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?
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...
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
why bother making anything at all... it will be even cheaper and need no ships to operate from.
