Russia Defence Forum

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

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Feb 21, 2019 4:51 am

    ..the USN doesn't use the Vertical take off model F-35... only the British Navy and the US Marines do..
    The JMSDF may soon use them too. The USN has 11 CVNs + 10 LHAs, & a lot more $ to spend on CTOLs. The MIC sold dozens of F-18s to Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Kuwait, Spain, Finland & Switzerland, making a profit:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet#Non-U.S._service

    For the VMF, which is "a different animal" in more ways than 1, STOVLs will be a welcome addition, since the UDKs r needed anyway & CVNs will take a long time to materialize, if ever.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5996
    Points : 6016
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:14 am

    GarryB wrote: 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 a

    Navy expressed their view true. They have right what is they desire . Yet navy also wanted many other frigtes but ended up with 22800. Ergo budget/geopolitics is the gate keeper that decides. (vide Gozer the Gozerian lol1 lol1 lol1

    IMHO Tsavo was referring to universal ship (UDK, CV, helo crrier missile ship functions) proposed by USC lst December, not original Mistrial. .






    ="fancy GB"]
    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.

    it could have gone much worse -they could keep 29k fail pwnd pwnd pwnd


    GB wrote: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.

    only by official statements there will be NO "clean" helo carriers for RuN




    GB in fancy mode wrote: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...


    Russian navy clearly chosen missiles not an airwing main strike force. One of reasons is cost effectiveness but of course you can always contest is with Russian MoD





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

    Any operational data what percentage of missions for CTOL is carried with MTOW? scratch scratch scratch





    GB wrote: 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...

    Rolling TO or landing is like 60m for F-35B. F-16-J39 CTOL fighters need 500-800m if Im correct. 1000% difference.



    GB wrote:
    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...

    they actually were, for a good reason, costs/combat effectiveness. Looks like they returned to this good concept.



    GB wrote:
    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.


    I've just translated what Borisov said. The rest is your ability to see and to hear things other dont! wow.




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


    for ship grouping defense how many thousands of km radius do you need? BTW 29k has ~850km/2,5 tons paylod ? F-22 900?



    GB wrote:
    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...

    1) After wiki (both)

    I) V/STOL
    vertical and/or short take-off and landing (V/STOL) = aircraft is an airplane able to take-off or land vertically or on short runways.

    II) STVOL
    A short take-off and vertical landing aircraft (STOVL aircraft) is a fixed-wing aircraft that is able to take off from a short runway (or take off vertically if it does not have a heavy payload) and land vertically



    2) Rolling TO or landing it the reason behind this stuff. Especially for navy. No need for catapult nor arresters. Yet you still require 1/3 of runway.



    .
    [quote="GB in haka mode" " ]
    road rage?
    vPaging doctor Sigmund Freud... my psychoanalist with roid rage... about your road rage...

    Freud?,muscular boys?...you're SOOOO fancy and kinky lol! lol! lol!
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:48 am

    Rolling TO or landing it the reason behind this stuff. Especially for navy. No need for catapult nor arresters. Yet you still require 1/3 of runway.
    With more powerful engines &/ lighter airframe/weapons made of new materials, even less flight deck may be needed. With adequate training & maintenance, their accident rate will also be lower, making the STOVLs use safer than STOBAR/CATOBAR.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5996
    Points : 6016
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:49 am

    GarryB wrote:
    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.

    yet many navies go this way?


    GB wrote: 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?

    hmm 80s? if your cognitive abilities are stuck to 80s no wonder that tech of 2020-30s ( almost 50 years +) iis not really comprehensible for you


    GB wrote: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.

    sure besides up-to 35 F-5B and large hospital they can support landing ops, carrying marines (900), attack (ah1 + ah64) + transport helos (Chinook)

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5996
    Points : 6016
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:52 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Rolling TO or landing it the reason behind this stuff. Especially for navy. No need for catapult nor arresters. Yet you still require 1/3 of runway.
    With more powerful engines &/ lighter airframe/weapons made of new materials, even less flight deck may be needed. With adequate training & maintenance, their accident rate will also be lower, making the STOVLs use safer than STOBAR/CATOBAR.

    True, however I'd rather say VSTOL / CATOBR both have pros and cons. In case of smaller ships VSTOL is definitely better idea tho.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5996
    Points : 6016
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:03 am

    GarryB wrote:
    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

    thepoint here is 4 Mistral's were to be assigned to 4 different groups.




    GB wrote: 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..


    true, but why would you assume that when 24-30 fighters  is not enough but 50-60 is? Especially when the main strike force will be Kalibrs-M and Zircons. Not an airwing.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:34 am

    32+ Rafales on the PA2, a QE sister ship w/o a ski rump, will have ~ the same power projection capability as 35+ F-35Bs on the QE:
    http://www.thefullwiki.org/Future_French_aircraft_carrier#Design
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_PA2

    https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/2018/euronaval-2018/6564-france-started-emals-talks-with-u-s-for-its-future-pa-ng-aircraft-carrier.html



    Taking a page from that book, the Russians may use the same basic design for a QE-like UDK & PA2- like CVN, with minimal necessary changes & enormous savings.
    The RF has more coastline & islands than the UK & France combined, so she's both maritime & continental power.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5996
    Points : 6016
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sun Feb 24, 2019 1:45 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:

    Taking a page from that book, the Russians may use the same basic design for a QE-like UDK & PA2- like CVN, with minimal necessary changes & enormous savings.

    not sure where those savings would come from ?


    TL wrote: The RF has more coastline & islands than the UK & France combined, so she's both maritime & continental power.

    Yet, unlike US, UK its power or power and survival (UK)does not depend on navy.



    I just looking forward to hearing news about VSTOL development russia russia russia
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:33 am

    not sure where those savings would come from?
    Modular/unified design. If they build totally 2 different classes of ships, it will cost more. For this reason, TAKRs, LHAs & CV/Ns had/ve sub classes with incremental changes instead of radial departures with each new ship.
    A large expensive hull can be adopted & later re-converted for different purposes with modifications specific to a given set of missions. A case in point:
    The SSV-33's hull was derived from that of the nuclear powered Kirov-class battlecruisers
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_communications_ship_SSV-33

    Yet, unlike US, UK its power or power and survival (UK)does not depend on navy.
    Arctic/FE resources, remote coasts, islands, SLOCs & SSBN bastions must be protected by a strong navy, so it's not that different for Russia anymore.
    Like China that has North, East, & South Fleets, they should have 3 fleets/flotillas in the North: Western, Central, & Eastern.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38970
    Points : 39466
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:34 am

    only by official statements there will be NO "clean" helo carriers for RuN

    Well obviously now that they will be designing their own they are not limited to the very basic armament as fitted to the Mistral carriers...

    Russian navy clearly chosen missiles not an airwing main strike force. One of reasons is cost effectiveness but of course you can always contest is with Russian MoD

    Why would I contest that... I agree with them... they need fighters to protect the ships... not attack aircraft... they already have cruise missiles and their Frigates have 130mm guns so their Destroyers and Cruisers are likely to have quite powerful guns too.

    Any operational data what percentage of missions for CTOL is carried with MTOW?

    Being able to carry full fuel would extend flight time and reduce the number of takeoff landing cycles per day needed to keep an operational CAP going.

    Rolling TO or landing is like 60m for F-35B. F-16-J39 CTOL fighters need 500-800m if Im correct. 1000% difference.

    MiG-29K uses a cable to land...

    they actually were, for a good reason, costs/combat effectiveness. Looks like they returned to this good concept.

    Seen enough of your posts countered to know you can be trusted with quotes...

    I've just translated what Borisov said. The rest is your ability to see and to hear things other dont! wow.

    You said he said the new aircraft would be STOVL, but when we see the actual quote he actually said STOL or possibly STOVL... which was quite different from what you suggested he said.

    With more powerful engines &/ lighter airframe/weapons made of new materials, even less flight deck may be needed. With adequate training & maintenance, their accident rate will also be lower, making the STOVLs use safer than STOBAR/CATOBAR.

    Yes... lets ignore reality and pretend what marketing people say is true... STOVL are super safe and they never crash or burn... the Yak-38M had the worst safety record in the Soviet military... the only reason it didn't kill more pilots was because it had an automatic ejection system...

    yet many navies go this way?

    How many navies are in the same position as Russia and might need to deploy a surface action group anywhere on earth with organic air power without any allies in support?

    Does Japan need or want that? Even the UK will likely expect support in such a mission... but it has made a 70K ton carrier a bit like the size the Russian Navy actually want...

    hmm 80s? if your cognitive abilities are stuck to 80s no wonder that tech of 2020-30s ( almost 50 years +) iis not really comprehensible for you

    Of course... technology will fix everything and the F-35B will be the best of all the F-35 variants because it can take off vertically... that would be an excellent feature on land as well as at sea... so tell me why no one is buying the F-35B except to operate from carriers?

    sure besides up-to 35 F-5B and large hospital they can support landing ops, carrying marines (900), attack (ah1 + ah64) + transport helos (Chinook)

    You are countering your own argument... if Russia should make STOVL fighters so it can have smaller cheap carriers... like the UK... but the UK is building carriers that are heavier than the Kuznetsov with a bigger air wing WTF are you talking about?

    True, however I'd rather say VSTOL / CATOBR both have pros and cons. In case of smaller ships VSTOL is definitely better idea tho.

    Operationally there is no such thing as a VSTOL fighter... they are all STOVL.

    They only take off vertically at airshows.

    thepoint here is 4 Mistral's were to be assigned to 4 different groups.

    Bullshit... they wont have four separate fleets for them to operate with... they will have four Mistral type ships... two in the Northern Fleet to support operations in the Arctic, and two in the Pacific Fleet to support operations in the Pacific... they will either use one or two vessels in each operation but they will never have two operations going at once let alone four... that is just silly.

    Most likely the Northern Fleet Mistrals might head through the arctic ocean down past the UK and on to Venezuela or Cuba or whereever on an operation... they might send two Mistrals or just one...

    true, but why would you assume that when 24-30 fighters is not enough but 50-60 is? Especially when the main strike force will be Kalibrs-M and Zircons. Not an airwing.

    Larger air wings offer greater flexibility in terms of storage and endurance... in a mission to Venezuela then some fighters might need to be sent to operate from a land base to extend their reach or to allow them to operate on station longer... larger vessels are more flexible and more capable...

    32+ Rafales on the PA2, a QE sister ship w/o a ski rump, will have ~ the same power projection capability as 35+ F-35Bs on the QE

    When an air launched Zircon takes their carrier out from under them they will have the same power projection capability... zero...

    A large expensive hull can be adopted & later re-converted for different purposes with modifications specific to a given set of missions. A case in point:
    The SSV-33's hull was derived from that of the nuclear powered Kirov-class battlecruisers

    Well not really.... they made 5 hulls for the Orlan class... it was just that the last one was completed as a communications ship instead of a battlecruiser...

    Perhaps a new multihull carrier design could have that design repeated for a cruiser family too...

    Like China that has North, East, & South Fleets, they should have 3 fleets/flotillas in the North: Western, Central, & Eastern.

    Their northern ports are expanding and increasing in trade and the increase in use of the northern route could potentially further expand that.... not to mention the additional rail links and new runways being built to make access easier and cheaper to the region... new ports and new rail links could really open the place up a lot...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Feb 24, 2019 6:57 pm

    Yes... lets ignore reality and pretend what marketing people say is true... STOVL are super safe and they never crash or burn...
    They didn't say that; but u r stuck with their past performance which "doesn't guarantee future results". Todays's aviation is several x safer than what it was in the 1950s & 60s, & new STOVLs will be safer than Harriers & Yaks.
    ..tell me why no one is buying the F-35B except to operate from carriers?
    A: they r too expensive. STOL capable fighters could be used by many AFs, & if they were more affordable, others would love to have some of them instead of just inferior attack helos.
    When an air launched Zircon takes their carrier out from under them they will have the same power projection capability... zero..
    My point that if F-35Bs on the QE (for all intents & purposes, it's a UDK, i.e. CV & LHA hybrid) r as good as Rafales on the PA2, then a future Russian UDK/TAKR hybrid with STOVLs will be as good, if not better, as the Adm.K as far as power projection is concerned.
    The world is not all black & white; there r shades of grey everywhere.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38970
    Points : 39466
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:04 am

    They didn't say that; but u r stuck with their past performance which "doesn't guarantee future results". Todays's aviation is several x safer than what it was in the 1950s & 60s, & new STOVLs will be safer than Harriers & Yaks.

    You can't get much safer than a Yak-38M... you just need to enjoy ejection seat operations a lot...

    Harrier probably killed more Harrier pilots than Yak-38M killed Yak pilots because of the Yaks auto ejection system automatically ejected the pilot if the angle or yaw or other important number was exceeded on landing or take off.

    My point that if F-35Bs on the QE (for all intents & purposes, it's a UDK, i.e. CV & LHA hybrid) r as good as Rafales on the PA2, then a future Russian UDK/TAKR hybrid with STOVLs will be as good, if not better, as the Adm.K as far as power projection is concerned.
    The world is not all black & white; there r shades of grey everywhere.

    But you have not made your point that they are as good...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:51 am

    You can't get much safer than a Yak-38M... you just need to enjoy ejection seat operations a lot...
    Before the 1st controlled airplane flight, many were saying that it wasn't possible.
    R u directly involved in their STOVL design? Perhaps u r an expert & a genius- in that case, pl. accept my apology & my hat is off to u. Just post copies of ur credentials for all to see- "trust, but verify".
    But you have not made your point that they are as good..
    R u saying that the Brits r more stupid or not smarter than the French when it comes to naval & aviation matters? Why would they limit themselves to be inferior to French?
    They saved on CATOBAR, N reactors, extra crews, & still got what they need to restore their glory on the high seas, at least in their minds.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5102
    Points : 5098
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  LMFS Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:01 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:They saved on CATOBAR, N reactors, extra crews, &  still got what they need to restore their glory on the high seas, at least in their minds.
    They wanted catobar but was too expensive afaik
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:10 am

    Even if it's not as good as a CVN with CATOBAR, they can send 2 of them instead of 1. Still cheaper & more flexible than 1 CVN. They also have SSNs with SLCMs.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5996
    Points : 6016
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:22 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    not sure where those savings would come from?
    Modular/unified design. If they build totally 2 different classes of ships, it will cost more. For this reason, TAKRs, LHAs & CV/Ns had/ve sub classes with incremental changes instead of radial departures with each new ship.

    like that?


    United Shipbuilding Corporation has developed for the Russian Navy a project of
    universal warships that can combine the functions of an aircraft carrier, helicopter
    carrier and landing craft, said the head of USC Alexei Rakhmanov.



    “In one of our design bureaus, we made a universal vessel design that can serve
    four purposes, that is, an identical ship at the bow and below the waterline with
    specialized superstructures that are provided for various tasks,” said Rakhmanov.
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201812031417-yt9y.htm






    TS wrote:
    Yet, unlike US, UK its power or power and survival (UK)does not depend on navy.
    Arctic/FE resources, remote coasts, islands, SLOCs & SSBN bastions must be protected by a strong navy, so it's not that different for Russia anymore.
    Like China that has North, East, & South Fleets, they should have 3 fleets/flotillas in the North: Western, Central, & Eastern.


    I disagree. Arctic is never far form shores, you still have Tu-22 cover to sink CSGs.  Northern Route has in decent part ..100m of depth
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5102
    Points : 5098
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  LMFS Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:12 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    like that?


    “In one of our design bureaus, we made a universal vessel design that can serve
    four purposes, that is, an identical ship at the bow and below the waterline with
    specialized superstructures that are provided for various tasks,” said Rakhmanov.
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201812031417-yt9y.htm
    Thinking well, this may work with a multihull or multi-keel design like the one presented by Krilov, in the sense that internal capacity would not conflict with a streamlined design. That would be an additional advantage of such layout thumbsup
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:18 pm

    ..universal warships that can combine the functions of an aircraft carrier, helicopter carrier and landing craft,..
    “In one of our design bureaus, we made a universal vessel design that can serve four purposes, that is, an identical ship at the bow and below the waterline with specialized superstructures that are provided for various tasks,” said Rakhmanov.
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201812031417-yt9y.htm
    Exactly!
    I disagree. Arctic is never far form shores, you still have Tu-22 cover to sink CSGs. Northern Route has in decent part ..100m of depth
    The USN isn't experienced in the high latitudes won't risk sending CSGs there: they don't have big icebreakers & in any case the Arctic environment will decimate ships & AWs.
    Still, they'll need a lot of OPVs & aviation support all along the coast.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5996
    Points : 6016
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    only by official statements there will be NO "clean" helo carriers for RuN

    Well obviously now that they will be designing their own they are not limited to the very basic armament as fitted to the Mistral carriers...

    true, Russia needs expeditionary force not full scale WW3 one.




    GB wrote:
    Russian navy clearly chosen missiles not an airwing main strike force. One of reasons is cost effectiveness but of course you can always contest is with Russian MoD

    Why would I contest that... I agree with them... they need fighters to protect the ships... not attack aircraft... they already have cruise missiles and their Frigates have 130mm guns so their Destroyers and Cruisers are likely to have quite powerful guns too.


    artillery for shore bombardments?  why not , especially if that this could be cheaper than Hermes-K/A still  . Fighters for sure  but I dotn think Russians will focus only on fighter function not on universal platform tho.






    GB wrote:
    Any operational data what percentage of missions for CTOL is carried with MTOW?

    Being able to carry full fuel would extend flight time and reduce the number of takeoff landing cycles per day needed to keep an operational CAP going.

    That was not answering my  question you know ;-)  BTW You can always refuel in the air right. I  just dont  see  why radius comparable with MG_29k is that bad for you?



    GB wrote:
    Rolling TO or landing is like 60m for F-35B. F-16-J39 CTOL fighters need 500-800m if Im correct. 1000% difference.

    MiG-29K uses a cable to land...

    so? it still needs ~ 500m TO  i 500m L, or 195m/100m with cables  with skijump





    GB wrote:
    I've just translated what Borisov said. The rest is your ability to see and to hear things other dont! wow.

    You said he said the new aircraft would be STOVL, but when we see the actual quote he actually said STOL or possibly STOVL... which was quite different from what you suggested he said.

    Stop blubbering crap  translate yourself  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup

    либо просто is according to you?  affraid  affraid  affraid  remotely possible ?  

    Безусловно, это - будущее всех авианесущих кораблей. Необходим новый парк летательных аппаратов, для этого используются различные технологии, которые позволяют укороченный взлет и посадку, либо просто вертикальный взлет. Концептуально работы уже ведутся в министерстве обороны с прошлого года», - заявил Борисов.

    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201808211243-1c61.htm
    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5475420





    GB wrote: Yes... lets ignore reality and pretend what marketing people say is true... STOVL are super safe and they never crash or burn... the Yak-38M had the worst safety record in the Soviet military... the only reason it didn't kill more pilots was because it had an automatic ejection system...

    unlike Yak-141 MiG-29k did, unfortunately. But it is,so  sad that your mind is so beautiful one, competently  locked in 80s! 29k form 90s rulez , F-14 rulez, Falkland wars.

    You also dotn listen to what MoD says just talking to yourself? this is gonna be s new design. Not based on any previous designs.


    Shhhh i can tell you in secret that with almost 50 years   technology has changed ! VSTOL will replace MiG-29k,  there will be Mi-42 concept  followed up by VDV.





    GB wrote:
    yet many navies go this way?

    How many navies are in the same position as Russia and might need to deploy a surface action group anywhere on earth with organic air power without any allies in support?


    And how many navies have Zircon, Avangard, Husky &  Poseidon support?





    GB wrote:
    sure besides up-to 35 F-5B and large hospital they can support landing ops, carrying marines (900), attack (ah1 + ah64) + transport helos (Chinook)

    You are countering your own argument... if Russia should make STOVL fighters so it can have smaller cheap carriers... like the UK... but the UK is building carriers that are heavier than the Kuznetsov with a bigger air wing WTF are you talking about?

    You're talking to me or to yourself about Falkland war only?

    what I've been saying is simple:
    1)  IMHO with Russian missile based  doctrine, building  massive CSGs make little sense

    2) Russia needs not only CVs but also LHDs + ASW Ships + missile ships thus TAKR concept seem to be very appealing again

    3) VSTOL helps to keep reasonable small misplacement, help to build more universal ships then US,  "clean CV" design

    4) yes 3-4  30-50k tons is much better then 2 x 80-100ktons. With  2 CVNs you actually have only 1 CVN operational.

    5) taking account Syrian experience looks like 24-30 ariwing for expeditionary wrs is enough



    Where did I say 18ktons and 80s sea harrier  is perfect size n tech?  





    GB wrote:
    thepoint here is 4 Mistral's were to be assigned to 4 different groups.

    Bullshit... they wont have four separate fleets for them to operate with... they will have four Mistral type ships... two in the Northern Fleet to support operations in the Arctic, and two in the Pacific Fleet to support operations in the Pacific... they will either use one or two vessels in each operation but they will never have two operations going at once let alone four... that is just silly.

    Most likely the Northern Fleet Mistrals might head through the arctic ocean down past the UK and on to Venezuela or Cuba or whereever on an operation... they might send two Mistrals or just one..
    .

    You say, Northern Fleet will be in Cuba and Indian Ocean but  in North no battle ships remain. Is what you re saying?




    true, but why would you assume that when 24-30 fighters  is not enough but 50-60 is? Especially when the main strike force will be Kalibrs-M and Zircons. Not an airwing.

    Larger air wings offer greater flexibility in terms of storage and endurance... in a mission to Venezuela then some fighters might need to be sent to operate from a land base to extend their reach or to allow them to operate on station longer... larger vessels are more flexible and more capable...]
    [/quote]

    Flexibly in what? what endurance? can you in explain on example ? Venezuelan one is unclear completely.

    Costs are also important right ? 1 fly hr on F-35 is like $50,000, pilot needs ~200 hrs/yr. SO one F-35 is like $10m for maintenance only. 50 more is $500m more.








    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5996
    Points : 6016
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Mon Feb 25, 2019 9:33 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    Thinking well, this may work with a multihull or multi-keel design like the one presented by Krilov, in the sense that internal capacity would not conflict with a streamlined design. That would be an additional advantage of such layout thumbsup


    That's what I can call a constructive attitude Smile Ideally if this would a ship with mission dependent modules Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil



    BTW I've read ~week ago a short article about implementation of close loop cooperation between ship designers and scientific institutes. To detect on early stages what can or cannot be effectively implemented, in light of carrier design. Sounds good to me too.


    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5996
    Points : 6016
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Mon Feb 25, 2019 9:36 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:

    “In one of our design bureaus, we made a universal vessel design that can serve four purposes, that is, an identical ship at the bow and below the waterline with specialized superstructures that are provided for various tasks,” said Rakhmanov.
    Exactly!


    you see? Russians are reading our thread after all thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup



    I disagree. Arctic is never far form shores, you still have Tu-22 cover to sink CSGs. Northern Route has in decent part ..100m of depth
    The USN isn't experienced in the high latitudes won't risk sending CSGs there: they don't have big icebreakers & in any case the Arctic environment will decimate ships & AWs.
    Still, they'll need a lot of OPVs & aviation support all along the coast. [/quote]

    Indeed that's why T-22/MiG-31 are up there.

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5102
    Points : 5098
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  LMFS Mon Feb 25, 2019 9:58 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:BTW I've read  ~week ago  a short article about implementation of close loop cooperation between  ship designers and scientific institutes. To detect on early stages what can or cannot be effectively implemented, in light of carrier design.  Sounds good to me too.
    This should be the idea from the beginning right? I mean, Krilov assess the possibilities and broad design lines and for instance Nevskoye implements the technical design. Or am I wrong?
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5996
    Points : 6016
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Mon Feb 25, 2019 11:07 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:BTW I've read  ~week ago  a short article about implementation of close loop cooperation between  ship designers and scientific institutes. To detect on early stages what can or cannot be effectively implemented, in light of carrier design.  Sounds good to me too.
    This should be the idea from the beginning right? I mean, Krilov assess the possibilities and broad design lines and for instance Nevskoye implements the technical design. Or am I wrong?

    well not only Krylov is in Russia but true they have best PR so far Razz Razz Razz
    I guess is not that i was no cooperation before, but now they want to to make is more "scrum" then spiral/waterfall
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5102
    Points : 5098
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  LMFS Tue Feb 26, 2019 1:23 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:well not only Krylov is in Russia but true they have best PR so far Razz Razz Razz
    From what I know, Krilov is not a design bureau but a state research center. So, something like TsAGI or CIAM if I m not wrong. They should take a look at general aspects of shipbuilding sciences and engineering. They should not design any concrete vessel but will evaluate them at their facilities.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38970
    Points : 39466
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:04 pm

    Before the 1st controlled airplane flight, many were saying that it wasn't possible.
    R u directly involved in their STOVL design? Perhaps u r an expert & a genius- in that case, pl. accept my apology & my hat is off to u. Just post copies of ur credentials for all to see- "trust, but verify".

    Not the same... there have been plenty of attempts at VSTOL fighters in the past and all claimed to have solved the problems and be better than conventional fighters because they will be the only ones still flying in WWIII because all airfields will instantly be destroyed.

    The fact is that they have nothing currently that is any better than the aircraft they already have.

    To develop a new aircraft makes perfect sense, and I am on record suggesting a new lighter cheaper 5th gen fighter would be a good idea... but a STOVL aircraft will be the opposite of that... the F-35 proves this... it will turn it into a more expensive more fragile more damage prone aircraft... and for what... so they can have slightly smaller aircraft carriers that would be less effective anyway.

    R u saying that the Brits r more stupid or not smarter than the French when it comes to naval & aviation matters? Why would they limit themselves to be inferior to French?

    Well the Russians have Su-33s and MiG-29KRs on their carrier... are the Russians more stupid than the Brits and the French and the Americans?

    Why would they limit their carriers to be inferior to everyone else?

    The Brits have little money to spend... if they did they would have EMALS cats and a naval version of Typhoon to use and export to anyone with an open chequebook... instead they took the "cheaper" quicker option of going with the very expensive F-35B... and over time as they crash and burn they might regret that decision... but we have to give them time.

    They saved on CATOBAR, N reactors, extra crews, & still got what they need to restore their glory on the high seas, at least in their minds.

    The cost of extra ships that recover those 120 billion dollar planes from the sea floor will make them think again perhaps?

    A nuclear reactor would improve their ship, and CATOBAR was normal for them with the Ark Royal and previous carriers...

    Even if it's not as good as a CVN with CATOBAR, they can send 2 of them instead of 1. Still cheaper & more flexible than 1 CVN.

    No it isn't.

    That is like saying having two motorbikes is more flexible for a couple than having one car... tell me about that when it rains and someone has to get the kids home from school and do the shopping.

    Once you buy the motorbike and all the leathers there are no air bags on a bike and if you get it wrong you are probably the one that is going to die. You can still get killed in a car but you are asking for it on a motorbike.

    The helmet is to protect your face for easier identification after a serious accident.

    “In one of our design bureaus, we made a universal vessel design that can serve four purposes, that is, an identical ship at the bow and below the waterline with specialized superstructures that are provided for various tasks,” said Rakhmanov.

    It says bow and below the waterline but the stern is modular and able to change... which makes sense for towed arrays or rear entry landing vessels etc... but that also suggests that the length could be extended or varied so you are not limited to small aircraft carriers that are the same size as your helo carriers.

    Besides this is an idea pitched by the ship makers... the navy might say that is fine for destroyer and cruiser/helicopter carrier sized vessels but we want bigger CVNs...

    The USN isn't experienced in the high latitudes won't risk sending CSGs there: they don't have big icebreakers & in any case the Arctic environment will decimate ships & AWs.

    They wont have enough tents for the ships on deck...

    and I believe I recall a case where they did take a carrier north and its steam catapult system froze and so no aircraft could get into the air because all of their aircraft needed cat assistance to get airborne... unlike Russian carriers.... where none of them do.... Twisted Evil

    Fighters for sure but I dotn think Russians will focus only on fighter function not on universal platform tho.

    New generation fighters are not going to be single role any more I suspect... the French are calling their Rafale Omnirole...

    But comparing the risk of sending a 30-60 million dollar fighter over enemy held territory to deliver a dumb bomb precisely on target, or firing off a 152mm barrage of 5-10 shells from 30km offshore to targets 30km inshore... well those guns are going to be sitting there anyway, so might as well get some use out of them... especially when naval infantry troops on the front line are probably marking enemy targets with lasers anyway...

    That was not answering my question you know ;-) BTW You can always refuel in the air right. I just dont see why radius comparable with MG_29k is that bad for you?

    When you are intercepting an incoming threat it does not help the F-35Bs case if it can just take off quickly if it has to then inflight refuel so it has enough fuel to get to the target and perhaps escort it or shoot it down after dogfighting with it for a few minutes... especially as it will practically be a subsonic plane most of the time to get to the radius of action they suggest.

    so? it still needs ~ 500m TO i 500m L, or 195m/100m with cables with skijump

    If it took 500m to land it would not be able to land on any Russian or any other carrier as there are no 500m long carriers anywhere.

    Stop blubbering crap translate yourself thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup

    либо просто is according to you? affraid affraid affraid remotely possible ?

    Безусловно, это - будущее всех авианесущих кораблей. Необходим новый парк летательных аппаратов, для этого используются различные технологии, которые позволяют укороченный взлет и посадку, либо просто вертикальный взлет. Концептуально работы уже ведутся в министерстве обороны с прошлого года», - заявил Борисов.

    In this context or simply refers to the easiest way for an aircraft to land on a carrier... simply conceptually, not in practise... because that requires a completely different aircraft design that has all of the problems and issues I have repeatedly pointed out ad nauseum on this forum...

    You also dotn listen to what MoD says just talking to yourself? this is gonna be s new design. Not based on any previous designs.

    Yes, and plans never change or are ever revised or adapted... that is why there are Yak-41s in service right now...

    Not based on any previous designs because all previous designs turned out to be CRAP.

    Shhhh i can tell you in secret that with almost 50 years technology has changed ! VSTOL will replace MiG-29k, there will be Mi-42 concept followed up by VDV.

    Ummm... that is what the Yak-41 was supposed to do and it failed... add another 30 years of technology and I am looking at the F-35B and thinking it is still not there yet...

    And the VDV also wanted the An-70... the lower speed of turboprops makes parachuting less violent... but how did that end up working out?

    And how many navies have Zircon, Avangard, Husky & Poseidon support?

    Indeed, its position is quite unique, moreso because it can expect no help from the major powers of the world... the UK, US, Canada, China, France, etc etc so having a decently powerful navy able to protect itself and able to operate inside the air cover of Russian ground based airpower but also beyond its reach is important.

    They had Kiev class dinky little VSTOL carriers.... the British had the Invincible and the Hermes... and now both Russia and the British are looking at 70KT designs... think that is an accident?

    You're talking to me or to yourself about Falkland war only?

    Well what examples of wars where carriers in remote locations had any influence would you suggest?

    1) IMHO with Russian missile based doctrine, building massive CSGs make little sense

    2) Russia needs not only CVs but also LHDs + ASW Ships + missile ships thus TAKR concept seem to be very appealing again

    Points one and two contradict themselves... if you need LHDs then you are landing forces, which means you will need a signficant surface group to force the landing, to support its operations and to keep it supplied despite any potential outside interference.

    Russias missile based doctrine on land does not mean they don't have an air force with fighter and interceptor aircraft... or AWACS platforms.

    3) VSTOL helps to keep reasonable small misplacement, help to build more universal ships then US, "clean CV" design

    No, you are wrong... the main point of a Russian carrier will be the AWACS platforms and for those these dinky little half carriers simply wont cut it.

    For a decent AWACs platform you need cats and so if you have cats you might as well have a bigger carrier than a smaller one and put more planes on it.

    They wont be needing 13 of them.

    4) yes 3-4 30-50k tons is much better then 2 x 80-100ktons. With 2 CVNs you actually have only 1 CVN operational.

    2 x 50KT carriers with VSTOL fighters will cost more to operate than one 80KT carrier with conventional designs on it.

    5) taking account Syrian experience looks like 24-30 ariwing for expeditionary wrs is enough

    Syria was a small conflict where the carrier had a very limited role.

    In a more realistic scenario the entire mission will be planned and implemented from the carrier.... it needs to be bigger and more capable.

    Where did I say 18ktons and 80s sea harrier is perfect size n tech?

    If you are saving money then smaller is more savings...

    Of course no carrier is cheapest of them all... but more costly when your navy doesn't need cruisers or destroyers either and you end up a green water navy.

    You say, Northern Fleet will be in Cuba and Indian Ocean but in North no battle ships remain. Is what you re saying?

    With Kinzhal and Zircon why does their need to be a big battleship in the north for?

    To fend off the British navy?

    Flexibly in what? what endurance? can you in explain on example ? Venezuelan one is unclear completely.

    The Kuznetsov went to Syria with nothing like a full load of aircraft or anything really. The extra free space could allow longer operational times... operating at lighter weights means the ship uses less fuel to move around, they could have the aircraft ordinance storage areas full and the aircraft fuel stores full... but with a small fraction of the normal aircraft inventory instead of lasting two weeks at a high operational tempo it might last them a month.

    A 80KT carrier could be sent to Venezuela and could be refuelled when it got there... if it had 24 aircraft then it could probably at most offload 12 to a land base for training or deep land based operations while the ship went for a sail somewhere to show the flag.

    If it had 60-70 aircraft on board it could land a much larger group of aircraft... including AWACS platforms that would be rather more effective and useful as a detached unit.

    A land based force of 6-12 VSTOL fighters might not strike fear into the neighbouring countries... 20-30 real fighters with AWACS support is something no one could ignore.

    Being a bigger carrier it could offload more ordinance too...

    Costs are also important right ? 1 fly hr on F-35 is like $50,000, pilot needs ~200 hrs/yr. SO one F-35 is like $10m for maintenance only. 50 more is $500m more.

    Yeah, they should have MiG-29KRs they are less than $4,000 per hour to operate... win another for the MiG...

    This should be the idea from the beginning right? I mean, Krilov assess the possibilities and broad design lines and for instance Nevskoye implements the technical design. Or am I wrong?

    Would greatly prefer it if there were Russian Navy people in that loop between the scientists and ship designers... some ship designer who just got out of art college could do a lot of damage after a magic mushroom session with a "scientist".


    Sponsored content


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 25 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Apr 24, 2024 11:11 pm