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.

    flamming_python
    flamming_python


    Posts : 8988
    Points : 9050
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  flamming_python Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:01 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    what could be wrong if it's not used?  dunno  dunno  dunno


    The Indians are using them fine. The issues with spare parts have been resolved

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201812041070349589-indian-navy-resolves-service-issue-mig29/

    All Issues Pertaining to Serviceability of MiG-29K Sorted Out - Indian Navy

    12:53 04.12.2018(updated 12:57 04.12.2018) Get short URL


    MiG-29K, being the choice of aircraft for both the aircraft carriers, viz. INS Vikramaditya and an under-construction domestically-produced aircraft carrier, as well as two naval air stations on the East and West coast, is the mainstay of the Indian Navy’s air defence fleet.
    Indian Navy Chief Admiral Sunil Lanba on Monday announced that the issues related to maintenance and availability of spare parts for the MiG-29K fleet have been sorted out. Admiral Lanba also stated that the defence ministry is working on how to resolve payment issues due to the US sanctions.
    The announcement holds significance as these issues were believed to have been posing major impediments to improving the serviceability of the aircraft.

    "There is no issue on supplies of spare parts from Russia at the moment… The MiG-29K fleet has been performing well now," Admiral Sunil Lanba said on Monday while addressing the press on the eve of Navy Day.

    According to a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, in 2016, serviceability of the MiG-29K was unsatisfactory (37.63%) until 2015. However, recent efforts made by the two countries have improved serviceability to around 70%. Serviceability implies that the aircraft is technically available and is not undergoing a scheduled repair or overhaul at any level.
    In the initial years of service, the MiG-29K was riddled with problems relating to the airframe, RD MK-33 engine, and fly-by-wire systems. Fly-by-wire (FBW) is a system that replaces the conventional manual flight controls of an aircraft with an electronic interface and allows automatic signals sent by the aircraft computers to perform functions without the pilot's input, as in systems that automatically stabilise the aircraft.

    The Indian government concluded a contract in January 2004 with the Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG for the acquisition of 16 MiG-29K/KUB aircraft and associated equipment at a cost of $740.35 million, which included 13 aircraft for Admiral Gorshkov (i.e., INS Vikramaditya). Thereafter in 2010, an option clause contract for the acquisition of an additional 29 MiG 29K/KUB aircraft was concluded at a cost of $1.46 billion. The Indian Navy had placed a total order for 113 engines along with 45 aircraft (90 installed on aircraft and 23 spare engines) under the main and option clause contract.

    Even the US seems to have been impressed

    https://sputniknews.com/asia/201709191057518756-russia-india-boeing-deal/

    ...
    A brand new naval variant equipped with new weapons and sensors, MiG-29K was part of the recent Malabar exercise involving the navies of India, the US and Japan. The US Navy said it was impressed  by the power displayed MiG 29 during the exercise.
    ...

    So where's the problem? dunno dunno dunno
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5818
    Points : 5774
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:58 pm

    GarryB wrote:Sorry... what?
    AWACS are vulnerable because the US or UK could use SLBMs wiht nuke warheads to disable them using a high altitude nuclear explosion to generate an EMP effect to disable it for a few hours... are you listening to yourself?..
    EMP the whole CBG, & it'll fry their electronics for a lot longer, if not forever!
    A heavy UAV could carry ice penetrating radar or other sensors that could determine the actual thickness of large areas of ice in real time in front of that ship and the ships it is escorting. ..
    Their helos do it now. Unmanned helos can be based on them.
    So weather a helo or fixed wing aircraft can't operate in and these non existent tiltrotor super planes can operate fine...
    They can take off to above the weather in 0 visibility & land up to 500+ miles away in 1/2 the time in 0 visibility, guided from the ground &/ by their radar/IR sensors.
    Yeah, of course... airdrops can only be performed over active volcanoes and vertical cliff faces... the An-2 has been doing the job up until today ..
    Items they drop may be destroyed by trees, rocks, or buried in the snow. Folks that will search for them may be attacked by wolve/rines, bears, boars, moose, lynxes, tigers, & leopards.
    Ur analogies & silly jokes r getting old- pl. knock it off, & thx in advance!
    Of course, because the civilian operators in the far east and siberia always use BMD4 IFVS to get around and they normally rely on the VDV castoffs for their main means of getting around
    To save lives in medical emergencies or aid in SAR & firefighting, they r slow & not enough!
    For most civilian operators a tiltrotor will be too much of a pain in the ass...
    not much more compared to helos!
    For a Tiltrotor aircraft the pilot would not get away with a conventional fixed wing pilots licence,..
    In the US, every helo pilot learns to fly fixed wing first & is licensed for both. I don't think it's any different in Russia or anywhere else. It's easier to fly a plane than a helo. So, most tilt-rotor pilots will be former helo pilots, until they become so common that new pilots will be trained to fly them by possibly bskipping helos.
    Landing on a peat bog is difficult, but not as difficult as living in a peat bog, so I suspect it wont be a problem because they wont live there...
    Bogs & cliffs can be around for miles in a remote village full of big trees. Ur NZ is a paradise compared to Siberia, where the ancestors of Mongolians & Native Americans came from- those tough peoples almost conquered W. Europe, N. Africa, Japan & did settle the Americas.
    What? They move around on Skidoos and diesel powered vehicles like the MTLB, or Mi-8 helicopters, or An-2s... which are all highly mobile and all relatively cheap and meet their needs... . what is it about the Russian far east and siberia that you think they need to get to places so urgently?..
    SAR, firefighting, disaster relief & medevac/supply missions, to name a few.
    The An-2 and Mi-8 can fly 1,000km or more... what is this multiple refuelling stops shit?..
    For any repairs they should not be flying anywhere...
    FYI, their range is less than that, & the radius 1/2 of it:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-8#Specifications_(Mi-8T)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2#Specifications_(An-2)

    Fuel may not be there for a return trip. Certain kinds of repairs allow for flights to repair depots. I studied General Aviation Maintenance & know the FARs (US Federal Aviation Rules) do allow it. It's common sense & Russia won't forbid it.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_aviation
    http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/special-flight-permit.html

    [i]Russia is the largest country in the world, yet fully 95(!) pairs of cities have no scheduled air links between them
    .
    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/demand-for-business-aviation-is-growing-in-russia-223610/
    Be-200 does it better than any non existent aircraft never built.
    Fires may occur far away from bodies of water & teams must be inserted to localize/fight them & extracted afterwards.
    New decent airfields are appearing all over the place in the north and far east... so are rail lines...
    It will take a long time & $ to cover that huge area with new/upgraded airfields.
    These Tiltrotor aircraft are going to be obsolete before they even get some.
    The tilt-rotors have their advantages & a niche; they can be modernized & upgraded just like those Mi-8/17/38 & any other well designed aircraft. The An-2 should be also obsolete according to u!
    Of course, I would judge the quality of Russian military airfields recently built in the far north and the far east based purely on a dirt runway in Mongolia...
    those in Russia may be even worse. Some may get a few aircraft once in a week/month/half a year. Every settlement there, most of them remote,  doesn't & won't have recently built & well maintained airfield!
    Brilliant... they are there in case there is an accident to try to help save your life potentially and you look down your nose at them and suggest it is proof it is unsafe...
    Don't make these assumptions! I appreciate those men on alert & only showed that dirt strips may be dangerous to land on even in good weather & in the best of conditions.
    None of the Russian variants exist...
    Their time will come, & sooner than u expect!
    I really don't think the Russians are stupid enough to order An-70s no matter what the price, and it sure as hell will never enter the Russian military.
    They may have a coup/all out civil war leading to Russian intervention &/ regime change; after that, they'll have to cooperate to survive.
    The military have their own ice breakers and there is plenty of room for two convoys to pass each other going in opposite directions...
    Those ships r small & can't break very thick ice.
    ..we can build four carriers because we should boost our economy with the extra trade they guarantee to pay for them over time. ..
    History proves otherwise. China built & expanded her walls & fleets only after her economy got bigger; Trump resorted to arm twisting to get his border wall financed w/o success & the USN & Congeries is mulling to retire a CVN 25 years earlier. U must improve lives on land before being able to build those white elephants to move on water!
    They could do that with the Kuznetsov, it could wave the flag in the pacific and piss off australia and new zealand and the us of course...
    And be like those NATO ships coming in & out of the Black/Baltic Sea that don't scare Russia at all. Adm. K is more useful North of the line than conducting gunboat diplomacy, playing into the hands of Western Russophobs & acting as a training aid to foreign navies & AFs.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:02 am; edited 1 time in total
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38519
    Points : 39019
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:45 am

    EMP the whole CBG, moron!

    OK... so you want to start WWIII by EMPing a Russian carrier group... you want the US or UK or France to commit collective suicide, for the purpose of taking out... possibly only temporarily, a Russian carrier group... and you call me a moron?

    BTW S-500 would easily be able to shoot down an SLBM, so you had better launch a few of them.

    Their helos do it now. Unmanned helos can be based on them.

    But you claim tiltrotors are more efficient than helos... manned or unmanned, so surely a medium to large fixed wing UAV will be much better by a wide margin.

    They can take off to above the weather in 0 visibility & land up to 500+ miles away in 1/2 the time in 0 visibility, guided from the ground &/ by their radar/IR sensors.


    If they have radar/IR sensors why do they need to operate above the weather, and what is the rush to take the supplies 500 miles away?

    And why would tiltrotors have radar and IR sensors and helos and normal fixed wing aircraft not?

    The tiltrotor aircraft you mentioned cost $72 million dollars... adding radar and IR sensors on top of that and no one will buy it no matter how fast or long ranged it is. A $2 million dollar composite An-2 upgrade makes rather more sense... and guess what... most of the time... they simply don't fly in bad weather. Waiting a day extra for food or parts or supplies is no big deal.

    Items they drop may be destroyed by trees, rocks, or buried in the snow.

    Accidents happen, but then a sudden wind gust blows a tiltrotor into the side of a mountain and it bursts into flames... or some cans on the bottom of the pallet that was parachuted down got crushed... or dented...

    If the community can't clear an area for an aircraft to land then it must be a very small community so the amount of material and the regularity of deliveries wont be that big.

    Folks that will search for them may be attacked by wolves, bears, boars, moose, lynxes, tigers, & leopards.

    And places where these dangerous animals live... most of the locals carry guns and know how to use them... an extra bit of meat for the fridge and some skin to tan and sell to the tourists...

    To save lives in medical emergencies or aid in SAR, they r slow & not enough!

    People out in the middle of nowhere die from medical emergencies all the time... people in the middle of cities are found dead all the time because there was no help available in time.... sending thousands of tiltrotors to the Russian far east and arctic is not going to make much difference at all.

    not much more compared to helos!

    Cheaper and already in use... two factors for helos and against tiltrotors.

    It's easier to fly a plane than a helo.

    Simpler. It takes longer to get a helo pilots licence. It wont be easier to get a tiltrotor aircraft pilot licence.... they wont even have such a licence at the moment anyway.

    So, most tiltrotor pilots will be former helo pilots, until they become so popular that new pilots will be trained to fly them from the start. In the US, every helo pilot learns to fly fixed wing first & licensed for both. I don't think it's any different in Russia or anywhere else.


    But nothing is going to happen while there are not tiltrotor aircraft to fly.

    Bogs & cliffs can be around for miles in a remote village full of big trees. Ur NZ is a paradise compared to Siberia where the ancestors of Mongolians & Native Americans came from!

    Aw, come on.... if they have a village there they can clear a few trees to make room for an airstrip... that was probably where they got the wood to build the village in the first place... They could use medium sized UAVs to fly low and drop supplies via parachute every week or two, but most such villages will be largely self sufficient anyway.

    SAR & medevac missions.

    They already have An-2s and Mi-8s... what difference would these imaginary tiltrotors make?

    Larger settlements will have doctors... you wont be taking them more than 1,000km or so in any direction...

    Fires occur far away from bodies of water & teams must be inserted to localize/fight them.

    Why?

    Just evacuate any nearby people and let it burn... it will burn out eventually. Fire is natures way of telling you it is time to start again.

    It will take a long time to cover that huge area.

    Do you actually think there are people every 3-4km all over Siberia that might have a heart attack at any moment and need to be flown directly to a large hospital in Moscow?

    People tend to live near resources, like rail lines, within flight range of air fields, in small towns or cities that have mines or factories or oil fields or gas fields... places that need a decent supply of resources so they generally have reasonable air fields or are near ports or rivers or where a rail line passes by.

    A town built in the middle of a forest on the edge of a cliff surrounded by peat bog is not the normal town... who built it there and why?

    If there is gold in the ground then they need to get the people in there and the gold out... that alone will pay for a very nice runway or rail line to the nearest port or major air port.

    if it is a nature choice and they are all nudists then what the fuck do they need a tiltrotor for... who is going to pay for it... stuff isn't sent for free you know... what are they producing that will pay the fuel to fly in there and back?

    Fur and meat is more use domestically for clothes and to survive... there is no way anyone will risk a 2 million dollar aircraft and pay thousands of dollars in fuel to go and get some reindeer meat and some skins worth a few dollars.

    People don't leave these villages so they can go to Moscow or St Petersberg to do a bit of shopping.... they tend to be natives and tend to not have a lot of roubles to waste on that sort of thing.

    The tilt-rotors habe their advantages & a niche; they can be modernized & upgraded just like those Mi-8/17/38 & any other aircraft.

    They might have some advantages... a top model race car might be faster than an MTLB but are you suggesting they use Italian sports cars in the Russian far east and arctic because they are faster and might save lives in an emergency... and cost 1,000 times more than the rugged and reliable stuff they are using now?

    I am telling you for the minor advantages a tilt rotor aircraft might offer in some situations, most of the people will not trust them... and rightly so, because they don't have any experience and are not proven reliable yet. Getting where they were going faster would be nice, but getting there at all is the most important thing... paying more per ticket to pay for the new very expensive new toy is something else...

    It is not a market where concord would prosper either...

    Every settlement there doesn't & won't have recently built airfield!

    Settlements that require external resources and something that needs to be taken out of there will probably have quite decent airfields... most others will have open fields where all the big rocks have been removed so An-2s or Helos can land.

    Don't make these assumptions! I only showed that dirt strips may be dangerous to land on even in good weather & in the best of conditions.

    They live in a part of the country where temperatures get below minus 60 degrees C for long periods I don't think they are the sort that would prefer to walk rather than fly.

    Their time will come, & sooner than u expect.

    So you say. Still waiting for flying cars too...

    They may have a coup/all out civil war leading to Russian intervention & regime change; after that, they'll have to cooperate to survive.

    They had the coup and the civil war is going on now... or are the shells and bombs filled with fluffy bunnies?

    Those ships r small & can't break very thick ice.

    But they still call them ice breakers?

    There was a video on Youtube about Russian ice breakers and they were shown escorting ships through the route but on one place they stopped because a Russian military force was coming through and they got priority... I don't see why that would change in the future...

    Most civilian authorities do as they are told by their own military.

    Trump resorted to arm twisting to get his border wall financed w/o success

    What does trump have to do with anything... the democrats would block his attempts to invite the second coming of Jesus Christ to the US, just to spite Trump...

    the USN is going to retire a CVN 20 years earlier.

    But they are not getting rid of their other dozen CVNs are they?

    U must improve lives on land before being able to build those white elephants to move on water!

    There is no point buying a new lounge suite for your house before you put locks on your doors and windows.

    What you call white elephants will ensure Russias independent international trade future... without them they will be dictated to by the west... do you think the west will be nice?

    And be like those NATO ships coming in & out of the Black/Baltic Sea that don't scare Russia at all.

    You can't compare NATO ships getting nice and close to Russia and making themselves easy targets for shore based anti ship missiles, with Russian political and economic relations with the countries of the pacific that the Aussies and us Kiwis and Americans think of as our backyard, and our neighbours, who are largely dependent economically and politically to us.

    We wont tolerate that... it is not acceptable for countries we give peanuts to and keep telling to do better in terms of good governance and people relations and voting the same way we vote at the UN to have their own views or opinions on things, let alone tell us what to do or think...

    And lets be honest... it is mostly the western world that created climate change, and it is clearly Chinese experience at island building that will be the most value to them... what they will continue to get from us is plastic bottles and plastic bags washing up on their beautiful beaches for the next 500 years...

    Adm. K is more useful north of the line than conducting gunboat diplomacy & acting as a training aid to foreign navies & AFs.

    Why?
    They have a few old sailing ships they use for training that they sail around the world... great experience for the young men on board.... I believe the name of one is Nakidka or something. The K could sail all round the place.... it is not nuclear powered and they could easily not load any nuclear warheads on board and sail around as a nuclear weapon free vessel for goodwill visits around the place...


    Last edited by GarryB on Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:37 am; edited 1 time in total
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5818
    Points : 5774
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:44 am

    I just edited my prev. post.
    OK... so you want to start WWIII by EMPing a Russian carrier group...
    SK lost a ship & still didn't restart a war with NK; so why should Russia nuke any1 after her CBG is disabled?
    If they have radar/IR sensors why do they need to operate above the weather, and what is the rush to take the supplies 500 miles away? And why would tiltrotors have radar and IR sensors and helos and normal fixed wing aircraft not?
    helos r more vulnerable to bad weather, FYI. All those sensors want help if they crash on take off/landings or in flight.
    most of the time... they simply don't fly in bad weather. Waiting a day extra for food or parts or supplies is no big deal.
    not when it lasts for weeks, as happens there fairly often!
    ..most of the locals carry guns and know how to use them..
    U may get surrounded by 15-20 hungry wolves or ambushed by a tiger/leopard from behind or jumped by a lynx on a tree severing ur spinal cord- even if u carry an AKM or SKS, it won't help u.
    It takes longer to get a helo pilots licence. It wont be easier to get a tiltrotor aircraft pilot licence....
    True, but not harder than a helo license.
    ..they can clear a few trees to make room for an airstrip..
    a lot more than a few trees'll need to be cleared for that.
    Just evacuate any nearby people and let it burn... it will burn out eventually.
    too much value is going to be lost in those fires, & they got bigger over the years.
    To make a long story short, civ. tilt-rotors r not useless in Russia & in most cases they'll outperform helos & small planes; their higher cost is well worth it. Russia is the largest country in the world, yet fully 95(!) pairs of cities have no scheduled air links between them.
    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/demand-for-business-aviation-is-growing-in-russia-223610/
    ..without them they will be dictated to by the west...
    They r not being successfully dictated to even now, with the Adm. K in refit!
    The K could sail all round the place...
    They won't be wasting & spending $ on it. It can do training in the Atlantic/Med/Black Sea in all kinds of weather, good & bed, while being relatively close to bases & hot spots. Even China with a lot more $ didn't sent her CV-16 outside of the China Seas & W. Pacific.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11234
    Points : 11204
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Isos Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:00 am

    EMP the whole CBG, & it'll fry their electronics for a lot longer, if not forever!

    Modern ships are probably protected against EMP. It could work on missiles out of the VLS already launched but internally they should be protected. EMP is a well known thing since the start of nuclear tests back in the 50s.
    George1
    George1


    Posts : 18227
    Points : 18728
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  George1 Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:27 am

    This thread also became a BS one like russian aircraft carriers
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5893
    Points : 5913
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sun Mar 17, 2019 1:59 pm

    Off Topic  Off Topic  Off Topic
    hmmm perhaps better is to move most of this thread to sub-thread like

    how I see doctrine of Russian expeditionary ship groupings  " application"


    VSTOL news alone or about VSTOL solutions is here little.  Any admin on board?  George, GB? Vladimir?

    Off Topic  Off Topic  Off Topic




    George1 wrote:This thread also became a BS one like russian aircraft carriers


    well,depends what re your expectations. News about what was delivered? then you need to  wait 7 years.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5893
    Points : 5913
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sun Mar 17, 2019 2:43 pm

    flamming_python wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    what could be wrong if it's not used?  dunno  dunno  dunno


    The Indians are using them fine. The issues with spare parts have been resolved

    So where's the problem? dunno dunno dunno

    no problem,no production anymore either Razz Razz Razz
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5893
    Points : 5913
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:08 pm

    LMFS wrote:[

    Come on, enjoy this wonderful pic of a frosty and very much operational 29K
    cool one in six is flying like in India? this makes 4 deck fighter flying for m land base  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup


    LMFS wrote:
    hmm do you say abut long range fighters with long range weapons what makes...4-5000km radius (10,000km diameter) theater ?
    Yes, I already conceded that "theater" is getting bigger and bigger to a point one must ask himself if the notion will stop making sense at all. I am curious to see how doctrine will adapt. Of course the global strike is an option, I just think it is not the best one because the dangers involved are massive.

    I must admit I dont see any global reach weapon more risky then "half globe"  fighter bombing. I see it as more modern usage of power projection and cost effective too.
    Would you suggest that destruction of CSG with use of Zircons/Kinzhals + deck fighters is less dangerous?

    Or that fighter is more scary than Avangard in silo warming up engine making USN to change their minds ?


    LMFS wrote:
    so you want to counter 1000 fighters of USN alone? 11 CSGs ? 60 destroyers? 50 SSNs? how?
    I hope they will not be together in the same theatre at the same time to start with. How you MAY get deterrence I already explained so many times I am boring myself...

    IMHO you do wrong assumptions. I cannot assume USN wont change its doctrine because  they will. For every Russian 70kt CVN they can field 2-3 100kt CVNs, for 10 Russian SSGNs they field 50-60 won. Not to mention light carriers with 20-30 fighters/drones each ( LHA America  based). They will shadow Russian movements.

    You never   ever got  any  superiority. Including  local one.. In short:  if 20-30 fighters  wont help to deter , 60 wont do either.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5092
    Points : 5088
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  LMFS Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:58 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:cool one in six is flying like in India? this makes 4 deck fighter flying for m land base  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup
    After trying to decipher this a couple of times I give up. What do you mean?

    I must admit I dont see any global reach weapon more risky then "half globe"  fighter bombing. I see it as more modern usage of power projection and cost effective too.
    Would you suggest that destruction of CSG with use of Zircons/Kinzhals + deck fighters is less dangerous?

    Or that fighter is more scary than Avangard in silo warming up engine making USN to change their minds ?

    Half globe fighter bombing is stretching it a bit but I understand what you mean. I don't have the answers either, will be interesting to see how this develops.

    IMHO you do wrong assumptions. I cannot assume USN wont change its doctrine because  they will.
    They stick to their carriers, is this a doctrinal change? What I say, and it is in the open for anyone to see, is that they are increasing their attack ranges in response to the improved ASM deployed everywhere. And the best way of countering that is submarines and naval aviation. Both are being pursued, don't fight with me, fight your beloved Borisov.

    For every Russian 70kt CVN they can field 2-3 100kt CVNs, for 10 Russian SSGNs they field 50-60 won. Not to mention light carriers with 20-30 fighters/drones each ( LHA America  based). They will shadow Russian movements.

    You never   ever got  any  superiority. Including  local one.. In short:  if 20-30 fighters  wont help to deter , 60 wont do either.
    Right, then give a nuke to every Russian soldier so they can blow themselves and take a country with them if they are attacked. Principle of proportionality means anything to you? You cannot start WWIII over some dispute about influence in a remote country! Maybe rabid neocons are ready for that, Russian leadership (thanks to God) is NOT.

    Superiority issue:
    You don't need superiority, you need DETERRENCE. That means, the enemy cannot just attack you with low expectations of been hit in return. What ranges are mandatory for this capability, now and in the future?

    > Currently: no carrier, longest ranged SAMs carried by RuN ships is what, 150 km? And ASMs ca. 600 km. Stationing their ships further than that, USN can simply attack and not bother defending.
    > With Zircon: range increased to >1000 km. Still very much in range for US naval aviation
    > With S-400-derived SAMs: RuN ships still in range for modern air launched USN ASMs, without USN fighters in range of SAMs.
    > With S-500 derived missiles: 600 km range, USN fighters can still launch from the fringes of RuN SAM range with little risk of being hit. Low altitude approach would not even be detected by Russian ships.

    With a carrier and a AEW/AWACS + Su-57K carrying long-ranged ASMs USN would not have that option. They would remain in range of an attack even when using improved missiles and IFR at all but extreme and scarcely effective ranges, specially because their current fighter crop is rather short-ranged. And their own fighters would be threatened far from the RuN fleet by opposing fighters. That forces the aggressor to think twice, since there is no option to attack with impunity. IMO RuN should make use of the relative weakness of current USN fighters to get deterrence in theatre at a relatively low cost. It is implied that US will try to deploy newer fighters and other means to counter that, but by then Russia would have enjoyed the benefits of a fleet that can defend itself. I really don't see why stating this is such a sin, RuN are going to develop naval aviation, then do it right and maximize its utility.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5818
    Points : 5774
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Mar 17, 2019 6:19 pm

    That will leave the US with options of using SSNs, land based F/A-18E/Fs (P-3/8s & F-15s could be modified to carry them too), & B-1Bs to launch Harpoons & LRASMs, at least until the S-500 is put on ships:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM
    https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/long-range-anti-ship-missile.html
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5092
    Points : 5088
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  LMFS Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:49 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:That will leave the US with options of using SSNs, land based F/A-18E/Fs (P-3/8s & F-15s could be modified to carry them too), & B-1Bs to launch Harpoons & LRASMs, at least until the S-500 is put on ships:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM
    https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/long-range-anti-ship-missile.html
    Does this address my post above?
    If yes, the trick is that you can move your vessels but not your land bases, so RuN should be placed where it is not in range of those bases. If that is not possible, then you need to be capable of attacking them reliably, Kalibr and Kalibr-M should allow for this almost in any situation, even when subsonic CMs is not the mot effective way against a well equipped rival. Excess range on those missiles should allow to avoid most dense AD nodes on their path.

    Any of the carriers you mean can be addressed with naval aviation but not even with S-500 missiles, since the ASMs will have ca. 500 km range and that is already as far as the radar in the ships will reach + close to the limits of the longest-ranged Russian SAMs. Engagement window again supersonic aircraft is probably quite smaller. Summary is that without shipborne aviation you are an easy target.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5818
    Points : 5774
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:12 pm

    In the Caribbean, the US has the advantage against CBGs, just like China in the SC Sea & Russia in the Black, Arctic, & Okhotsk Seas.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5893
    Points : 5913
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:18 am

    And what if Su-33 is modernized to carry ... Kinzhal from Kuz? this make Kuz real kick-ass  right after refurbishing  russia  russia  russia



    LMFS wrote:
    I must admit I dont see any global reach weapon more risky then "half globe"  fighter bombing. I see it as more modern usage of power projection and cost effective too.
    Would you suggest that destruction of CSG with use of Zircons/Kinzhals + deck fighters is less dangerous?

    Or that fighter is more scary than Avangard in silo warming up engine making USN to change their minds ?

    Half globe fighter bombing is stretching it a bit but I understand what you mean. I don't have the answers either, will be interesting to see how this develops.


    Nobody does Im afraid.  dunno  dunno  dunno



    BTW look how much ranges changed warfare pls check "static CVNs" scenario:
    let's Fighter has 2,000km radius + 1,500km stand-off missile which makes ~ 3,5000km danger zone . For comparison:

    Murmansk - Reykjavik  - 2,400km

    Vladivostok Hong-Kong - 2,830km

    Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky - Fairbanks  3,400km

    Halifax- Reykjavik - 3,400km

    Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky - Seattle  5,400km




    LMFS wrote:
    For every Russian 70kt CVN they can field 2-3 100kt CVNs, for 10 Russian SSGNs they field 50-60 won. Not to mention light carriers with 20-30 fighters/drones each ( LHA America  based). They will shadow Russian movements.

    You never   ever got  any  superiority. Including  local one.. In short:  if 20-30 fighters  wont help to deter , 60 wont do either.
    Right, then give a nuke to every Russian soldier so they can blow themselves and take a country with them if they are attacked. Principle of proportionality means anything to you? You cannot start WWIII over some dispute about influence in a remote country! Maybe rabid neocons are ready for that, Russian leadership (thanks to God) is NOT.

    Superiority issue:
    You don't need superiority, you need DETERRENCE. That means, the enemy cannot just attack you with low expectations of been hit in return. What ranges are mandatory for this capability, now and in the future?

    True,  10 fighters in Syria was enough deterrence to stop  2-3 US CSGs + 1 French one + land aviation






    LMFS wrote:With a carrier and a AEW/AWACS + Su-57K carrying long-ranged ASMs USN would not have that option. They would remain in range of an attack even when using improved missiles and IFR at all but extreme and scarcely effective ranges, specially because their current fighter crop is rather short-ranged. And their own fighters would be threatened far from the RuN fleet by opposing fighters. That forces the aggressor to think twice, since there is no option to attack with impunity. IMO RuN should make use of the relative weakness of current USN fighters to get deterrence in theatre at a relatively low cost. It is implied that US will try to deploy newer fighters and other means to counter that, but by then Russia would have enjoyed the benefits of a fleet that can defend itself. I really don't see why stating this is such a sin, RuN are going to develop naval aviation, then do it right and maximize its utility.


    First of all, I have never said Im against deck aviation. M point is that  building large CVNs  makes little sense for RuN. If 20-30 wont deter  USN 60 wont do either.


    BTW Im not sure what relative USN weakness would you mean? I might be wrong but I dont see one. let's look at timeline.

    2020s Kuz  29k/Su-33 -> USN F-35/SH F-18 .
    R27 dont have real advantage with US missiles right?



    b]2030s[/b]  new drones/new CVN in Russia. AWACS platform,new fighter/drones -> USN - F-35/F/A-XX/drones
    New fighter.  Unlikely Su-57 unless to add landing hook they need 10 years,

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5818
    Points : 5774
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:10 am

    ..let's Fighter has 2,000km radius..

    There's no such fighter, not even the Su-34 & MiG-31, much less the Su-33:
    Combat radius: 1,100 km (standard 8,000 kg weapons load)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34#Specifications_(Su-34)

    Combat radius: 1,450 km
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31#Specifications_(MiG-31)

    Combat radius: 1,100 km (standard 8,000 kg weapons load)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-33#Specifications

    The Tu-28, biggest interceptor ever, had the range of 2,565 km when armed, but it's radius was 1/2 of that:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-28#Specifications_(Tu-128)

    The Su-57 Range: 3,500 km subsonic
    1,500 km supersonic, 3,600 km (max), 4,500 km from 2 outboard fuel tanks

    The radius is 1/2 of that; it won't have drop tanks + Kinzhal due to weight restrictions.
    Pl. check the data before posting ur wild assumptions.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5092
    Points : 5088
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  LMFS Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:56 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:In the Caribbean, the US has the advantage against CBGs, just like China in the SC Sea & Russia in the Black, Arctic, & Okhotsk Seas.  
    Only Russia, unlike US in South China Sea or close to Russian waters, would not be there to attack the continental territory of its rival...

    GD wrote:And what if Su-33 is modernized to carry ... Kinzhal from Kuz? this make Kuz real kick-ass  right after refurbishing
    I say f*cking yes, it would be notably more valuable after that.

    let's Fighter has 2,000km radius + 1,500km stand-off missile which makes ~ 3,5000km  danger zone  .
    That radius would imply IFR but USN is already aiming for ranges of that order. Only their current missiles are not that capable, best I am seeing close to deployment is ca. 500 km. Su-57K + GZUR/Kinzhal/air-launched Zircon would be close to that even without IFR... that gives Russia a much needed extra time to develop their navy, while USN catches up in the fighter department Razz


    True,  10 fighters in Syria was enough deterrence to stop  2-3 US CSGs + 1 French one + land aviation
    You don't seem to see that US can be less "magnanimous" as soon as they get their backs against the wall. And, by the way, do I need to remind you the number of direct aggressions at the hands of US proxies Russia has suffered in Syria? How many US planes have been shot down by Russia or allies in theater? How many generals killed? How many times US airbases have been attacked? Until now Russia has been swallowing frog after frog in order not to derail their main mission in Syria, and only the deployment of top tier fighters and AD systems has stopped the provocations by state actors, while non-state allies have kept their games. Did Russia nuke Turkey and US after the Su-24 was downed? What will happen closer to the US and without 24/7 surveillance by sophisticated, land based Russian assets?

    First of all, I have never said Im against deck aviation. My point is that  building large CVNs  makes little sense for RuN. If 20-30 wont deter  USN 60 wont do either.
    We don't disagree here then. The value of the carriers Garry and I share is that they enable AWACS, tankers etc. The value of a very big carrier to have many fighters is better used when attacking a country, when a high sortie generation capability with strike-configured planes is very important. What I propose is a qualitative superiority with high-performance fighters / long range missiles and sophisticated air control. 2-3 squadrons would keep a US CVN at bay, no problem. And against two or even more they would still be very dangerous, given the respective capabilities involved. This effective parity despite abysmal resources difference is low hanging fruit for RuN to pick during next decade Razz

    2020s Kuz  29k/Su-33 -> USN F-35/SH F-18 .
    R27 dont have real advantage with US missiles right?
    29K and modernized 33 are expected to use R-77 or K-77M at least aren't they? Is it unthinkable to make them compatible with R-37M or Izd. 180 when it is available? What about Kinzhal/GZUR/Onyx-Brahmos?
    OTH, Su-57K can be realized within the decade, no problem. If they were on a hurry, 2025 would be doable IMHO, that is quite short term in terms of military weapons systems of such transformational value.

    b]2030s[/b]  new drones/new CVN in Russia. AWACS platform,new fighter/drones -> USN - F-35/F/A-XX/drones
    New fighter.  Unlikely Su-57 unless to add landing hook they need 10 years,
    F/A-XX starting in 2030 like you make it sound is NOT going to happen, forget it. They don't have the money even for the carriers they have and buying the F-35. And the scope of work to be done for a 6G fighter is simply too much. If it is available before 2040 they would be already faster than usually. By then Su-57K could have been like 15 years in operation.
    Unlikely Su-57? Who knows, we don't have the information to make a 100% flawless interpretation of what has been said until now.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38519
    Points : 39019
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:28 am

    I just edited my prev. post.

    Glad you are going to keep it civil.

    SK lost a ship & still didn't restart a war with NK; so why should Russia nuke any1 after her CBG is disabled?


    The US has said it will retaliate to the use of hypersonic weapons with nuclear weapons... why would the Russians not respond to nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons?

    helos r more vulnerable to bad weather, FYI.

    But a helo can autorotate... a tiltrotor just crashes...

    In bad weather Helos simply don't fly... and I can guarantee a tiltrotor would not fly either because it would not be covered by insurance and no pilot is going to risk his aircraft.

    All those sensors want help if they crash on take off/landings or in flight.

    Radar and IIR sensors reduce the chance of flying in to things... which is often a cause of crashes in takeoffs and landings... so they would reduce the chance of accidents, but nothing would eliminate... and that would be the same for tiltrotors too.

    not when it lasts for weeks, as happens there fairly often!

    So what... it is not like their only supply of food air and water is from the outside like a submarine... they could probably go for months without post...

    U may get surrounded by 15-20 hungry wolves or ambushed by a tiger/leopard from behind or jumped by a lynx on a tree severing ur spinal cord- even if u carry an AKM or SKS, it won't help u.

    You watch too many hollywood movies... wolves can get hungry, but most are just as afraid of humans as we should be of them... light a fire and they will run away... or snuggle up to the fire and become your friend.

    You are more likely to die from the cold than an animal attack, but I really don't see how a tiltrotor aircraft will protect them from animal attacks either.

    True, but not harder than a helo license.

    Well right now there is no tilt rotor licence so it is impossible to get one.

    Over time they might develop some, but it will take time for civilian models to be developed and cleared for operations in Russia, so don't expect them to start operating any time soon.

    a lot more than a few trees'll need to be cleared for that.

    In lots of places in the arctic there are no trees and no plants more than 2-3cm tall.

    If it is a village they probably already cleared the area the village is located and probably a few hundred metres away cleared a 500m long strip for An-2s and Mi-8s to land with stuff.

    too much value is going to be lost in those fires, & they got bigger over the years.

    Too much value of what? There are billions of trees there... they wont all burn down, and they do grow back...

    It is like in California... you try to control the fire, and evacuate people when you can, but some times you just let it burn because you really don't have the resources to put the whole fire out... if some part is burning off in a direction where there are no houses... who cares if it burns.

    In siberia, if a forest fire is burning towards a village then back burn around the village to make fire brakes so it wont burn the village... or gas field, or mine... you don't fight forest fires to save trees, you fight forest fires to save people and animals and resources.

    To make a long story short, civ. tilt-rotors r not useless in Russia & in most cases they'll outperform helos & small planes; their higher cost is well worth it. Russia is the largest country in the world, yet fully 95(!) pairs of cities have no scheduled air links between them.

    So there is not much air travel there at the moment and you think expensive tiltrotors are going to fix that?

    It will be Il-112 and Il-114 and An-2 upgrades that fix that issue, as well as the new light jets like the MS-21 and superjet that is going to make air travel more appealing... and new high speed rail is also going to promote travel in the far east and arctic...

    They r not being successfully dictated to even now, with the Adm. K in refit!

    They are in the process of trying to crush a trade partner of Russia in the form of Venezuela... if the K was not in refit you can bet it would currently be down there doing exercises with the Venezuelan military and giving the US the middle finger... instead there is just verbal support for Maduro... just as well Trump doens't want to go into 2020 election year starting a civil war and sending troops down south... the sort of intervention he got elected promising to stop doing.

    Even China with a lot more $ didn't sent her CV-16 outside of the China Seas & W. Pacific.

    China doesn't want to use its carriers to increase its world trade... they are already pretty successful at that anyway, because the west hasn't seen them as a real threat yet... they just want carriers for Taiwan... and the faceoff with the USN and the Japanese Navy that would ensue...

    VSTOL news alone or about VSTOL solutions is here little.

    Tilt rotors count as VSTOL... in fact they are the only VSTOL aircraft because they often can take off conventionally because their rotor blades can only be aligned forward in a conventional direction while in the air...

    IMHO you do wrong assumptions. I cannot assume USN wont change its doctrine because they will. For every Russian 70kt CVN they can field 2-3 100kt CVNs, for 10 Russian SSGNs they field 50-60 won. Not to mention light carriers with 20-30 fighters/drones each ( LHA America based). They will shadow Russian movements.

    Good, because that will lead to them building lots of expensive stuff they really don't actually need... an economic collapse is the most likely end at the moment and might lead to the most healthy result... you know... one that does not end in a nuclear armageddon...

    You never ever got any superiority. Including local one.. In short: if 20-30 fighters wont help to deter , 60 wont do either.

    60 aircraft in addition to surface air defence forces should be plenty for anything short of WWIII, which is exactly what they want.

    Most of the time they wont have anything like 60 aircraft deployed which means extra space and extra capacity for other things... which would be more useful most of the time.

    A carrier that is small and designed for 24 fighters will normally carry slightly less than that but should be capable of operating at a high tempo x number of days before needing resupply.

    A bigger carrier with more fighters on board should be capable of operating at a high tempo x times 2 or 3 number of days before needing resupply, which just makes it better defended, better armed, and better equipped for what ever job might pop up.

    That will leave the US with options of using SSNs, land based F/A-18E/Fs (P-3/8s & F-15s could be modified to carry them too), & B-1Bs to launch Harpoons & LRASMs, at least until the S-500 is put on ships:

    So what you are saying is that Russian CVNs with Zircon and a carrier group including ships with S-500 eliminate US carrier groups from the obvious threat list so they have to rely on SSNs.... isn't that a good thing for the Russians? The Kuznetsov can carry 36 91RE1s and sink those subs itself...

    In the Caribbean, the US has the advantage against CBGs, just like China in the SC Sea & Russia in the Black, Arctic, & Okhotsk Seas.

    It is still launching largely subsonic anti ship missiles at the Russian carrier groups, while US carrier groups near Russia will have to deal with hypersonic threats... sounds not so good for the Americans and their super Navy that costs a fortune just to keep operational...

    And what if Su-33 is modernized to carry ... Kinzhal from Kuz? this make Kuz real kick-ass right after refurbishing

    Actually it was supposed to have the Onyx integrated, and the Zircon is the replacement for the Onyx... even if there was no actual range increase from an air launch, you can add about 1,500km range to the missile simply by flying 1,500km closer to the target in the Su-33 before launching it... so 2,500km range at mach 9 is pretty impressive...

    True, 10 fighters in Syria was enough deterrence to stop 2-3 US CSGs + 1 French one + land aviation

    Only because they didn't want to get into a shooting war with the Russians... if that had not been a problem the 10 fighters might have blunted a few attacks but they would need support and reserves very quickly...

    M point is that building large CVNs makes little sense for RuN. If 20-30 wont deter USN 60 wont do either.

    But 60 will be more useful for the jobs that RuN carrier groups will actually be doing instead of US Strong fantasies of Russia being stupid and becoming bankrupt by trying to match the US Navy carrier for carrier in the hope that they might win WWIII at sea... which would never happen anyway... US officials have already said they have no defence against hypersonic missiles so even now they can defeat the USN just with missiles near Russian territory, but the Americans also said if they are attacked with hypersonic missiles that they can't stop they will respond with nukes, which means WWIII, so having more carriers or less carriers wont make any difference at all with regard to the US Navy so lets stop wasting time talking about that shit.

    2020s Kuz 29k/Su-33 -> USN F-35/SH F-18 .
    R27 dont have real advantage with US missiles right?

    R-27E model have higher energy than AMRAAM and would get to target faster, they can both also carry R-77 which is in every way similar to AMRAAM.

    It is also only a matter of time before they reveal the new AAMs for the Su-57, which will likely also become available for their other aircraft to use against stealth fighters.

    We have heard of new ramjet powered AAMs... competition to Meteor... imagine the scramjet model which is more likely to be what they are working on... they already have plenty of ramjet powered missiles... SA-6, Kh-31, Onyx, Moskit, etc etc, clearly the reason we haven't seen their ramjet powered AAM in the Meteor category is probably because they went for a much higher performing scramjet powered missile, whose speed should be eye watering and its range likely rather impressive too...

    New fighter. Unlikely Su-57 unless to add landing hook they need 10 years,

    Well in terms of performance the bigger aircraft would be better... I think the US Navy is starting to realise that now, but if they are developing a new light 5th gen fighter that is cheaper, then it would make sense to have land and carrier based versions... preferably as unified in design as possible... much like the MiG-35, but 5th gen design.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5818
    Points : 5774
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:00 am

    why would the Russians not respond to nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons?
    IMO, they'll try to do a tit-for-tat, i.e. use the same yield weapons to keep it from escalating.
    But a helo can autorotate... a tiltrotor just crashes...
    not so; in helo mode it should be able to auto-rotate:
    https://newatlas.com/agustawestland-aw609-autorotation-trials/31813/
    In bad weather Helos simply don't fly... and I can guarantee a tiltrotor would not fly either because it would not be covered by insurance and no pilot is going to risk his aircraft.
    Tilt-rotors can fly in worse weather than helos (that do often risk flying & crashing, as there r no other suitable aircraft available), since they can avoid electric power lines, hills & mountains with their higher ceiling & bigger range to get around the areas of bad weather.
    wolves can get hungry, but most are just as afraid of humans as we should be of them... light a fire and they will run away..
    Not in Russia & esp. Siberia/FE! There r many wild dogs & wolf-dog hybrids that r not afraid of us; in a big hungry wolf pack, they loose all fear.
    I really don't see how a tiltrotor aircraft will protect them from animal attacks either.
    they'll land like a helo to unload, instead of dropping cargo to be found & collected.
    Well right now there is no tilt rotor licence so it is impossible to get one. Over time they might develop some, but it will take time for civilian models to be developed and cleared for operations in Russia, so don't expect them to start operating any time soon.
    I'm talking about the future, not now or a year from now.
    In lots of places in the arctic there are no trees and no plants more than 2-3cm tall.
    & lot more remote forested/rocky/boggy areas not suitable to economically build any landing strips.
    and probably a few hundred metres away cleared a 500m long strip for An-2s and Mi-8s to land with stuff
    u can't put "probably" in the bank! Some of those strips r not maintained for months/years & r suicidal to land on.
    Japan has better infrastructure but she'll get them soon:
    https://www.rotorandwing.com/2019/03/06/nakanihon-air-service-leonardo-sign-mou-study-japanese-market-aw609/
    https://www.verticalmag.com/news/leonardo-focusing-on-first-delivery-of-aw609-as-it-enters-mass-production/
    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-leonardo-helicopters-advances-on-next-gen-455699/
    https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/general-aviation/2019-02-27/assembly-first-production-aw609-weeks-away



    There are billions of trees there... they wont all burn down, and they do grow back...
    There r also habitats of fur animals that locals commercially hunt, timber they sell, rivers, lakes that will get their hydrology damaged by landslides & silting, & all the fish there. If ecosystem is damaged, so is the local economy. Then u have predators & moose paying u unwelcome visits, killing livestock, dogs, & even people.
    So there is not much air travel there at the moment and you think expensive tiltrotors are going to fix that?
    The demand for direct links is there, & they'll help mitigate the low supply of regional aircraft.
    They don't have enough An-2s & its follow-on may or may not be ordered in big #s:
    https://zen.yandex.ru/media/zhzhitel/an2-na-lyjah-5ab7d9cc2f578c7eb94c6897

    Even if they did, all things considered, there must be a hybrid aircraft combining fixed & rotary wing capabilities to save & improve lives.
    The VDV use An-2TDs; after they & other branches get tilt-rotors, their civ. variants will be more capable than them & the Mi-8s.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2#Variants
    https://topwar.ru/153413-dlja-chego-minoborony-zakupilo-partiju-an-2-nezamenimyj-kukuruznik.html


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:02 am; edited 5 times in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5893
    Points : 5913
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:48 am

    LMFS wrote:
    GD wrote:And what if Su-33 is modernized to carry ... Kinzhal from Kuz? this make Kuz real kick-ass  right after refurbishing
    I say f*cking yes, it would be notably more valuable after that.
    this is most logical reason to modernize fighter yet agains although you have 29k still practically unused. the one they had problem to carry is... heavy Kinzhal.



    L wrote:
    let's Fighter has 2,000km radius + 1,500km stand-off missile which makes ~ 3,5000km  danger zone  .
    That radius would imply IFR but USN is already aiming for ranges of that order. Only their current missiles are not that capable, best I am seeing close to deployment is ca. 500 km. Su-57K + GZUR/Kinzhal/air-launched Zircon would be close to that even without IFR... that gives Russia a much needed extra time to develop their navy, while USN catches up in the fighter department Razz

    yeh but dotn you think its becoming ridiculous?! then you dont need carriers really but put airbases in fixed locations or harbor CVN in the middle of ocean? New York - Lisbon is like 6,5000km . BTW with fighters close to deployment you'd betteruse light fighters. Same range but more can be carried on board.



    L wrote:
    True,  10 fighters in Syria was enough deterrence to stop  2-3 US CSGs + 1 French one + land aviation
    You don't seem to see that US can be less "magnanimous" as soon as they get their backs against the wall. And, by the way, do I need to remind you the number of direct aggressions at the hands of US proxies Russia has suffered in Syria? How many US planes have been shot down by Russia or allies in theater? How many generals killed? How many times US airbases have been attacked? Until now Russia has been swallowing frog after frog in order not to derail their main mission in Syria, and only the deployment of top tier fighters and AD systems has stopped the provocations by state actors, while non-state allies have kept their games. Did Russia nuke Turkey and US after the Su-24 was downed? What will happen closer to the US and without 24/7 surveillance by sophisticated, land based Russian assets?

    I disagree with you here. There were average 8 top tier fighters. AAD can be ship based too if Im correct. There were no direct US aggression against Russia in Syria. Wagner was private company. Russian soldiers were killed officially by proxies. Escalation US will do what? shoot Russian fighters or sink ships? without retaliation in world where this is every soldier can directly transmit video to Russian/US HQ? there is no local war anymore between US/Russia.

    Bombing proxy is something else tho. For this 20-30 fighters is more then enough. Especially with bunch of Liders/GorskhovsM







    First of all, I have never said Im against deck aviation. My point is that  building large CVNs  makes little sense for RuN. If 20-30 wont deter  USN 60 wont do either.
    We don't disagree here then. The value of the carriers Garry and I share is that they enable AWACS, tankers etc. The value of a very big carrier to have many fighters is better used when attacking a country, when a high sortie generation capability with strike-configured planes is very important. What I propose is a qualitative superiority with high-performance fighters / long range missiles and sophisticated air control. 2-3 squadrons would keep a US CVN at bay, no problem. And against two or even more they would still be very dangerous, given the respective capabilities involved. This effective parity despite abysmal resources difference is low hanging fruit for RuN to pick during next decade Razz
    [/quote]

    size of ESGs is also economy dependent. let me remind that F-35 1 hour of flight is ~$50k (as I last time checked perhaps now less) . if every pilot needs 200 hrs /pa this means 1 more F-35 costs $10m /pa.

    coparing UK/Us CVN cost.

    .........................Cost
    Ford....................$13,5B............................(nimitxz took 90 fixed wing so 70 fighter for sure)
    QE2......................$5,5B............................24-36 (say here 30) F-35B


    difference per years on fighters only you have $400m pa (7-8% costs of QE2)



    L wrote:
    2020s Kuz  29k/Su-33 -> USN F-35/SH F-18 .
    R27 dont have real advantage with US missiles right?
    29K and modernized 33 are expected to use R-77 or K-77M at least aren't they? Is it unthinkable to make them compatible with R-37M or Izd. 180 when it is available? What about Kinzhal/GZUR/Onyx-Brahmos?
    OTH, Su-57K can be realized within the decade, no problem. If they were on a hurry, 2025 would be doable IMHO, that is quite short term in terms of military weapons systems of such transformational value.

    ekh m R-37 for MiGs? well I believe when I see one -avionics/radars need to be changed first. Kinzhal is big and close to max payload MiG-29k. So no I dont see. Evenif why would you assume USN wond have long rangfe missiles too? with US resources it is no problem to create one.

    Su-57k well you can add hook in less then 10 years for sure. The question is why Borisov was saying about new programme (like PAK Fa was programme) gathering all specialist from OAK an d7-0 years just to add hook?!




    L wrote:F/A-XX starting in 2030 like you make it sound is NOT going to happen, forget it. They don't have the money even for the carriers they have and buying the F-35. And the scope of work to be done for a 6G fighter is simply too much. If it is available before 2040 they would be already faster than usually. By then Su-57K could have been like 15 years in operation.
    Unlikely Su-57? Who knows, we don't have the information to make a 100% flawless interpretation of what has been said until now.

    ekhm your assumptions the US runs out of money is, mildly speaking, too optimistic. Work is on and in high speed to me. Their budget tug-of-wars is a matter of internal politics no money issue.
    Look at Pentagram budget grows with each and every ear now.

    In 2030s can have IMHO at best 2 working CVs ( Kuz + new one) and US surely F/A.XX. Hopefully Russian deck fighter too.


    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5818
    Points : 5774
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:02 am

    ..29k still practically unused. the one they had problem to carry is... heavy Kinzhal.
    I doubt that even modern/navalized Su-33/57 can take off with it w/o EMALS. The MiG-31 was chosen as its carrier for a reason, as it has the speed & more powerful engines; however, it's not navalized.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5893
    Points : 5913
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:30 am

    GarryB wrote:

    In lots of places in the arctic there are no trees and no plants more than 2-3cm tall.

    If it is a village they probably already cleared the area the village is located and probably a few hundred metres away cleared a 500m long strip for An-2s and Mi-8s to land with stuff.

    you might not like tilt rotors but reality is they will come to Russia for sure. With they be used as AEW platform this is another question.




    GB wrote:
    VSTOL news alone or about VSTOL solutions is here little.

    Tilt rotors count as VSTOL... in fact they are the only VSTOL aircraft because they often can take off conventionally because their rotor blades can only be aligned forward in a conventional direction while in the air...

    Not really






    GB wrote:
    You never   ever got  any  superiority. Including  local one.. In short:  if 20-30 fighters  wont help to deter , 60 wont do either.

    60 aircraft in addition to surface air defence forces should be plenty for anything short of WWIII, which is exactly what they want.

    Most of the time they wont have anything like 60 aircraft deployed which means extra space and extra capacity for other things... which would be more useful most of the time.

    ok so you believe in Midway II then? I dont. BTW if you need more space means LHD is much better option.




    GB wrote:A carrier that is small and designed for 24 fighters will normally carry slightly less than that but should be capable of operating at a high tempo x number of days before needing resupply.

    Im gonna tell you secret, CN doesnt sail alone. ESG has enough of supply ships. No need to carry all on carrier.


    GB wrote:
    A bigger carrier with more fighters on board should be capable of operating at a high tempo x times 2 or 3 number of days before needing resupply, which just makes it better defended, better armed, and better equipped for what ever job might pop up.

    40kt De Gaulle can sail 45 without resupply. You need to really have 100ktons monster expensive but useless for RN? whos gonna pay for that?




    GB wrote:
    And what if Su-33 is modernized to carry ... Kinzhal from Kuz? this make Kuz real kick-ass  right after refurbishing

    Actually it was supposed to have the Onyx integrated, and the Zircon is the replacement for the Onyx... even if there was no actual range increase from an air launch, you can add about 1,500km range to the missile simply by flying 1,500km closer to the target in the Su-33 before launching it... so 2,500km range at mach 9 is pretty impressive...

    nothing is sure now about so called GZUR (lighter for sure) but kiznhal exist already. Software too and is tested. Even with small radius (i can imagine dash consumes lots of fuel) you have 2000 security radius against CSG. Even with 1 squadron of Su-33




    GB wrote:
    True,  10 fighters in Syria was enough deterrence to stop  2-3 US CSGs + 1 French one + land aviation

    Only because they didn't want to get into a shooting war with the Russians... if that had not been a problem the 10 fighters might have blunted a few attacks but they would need support and reserves very quickly...

    if they shoot any full scale war started. That's the idea. not 30 extra fighters carrier will stop 3 CSGs from shooting. But bunch of Avangards 30 minutes away.




    GB wrote:
    M point is that  building large CVNs  makes little sense for RuN. If 20-30 wont deter  USN 60 wont do either.

    But 60 will be more useful for the jobs that RuN carrier groups will actually

    I always can be wrong but dotn see this difference in application beside much higher costs. in case of F-35 it would be $300m per annum maintenance alone. SO 7-8% of costs QE2.



    [quote=GB"]
    2020s Kuz  29k/Su-33 -> USN F-35/SH F-18 .
    R27 dont have real advantage with US missiles right?

    R-27E model have higher energy than AMRAAM and would get to target faster, they can both also carry R-77 which is in every way similar to AMRAAM.
    +++
    It is also only a matter of time before they reveal the new AAMs for the Su-57, which will likely also become available for their other aircraft to use against stealth fighters.[/quote]

    \so currently AAMs are on same level. Exactly my point. I dont know why would you assume USMN wont have better missiles with new gen fighters?






    GB wrote:
    New fighter.  Unlikely Su-57 unless to add landing hook they need 10 years,

    Well in terms of performance the bigger aircraft would be better... I think the US Navy is starting to realise that now, but if they are developing a new light 5th gen fighter that is cheaper, then it would make sense to have land and carrier based versions... preferably as unified in design as possible... much like the MiG-35, but 5th gen design.

    With ever growing ranges of standoff weapons light fighter can ensure 2,500km "protected zone" radius (5000km range) while NYC-Lisbon is like 6,500 kms, Yuzhno Sakhalinsk /Seattle 6,700 km, . not sure why you need to increase one.
    If VSTOL will be light one then of course one model unified (of the same vid land based F-18) makes sense. Programme for 50-100 units makes little sense for sure.

    Me thinks that VSTOL wil be if not 6 then 5+(+) gen.

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5893
    Points : 5913
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:41 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    ..29k still practically unused. the one they had problem to carry is... heavy Kinzhal.
    I doubt that even modern/navalized Su-33/57 can take off with it w/o EMALS. The MiG-31 was chosen as its carrier for a reason, as it has the speed & more powerful engines; however, it's not navalized.

    not really, Kinhal weight is below 4t. Su-33 ha payload 6,5 t.  It has actually shorter TO runway then 29k.

    MiG-31
    Empty weight: 21,820 kg (48,100 lb)
    Loaded weight: 41,000 kg (90,400 lb)
    Max. takeoff weight: 46,200 kg (101,900 lb)
    Fuel capacity: 35,550 lb (16,130 kg) internally, plus optional external fuel tanks[15]

    length 22,6m
    wingspan 13,5m

    Su-33
    length 21m
    wingspan 14,7m


    21,800+16,130 =38t , MTOWW 46t. what means 31 doenst have really more payload then Su-33. Engines are  MiG 2x 93/152kN vs  Au-33 (before modernization) 2x75/125kN
    What is special about 31 is the speed and ceiling. After all this is great interceptor. Not bomber.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5818
    Points : 5774
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:10 am

    Still, it's not worth the trouble modifying Su-33 for that, + those Ms will need more storage space. R ammo lifts big enough? How safe will it be to bring it back on deck in case & after it's not used? Jettisoning expensive Ms is possible but not desirable.
    The VMF will have plenty of other C/HSMs.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5092
    Points : 5088
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  LMFS Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:49 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:this is most logical reason to modernize fighter yet agains although you have 29k still practically unused. the one they had problem to carry is... heavy Kinzhal.
    They have 2 sqdn. worth of naval fighters and no carrier, so the planes don't need to be "heavily" stressed. But RuN is not in trouble due to their excess fighters, actually they have quite few for the size of the coast they have to protect, so they can use them for that role. I think the 29 and 33 will continue operating in the K during the decade of 2020.

    yeh but dotn you think its becoming ridiculous?! then you dont need carriers really  but put airbases in fixed locations or harbor CVN in the middle of ocean? New York - Lisbon is  like 6,5000km  . BTW with fighters close to deployment you'd betteruse light fighters. Same range but more can be carried on board.
    Put that way it is ridiculous yes, but the advantage of a carrier group is taking your surveillance, airspace control, AD and strike close to the theatre so they can be effective. In the end I can imagine both Us and Russia bringing naval resources to a hot spot but the balance of capabilities of both sides will hopefully result in deterrence working and nobody doing too stupid things. That is the idea I think.

    I disagree with you here.  There were average 8 top tier fighters. AAD can be ship based too if Im correct.  There were no direct US aggression against Russia in Syria. Wagner was private company. Russian soldiers were killed officially by proxies.   Escalation US will do what? shoot Russian fighters or sink ships? without retaliation in world where this is every soldier can directly transmit video to Russian/US HQ? there is no local war anymore between US/Russia.

    Bombing proxy is something else tho. For this 20-30 fighters is more then enough. Especially with bunch of Liders/GorskhovsM
    I know you disagree, it is ok. I think Syria has lessons to take but not everything will be like Syria. US is getting desperate and i.e. Caribbean is probably not going to be a place where US fears escalating...

    Regarding the aggressions, they came to the point where Turkey directly attacked Russia... that is an act of war pure and simple, Russia had to swallow its pride and respond asymmetrically. It was a hard test for Putin's leadership. It was not US directly but it was under their orders, Russia knows this for a fact. Imagine Russia deploys to Venezuela. Colombia or Brazil or Guyana start a skirmish because any obscure claim regarding territorial or exclusive economic interest waters (BTW there is an open dispute with Venezuela in this regard!), attack to some of their vessels or whatever excuse nobody will be able to corroborate afterwards and decides to strike against RuN vessels. Russia strikes back and images are shown of the massacre, so US comes to the rescue. Just off the top of my head but if you think it well you could create a situation where US "needs" to engage Russia militarily. Use your imagination man, imagine you are a Neocon and ploys will start popping up Razz

    size of ESGs is also economy dependent.   let me remind that F-35 1 hour of flight is ~$50k (as I last time checked perhaps now  less) .  if  every pilot needs 200 hrs /pa this means 1 more F-35 costs  $10m /pa.

    coparing UK/Us CVN cost.

    .........................Cost
    Ford....................$13,5B............................(nimitxz took 90 fixed wing so  70 fighter for sure)
    QE2......................$5,5B............................24-36 (say here 30) F-35B


    difference per years on fighters only you have $400m pa (7-8% costs of QE2)
    US CVNs carry a 4 sqdn. air wing of fighters, not sure whether they are 10 or 12 each. So less fighters than you say, we already discussed this. But of course the more planes the more expenses. 2-3 sqdn of very capable fighters are more than enough for Russian CV IMHO.

    ekh m  R-37 for MiGs? well I believe when I see one -avionics/radars need to be changed first. Kinzhal is big and close to max payload MiG-29k. So no I dont see. Evenif why would you assume USN wond have long rangfe missiles too? with US resources it is no problem to create one.
    > I don't know what precludes SU-33 or MiG-29 from carrying the R-37M. I don't expect it to be an absolute no-go, if MoD would see it as a need.
    > MiG-29 carrying Kinzhal makes little sense to me. This is a weapon only most heavy fighters can have a chance of carrying.
    > Yes, US "may" be all mighty, but they are behind in so many fields and doing so many blunders that they are clearly not. If they can counter anything that you do better crawl under a rock and pray they don't find you. Not exactly what Russia is doing.

    Su-57k well you can add hook in less then 10 years for sure. The question is why Borisov was saying about new programme (like PAK Fa was programme) gathering all specialist from OAK an d7-0 years just to add hook?!
    Man, this is so obscure that I may make 100 theories and still fail to foresee what will happen.
    1. Maybe navalization of Su-57 is not decided and therefore a thorough analysis is needed, and a schedule is provided in the case a new development is necessary
    2. Maybe the naval fighter will have two sides: one for STOBAR CVs (Su-57), one for LHDs (STOVL). This would make much sense but the economy of scale could be an issue.

    I am not sure they know what they will do in big detail to be honest.

    ekhm your assumptions the US runs out of money is, mildly speaking, too optimistic.
    As a matter of fact, they don't have the money they want for all the "needs" they perceive. They are not backing down, closing bases and returning to defend the country only. They are investing in more of the same, only this time bigger and better. So money is running out and will run out even more, despite all their attempts to use other countries as collateral. The strategy is unsustainable.

    Work is on and in high speed to me.
     
    True, see above what kind of investments they are making. For instance, PCA which stands for penetrating counter air. So, more of the same delusion of "penetrating" air defences, at estimated $300 million a piece. 6G fighters like NGAD and PCA will need fundamentally new technologies (3 stream engines, DEW, GaN radars and EW etc.) or it will be nothing more than a PAK-FA with the stars and stripes all over it. If they go for the next step it will take many years to mature, despite of that I agree they are talking less publicly and working overtime on this issue because they know where they stand right now.

    Their budget tug-of-wars is a matter of internal politics no money issue.
    Look at Pentagram budget grows with each and every ear now.  
    And their debt increases exponentially too and the de-dollarization advances quite fast too... which trend will kill the other first?

    In 2030s can have IMHO at best 2 working CVs ( Kuz + new one) and US surely F/A.XX. Hopefully Russian deck fighter too.
    That means 1.1.2030 or 31.12.2039? Depending on that I can agree or not.

    Tsavo Lion wrote:I doubt that even modern/navalized Su-33/57 can take off with it w/o EMALS. The MiG-31 was chosen as its carrier for a reason, as it has the speed & more powerful engines; however, it's not navalized.
    Out of curiosity, why do you say so? Due to overload at the springboard or due to the TO weight? We even have a tool to check STOBAR capabilities and have discussed it extensively...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5818
    Points : 5774
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:11 am

    Due to overload at the springboard or due to the TO weight?
    even if not, there may not be enough ground clearance with all that extra weight on the centerline, + the landing gear may not withstand the stresses, esp. on recovery (landing, or "trap") with BM unused. They didn't even consider using some land based Su-34s for that, although their max speed is lower.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu Mar 21, 2019 2:02 am; edited 1 time in total

    Sponsored content


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 30 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Feb 28, 2024 7:50 am