," the analyst said. "Furthermore, VTOL aircraft can be used aboard helicopter-carrying combat vessels such as frigates," he added.

    In any case, Saranov pointed out that the case of the F-35 offers a warning about the potential costs involved in the creation of a new VTOL-capable fighter plane, with that program reaching a staggering $1.3 trillion estimated price tag. The journalist noted that creating a plane with performance characteristics comparable to the F-35B will require finding solutions to a series of design problems, including miniaturization of avionics, new generation on-board systems, and a new airframe taking into account the requirements of a VTOL aircraft.

    "The Russian aviation industry has opportunities in this direction, particularly since many systems can be unified with the Su-57 fifth-gen fighter aircraft," the journalist noted.

    At the same time, according to Panteleev, the specially-designed engine may prove to be the new plane's biggest problem. "The developer of the engine for the Yak-38 has ceased to exist. While the technical documentation about the Yak's thrust nozzles, including its afterburner, is probably still around, the specialists with the practical experience to create these components probably aren't around anymore. Here, we've probably lost our expertise."

    These problems notwithstanding, the observer noted that if the Ministry of Defense does go ahead and approve the creation of a new VTOL aircraft, the aviation industry will be able to come up with an appropriate design.

    In the meantime, the military has already offered hints about its vision of the future of Russian naval aviation. The MoD plans to lay down the Project 23000E Shtorm heavy aircraft carrier sometime between 2025 and 2030. By that time, the Navy expects to receive two new Priboy-class universal helicopter-carrying amphibious assault ships. These, it can be safely assumed, would be perfectly capable of carrying any new VTOL project the aircraft industry throws their way.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5213
    Points : 5207
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:14 pm

    "They're definitely talking about VTOL fixed-wing fighters..
    If they were talking about helicopters they'd just call them helicopters. Who in God's name calls a helicopter a 'VTOL aircraft'?"
    Exactly! Also, UAVs won't completely replace manned EW&C in the foreseeable future. Otherwise, China wouldn't be working on KJ-600 now. https://www.popsci.com/kj-600-china-plane#page-2
    A naval doctrine is just a piece of paper, a road map- it's not written in stone & given many variables of the real world, its implementation may not go as planned. Borisov was referring to the State Armament Program, not any doctrine.  
    If the Project 23000 construction and entry into service is planned for 2021-2030, they better have $ for it, & soon! If they had the $, Storm wouldn't have been recently offered to India, & we all know it was rejected! Navalized Su-57 (with reduced performance) is possible, but even then it's not an ironclad guarantee that a new CVN will be there for it to land on.
    Even if Adm.K was in top shape all these years, it's not at all essential for the RF defense to deploy it more often than it was up till now. To show the flag in the World Ocean, exercise, provide hum. relief, evacuate nationals, & intervene in a local conflict, 2-3 smaller CVs with STOVL fighters for the price of 1 Storm with navalized CTOL Su-57s would be more feasible, even if by 2021 the RF economy miraculously becomes = to Japan's!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 27440
    Points : 27972
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:01 am

    Let me Summarise that article:


    VTOL for the 21st Century: Why Russia's Working on New Vertical Takeoff Fighter

    Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov has confirmed that work is underway on the design of a new vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft. Military observer Vadim Saranov outlines what's driving the military's interest in this class of aircraft, and considers whether Russia's aviation industry has the resources and know-how to build it.

    Last month, the Russian Defense Ministry confirmed that work is under way on a new VTOL plane design. Deputy Defense Minister Borisov said that the naval aviation variants of the MiG-29 and Su-33 fighters in use by the Navy today face becoming obsolete in the next decade. Accordingly, he said, it's logical to start development of a new plane to replace them. Borisov's remarks follow revelations this summer that the MoD has been discussing the issue of a new VTOL design with Russia's military aircraft manufacturers, and that the plane could be "a development of the Yak line."

    So they have decided to go for a VTOL aircraft.

    The Yak-38, first introduced in 1976, quickly became the USSR's most heavily-produced VTOL aircraft, and enjoyed widespread deployment aboard the Soviet Navy's fleet of Project 1143 heavy aircraft carrying cruisers, including the Kiev, the Minsk, the Novorossiysk and the Baku.

    The Yak-38 garnered a poor reputation among pilots due to a high accident rate (with several dozen of the 231 Yak-38s built destroyed or scrapped following accidents). As military observer and RIA Novosti contributor Vadim Saranov pointed out, the planes' capricious nature limited flight time aboard aircraft-carrying Navy ships to a paltry 40 hours a year.

    "The planes' combat characteristics were also questionable," the journalist wrote. "Due to the lack of on-board radar, it was only conditionally able to engage in aerial combat. The Yak-38's use as a pure attack aircraft looked rather ineffective, since its combat radius in VTOL mode amounted to just 195 km, and even less in a hot climate."

    Given their less-than-stellar record, production of the Yak-38 was stopped in 1989. Gradually withdrawn and scrapped throughout the 1990s, the remaining VTOL Yaks were retired from the Russian Navy in 2004.

    This class of aircraft was a fucking waste of time and money and were completely useless.


    Owing to the Yak-38's difficult operational history, Soviet designers almost immediately began development of a new aircraft – the Yak-141.

    Considered a highly promising design by Soviet and Western observers, the Yak-141 program was canceled after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Lockheed Corporation entered into a partnership with Yakovlev with the official aim of funding the program. Years later, many Russian observers suggested that Lockheed, already working on its X-35 F-35 prototype, effectively bought out the Yak-141's technical documentation for about $400 million.

    We have no reason to believe the Yak-41 would have been any improvement over the MiG-29K... there were plenty of further upgrades they could have applied to the MiG-29K to make it more like the MiG-35 but they were too cheap to spend money... the situation with the Yak-41 would have been no different.


    A New VTOL for the 21st Century

    Speaking to Saranov about the prospects for a new Russian VTOL design, Russian Navy captain first rank (ret) Konstantin Sivkov said that if the aircraft were developed and fielded, they would become a boon not just to the Navy, but to Russian military aviation as a whole.

    "The main problem in contemporary aviation today is that a jet fighter requires a good runway," Sivkov explained. "There are very few airfields of this kind, and it's quite easy to destroy them through a first-strike attack. Aircraft equipped with VTOL can be dispersed, to a clearing in the woods, for example. The use of VTOL by combat aviation would give it exceptional staying power."

    Bullshit... VTOL crap themselves on rough airfields too... FOD is even more of an issue with such aircraft and a 25 ton thrust class engine directing its thrust at the ground will not take off from anything not expensive and especially designed for the purpose... even a modern runway wont take that sort of power directed at it.

    An Su-57 wont take much tarmac to get airborne and even if every Russian air field is obliterated there are motorways it could operate from easily... more easily than the Yak-41 could and it destroyed airstrips too.

    Not everyone agrees. Oleg Panteleev, editor-in-chief of Russian aviation news agency Aviaport.ru, said that VTOL fighters' heavy consumption of fuel on takeoff, combined with the flexibility of traditional aircraft designs, makes fielding a large fleet of air force VTOL fighters impractical.

    "Conventional fighters can carry out combat missions in conditions of partially destroyed airfield infrastructure from shortened airstrips of less than 500 m," the analyst noted. "The military's plans to build a carrier fleet is something else entirely, however. There, the use of VTOL aircraft would indeed be highly rational."

    The VTOL design would enable strike aircraft to be deployed even aboard small aircraft-carrying cruisers, perhaps even foregoing the need to build a new, expensive, conventional aircraft carrier.

    Putting VSTOL aircraft on a helicopter carrier means it is no longer a helicopter carrier... and WTF do you need strike aircraft for? The Navy has missiles and artillery for the role if needed.


    Sikvov emphasized that Russian design bureaus have no time to lose for creating a new VTOL design. "Aircraft with VTOL capability can be based not just on conventional carriers, [but on much smaller ships.] For example, a tanker equipped with a ramp becomes a kind of aircraft carrier; we had similar projects during the Soviet era," the analyst said. "Furthermore, VTOL aircraft can be used aboard helicopter-carrying combat vessels such as frigates," he added.

    A VSTOL aircraft taking off and landing on a helo pad on a frigate will not be able to fly very far or with very much and would be practically as useless as the Yak-38M.

    In any case, Saranov pointed out that the case of the F-35 offers a warning about the potential costs involved in the creation of a new VTOL-capable fighter plane, with that program reaching a staggering $1.3 trillion estimated price tag. The journalist noted that creating a plane with performance characteristics comparable to the F-35B will require finding solutions to a series of design problems, including miniaturization of avionics, new generation on-board systems, and a new airframe taking into account the requirements of a VTOL aircraft.

    "The Russian aviation industry has opportunities in this direction, particularly since many systems can be unified with the Su-57 fifth-gen fighter aircraft," the journalist noted.

    The F-35B is totally inferior to all other versions of the F-35... why not just make a naval version of the Su-57 and get a good plane?

    At the same time, according to Panteleev, the specially-designed engine may prove to be the new plane's biggest problem. "The developer of the engine for the Yak-38 has ceased to exist. While the technical documentation about the Yak's thrust nozzles, including its afterburner, is probably still around, the specialists with the practical experience to create these components probably aren't around anymore. Here, we've probably lost our expertise."

    The next gen engine will be even more powerful and need even more exotic materials to allow Helipad surfaces and carrier decks to survive it use even for a couple of minutes.

    These problems notwithstanding, the observer noted that if the Ministry of Defense does go ahead and approve the creation of a new VTOL aircraft, the aviation industry will be able to come up with an appropriate design.

    In the meantime, the military has already offered hints about its vision of the future of Russian naval aviation. The MoD plans to lay down the Project 23000E Shtorm heavy aircraft carrier sometime between 2025 and 2030. By that time, the Navy expects to receive two new Priboy-class universal helicopter-carrying amphibious assault ships. These, it can be safely assumed, would be perfectly capable of carrying any new VTOL project the aircraft industry throws their way.

    So why build heavy carriers if you are going to waste money on a VSTOL piece of crap?

    The whole point of the VSTOL aircraft is so you don't need to build real carriers... VSTOL aircraft are a waste of time and energy... a super carrier even more so.... for Russia.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5213
    Points : 5207
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:48 pm

    "So why build heavy carriers if you are going to waste money on a VSTOL piece of crap?
    The whole point of the VSTOL aircraft is so you don't need to build real carriers... VSTOL aircraft are a waste of time and energy... a super carrier even more so.... for Russia."
    That's my point: they r reviving STOVL for small TAKRS/CVs as a stop gap before CVNs r built, & in (very likely) case those get delayed/cancelled, at least they'll have something instead of nothing!
    On land, STOVL fighters can use portable airfield sections designed to withstand extreme heat & perhaps ski ramps dropped/brought by heavy lift planes/helos, similar to these:
    https://www.airspacemag.com/multimedia/these-portable-runways-helped-win-war-pacific-180951234/ http://www.megadeckrigmats.com/portable-airfield-mats.php

    What they really need r small nuclear powered artificial islands made of concrete, capable of handling all kinds of aircraft, that can be moved & anchored when/where needed.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1990
    Points : 1983
    Join date : 2013-02-02

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

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:52 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:"So why build heavy carriers if you are going to waste money on a VSTOL piece of crap?
    The whole point of the VSTOL aircraft is so you don't need to build real carriers... VSTOL aircraft are a waste of time and energy... a super carrier even more so.... for Russia."
    That's my point: they r reviving STOVL for small TAKRS/CVs as a stop gap before CVNs r built, & in (very likely) case those get delayed/cancelled, at least they'll have something instead of nothing!
    On land, STOVL fighters can use portable airfield sections designed to withstand extreme heat & perhaps ski ramps dropped/brought by heavy lift planes/helos, similar to these:
    https://www.airspacemag.com/multimedia/these-portable-runways-helped-win-war-pacific-180951234/
    http://www.megadeckrigmats.com/portable-airfield-mats.php

    What they really need r small nuclear powered artificial islands made of concrete, capable of handling all kinds of aircraft, that can be moved & anchored when/where needed.

    Yap, there's simply no way around the carrier.
    end of story.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 27440
    Points : 27972
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:04 am

    On land, STOVL fighters can use portable airfield sections designed to withstand extreme heat & perhaps ski ramps dropped/brought by heavy lift planes/helos, similar to these:

    For years the sales pitch was that the Harrier and aircraft like it could be disbursed at the first sign of trouble and take off from anywhere... supermarket carparks, short strips of road etc etc

    Invulnerable on the ground because you never knew where they were...

    The problem was that these aircraft need weapons and people to keep them operating and lots and lots of aviation fuel, and as they get more powerful they need special equipment.... heat resistant tiles like those fitted to the space shuttle to land on on aircraft carriers and anything else you expect it to land on including helipads.

    Most Russian naval helipads have nets on them to reduce slippage.... one landing from a VTOL supersonic fighter and that will be burned off.

    A supermarket carpark is not hard enough for a VTOL fighter.... the Yak-41 only visited Farnborough and damaged their runway when it briefly deflected its main engine thrust downwards for a take off.... note it damaged the runway on an international air field and it did not even take off vertically...

    The crap about operating from anywhere is just that... when taking off vertically the payload is greatly limited and fuel levels reduced too, so helipads are out and anything without a ski jump would also be a waste of time.

    While I agree that they have not said it was a helicopter I would argue they have not said it was a fixed wing supersonic fighter... for all we know they might be talking about a vertical takeoff UAV or even airship.
    medo
    medo

    Posts : 4020
    Points : 4104
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

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

    Post  medo on Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:08 pm

    Most of western runways are made from asphalt and russian ones are made from concrete. VTOL planes have problems with asphalt, not with concrete. Arctic bases are made from concrete blocks, because there is too cold for asphalt. Not all arctic bases, specially those on Arctic islands, will have full airfields with 2 km to 3 km long runways. But for sure they will have heliports at least for whole year search and rescue operations. Helicopters on Arctic are not takeing off vertically, but with short run on runway to not lift too much snow and ice in the air. This heliports could be as well used by VTOL planes operating in short take off and landing mode. Even a plane like Yak-141 is good enough to do the job there. Their job will be anti-ship patrols armed with anti-ship missiles and air patrols against strategic bombers, which could come through North Pole or against maritime patrol planes. There will not be many foreign fighters as they are stationed too far away. They could well work together with MiG-31BM, which will operate from bigger continental Arctic airbases.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5213
    Points : 5207
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:52 pm

    Right! Harriers at US bases use concrete pads & strips: http://www.aeroresource.co.uk/operational-reports/harrier-town-usa-mcas-yuma/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu54pdBsA-o

    Another advantage of STOVL is it can take off & land with greater margin of safety in inclement weather & low visibility, which happens often in the North, Siberia & the RFE.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 27440
    Points : 27972
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:21 am

    You are not getting it... claiming VSTOL aircraft are superior because when all the airfields are obliterated they can take off from any old strip of firm ground is bullshit... they need hard flat places just like conventional modern 5th gen fighters... a 400m strip would allow a Flanker or Fulcrum or Su-57 to take off with full fuel and air to air weapons... for a VTOL it needs to be concrete and can't be normal motorways.

    Right! Harriers at US bases use concrete pads & strips

    Harriers don't have 20-25 ton thrust motors with full after burners...

    Arctic bases are made from concrete blocks, because there is too cold for asphalt. Not all arctic bases, specially those on Arctic islands, will have full airfields with 2 km to 3 km long runways.

    They need proper air strips more than they need dinky little helo bases... a proper landing strip means decent sized aircraft can bring in supplies and support the base better than if it could only be supplied by helicopter.

    Even just a 600m long runway would be plenty for a modern fighter, but 1,200m would allow heavier transports to operate there.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 27440
    Points : 27972
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:23 am

    A normal aircraft rolls forward during takeoff which limits the amount of dirt and crap going into the intake. A vertical take off or landing means holding position in the plume of crap being blown up by the engines... like a helo only 100 times more so.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5213
    Points : 5207
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:40 pm

    They can use CTOL mode on highways too, like these:








    http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1632

    Viggens & Grippens r STOL, & Russians can avoid using VTOL method with their STOVL fighters while on asphalt roads like shown above.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 27440
    Points : 27972
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:00 am

    If CTOL aircraft can take off from stretches of highway why spend money developing STOL and VTOL aircraft with lift engines?
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5213
    Points : 5207
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:10 pm

    Because they can use shorter stretches of roads &/ concrete pads + better fit on smaller CV/Ns w/o CATs. Building & maintaining long airstrips is expensive anywhere; in the Russian North, Siberia & the RFE many times more.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 837
    Points : 823
    Join date : 2016-11-13

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

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:04 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Because they can use shorter stretches of roads &/ concrete pads + better fit on smaller CV/Ns w/o CATs. Building & maintaining long airstrips is expensive anywhere; in the Russian North, Siberia & the RFE many times more.  

    In syberia everything is expensive.

    "lilly pad" makes sense only if you have other means of transportation to the given area.

    It is not true in Siberia.


    And it is a simple cost benefit calculation.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5213
    Points : 5207
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:29 pm

    Siberia below the Arctic Circle will be used as deep rear staging/repair area. There r lakes, reservoirs & rivers on which flattop ships/barges could be placed for STOVL fighters. Believe me, the Russians will find a safe way to operate them w/o damaging anything with hot downwash.
    They could even equip them with floats/skis for water landings & take offs!
    The concept isn't new:
    https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/xf2y-1yf2y-1-sea-dart-a-jet-fighter-on-water-skis/
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 27440
    Points : 27972
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:13 am

    Because they can use shorter stretches of roads &/ concrete pads + better fit on smaller CV/Ns w/o CATs. Building & maintaining long airstrips is expensive anywhere; in the Russian North, Siberia & the RFE many times more.

    The length of a stretch of road is immaterial.... in all of Russia finding a 200m long stretch of motorway for a VTOL aircraft to operate from you will easily find 600m stretches of motorway for a CTOL aircraft to operate from too.

    Building a long airstrip to allow heavy transports to land just makes sense whether you have fighters there or not.

    The only realistic difference is the operating from small carriers that don't have cats... so what you are proposing is to spend a small fortune to develop VTOL fighters so you can cheap out on weak light carriers that are not good enough to get the job done... they will be token carriers for show and to cost lots of money but really fuck all use when you really need something.

    I have said all along for effective use they need medium sized carriers, no matter what the bean counters say, and that giving them VTOL options just means giving the bean counters to claim they can have what they need and save money.

    It wont be until they are all built and used in combat that you find that those new cheaper 20K ton carriers that only VTOL fighters can operate from are bloody useless, with limited endurance and no real reach against any enemy with any sort of modern air force or Navy.

    A decent medium carrier carrys rather more aircraft, can operate further from home bases for rather longer (especially when nuke propelled and with cats able to operate real AWACS aircraft).

    The British learned in the Falklands that shipboard carrier based AEW is an important feature... if their VSTOL fighters had decent ground attack performance (which their navy models didn't) then they would not have needed to send their Vulcans to attack targets...

    Of course the Russian Navy has no history of relying on an air component for anything except anti sub warfare... having air defence fighters and AWACS aircraft care of cats and medium sized carriers will make them a much more powerful force in attack and in defence.

    Having VTOL fighters that can operate from helicopter carriers basically makes the helicopter carriers useless for their intended role because they will carry fighters and not helicopters, it will also mean the bean counters will question why they need medium carriers and helicopter carriers... pretending that helicopter carriers with VTOL fighters can even compare with a real aircraft carrier... which they don't otherwise the British would have them... they are the pinnacle of forces controlled by the bean counters...

    They know they only got the Falklands Islands back by the skin of their teeth and that if the Argentines had more capable fighters than A-4 skyhawks and Mirage jets that they would have had serious problems taking back the falklands with the mini carriers they had.

    Even if the Argentines had F-4s or MiG-23s with medium range missiles and were operating from the Falkland islands instead of the mainland those 20 odd Harriers the British had would have been in serious trouble...

    If the Argentines had tried to take the Falklands when the British still had the Ark Royal the British probably would not have lost any ships, with F-4s and Buccaneers they would have been a much more powerful force... better able to deal with enemy aircraft and anti ship missiles.

    Siberia below the Arctic Circle will be used as deep rear staging/repair area. There r lakes, reservoirs & rivers on which flattop ships/barges could be placed for STOVL fighters. Believe me, the Russians will find a safe way to operate them w/o damaging anything with hot downwash.

    Any even semi permanent base will be much better supported by an airstrip long enough to operate transport aircraft from... the very idea that a VTOL aircraft would keep the base safe is preposterous... most of the time aircraft wont even be flying because of weather conditions... an S-400 battery would be vastly more useful, while MiG-31s from bases 500km distant would offer better coverage of their base than a VTOL aircraft based there.

    They could even equip them with floats/skis for water landings & take offs!

    In such a case such a remote outpost would be better protected with a rigid airship with a tether that could be released to very high altitude and a large internal radar and a few AAMs on board... it could defend itself and offer an excellent unobscured view of the surrounding terrain for thousands of kms around... with low operating costs... power could be provided via a tether from the base itself.... With little to no vibration and internal weapons bays the AAMs could be used for years without replacement until they are used or used in tests, so very low costs, but excellent performance and data that could be fed to the national grid of VKKO battle management ...
    avatar
    Azi

    Posts : 422
    Points : 416
    Join date : 2016-04-05

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

    Post  Azi on Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:49 pm

    Why not developing a VTOL aircraft? Ok, clear a VTOL aircraft have only 80 - 90 % perfomance compared to normal aircraft, that's why a "replacement" would be very specific.

    But another idea...
    For me the evolution of helicopters is coming to a dead point! They are planning new "high speed helicopters" with speeds above 400 km/h per hour, but they are investing from my view too much for only achieving a few more km/h. Why not using VTOL for the role of the ordinary helicopter!? A new AH-64 Longbow has a system price of 65 million US-$, a F-35B is NOW available for 120 million US-$. A VTOL aircraft can easy have 5 times and more the speed of a helicopter and even the payload and range is greater. It is nearly better in every characteristic. The main problems would be the costs and the complexity of the system...but let's see what the future brings Wink
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4961
    Points : 4985
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 3 Empty Why not developing a VTOL aircraft? Ok, clear a VTOL aircraft have only 80 - 90 % perfomance compared to normal aircraft, that's why a "replacement" would be very specific.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:20 pm

    Azi wrote:Why not developing a VTOL aircraft? Ok, clear a VTOL aircraft have only 80 - 90 % perfomance compared to normal aircraft, that's why a "replacement" would be very specific.

    But another idea...
    For me the evolution of helicopters is coming to a dead point! They are planning new "high speed helicopters" with speeds above 400 km/h per hour, but they are investing from my view too much for only achieving a few more km/h. Why not using VTOL for the role of the ordinary helicopter!? A new AH-64 Longbow has a system price of 65 million US-$, a F-35B is NOW available for 120 million US-$. A VTOL aircraft can easy have 5 times and more the speed of a helicopter and even the payload and range is greater. It is nearly better in every characteristic. The main problems would be the costs and the complexity of the system...but let's see what the future brings Wink


    Regardless if one likes it (me) or not (GarryB at fist place Smile this is already budgeted in the new Goszakazplan so we'll see it live in less then 10 years. :-)

    As for VTOL qualities, landing space is I guess first requirement (Arctic, fleet, short runways in case of war). As for radar or speed. Who needs now speed? look at Rafale, Hornet or F-35 they are not even 2Ma. Range of speed same as in Yak-141 frm 80s. Radar? who told you that now VTOL has to have worse radar? vide F-35B.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5213
    Points : 5207
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:19 pm

    The Mi-26 can bring 20T of supplies, as AN-12, no need to build long airstips.
    http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/milmi-26heavylifthel/
    There r many small civilian airports with helipads: 19 in the FE, 32 in Siberia, both icl. in the Arctic, & a few dozen undesignated (dual use), + 23 AFBs in all regions:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Russia#List

    4 y. ago: http://barentsobserver.com/en/security/2013/12/putin-orders-new-airports-strengthens-arctic-control-11-12

    https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2017/08/sky-rocketing-growth-remotest-russian-arctic-airport

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pevek_Airport

    STOVL fighters on small TAKRS/CVs will not be going too far & will be supported by land based aviation, so mid-sized CV/Ns r not that essential. If/once those r built in needed #s, small TAKRS/CVs can be repurposed as helo carriers & assault ships. Russia needs them anyway!


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jan 25, 2021 1:46 am