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


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3473
    Points : 3475
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  LMFS Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:44 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:US Marines turned a warship into an F-35 'Lightning carrier' in a test to boost US power
    Russian UDK task force consisting of 2-3 of them + escorts can act as light carriers the same way, before bigger TAKRs/CVNs r built.
    Whaaat? US doing war 'on the cheap' as if they were Russians? Laughing

    Lightning carriers armed with F-35s could theoretically take over operations in low-end conflicts, freeing up the "supercarriers" to focus on higher-end threats such as Russia and China.

    It is the same proposal I made, only they are sending such ships far from home, maybe because the huge network of bases and installations they have around allow them to protect the ships also far from CONUS. In the Russian case this would not apply due to the lack of assets in other geographical areas and also due to the huge reach of the Russian territory, that allows to have the whole Eurasia in check.

    Only I hope US don't pretend like they can use the bigger carriers against China and Russia proper, but only against their interests abroad. The first would be a notably flawed strategy...
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 2173
    Points : 2163
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  hoom Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:04 pm

    https://flotprom.ru/2019/%D0%9E%D1%81%D0%BA10/
    The construction of larger landing ships, including helicopter carriers, is still being postponed. They were planning to build them at the Severnaya Verf, but the timeframe for the modernization of the enterprise, in particular, the commissioning of the new shipbuilding complex, was shifted to the right . The contract with the contractor, Petersburg Metrostroy, terminated: the company did not cope with the work.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7414
    Points : 7398
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Isos Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:25 pm

    What do you guys think of my carrier design ?

    It is an idea for a light carrier not exceeding 50kt. Don't compare it with supercarriers.

    250m long and 75m wide. Can be changed just for the idea I took that numbers.

    Not a real catamaran. Very stable at sea. Right part is made apart and welded to the main part. Used for take off, storage of weapons and aircraft fuel. Can act as a protection against anti ship missiles from the right and be changed by building a new one. Only piece of metals so not expensive.

    Main part is only 55m wide and 250 long similar to Mistral design that russia knows how to build but not as tall as mistral and with nuclear propulsion.

    Red square for uksk ~24 cells. Green for redut ~36. Red circles for pantsirs and tors.

    200m take off run with 3 positions. Yak-44 on steroides could take off from it too. Mainly for use with medium and small fighters. The drawing is not scaled but IMO the deck could carry 18 mig-29k (and not on landing trip). A yak 130 with folding wings takes 2 times less space than mig-29k so can carry 2 for 1 mig.

    Full mig-35, I would say 32 can be carried with 2 yak-44 and some ka-62 for ASW.

    If mig make a naval 5th gen mig would even be better.

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Sans_t11
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29010
    Points : 29540
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:04 am

    The whole idea behind the angled deck is so that you can land planes at any time and also launch aircraft or even just have aircraft sitting on the deck, because the angled deck means incoming aircraft are trying to land on one corner of the deck so even if they burst in to flames other aircraft sitting on the deck or lined up for take off would not get hit or damaged.

    Aircraft generally spend most of their time on the deck on most carriers as they can't move aircraft rapidly from deck to hangar and back, so having an area on the deck where they can be prepared... ie fuelled up and armed is a necessity.

    Personally I like the previously shown design with the wide hull and the even wider flat top.

    A decent new CVN can expect to be operational for at least 50 years, so it might start out with aircraft x or y but before it is scrapped it will have operated an enormous variety of aircraft types.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5643
    Points : 5637
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri May 10, 2019 3:25 am

    The Russian Navy will still get an atomic aircraft carrier
    Or maybe not. we will need to wait longer to see.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 2173
    Points : 2163
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  hoom Fri May 10, 2019 3:50 pm

    What do you guys think of my carrier design ?
    Still on the CVA-01 style I see.
    Thats a ramp launch on separate hull on the starboard side & arrestor landing area on port?
    I like that you're keeping separate take-off/landing ops.

    Plane lift in the bow is presumably intended to bring down freshly landed planes (and a parking/handling area behind it) but that location is problematic in terms of weather/water tightness & most carriers don't have hangar anywhere near that far forward.


    Close coupled heavy proa hullform like that is not exactly known to work well.
    Much as I'm a fan of proas in smaller sail-powered iterations I'd go for either a proper cat, tri or more probably a conventional monohull for a carrier.

    Major point for a Carrier aside from deck area is displacement to carry the planes, fuel & armament.
    Multihulls don't like being heavy for a given length so for a given deck area it should be a lot lighter displacement (and so less capable) than an equivalent dimensioned monohull.
    For big ships multihulls are also problematic in that they have a quick roll rate while ships are generally designed to have a slow roll.

    I like that cat one up-thread because its pretty small & simple, obviously not trying to do very much with only 6 planes worth of hangar all in the Island (no lift) for a fairly small aircraft compliment & practically no armament so might actually be practical to be light enough to work right.
    Fairly small & simple so could be built in quite large numbers, have 1 constantly available & surge several of them for more serious issues.
    But on the other hand would need very many to generate a sortie able to deal with the sort of firepower NATO could put out from land/a CVN.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5643
    Points : 5637
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu May 30, 2019 12:58 am

    I wonder why they even don't consider building an Adm. K follow on like the Chinese CV-17 which a modified Liaoning (CV-16) with 30m longer deck & a different island? They want to jump ahead of themselves with CVNs & will end up with nothing for years to come.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 1441
    Points : 1431
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Thu May 30, 2019 11:39 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:I wonder why they even don't consider building an Adm. K follow on like the Chinese CV-17 which a modified Liaoning (CV-16) with 30m longer deck & a different island? They want to jump ahead of themselves with CVNs & will end up with nothing for years to come.
    Actually CVN refers only to the propulsion that have to be nuclear. As an example the french carrier is a CVN but it is smaller than kuz (about 42000 tons).

    And Russia has already modern marine nuclear reactors to be used in the artika and lider nuclear icebreakers.

    The problems are others.

    Anyway did you read that trump want to pull the plug on EMALS catapult for carriers?


    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/trump-steamed-over-delays-pulls-plug-on-electric-carrier-catapults/
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5643
    Points : 5637
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu May 30, 2019 6:12 pm

    Actually CVN refers only to the propulsion that have to be nuclear. As an example the french carrier is a CVN but it is smaller than kuz (about 42000 tons).
    But in Russia building a CVN under 70K Tons is defeating the purpose IMO. Otherwise, how many Su-33/57 size & EW aircraft + helos & UAVs would fit on it, & how well it'll sail in the stormy Arctic, N. Atlantic /N. Pacific waters?
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4961
    Points : 4985
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Fri May 31, 2019 1:32 pm

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote: Anyway did you read that trump want to pull the plug on EMALS catapult for carriers?


    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/trump-steamed-over-delays-pulls-plug-on-electric-carrier-catapults/

    it is difference between Russians and US. US applies tech then thinks how to make it work. In Russia they test fo ryears before going to series.


    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Actually CVN refers only to the propulsion that have to be nuclear. As an example the french carrier is a CVN but it is smaller than kuz (about 42000 tons).
    But in Russia building a CVN under 70K Tons is defeating the purpose IMO. Otherwise, how many Su-33/57 size & EW aircraft + helos & UAVs would fit on it, & how well it'll sail in the stormy Arctic, N. Atlantic /N. Pacific waters?

    true, my only cocnern is that big and expensive means likely 1 an donly.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5643
    Points : 5637
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri May 31, 2019 6:21 pm

    ..big and expensive means likely 1 and only.
    If built, it'll have as "busy" life as the Adm K- it's current & future role is mostly to show the flag & as a prerequisite to belong in the blue water navy club.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 2173
    Points : 2163
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  hoom Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:27 am

    I'm intrigued by part of the sentence from https://flotprom.ru/2019/%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8F16/
    On" Army 2019 "we will demonstrate three models: a non-nuclear aircraft carrier up to 70 thousand tons, which will provide the most effective launch positions to increase the launch intensity of the aircraft, a landing ship with a displacement of 25–27 thousand tons and the Leader destroyer - told Polyakov.
    Has Krylov been working on a cunning layout that allows simultaneous launch & retrieve?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29010
    Points : 29540
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:26 pm

    true, my only cocnern is that big and expensive means likely 1 an donly.

    Yeah, forget what you read from Papadragon... there is no way these CVNs are going to cost Russia 13 billion US dollars each... maybe 3 or 4 but not 13...

    If built, it'll have as "busy" life as the Adm K- it's current & future role is mostly to show the flag & as a prerequisite to belong in the blue water navy club.

    If the K was in the water it would be in Venezuela as we speak... being useful... and potential Russian trade partners in the region will be thinking their might actually be an alternative to being the US's bitch.

    Has Krylov been working on a cunning layout that allows simultaneous launch & retrieve?

    The traditional angled deck is tried and true, but that is not to say other alternatives are not possible and should be ignored... I would love to see something innovative and clever and lead to a new layout and design.

    It is generally held that a CVN has a rule of thumb capacity of one aircraft per 1,000 ton displacement... so a 100K ton ship can carry 100 odd aircraft of all types, but it also relates to cost with every thousand tons increasing purchasing and operational costs dramatically...

    If that wide hulled multi hull design with larger capacity than the Kuznetsov (which is what they want) that weighs a mere 45K tons which would make it cheap to buy and to operate would be some sort of miracle of modern ship design... you would need to test it in all sorts of conditions and sea states, but it would be a bit of a panacea in terms of aircraft carrier design...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5643
    Points : 5637
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:41 pm

    If the K was in the water it would be in Venezuela as we speak...
    China invested more there & still didn't send her combat ready CV-16; the VMF could send its CGN, as before, if 1 was ready instead, for a lot le$$. A few DDG/FFGs & SSGNs that occasionally surface, supported by the Russian &/ allied AFs would be more useful than a TAKR in the USA's backyard.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7414
    Points : 7398
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Isos Tue Jun 04, 2019 4:38 pm


    If the K was in the water it would be in Venezuela as we speak... being useful... and potential Russian trade partners in the region will be thinking their might actually be an alternative to being the US's bitch.

    It would have been useless. Venezuelan economy is destroyed because of US sanctions not US troops.

    Sanctions would be still there even with K off Venezuelan coast.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29010
    Points : 29540
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:55 am

    China invested more there & still didn't send her combat ready CV-16;

    What makes you think it is combat ready?

    What operational deployments has it been on recently or ever?

    What is the air component of operational fighters and AWACS aircraft that it will carry?

    A few DDG/FFGs & SSGNs that occasionally surface, supported by the Russian &/ allied AFs would be more useful than a TAKR in the USA's backyard.

    The N in SSGN means Never... that is they never surface during an operational mission... you never see a sniper put on a high viz vest and run around for an hour in a conflict to make sure the enemy know he is there...

    It would have been useless. Venezuelan economy is destroyed because of US sanctions not US troops.

    Sanctions would be still there even with K off Venezuelan coast.

    Having a Russian carrier off their coast would show support and give them the reassurance that their painful transition from a western focused economy based on international trade organisations controlled or dominated by the US to an eastern economic focus with other countries that perhaps have also been shunned by the US or the west for various reasons will at least will not involve the risk of a US invasion which is pretty much what happened to Iraq when Saddam suggested not using US dollars for oil sales and also to Libya when Gaddafi suggested the same...

    What they should also do is build a refinery in Venezuela to process their oil so they can pretty much sell to anyone they please...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5643
    Points : 5637
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:15 am

    What makes you think it is combat ready?
    What operational deployments has it been on recently or ever?
    What is the air component of operational fighters and AWACS aircraft that it will carry?
    Good questions!
    ... it was reported in November 2016 that the Liaoning is now combat ready. In mid-December 2016, China staged the first live-fire drills involving the Liaoning. ..The physical and operational limitations of the Liaoning and its associated personnel and equipment indicate that the Liaoning might be best suited for regional missions short of high-intensity conflict. As the PLAN improves its capabilities, future missions could take the Liaoning and its accompanying sailors, fleet escorts, and aircraft farther from China’s periphery.
    The Liaoning’s lack of an aircraft catapult, inefficient power plant, and the relative inexperience of its aviators and support team do not augur well for sustained high-intensity combat operations—even within waters close to the Chinese Mainland, where the Liaoning could expect support from land-based aircraft and radars. Accordingly, Chinese strategists advocate using the Liaoning for regional missions—including humanitarian aid and disaster relief (HADR), training exercises with other nations, showing the flag, and asserting Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea—for which the Liaoning appears better suited.5 Furthermore, the Liaoning has considerable utility as a tool of naval diplomacy—providing helicopter lift for HADR missions and engaging in multinational training exercises will signal to other countries that China is a responsible rising power. Such efforts would complement China’s growing commitment to multilateral initiatives, such as UN peacekeeping efforts. As the PLAN improves its combined arms capabilities and the Liaoning’s personnel become proficient in higher-tempo operations, the Liaoning’s repertoire could expand to include fleet air defense and maritime and land strike further afield from Chinese waters. These missions would require enhanced personnel as well as greatly improved situational awareness, communications, and logistical support far from current Chinese bases—assets that the PLAN may not yet possess in sufficient quantity or quality.

    https://chinapower.csis.org/aircraft-carrier/

    Shortcomings aside, the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan & Cuban AFs could assist the PLAN CBG if ever get deployed there. The likely route is via the Suez Canal & Med. Sea or around S. Africa & S. Atlantic - the very areas they may be glad to show the flag! But since they didn't so far, it's not politically & militarily justified/feasible.
    The N in SSGN means Never... that is they never surface during an operational mission...
    They could make an exception that proves the rule; a former Soviet VMF sailor told me years ago that his SSGN went on the surface all the way to Guinea. This mission would be more political to make a statement a CGN would otherwise be called to perform.
    Having a Russian carrier off their coast would show support and give them the reassurance..
    That still wouldn't stop infiltration of proxies/SOFs from Colombia & Brazil. Is Russia prepared to bomb their camps in Colombia & Brazil?If so, they better hone their power projection skills!
    The USN used CVNs to bomb Afghanistan & Iraq while the insurgents in both were coming from Pakistan, Syria & Iran to kill Americans & their allies. It goes both ways!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29010
    Points : 29540
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:38 pm

    Shortcomings aside, the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan & Cuban AFs could assist the PLAN CBG if ever get deployed there. The likely route is via the Suez Canal & Med. Sea or around S. Africa & S. Atlantic - the very areas they may be glad to show the flag! But since they didn't so far, it's not politically & militarily justified/feasible.

    I suspect their focus is to counter US carriers, but I very much doubt they want to start off doing it in Americas back yard as they could call it... it is for intimidating Japan and the US regarding taiwan and south china sea issues first... maybe down the line they might use it to protect their investments... but for now I don't think they want to risk it.

    They could make an exception that proves the rule; a former Soviet VMF sailor told me years ago that his SSGN went on the surface all the way to Guinea. This mission would be more political to make a statement a CGN would otherwise be called to perform.

    Was probably at a time when tracking them was not the problem... attacking and sinking them before they launched all their missiles was probably the issue of the time.

    That still wouldn't stop infiltration of proxies/SOFs from Colombia & Brazil.

    Actually I think it would make Trump step back a bit.... infiltration could be called terrorism and therefore stamped upon... hard...

    Having a Russian carrier down there means having Su-33s and MiG-29KRs there too... they could easily be transferred to land bases and used against an insurgent force from another country.

    Of course lets be realistic... the US doesn't give a fuck about the Venezuelans or bloodshed... their previous plan involved breaking out criminals from prison and giving them assault rifles... I am sure most real Venezuelans would prefer to be protected from such people...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5643
    Points : 5637
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:29 pm

    Was probably at a time when tracking them was not the problem...
    The Oscars r still noisy & keeping them submerged the whole time won't make much difference to the USN SSNs & MPA. But surfacing there will send a clear message to every1 in the region that they mean business. SSN/SSK escorts could be given them as well.
    Having a Russian carrier down there means having Su-33s and MiG-29KRs there too... they could easily be transferred to land bases and used against an insurgent force from another country.
    For a lot le$$, they & AF fighters can deploy to those bases with tanker support, like they did/do in Syria w/o the Adm. K. that needs to last a long time, as u wrote, w/o adding more wear & tear on the other side of the world which would add more time in the yards/dry docks that they don't have enough of.

    Navy's F-35C Stealth Fighters Won't Fly From Troubled New Ford Class Carriers For Years
    Now, lawmakers want to make it illegal for the Navy to take delivery of the next carrier in the class if it can't deploy the jets.
    I doubt the EMALS can ever be debugged to perform as good as the steam CAT. In the long run, it could be safer to use STOVLs & rumps.
    Instead of up to 4 Yak-44 size AEWAC, they could have 5-6+ smaller UAVs & helos/tilt-rotors to control & assist them to give the same, if not better, radar coverage & situational awareness. It's also possible to have more powerful equipment & bigger range on Mi-38s:
    https://www.defenseworld.net/news/24866/Russia_to_Develop_Mi_38_helicopter_Based_AWACS#.XPgHA4hKiyI

    https://www.urdupoint.com/en/world/russia-to-create-new-airborne-command-post-mo-634626.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-38#Specifications_(Mi-38)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-31#Specifications_(Ka-31)


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:28 pm; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : add links, text)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29010
    Points : 29540
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:38 am

    The Oscars r still noisy & keeping them submerged the whole time won't make much difference to the USN SSNs & MPA. But surfacing there will send a clear message to every1 in the region that they mean business. SSN/SSK escorts could be given them as well.

    Doesn't matter if they are noisy... if they upgrade them with 72 Zircon missiles which fly at mach 9 to over 1,000km or 72 Kalibr subsonic 2,600km range cruise missiles it wont matter if the USN can track them... they still have to deal with them before they can launch an attack on US forces in the region...

    You could have SSKs and SSNs there in ambush to attack any US platform that tries to sink the noisy easy to track Oscars... and the Oscars can have anti torpedo torpedos so the first few weapons you use to kill those Oscars might not get the job done and might alert nearby more quiet Russian assets to the presence and general location of US SSNs...

    For a lot le$$, they & AF fighters can deploy to those bases with tanker support, like they did/do in Syria w/o the Adm. K. that needs to last a long time, as u wrote, w/o adding more wear & tear on the other side of the world which would add more time in the yards/dry docks that they don't have enough of.

    If they want to be a global power with global reach expecting enemy forces to allow you to ship your air power into a region is a little naive and certainly something that could bit you on the ass... a container ship the British used to transfer helos to the Falklands war was hit and sunk which really changed their plans and timetables because it cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in aircraft at a time when they were about to be put into use.

    I doubt the EMALS can ever be debugged to perform as good as the steam CAT.

    The Russians don't have steam cat technology so if they want to operate any heavy aircraft from carriers then it makes rather more sense to develop and then debug EMALS than to try to invent Steam cats first.

    When developing a new sniper rifle they don't start by developing a flintlock version first and then upgrade to a cap firing model...

    The technology involved in EMALs will be very useful in terms of all electric drive vehicles on land, sea, and air, and in space... it wont be super cheap or super easy but will be useful across a wide range of fields... from EM boosted powder charge guns to EM guns and beyond.

    In the long run, it could be safer to use STOVLs & rumps.

    In the short term they can continue to use ramps, but there are currently no STOVL alternatives unless you count the Ka-31/35 whose performance is rather too limited to be the primary AWACS platform.

    Investment in EMALS makes enormous sense and will lead to new materials and new technological capabilities that will improve all sorts of things in Russian military and civilian production.

    Instead of up to 4 Yak-44 size AEWAC, they could have 5-6+ smaller UAVs & helos/tilt-rotors to control & assist them to give the same, if not better, radar coverage & situational awareness. It's also possible to have more powerful equipment & bigger range on Mi-38s:

    Technology has moved on since the Yak-44 was proposed and their new radar technology looks rather promising... the high speed helos offer potential performance that would make tiltrotor designs redundant... the cheapest and lowest risk option would be a rigid airship design that could temporarily land on a carrier or be tethered to a cruiser or destroyer or frigate even.

    An EMALS assisted Yak-44 type platform offers low flight costs with good endurance and altitude without needing extra propulsion power to get such a heavy aircraft off the surface of such a ship.

    Of course another option could be a Be-200 sized amphibian AWACS aircraft that could be operated from a large container like ship... ie have four aircraft stored on a large semi covered deck with a large crane to lower the aircraft onto the water where they could take off or land and be recovered back on to the ship for refuelling or changing crews. The centre section of the deck could be covered, with each end open to allow cranes at each end to recover or launch aircraft from the sea... large doors could be closed for storms... make the vessel an ice breaker and the aircraft able to operate on water and land (with wheels) or Ice (with skis)... or perhaps modify it with a small hovercraft type undercarriage like those cool Bartini designs so it can operate from ice or land or sea...[/quote]
    [/quote]


    Last edited by GarryB on Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:58 am; edited 1 time in total
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5643
    Points : 5637
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:10 am

    The Russians don't have steam cat technology so if they want to operate any heavy aircraft from carriers then it makes rather more sense to develop and then debug EMALS than to try to invent Steam cats first.
    They can get steam CAT technology from the Chinese that r testing it along with the EMALS. The latter can be improved, but still may have unacceptable failure rate; the benefits may not justify the costs. 1-2 steam CAT will be enough, but helos & tilt-rotors may be an alternative to heavy fixed wing COD & AEWC aircraft.
    CAT requires extra space, personnel, power, & maintenance time.

    Of course another option could be a Be-200 sized amphibian AWACS aircraft..
    They can't take off in heavy seas.
    A Chinook-style helo could perform well as COD & AEWC as well, with
    Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (6100 m)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Specifications_(CH-47F)

    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14540/chinooks-over-afghanistan-the-unsung-workhorse-of-americas-never-ending-war

    There was the Yak-24 in production & the abandoned Yak-60 tandem helos, so they could develop a scaled down follow on with new materials & powerplants:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-24
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-60
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29010
    Points : 29540
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:21 am

    They can get steam CAT technology from the Chinese that r testing it along with the EMALS. The latter can be improved, but still may have unacceptable failure rate; the benefits may not justify the costs. 1

    What makes you think Chinese steam Cat tech is so perfect... how long have they had it operational... which of their aircraft currently use steam cats to operate from Chinese carriers? How many years of operational experience does china have in operating these cats in different areas of the worlds oceans including arctic areas where the Russians will demand it be able to be used?

    Have you noticed US carriers with steam cats and plenty of years of operational experience don't operate in the arctic very much because steam is made of water which freezes in the arctic... I have seen people in minus 40 degrees C temperatures throw boiling hot cups of coffee into the air which turns into a mist of ice crystals and does not reach the ground as a liquid... how do you think a steam catapult system will get on in those sorts of conditions... even an experienced mature system.

    Of course there is a simple fix for the US... don't sail into the polar regions with aircraft carriers but such a solution is not much use for Russia who will likely be basing its carriers in arctic and semi arctic regions.

    Not trying to rip off the Chinese, but the Russians need new technology here... EMALS technology might also be useful for designing electric high speed trains and many other things that involve accelerating large heavy objects around the place... imagine a fully reusable vertical launch missile lofter that throws missiles into the air before their rocket motors are started... they already use gas powered systems and hot rocket systems for that but an EMALS might be more efficient and fully reusable immediately without replacement so new missiles can be cheaper and smaller and lighter because they wont need to include the gas booster section to be carried around as reloads.

    1-2 steam CAT will be enough, but helos & tilt-rotors may be an alternative to heavy fixed wing COD & AEWC aircraft.
    CAT requires extra space, personnel, power, & maintenance time.

    Considering the location of the Granit launch tubes on the Kuznetsov they might be able to install an EMALS cat system there for testing... its location on the deck and the firewalls around it would mean it would not really be much use for anything else except carrying a different type of missile.

    If you are going to be building a large carrier with slightly better capacity than the Kuznetsov as they keep saying they want, then why go half-arse on something as critical as its AWACS component?

    It is like spending millions of dollars on a brand new tractor but using the old 3m wide grass cutting trailer your old ride on motor mower used...

    Things are going to be changing over the next few years regarding radar technology... these new photonic radars sound very very interesting... but of course their might be problems. Talk of photographic like performance against stealth targets at more than 400km suggests an amazing resolution... but also the problem of seeing the world through a telescope... only seeing a small area at a time... like seeing the world through a straw... they might need wide FOV normal radars to find things worth looking at more closely, so a combination of short, medium and long wave radar antenna as well as these new photonic radar sensors too... sounds a lot for a helo, which over its operational life will cost rather more than a light fixed wing aircraft to operate and maintain.

    They can't take off in heavy seas.
    A Chinook-style helo could perform well as COD & AEWC as well, with
    Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (6100 m)

    And how often do you see any carrier based aircraft take off in heavy seas?

    Also why bother with a Chinook design... as you mention they already tried that layout and it was inferior to other designs like the Mi-6 and Mi-26...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5643
    Points : 5637
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:51 am

    GarryB wrote:What makes you think Chinese steam Cat tech is so perfect... how long have they had it operational... How many years of operational experience does china have in operating these cats in different areas of the worlds oceans including arctic areas where the Russians will demand it be able to be used?
    They may have them long before the VMF does. The Bohai Gulf gets cold enough to freeze & there r icebreakers for that. For training, they can fly AEWCs from land bases; during deployments, they can launch them in warmer waters so the CAT won't create ice buildup on their decks.
    Of course there is a simple fix for the US... don't sail into the polar regions with aircraft carriers but such a solution is not much use for Russia who will likely be basing its carriers in arctic and semi arctic regions.
    The USN deployed CV/Ns into the cold N. Atlantic & Norwegian fiords before, practicing flight ops there.
    Considering the location of the Granit launch tubes on the Kuznetsov they might be able to install an EMALS cat system there for testing..
    I doubt they will remove missiles & change other things for that. A barge can be used to test it at sea/lake.
    If you are going to be building a large carrier with slightly better capacity than the Kuznetsov as they keep saying they want, then why go half-arse on something as critical as its AWACS component?
    Even on the CVN/TAKRN, with all the armament, radars, & other equipment, there may not be enough power generated left for the EMALS for their simultaneous use. They operated nuclear ice breakers & subs for a long time but not CVNs, unlike the USN, as u correctly mentioned; there will be many kinks to be corrected & learned to avoid.
    And how often do you see any carrier based aircraft take off in heavy seas?
    They can still do it in the sea states that an amphibian would break apart.
    Also why bother with a Chinook design... as you mention they already tried that layout and it was inferior to other designs like the Mi-6 and Mi-26...[/quote] Those 2 r not deck helos & r too big; as land based, they r perfect. But a tandem helo the size of between CH-46 & CH-47 is more power efficient & safer; it could serve as COD, AEWC, SAR/ASW/Marine/VDV/SOF/gunship platform for less $ & time to develop than the tilt-rotors, even if its performance is not as good:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Vertol_CH-46_Sea_Knight#Variants

    The CH-47F can fly at speeds of over 175 mph (282 km/h) with a payload of more than 21,000 lb (9.5 t). ..
    A CH-47F Block 2 is planned to be introduced after 2020. The Block 2 aims for a payload of 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) with 4,000 ft (1,200 m) and 95 °F (35 °C) high and hot hover performance, eventually increased up to 6,000 ft (1,800 m),..

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Variants

    The USAF uses them alongside their CV-22s.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Specifications_(MV-22B)

    Such a helo can be very useful in the Far North, Siberia & the RFE:
    The civilian version of the Chinook is the Boeing Vertol 234. It has been used for a variety of purposes by a range of different civil operators, having often been used for passenger and cargo transport, along with niche roles such as aerial firefighting and to support various industrial activities, including logging, construction, and oil extraction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook
    http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/bvertol_234.php
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Helicopters
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29010
    Points : 29540
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:17 am

    They may have them long before the VMF does.

    Steam cat technology is not good for the Russian Navy because they want to be able to operate their carriers in arctic waters... their two major naval bases are in arctic or near arctic regions.

    If China wants to operate their carrier in the Arctic then it is something they need to consider too, but I suspect once they have perfected the technologies associated with aircraft carriers, they will be more interested in projecting power to South and Central america and Africa than the north sea route which will largely be under the control of Russia... which will likely be managed in a way that does not hurt Chinese interests...

    The Bohai Gulf gets cold enough to freeze & there r icebreakers for that. For training, they can fly AEWCs from land bases; during deployments, they can launch them in warmer waters so the CAT won't create ice buildup on their decks.

    Most of Russias northern border is frozen much of the year, for them very cold weather is more of an issue which makes the EMALS much more attractive for many many reasons.

    China is much less effected by such considerations and the quicker easier steam cats could be a realistic stopgap, but for Russia there wont be that much difference in the time and energy and money needed to develop a working and mature steam system and the time and energy and money to develop a working and mature EMALS system... the difference is that the technology and materials that would be needed to make the latter work will be applicable in a much wider range of areas... electrical power manipulation, generation and storage, as well as magnets and plasma technologies can be applied to other areas like maglev trains and EM accelerators.

    Imagine a 5km long maglev train line that at the end curved up like a rollercoaster to point vertically that could be used to accelerate an object to several kms per second that could replace the first and biggest and heaviest and most expensive component of a space launch rocket... electrical propulsion is going to be way more efficient than chemical propulsion especially for large heavy loads...

    Some where in the Ural mountains the side of a mountain that offers a useful angle could have a similar track ready to launch objects upwards with a better supported track able to handle enormous weights up to reasonable flight speeds... remember the first stage rocket of most space launch systems are the most powerful and filled with the most fuel just to get the rest of the spacecraft moving and climbing... by the time they reach 10,000m altitude they are often only slightly supersonic but they are on their way... getting a much smaller object moving rather faster at 4km altitude could reduce the launch costs by an enormous amount...

    The USN deployed CV/Ns into the cold N. Atlantic & Norwegian fiords before, practicing flight ops there.

    Minus 40 degrees?

    How many are based in Alaska and normally operate only in the Arctic ocean... like a Russian carrier might need to?

    I doubt they will remove missiles & change other things for that. A barge can be used to test it at sea/lake.

    Not to test the EMALS... to upgrade the Kuznetsov to make it able to carry a heavier aircraft AWACS platform...

    Even on the CVN/TAKRN, with all the armament, radars, & other equipment, there may not be enough power generated left for the EMALS for their simultaneous use.

    A Russian CVN would only be using EMALS to launch AWACS aircraft... their fighters wouldn't need them for normal operations... so one launch every 6-8 hours is hardly going to require the entire ship to power down for a launch... and with AWACS aircraft operating those radars on the ship will spend most of their operational lives listening and not transmitting so the power they will be using will be fairly minimal.

    They operated nuclear ice breakers & subs for a long time but not CVNs, unlike the USN, as u correctly mentioned; there will be many kinks to be corrected & learned to avoid.

    All their ships use radar and have weapon systems that use power, so power management wont really be a brand new thing for them I suspect.

    The time it takes to prepare an aircraft to launch means it can charge up capacitor banks over a period of time before a launch without demanding full power from the power source.

    They might want to launch two heavy aircraft at once but they wont be launching dozens at a time... as I mentioned above only the AWACS and perhaps eventually a heavy strike model aircraft might be launched but most of the aircraft will be fighters that could take off conventionally...

    They can still do it in the sea states that an amphibian would break apart.

    If that were true then an AWACS aircraft taking off or landing on a heaving deck should also break apart for the very same reasons... in high sea states very few ships will be operating normally...

    Those 2 r not deck helos & r too big; as land based, they r perfect. But a tandem helo the size of between CH-46 & CH-47 is more power efficient & safer; it could serve as COD, AEWC, SAR/ASW/Marine/VDV/SOF/gunship platform for less $ & time to develop than the tilt-rotors, even if its performance is not as good:

    At a time when new high speed helos are being developed, why would Russia want to dig up a dinosaur and build a new copy of it?

    Why build a tandem rotor design helo when they could built a very large coaxial rotor model that they can put a forward driving tail mounted propeller or turbofan engine for better speed?

    With folding main rotors it could be interesting, but at the end of the day a fixed wing aircraft will be cheaper to buy and operate and have better performance.

    The CH-47F can fly at speeds of over 175 mph (282 km/h) with a payload of more than 21,000 lb (9.5 t). ..
    A CH-47F Block 2 is planned to be introduced after 2020. The Block 2 aims for a payload of 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) with 4,000 ft (1,200 m) and 95 °F (35 °C) high and hot hover performance, eventually increased up to 6,000 ft (1,800 m),..

    Nice features but all vastly inferior to existing Russian helicopters...


    ... from wiki unfortunately:

    Afghanistan Chinook recovery

    In the spring of 2002, a civilian Mi-26 was leased to recover two U.S. Army MH-47E Chinook helicopters from a mountain in Afghanistan. The Chinooks, operated by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, had been employed in Operation Anaconda, an effort to drive al Qaeda and Taliban fighters out of the Shahi-Kot Valley and surrounding mountains. They found themselves stranded on the slopes above Sirkhankel at altitudes of 2,600 metres (8,500 ft) and 3,100 metres (10,200 ft). While the second craft was too badly damaged to recover, the first was determined to be repairable and estimated to weigh 12,000 kilograms (26,000 lb) with fuel, rotors, and non-essential equipment removed. That weight exceeded the maximum payload of 9,100 kilograms (20,100 lb) at an altitude of 2,600 metres (8,500 ft) of the U.S. military's Sikorsky CH-53E.[6]

    The Mi-26 was located through Skylink Aviation in Toronto, which had connections with a Russian company called Sportsflite that operated three civilian Mi-26 versions called "Heavycopters". One of the aircraft, aiding in construction and firefighting work in neighboring Tajikistan, was leased for $300,000; it lifted the Chinook, flew it to Kabul, then later to Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan to ship to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, U.S. for repairs. Six months later, a second U.S. Army CH-47 that had made a hard landing 160 kilometres (100 mi) north of Bagram at an altitude of 1,200 metres (3,900 ft) was recovered by another Sportsflite-operated Mi-26 Heavycopter.[6]

    Such a helo can be very useful in the Far North, Siberia & the RFE:
    The civilian version of the Chinook is the Boeing Vertol 234. It has been used for a variety of purposes by a range of different civil operators, having often been used for passenger and cargo transport, along with niche roles such as aerial firefighting and to support various industrial activities, including logging, construction, and oil extraction

    They already have Mi-8/17 and Mi-26 and will soon add Mi-38... there is little point in adding a brand new design they haven't even started on yet...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5643
    Points : 5637
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:31 pm

    How many are based in Alaska and normally operate only in the Arctic ocean... like a Russian carrier might need to?
    They'll train & transit there, but operate in warmer waters like Atlantic, Med. Sea, W. Pac., & the Indian Ocean. We discussed this already: CVNs have nothing to do in the high Arctic, with other assets to defend approaches to Russia from that vector can do it better & safer. Their A-50/100s, Il-38s & Tu-142s can provide better radar coverage there than any organic AEWC/AWACS deck asset- no need to launch them at all, unlike the ASW/SAR/ice recon helos.
    If that were true then an AWACS aircraft taking off or landing on a heaving deck should also break apart for the very same reasons...
    A large CVN is a lot more stable in heavy seas than an amphibian; fixed wings can CATOBAR on it up to certain sea/wind state/speeds, while an amphibian will be marooned in the same weather. More argument to use rotary wings for those missions!
    Why build a tandem rotor design helo when they could built a very large coaxial rotor model that they can put a forward driving tail mounted propeller or turbofan engine for better speed?
    Well, the Ka-102 is now being developed: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ka-102.htm https://www.aviaport.ru/conferences/40762/45.html

    Why discard a very successful concept that can outdo the CH-47 & help Mi-26s? Also this 1 is interesting, although slower (speed isn't essential for it), it would be able to lift more than a tilt-rotor (a variant of it is also possible): https://dspace-erf.nlr.nl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.11881/3487/3-A-paper.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

    The Russians could also design a similar helo, but they now have better designs, listed above: http://www.avxaircraft.com/programs
    https://newatlas.com/radical-helicopter-design-has-dual-tilting-blades-and-can-travel-at-over-270mph/32840/

    If an AWACS & COD variants r built, they won't need the CAT at all.
    Better invest time $ in them than in steam or EMALS catapults that may not work as required, causing losses of aircraft & crews.
    As with everything,  there r trade offs. IMO Russia won't gain much & will loo$e more by having CATOBAR on her future CVN/TAKRs.

    Sponsored content

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat May 15, 2021 7:37 am