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.

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5108
    Points : 5104
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  LMFS Tue Dec 25, 2018 7:52 pm

    Isos wrote:A drone tanker won't help if there are 15-20 fighter coming with kinzhal from many sides at different range since it can refuel one or two jets and they will have a couple of them around.
    From wiki, with corresponding sources:
    Rear Adm. Michael Manazir has suggested that three of these UCAVs could fly with an F-35 for refueling and sensor operation.[8] Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker said that the MQ-25 can extend the Super Hornet's 450 nmi (520 mi; 830 km) unrefueled combat radius to beyond 700 nmi (810 mi; 1,300 km). The Navy's goal for the aircraft is to be able to deliver 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of fuel total to 4 to 6 airplanes at a range of 500 nmi (580 mi; 930 km).[9]
    It means that these UAVs would be used, in a first step, as tankers, with a further evolution to strike platforms. They would be deployed almost 1000 km away from the carrier in order to support the fighters coming and going to fulfil their missions, be it interception or attack.

    Imagine a USN carrier and a RuN one involved in a potential conflict, these UAVs would give USN fighters and corresponding weapons an advantage of almost 1000 km in range against the Russian side. Given the Russian advantage in missile technology and the lack of a long range fighter in the US carriers in a near future, this project is crucial for US to keep an edge, by threatening with the own air-launched anti-ship missiles any Russian force armed with their corresponding air or ship launched ASMs. Of course this does not apply to waters near the Russian territory, where long range aviation or even MiG-31Ks could enter the fight with massive advantages in range.

    The refueling will need a perfect timing because the window to intercept a fighter 1000km away is very small. The further they go the less they can spend patroling and a refueling takes some minutes to do.
    See above, USN fighters do not need to play defensive here but rather attack the Russian fleet. Naval doctrine calls for capability to effectively deter from attacks to Russian forces in remote areas of the world ocean, so this unfavourable scenario needs to be covered by the force planning of the RuN.
    They need more fuel in their jets for that and f-35 is very small ...
    F-35A is heavier than a F-15 and the F-35C, heavier than a Strike Eagle.... apparently F-35C has more internal fuel than both, even equipped with CFTs. So small is not exactly the word I would use to describe the F-35 but I understand what you mean and I agree they need long range platforms


    Last edited by LMFS on Tue Dec 25, 2018 9:21 pm; edited 2 times in total
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5108
    Points : 5104
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  LMFS Tue Dec 25, 2018 9:20 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Lenta I've provided in first post.
    https://lenta.ru/news/2018/12/18/mig29k/
    I meant an official one. Some days ago envoys of the Indian military were in Russia and the satisfactory operation of the MiGs was confirmed

    ok if we ignore real world's evidence and assume MiG is Aliexpress then you're right.
    BTW so how many 29ks were ordered since 2012?
    ??? Do not understand this joke. RuN ordered the planes they needed. They only have one carrier with capacity for 2 sqds. fighters so it would not make sense to buy more planes, unless you want to replace them as soon as they are delivered (!?)

    The rest of navies do not use STOBAR or build their own fighters. It is a limited market in the end.

    talking about stories form the crypt so what is exactly empty weight  MiG-29k ? if not 13,500-12,700kg then why MiG is not showing it?
    I do not know, but I do not find this parameter in any official source essentially for any Russian fighter.

    BTW MiG-29 ew is 10,900kg. So navalization costs  24-17% weight .
    From any official source? As said, for the K/M/35 variants you don't have official values so you cannot base this statement.

    Speed dropped from   2450km/h  vs. 2,200 km/h with stronger engines +~10%
    From what version to what version and from what source? What is the proof that this is due to increased weight and not due to other design or operational decisions? For instance, ceiling of the MiG-29K (a parameter that would be highly dependant on weight) remains 17.500 m, the same than the SMT version. But stated value for M version is 16.000 m with an asterisk indicating dependence on load and weapons, so the carrier based version is so much lighter or simply the data provided have been obscured? We need to take care making strong statements based on weak data.

    BTW F-35 radius is ~50% bigger then MiG-29k
    Demonstrated combat radius for CTOL, STOVL and CV variants of F-35 are 669/505/670 nm, that is 1239/935/1241 km. Would be interesting to know how this is converted to 50% more than MiG-29K with 2000 km range on internal fuel.

    since you are so familiar tell me where is here function of displacement or airwing size?
    Obviously depends on how effective your combat units are relative to those of the enemy in the given circumstances... this is a provocative/silly question and you probably know it.

    then why to build CV at all? since you require fighters with radius of 3,000km? If you use airtankers then Yak-141 can be ok with refuelling.
    Do not understand the question, maybe you can explain better

    In any case and as I said, the tankers are not the best solution, since they increase the cost, complexity and vulnerability of your forces. For instance, the MQ-25c could almost double the range of your fighters, but then, you would go from 4 sqdn. fighters on a US CVN to essentially 2 sqdn., since you would potentially need one UAV per fighter. And then you would potentially have that amount of fighters to battle the same amount of Su-57Ks o a Russian carrier like the K, with much better kinematic performance and better weapons. It would be much better to have long ranged platforms at the level of the Sukhoi instead, this is planed after 2030.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6034
    Points : 6054
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:48 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Lenta I've provided in first post.
    https://lenta.ru/news/2018/12/18/mig29k/
    I meant an official one. Some days ago envoys of the Indian military were in Russia and the satisfactory operation of the MiGs was confirmed

    Indians audit is official, Indians pissed are officially.



    ok if we ignore real world's evidence and assume MiG is Aliexpress then you're right.
    BTW so how many 29ks were ordered since 2012?
    ??? Do not understand this joke. RuN ordered the planes they needed. They only have one carrier with capacity for 2 sqds. fighters so it would not make sense to buy more planes, unless you want to replace them as soon as they are delivered (!?) [/quote]

    not me Russien Navy does. The resignation from 29k in Russia is confirmed by extending Su33 right after fisr 29k deliveries and soon after starting new deck programme too.


    LMFS wrote:The rest of navies do not use STOBAR or build their own fighters. It is a limited market in the end.

    Thus stobar sucks. Time for VSTOL thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup


    LMFS wrote:
    talking about stories form the crypt so what is exactly empty weight  MiG-29k ? if not 13,500-12,700kg then why MiG is not showing it?
    I do not know, but I do not find this parameter in any official source essentially for any Russian fighter.

    well I guess you cannot find for a good reason. This also might explain why Indian landing had landing gear problems.


    LMFS wrote:
    BTW MiG-29 ew is 10,900kg. So navalization costs  24-17% weight .
    From any official source? As said, for the K/M/35 variants you don't have official values so you cannot base this statement.


    then we can just assume its crap which barely flies and Im fine with that




    LMFS wrote:
    Speed dropped from   2450km/h  vs. 2,200 km/h with stronger engines +~10%
    From what version to what version and from what source? What is the proof that this is due to increased weight and not due to other design or operational decisions? For instance, ceiling of the MiG-29K (a parameter that would be highly dependant on weight) remains 17.500 m, the same than the SMT version. But stated value for M version is 16.000 m with an asterisk indicating dependence on load and weapons, so the carrier based version is so much lighter or simply the data provided have been obscured? We need to take care making strong statements based on weak data.

    yes mr expert, there is no penalty on navalization that's why there are virtually no navlized fighters for a reason. Penalty in eprformance.
    Oh sorry one example exists. F-35C is 20% heavier comparing to F-35A version. 28,999lb vs 34,581lbs repsectively . If data from wiki sucks provide with better ones.




    LMFS wrote:
    BTW F-35 radius is ~50% bigger then MiG-29k
    Demonstrated combat radius for CTOL, STOVL and CV variants of F-35 are 669/505/670 nm, that is 1239/935/1241 km. Would be interesting to know how this is converted to 50% more than MiG-29K with 2000 km range on internal fuel.

    Mig has mentioned 850km combat radius, not more but 2000km range is a ferry range it not 2x combat radius.

    1241km vs 850km is like 46% bigge shall I continue how does it convert?




    LMFS wrote:
    since you are so familiar tell me where is here function of displacement or airwing size?
    Obviously depends on how effective your combat units are relative to those of the enemy in the given circumstances... this is a provocative/silly question and you probably know it.

    if you consider this question silly then you wont understand why Russia has been wasting time and resources on Kinzhals or GZURS instead of building thousands of deck fighters.

    If you do then you can also understand that neither huge displacement nor airwing size are the only metrics that make a ship to fulfill its assumed deterrence function. So function nto really needed but very, very expensive.

    1 hour of flight F-35 is ~$50,000. Every pilot needs ~200hours per annum in the air right? so 100 or 200 fighters makes difference of not?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/us/politics/pentagon-grounds-f35-jet-.html



    LMFS wrote: In any case and as I said, the tankers are not the best solution, since they increase the cost, complexity and vulnerability of your forces. For instance, the MQ-25c could almost double the range of your fighters, but then, you would go from 4 sqdn. fighters on a US CVN to essentially 2 sqdn., since you would potentially need one UAV per fighter. And then you would potentially have that amount of fighters to battle the same amount of Su-57Ks o a Russian carrier like the K, with much better kinematic performance and better weapons. It would be much better to have long ranged platforms at the level of the Sukhoi instead, this is planed after 2030.


    1) you never ever have same amount of fighters on Russian and US side, simple game of numbers,
    2) on Russian carriers drones will be also stationed
    3) not sure wh Sukhois should have better weapons like USN cannto devlop in 15-20 years new missiles r DEW?
    3) Energy-maneuverability approach wasn't assumed by F-35 design and likely drones will be wingmen (well "men") of F-35s, not isntead of them
    4) In 2030s USN will start receiving FA/XX which are long range heavy fighters ( I wonder about maneuverability tho - since can be unmanned rather very agile)
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5815
    Points : 5771
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:52 am

    4,500 Marines, F-35 Squadron on Standby in Middle East as U.S. Mulls Syria Exit
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 4714153-945x630
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 1000w_q95-12
    Can any1 see flight deck damage?
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39224
    Points : 39722
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:19 am

    Can any1 see flight deck damage?

    Trying to be a dickhead?

    That is clearly not taking off vertically... and it is pretty clear to see it is not in full AB.

    Rolling takeoffs take advantage of wing lift to add more weight in fuel and weapons to operational payload and mean full take off thrust is not needed.

    Vertical takeoffs require full AB and restrict weights because there is no additional lift from the wings.

    Besides... they haven't used that carrier to support operations... it is their running away carrier to take things as they are leaving in case they have to do it under fire in a hurry... hardly a good reference for buying such equipment.

    Regarding the other bollocks... GD... get over it... they have MiG-29KRs in service and odds are they are not going to get any replacements for the next 10 years at least even if this new STOL aircraft design is fully funded.

    You admit the MiG-29KR against US F-35s is a pointless discussion, and even if it wasn't why are you comparing existing stats when they wont go on a sea deployment for the next 4-5 years anyway... which is plenty of time to develop their new photon based radars which will make US F-22s, F-35s and B-22s all obsolete overnight.

    They could put these new radars on helicopters and they would still be better off than with a VSTOL fighter aircraft.

    BTW Stop mixing the numbers... you keep using the range and fuel weight figures for the land based conventional F-35 when it is supposed to be for the VSTOL F-35...

    You also keep bullshitting on about max weights when no fighter aircraft anywhere EVER operates at max weights except for marketting photos.

    With only having 6 internal weapon stores positions the F-35 could not even carry its full weapon payload... they use the same bullshit with the B-1B claiming it can carry x amount of weapons but that includes external weapons which dramatically shorten range and reduce speed and have never been fitted.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5815
    Points : 5771
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:32 pm

    That is clearly not taking off vertically... and it is pretty clear to see it is not in full AB. Rolling takeoffs take advantage of wing lift to add more weight in fuel and weapons to operational payload and mean full take off thrust is not needed. Vertical takeoffs require full AB and restrict weights because there is no additional lift from the wings.
    Absolutely! That's why they'll seldom use the VTOL mode; the deck will be made heat resistant & last a long time.

    Besides... they haven't used that carrier to support operations... it is their running away carrier to take things as they are leaving in case they have to do it under fire in a hurry... hardly a good reference for buying such equipment.
    UDKs will be the 1st in to show the flag & "to kick the door" & the last out when the crisis ends. 1 doesn't exclude the other!
    MEU stands for Marine Expeditionary Unit- its mission include humanitarian assistance, naval diplomacy, emergency evacuations, special ops, Intel gathering, assault, power projection, & SAR, to name a few:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_operations_capable#Conventional_operations
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_operations_capable
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39224
    Points : 39722
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:50 pm

    Absolutely! That's why they'll seldom use the VTOL mode; the deck will be made heat resistant & last a long time.

    SO IF THEY ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE OFF VERTICALLY OPERATIONALLY THEN WTF IS THE POINT OF DEVELOPING AIRCRAFT THAT CAN TAKE OFF VERTICALLY IF THEY WILL ONLY EVER DO IT AT AIR SHOWS?

    10 billion dollars to develop a new light 5th gen fighter that will have a high thrust to weight ratio and internal weapons storage meaning low drag... so the new plane they talk about it more likely to be the F-35A and F-35C without the complication and costs of the vertical takeoff F-35B will make it a much better aircraft, a much cheaper aircraft, a much simpler aircraft, and a much more capable aircraft...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5815
    Points : 5771
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:59 pm

    The VTOL capability gives the more optimal STOL option; VTOL can be used as a backup.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6034
    Points : 6054
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:20 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Can any1 see flight deck damage?
    That is clearly not taking off vertically... and it is pretty clear to see it is not in full AB.
    Rolling takeoffs take advantage of wing lift to add more weight in fuel and weapons to operational payload and mean full take off thrust is not needed.
    Vertical takeoffs require full AB and restrict weights because there is no additional lift from the wings.

    1) no deck was damaged, even though full AB w used
    2) vertical TO is not needed in most of cases , why if VSTOL can take off 300% shorter runway then any MiG?


    Kiwi-guy wrote: they have MiG-29KRs in service and odds are they are not going to get any replacements for the next 10 years a.

    This ws already stated countless of times by Russian MoD, nd for you this is news? lol1 lol1 29s re gonn to were out slowly but surely adequate fighters.


    Of course Su-35 is air superiority fighter unlike F-35 but my point is that Su-35 vs, F-35 would no be a piece of cake. BTW recent dada I hae is 320 F-35 and 70 Su-35.

    And Tie fighters and Star Destroyers too, right? WTF are you talking about? so far NONE of Russian operational fighter has AESA. Perhaps part of 13 new Su-57's will receive one (or not). You clearly live in parallel universe.



    GB wrote: Just have the Su-35s operate over the IADS of the surface fleet and those pansy F-35s wont go anywhere near... and besides those Su-35s could carry 1,500km range Gzur missiles.... or should I say the Su-57K will...

    And how Su-35 will reach this location from shore? affraid affraid affraid affraid
    higurashihougi
    higurashihougi


    Posts : 3159
    Points : 3246
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  higurashihougi Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:43 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Of course Su-35 is air superiority fighter unlike F-35 but my point is that Su-35 vs, F-35 would no be a piece of cake. BTW recent dada I hae is 320 F-35 and 70 Su-35.

    And Tie fighters and Star Destroyers too, right?  WTF   are you talking about? so far NONE of Russian operational fighter has  AESA.  Perhaps part of 13 new Su-57's will receive one (or not).   You clearly live in parallel universe.

    Personally I don't think having an AESA is very critical if we just put it on the nose and not make full use of AESA advantages, for example putting the radar and the wingtips or coating the radar on aerodynamic surface of the aircraft.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39224
    Points : 39722
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:31 am

    The VTOL capability gives the more optimal STOL option; VTOL can be used as a backup.

    The officials that have been quoted properly say the new plane for carrier use will be STOL with a remote possibility of STOVL.

    Some Harrier fans have read this to mean the Russians are building an F-35... at a time when they are barely building Su-57s and Su-35s.

    1) no deck was damaged, even though full AB w used

    So you are saying they turned the AB off for that photo?

    2) vertical TO is not needed in most of cases , why if VSTOL can take off 300% shorter runway then any MiG?

    Vertical takeoffs never happen because they make the aircraft useless in terms of payload and fuel load and they damage the runway... that is why they call them STOVL aircraft.

    The Harrier was called VSTOL... but after some time of operational experience they called them STOVL too.

    This ws already stated countless of times by Russian MoD, nd for you this is news? lol1 lol1 29s re gonn to were out slowly but surely adequate fighters.

    Your reading dyslexia means it needs to be repeated to you over and over... they are planning to make a replacement... but odds are it will take a decade to get it into operational service...


    And how Su-35 will reach this location from shore?

    Thought the hint was in the comment about the Su-57K... the naval model.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5815
    Points : 5771
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:42 am

    Some Harrier fans have read this to mean the Russians are building an F-35... at a time when they are barely building Su-57s and Su-35s.
    They r designing/evaluating a cheaper STOVL, but apparently the Chinese r alreday building it. They'll join their forces to reduce costs & time in a win-win for both.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39224
    Points : 39722
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:41 am

    They are developing a light 5th gen fighter... it might have the ability to land vertically but I doubt it is worth the effort...

    It is more likely they will drop the vertical component as it is just not worth the extra cost and complexity, and make a nice little stealthy MiG-21 with a bit more range and a bit more payload...

    BTW after the Chinese have built their STOVL aircraft they will realise what the Russians knew all along... fragile reduced performance pieces of crap.

    And that is not a dig at the Chinese or the Russians or the Americans or the British.

    Build the worlds best tank... lots of countries can make something rather competitive... the problem is when you demand that it can fly... so you take a well armoured well armed highly mobile tank and to get it to fly to take away most of the protection and the fire power and end up with something that can arrive without warning, but against enemy ground based tanks you are in trouble unless they are a third world country with no IADS and no decent air force to speak of.

    In the early 1980s the Soviet equivalent of the Sea Harrier was the MiG-29, but even if the Argentines had MiG-23s they would have had an enormous advantage over the Sea Harriers because like the F-16 of the time it was a sidewinder armed aircraft so the Argentines could have used their superior speed zipped in and launched BVR missiles and then flown home to rearm and refuel and do it again and there is really not much the Harriers could have done about it.

    Without air control things would have gone quite differently...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5815
    Points : 5771
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:10 pm

    BTW after the Chinese have built their STOVL aircraft they will realise what the Russians knew all along... fragile reduced performance pieces of crap.
    still they r a lot better than attack helos & can help their marines to secure a beachhead & conduct CAPs!
    ..if the Argentines had MiG-23s they would have had an enormous advantage over the Sea Harriers

    The RN didn't have anything else to use, so they were pressed to engage enemy land based NAF. So yes, they were lucky.
    By the time the VMF & PLAN get STOVLs, there may be STOL UCAVs, & in any case for the fleet & target beach AD/AD, long/short range SAMs r better & cheaper option than CTOL fighters.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39224
    Points : 39722
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:51 am

    still they r a lot better than attack helos & can help their marines to secure a beachhead & conduct CAPs!

    Actually that is a good analogy... developing STOVL aircraft from scratch is like trying to modify an attack helo to use it as a cheap fighter so you can operate it from smaller cheaper ships.

    If you want to be such a tight  censored  why bother making anything at all... it will be even cheaper and need no ships to operate from.

    The fact is that if you want to operate globally then there is a minimum size these ships need to be to be effective.

    To land on a beach head the Russian naval infantry will need a landing ship like Mistral... which has helicopters... but can you honestly say... hand on heart that that landing will be successful if they make four extra Mistral sized ships and put 12 STOVL fighters on each?

    And at over 1 billion dollars each, plus 10 billion to make the new STOVL fighters to operate from it... how is that saving money when you could get two fixed wing REAL aircraft carriers that actually are worth taking to a fight for less.

    Looking at operations in Syria, I would say an AEW aircraft like Ka-35 could scan for low flying threats while the support ships can scan for medium to high threats... do they even need fixed wing support for a landing?

    The Ka-52s have dual use missiles in the form of Vikhr, and soon Hermes which would be effective air to air weapons as well as able to hit point ground targets from significant ranges, and with radar they would be able to detect incoming missile and munition threats too.

    The RN didn't have anything else to use, so they were pressed to engage enemy land based NAF. So yes, they were lucky.

    The Argentines didn't dare invade when the Brits had the Ark Royal with Buccaneers and Phantoms and proper AEW aircraft... it would have been much easier and much safer for the British forces...

    in any case for the fleet & target beach AD/AD, long/short range SAMs r better & cheaper option than CTOL fighters.

    When even their Frigates have 130mm guns I rather suspect their destroyers and cruisers should have something like a 152mm gun for naval gun support operations, and the forces themselves have their own artillery and direct fire weapons to support the landing... plus of course attack helos...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5815
    Points : 5771
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:13 am

    ..if they make four extra Mistral sized ships and put 12 STOVL fighters on each?
    Their planned UDK/TAKR hybrid will be ~1.5-2 x bigger than Mistral, with more aircraft space on deck & in hangars.
    They never built a direct copy/replica of anything in the West, & their future ships will be no exception.
    If u really want to understand Russians, go to Russia & spend a few years there; anything else would be a waste of time!
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5815
    Points : 5771
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:03 am

    It should be noted that an experimental model of a promising vertical take-off aircraft is being developed by the presidential decree in our country, Deputy Prime Minister Y. Borisov told the press. According to him, the project is included in the state rearmament program. ... "Conceptually, the project was launched last year. If you stick to the plan, in 8-10 years the machine will go into production."
    https://zen.yandex.ru/media/derjava/kakaia-sudba-ojidaet-otechestvennyi-avianesuscii-kreiser-admiral-kuznecov-5c6025e5facd8f00aef3679b

    By then, they should have at least 1 UDK.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6034
    Points : 6054
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:40 am

    higurashihougi wrote:

    Personally I don't think having an AESA is very critical if we just put it on the nose and not make full use of AESA advantages, for example putting the radar and the wingtips or coating the radar on aerodynamic surface of the aircraft.

    Im not a radar engineer but (AFAIK) AESA can detect objects with longer range then any other radar with same power. Not to mention different frequencies in the same time. Thus even w/o "distributed " antenna radar will have advantage.

    My text you've referred to was an answer to some previous GB own production about of "optonic radars with L band antennas on Su-35 in middle of the ocean " to see F-35. So the world that is parallel to rest of us.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6034
    Points : 6054
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:45 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:It should be noted that an experimental model of a promising vertical take-off aircraft is being developed by the presidential decree in our country, Deputy Prime Minister Y. Borisov told the press. According to him, the project is included in the state rearmament program. ... "Conceptually, the project was launched last year. If you stick to the plan, in 8-10 years the machine will go into production."
    https://zen.yandex.ru/media/derjava/kakaia-sudba-ojidaet-otechestvennyi-avianesuscii-kreiser-admiral-kuznecov-5c6025e5facd8f00aef3679b

    dotn worry, he wont red it with understanding s he never was on this topic - GB when hears the VSTOL word is like trigger to another personality.  He sees Su-35 in the middle of the ocean, he sees destroyed runways but provides no videos, he knows better vSTOL is not needed. However due to some strange reason  none of navies r listening ot him continuing working on  or using VSTOL.



    Tsavo Lion wrote: Their planned UDK/TAKR hybrid will be ~1.5-2 x bigger than Mistral, with more aircraft space on deck & in hangars.
    They never built a direct copy/replica of anything in the West, & their future ships will be no exception.
    If u really want to understand Russians, go to Russia & spend a few years there; anything else would be a waste of time!

    its not bout replicating anything but matching own doctrine/requirements. Whether it will be mix udk/takr or more classic CVN none of us knows yet. We need to wit which project will be approved.

    However I gree with you bout such mix. Why:

    1) costs - procurement +l maintenance

    2) December's interview with chief-commander of naval aviation + Russian chief-navy-officer looks like missiles will be min asset, not an air-wing, there will be 2-3 (afair) CSGs around "aircraft carrying ships"
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6034
    Points : 6054
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:20 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The VTOL capability gives the more optimal STOL option; VTOL can be used as a backup.

    The officials that have been quoted properly say the new plane for carrier use will be STOL with a remote possibility of STOVL.

    there were no "remote possibility" words there. There were for sure " STOL or even VTOL"




    GB wrote:
    2) vertical TO is not needed in most of cases , why if VSTOL can take off 300% shorter runway then any MiG?

    Vertical takeoffs never happen because they make the aircraft useless in terms of payload and fuel load and they damage the runway...

    with so how many examples did you take into consideration to draw such conclusion? Why to protect ship groupings you need thousands kilometers of range and tons of payload ? Su-33 in AA config hs ~50% of max paylod, if this applies to MiG-29lkthen 2,300kg is in AA mission. You can easily have this range in VTO mode.

    VSTOL STOVL is technically the same. All gays prefer fancy names as STOVL




    GB wrote:
    This ws already stated countless of times by Russian MoD, nd for you this is news? lol1 lol1 29s re gonn to were out slowly but surely adequate fighters.

    .. they are planning to make a replacement... but odds are it will take a decade to get it into operational service...

    so?




    GB wrote:
    And how Su-35 will reach this location from shore?
    Thought the hint was in the comment about the Su-57K... the naval model.

    sure thing
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Image_5a9cac379fec57_55975701





    GB wrote:. don't spook him... you never know what he might do...
    road rage?

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 4391175597_4170850038
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39224
    Points : 39722
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:00 am

    Their planned UDK/TAKR hybrid will be ~1.5-2 x bigger than Mistral, with more aircraft space on deck & in hangars.

    You can speculate all you like... the design they paid for was the Mistral design... are you suggesting they have gone for a plan to build a 5th gen STOL that might possibly have STOVL characteristics and are redesigning a proven design (Mistral) to an untested and unproven design (twice as big) on the off chance the STOVL aircraft might be a STOVL aircraft that actually works... unlike all their previous STOVL designs which have been failures?

    They have stated that their plans for a CVN involve a carrier slightly bigger and with more capacity for aircraft than the Kuznetsov... which does not sound like a STOVL carrier to me. But whether the STOVL succeeds of fails it would have no problem operating from such a carrier... you could not say the same if they built a 30K ton mini carrier and the STOVL aircraft was a failure or just ordinary and no better than the MiG-29KR of todays navy.

    They never built a direct copy/replica of anything in the West, & their future ships will be no exception.

    Not strictly true in the sense that when they bought the Maxim Machine Gun design... it was called a Maxim in the Soviet Army, when they bought the DC-3 transport aircraft design as the Li-2 they didn't change the design very much at all, and when they had the chance to copy the B-29 and the Sidewinder, the products they produced were not totally different from the original... the Tu-4 had rather better cannon defensive armament, and engines that had less tendency to burst into flames, while the R-13 and R-3 used Soviet IR sensors and rocket motors they were basically just Russianised weapons with modifications based on practicality.

    By then, they should have at least 1 UDK.

    And if it turns into a failure like the Yak-41 they have a big fucking useless ship... and no replacement possible.

    Their plans will likely include a fixed wing carrier slightly bigger than Kuznetsov, so whether the new fighter is a STOVL or a more conventional STOL type it will be able to operate from their new CVNs.

    Their replacement helicopter carrier wont need V takeoff fighters... it would be rather more useful to have V takeoff support aircraft like transports and attack helos.

    Amusing you are suggesting that half a dozen VSTOL fighters on a ship would make it better when it is supposed to be a landing ship... perhaps making it a battle ship to provide its own naval gun support could help too... make it three times bigger than Mistral and put 6 jet fighters and 6 heavy gun turrets for ground support... of course that means no room for Russian naval infantry troops or vehicles and therefore no landing capacity at all but it will be much cheaper than a fixed wing carrier and that is what is important isn't it?

    Shocked

    Im not a radar engineer but (AFAIK) AESA can detect objects with longer range then any other radar with same power. Not to mention different frequencies in the same time. Thus even w/o "distributed " antenna radar will have advantage.

    An X band or Ku band AESA cannot scan in L band or VHS frequency ranges... the L band AESA radar on the Russian stealth hunting fighters seems to suggest better performance than the Ku or X band radars they have fitted in their noses.

    Russian development in detecting stealth targets of all types from fighters and bombers to UAVs seem to be based on different radar frequencies combined together with processing and intelligent algorithms to sort out a much clearer view of the air space...

    My text you've referred to was an answer to some previous GB own production about of "optonic radars with L band antennas on Su-35 in middle of the ocean " to see F-35. So the world that is parallel to rest of us.

    Of course... future Russian naval fighters will be equipped with radars from the 1970s and weapons from years before that so there can be no consideration regarding any systems they are working on today... that sort of thing wont be fitted to anything for 100 years or more...

    I mean why plan to develop new types of radar when you have no intention of ever using it?

    dotn worry, he wont red it with understanding s he never was on this topic - GB when hears the VSTOL word is like trigger to another personality.  He sees Su-35 in the middle of the ocean, he sees destroyed runways but provides no videos, he knows better vSTOL is not needed. However due to some strange reason  none of navies r listening ot him continuing working on  or using VSTOL.

    It is a dead end street... it is like Ekranoplans... sounds like a great idea and on paper makes a lot of sense... but in practical terms the advantages are not actually what is promised, and the drawbacks are enormous...

    Ekranoplans sound like a great idea... greatly reducing drag so the planes can become enormous... almost like ships but with the speed a large fraction of an aircraft... but then comes the but... Ekranoplans have to operate very near sea level where jet engines are terrible and real high speed flight... ie 800-900km/h that most airliners can manage is just too fast for an aircraft of any size at near sea level... so they might be low drag but they are slower and much less efficient than an aircraft...

    VSTOL aircraft can operate anywhere so they will be the only aircraft flying in WWIII... well in actual fact they can't and have serious FOD issues even on normal airfields and of course the new ones that are supposed to be supersonic need really big powerful AB engines that destroy anything but specially heat resistant runways... it was the main reason the Chinese spent all that money buying the ex Kiev class carriers... they wanted that heat resistant surface material...

    At full fuel and weapon load there is not going to be any vertical take off of anything.

    If there is a problem and they have to land straight away they will need to dump all weapons and as much fuel as they can dump before it would be safe to land vertically...

    2) December's interview with chief-commander of naval aviation + Russian chief-navy-officer looks like missiles will be min asset, not an air-wing, there will be 2-3 (afair) CSGs around "aircraft carrying ships"

    The Russians have never been super hot on aircraft only providing air defence... an EMALS along with a AWACS platform offers early warning about attacks and warnings about low flying threats... even an airship could provide that...

    The Soviets created nuclear power sources 40 years ago... TOPAZ weighed about 350kgs and generated 5Kw for about 3-5 years... a dozen of those with improved design and performance in a removable block module could easily be attached to an airship with electric motors and flown around following Russian surface ships... new technology in the area could make it even more efficient and effective... it does not need to be enormous... and it would be a hell of a lot more useful than a piece of crap F-35B.

    there were no "remote possibility" words there. There were for sure " STOL or even VTOL"

    The quotes you gave properly quoted by LMFS clearly showed the speculative nature of the comments... there was nothing certain about them.

    with so how many examples did you take into consideration to draw such conclusion? Why to protect ship groupings you need thousands kilometers of range and tons of payload ? Su-33 in AA config hs ~50% of max paylod, if this applies to MiG-29lkthen 2,300kg is in AA mission. You can easily have this range in VTO mode.

    Interception is improved with range and speed... neither of which is a strong point of any VSTOL aircraft that ever served operationally...

    VSTOL STOVL is technically the same. All gays prefer fancy names as STOVL

    VSTOL suggests both vertical takeoffs and vertical landings... which as I said is inaccurate because vertical takeoffs limit fuel and weapon loads and put stress on the engine shortening its operational life.

    Even aircraft able to take off vertically almost never do operationally because it is safer and easier to take off in a rolling takeoff mode.

    Even helicopters like the Hind and Hip use rolling takeoffs to improve transitional lift...

    so?

    So in ten years time the abysmal failure of the F-35B and the problems getting the new light 5th gen fighters to reach requirements without being able to fake it like the US did with the F-35 will have forced the cancellation of the V component of the programme...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5815
    Points : 5771
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:44 am

    untested and unproven design (twice as big)
    Not 2x, ~1.5-1.75 x!
    And if it turns into a failure like the Yak-41 they have a big fucking useless ship..
    They could make into a helo/tiltrotor/UAV carrier, tender/supply/command ship or add a ski rump for STOBAR ops.
    I'm sure they could re-purpose a ship with so much volume or in the worst case, mothball it for later use.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39224
    Points : 39722
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Wed Feb 20, 2019 7:12 am

    Not 2x, ~1.5-1.75 x!

    The point is that a bigger helicopter carrier to potentially be able to carry some STOVL fighters that might eventually become available is not a great gamble as it will not make it more effective in its primary role as a landing ship... it will just make it more expensive for what it is.

    Frankly there is no situation where Russia would use a helicopter landing ship and NOT use a fixed wing carrier, so if there is a fixed wing carrier there then why would you reduce the capacity of your helicopter carrier to put fighter planes on there?

    If the idea is that by making VSTOL fighters you can somehow magically make airsupport for ships and landings cheap and simple then you are dreaming... building 10 helicopter carriers instead of four so that you can have 6 spare that can be filled with fighter planes to some how compensate for the fact that you don't have a fixed wing carrier... well why not take that logic a step further and save even more money and use a container ship instead of an expensive helicopter carrier for those VSTOL fighters... it was something the British were thinking about in the 1980s before they actually had real combat experience with a dinky little VSTOL carrier... so what happened there?

    I believe if you check the cash strapped British military that cuts its budget every time it goes to war and finds it can still get the job done seems to be making carriers that are a bit bigger than 30K tons you are talking about.... in fact the carriers they have built are pretty damn close in size to the carriers the Russians want... the 70K ton weight.... ie slightly bigger than the Kuznetsov... the difference is that the Brits have committed to buying STOVL aircraft from the Yanks... they started thinking about a carrier in the 40-50K ton weight range and revised it up... simply because bigger carriers are better in many ways.

    They didn't even think of American sized 100K ton carriers because that is just wasteful and silly... but they clearly wanted something bigger than the Invincible... just like the Russians experience told them that the Kiev class VSTOL carriers were limited, and the Kuznetsov was a step in the right direction but a slightly bigger carrier... which they were planning all along and what got sold to China in an incomplete form is what they really needed... now they can look to innovation and engineering skill and design a brand new design from scratch... a carrier bigger than the Kuznetsov could still operate STOVL aircraft, but could carry conventional aircraft too...

    They could make into a helo/tiltrotor/UAV carrier, tender/supply/command ship or add a ski rump for STOBAR ops.
    I'm sure they could re-purpose a ship with so much volume or in the worst case, mothball it for later use.

    I would think it would be very irresponsible to tie up a shipyard with such a gamble... there is no point in having any carriers without support ships too, so make a couple of those and think about things some more if that is what is needed.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5815
    Points : 5771
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:48 pm

    Frankly there is no situation where Russia would use a helicopter landing ship and NOT use a fixed wing carrier,..
    They planned to have 4 Mistral class in 2-3 fleets with only Adm K. between them & other CVNs only in the distant future. Their littorals r well covered by land based aviation & those ships r primarily to defend their coasts/islands & support ground forces. Bigger hybrid UDKs will also have roles played by TAKRs, which btw had more helos than fixed wings. Slowly, but surely they'll build more escorts. They could also send extra SSGNs with Zircons to keep the wolves farther away.
    The UK has islands to defend in 3 major oceans- ideally, she should have 3-4 CVs, esp. if planning to deploy to SC Sea & the W.Pac., but wants to save $ & pool with France- not the best of friends if u ask me.
    I have no doubt that the new Russian STOVL fighter will be more successful than the F-35B- they will use lessons learned from it & the Yak-41.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39224
    Points : 39722
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:06 am

    They planned to have 4 Mistral class in 2-3 fleets with only Adm K. between them & other CVNs only in the distant future.

    That is the point... they planned... things don't happen on the spur of the moment... for a use of helicopter landing craft well away from Russian land based air power they will need planning and preparation... which gives them plenty of time to move all the ships and resources into position ready for the operation.

    The British didn't just immediately send ships to the Falklands as they were ready to go... arriving one at a time in the order they were ready to go in... a task force is assembled first... whether it assembles in Russian ports or Russian waters or international waters... you don't just go off half cocked... and if you do... you do it with an attack sub launching a quick sneaky attack... not a mixed bag of different vessels waiting for the rest of the surface group to arrive.

    The UK has islands to defend in 3 major oceans- ideally, she should have 3-4 CVs, esp. if planning to deploy to SC Sea & the W.Pac., but wants to save $ & pool with France- not the best of friends if u ask me.

    Now that they have 9 F-35s in service they are threatening Russia in Arctic waters... should we continue to consider them a serious military power these days?

    You talk about saving money and then you suggest methods the British have used and the US Marines use... the USN doens't use the Vertical take off model F-35... only the British Navy and the US Marines do... if it is so bloody fantastic makes you wonder why they even bother with the other two versions...

    I have no doubt that the new Russian STOVL fighter will be more successful than the F-35B- they will use lessons learned from it & the Yak-41.

    I don't doubt the Russians could easily build a much better aircraft than the F-35B... perhaps one that does not have over 900 serious problems with its design some of which are life threatening to the pilot and ground crew.... I think they could probably have a really good stab and building a flying tank, but the compromises needed make it less useful that would first appear... the difference is that the sales pitch for the STOVL aircraft has been made and products have been in service for decades and when all the shiny paint comes off and you realise there are some very serious compromises needed to make that thing take off and land vertically... you really start to wonder if it is worth it... especially when the money you save by making smaller ships never actually comes to pass because new ships are always expensive, and bigger ships are more expensive but they are also more useful.

    If you want to be in the furniture removal business... don't try to save money by buying a moped instead of a truck... mopeds are cheaper and lighter and can drive places like long narrow driveways you would have serious problems getting a truck in to... but at the end of the day the money you saved means nothing if you can't do the job you want the vehicle for.

    Now a moped instead of a truck is an exaggeration... but having a van and making 5 trips instead of a real truck making one... if the job is just moving someone from a flat on one side of town to the other then a van might make sense but these ships are for global use outside the range of Russian ground and air power so they need to take everything with them and they need to take enough to make it worth going so they can stay for a while.

    5 trips across town instead of one you could probably put up with if it is not normal to carry that much, but if that is a normal amount of stuff to take you need a truck... especially when you look at jobs moving from one end of the country to the other... including expensive ferry crossings... it would probably be cheaper to chuck everything into shipping crates and put it on a train.


    Sponsored content


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 24 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue May 28, 2024 5:09 pm