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....
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".
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
GunshipDemocracy
Ideally if this would a ship with mission dependent modules 