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


+28
George1
higurashihougi
magnumcromagnon
miketheterrible
jhelb
dino00
Gibraltar
LMFS
Isos
verkhoturye51
Borschty
hoom
GunshipDemocracy
Hole
ATLASCUB
The-thing-next-door
Peŕrier
Azi
medo
AlfaT8
flamming_python
Kimppis
eehnie
Singular_Transform
kvs
SeigSoloyvov
PapaDragon
Firebird
32 posters

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 1492
    Points : 1480
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:36 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:The 4 Yak-44s may take more space than proposed large tandem-rotor helo, which can have 4-5 variants- ASW/SAR/AWACS/Marine assault/COD, while  the Yak-44 only 2: AWACS & COD. IMO, a lot of $ can be saved by not fielding them.
    Also, they could be made amphibious (& replace/[url=https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%
    Too bad that a yak-44 would have more then twice the speed and 6 times the range of a chinook.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5685
    Points : 5673
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:40 pm

    The Russian helo will be a lot more capable than the CH-47, so it shouldn't be used as a yardstick.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 8030
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Isos Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:52 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:The Russian helo will be a lot more capable than the CH-47, so it shouldn't be used as a yardstick.

    Any improvement on the helicopter range can be re-used for the yak-44 making the later still the vest option.

    However the amphibious version is really interesting for ASW as they could sit on the water and deploy their sonar without using fuel. Should be used from a a dedicated ASW helicopter carrier.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 1492
    Points : 1480
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:56 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:The Russian helo will be a lot more capable than the CH-47, so it shouldn't be used as a yardstick.
    Yeah but Russia has already a very good modern marine assault attack helicopter, the ka-52k, and it's already developing new ASR helicopter based on a coaxial rotor design.

    https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-05-17/new-russian-naval-helicopter-previewed?amp

    Why should now abandon them for a different (and less efficient) design?

    Edit:sorry the I misread what you wrote. Of course the ka52 is an attack, not an assault transport (troop carrying).
    Current assault transport helicopter is the ka-29 (variant of the Ka-27)(that is being modernised, while they wait for the replacement to be ready).



    The capabilities of a turboprop or propfan aircraft like the yak-44 will be.instead perfect to complement the capabilities of russian navy helicopters (ka52k and ka-27/29 or replacements), as they cover different roles.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5685
    Points : 5673
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Jun 28, 2019 12:32 am

    Frankly, I don't see any indication whatsoever of any work being restarted on he Yak-44. AFAIK, they r not dusting off its blueprints; knowing that it usually takes them longer than expected, they should've done it "yesterday", if their plans r as u all envision them to be.
    Btw, China started testing a radar for her own E-2 counterpart a few years ago, & now is getting ready the plane itself:
    https://americanmilitarynews.com/2018/08/china-secretly-building-its-copy-of-us-navys-e-2-hawkeye-says-will-be-a-game-changer/

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/more-hints-about-beijings-aircraft-carrier-ambitio-458339/

    https://topwar.ru/134575-kitay-stroit-samolet-dlya-obnaruzheniya-stels-samoletov-protivnika.html

    http://www.sohu.com/a/322017519_100007345

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 AZDEOTHSENZKXEZPWFPD2R7GZE

    I'm sure they'll have it by the time their 1st CATOBAR CV-18 sails.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 1492
    Points : 1480
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Fri Jun 28, 2019 12:50 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Frankly, I don't see any indication whatsoever of any work being restarted on he Yak-44. AFAIK, they r not dusting off its blueprints; knowing that it usually takes them longer than expected, they should've done it "yesterday", if their plans r as u all envision them to be.
    if they plan to build a real carrier, then they will need that kind of aircraft, even if they would not go for the same aircraft. I thought about that aircraft because it was a project developed in the Russian SSR (and not in the Ukrainian SSR) and because they should have the full documentation for it and no IP right issue. Starting from that (and modernising it) could save a few years in development. If they start now with the design work, preproduction and testing of the aircraft could be finished by the time the new carrier is leaving the shipyards for the long phase of acceptance tests.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5685
    Points : 5673
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Jun 28, 2019 12:57 am

    Since they don't work on it or similar plane, at least to me it looks like it's been placed on a back burner, or "for later". Why spend $ now if the CVN design isn't finalized, much less ordered by the VMF?
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 8030
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Isos Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:02 am

    They will most likely take the "light a-100 radar" of the tu-214 awacs that is currently being developed and use it on a carrier based plateform and make it even lighter. So that all the AWACS arefrom the same family.

    They can't really start the development since there is no carrier being developed. I suggested they start it and sell it to China and India. But the first will develop its own and India will make the mistake of buying a US boeing with Israeli avionics and radars for the same price as the carrier itself.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30953
    Points : 31479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:27 am

    I have found an interesting aircraft that could be used as a carrier based AWACS/Refueler/Elint aircraft. It's the sukhoi-80. Very interesting design. And it is designed as STOL aircraft so it is already optimzed for short runways like on kuznetsov.

    It was an interesting design proposal, but it was a STOL design... the amount of space on a carrier deck means it practically has to be a VTOL or use catapults to operate.

    I have seen ground attack variants of it armed with all sorts of air to ground weapons, but AFAIK it was never actually a serious project with future prospects.

    interesting, but maybe a bit small. I would prefer to see the Yak-44 concept being restarted, since it was already conceived for carrier use

    I agree that it needs to be a custom designed aircraft, rather than something off the shelf that might get the job done.

    That E. Arctic area may still have thick ice/icebergs- at a time the CVN may need to transit there. Not worth the risk IMO

    It has aircraft and 250kg aerial bombs... it is not a problem... they could send five icebreakers to deal with the ice... by that stage they would have them.

    They'll know beforehand that a CVN is coming & warn civ. shipping to stay away.

    If they are going to be laying mines in Russian waters then Russia will be doing the same in european and US waters... do you really think they would risk that?

    Besides... which is it... ice too thick or mines?

    a big ship takes a long time to stop, even after it gets hit.

    I am sure the icebreaker that is leading the CVN would destroy any tanker or cargo vessel with a good solid hit to the side that rips it in half... the extra mass from all that extra water onboard would slow it down real fast.

    The permafrost & snow/icing conditions req. frequent repairs & clearing ops.

    All airfields need to be monitored for FOD and other issues.

    they take years to build- the AYM road, started on/off in 1975/85, from BAM to Yakutsk is supposed to open for passenger traffic only this summer:

    Airfields are much easier to build than roads and are in more demand most of the time.

    The rail line from Europe to Asia is one thing, but if it was a road it would need settlements along the way for stops... rail lines need fewer stops as it is more self sufficient... with no regular petrol stations and rooms to stay in for the night it is a bit harder by car... not so bad by plane.

    It'll need the expensive CAT, extra maintenance & personnel.

    So if the cat and systems are expensive that is fine... it makes no sense to spend big money on EM cats and then piss away even more money on faulty failed dead end designs like tilt rotors and vstol aircraft.

    They have helos and are looking in to high speed designs, and they are investing in EMCATS because those two directions offer the best potential payoff for the most reasonable investment.

    NZ isn't Siberia/RFE.

    Which is worse for your argument as a NZ company is less likely to want a Russian aircraft over an American one, yet they chose the Russian one every time the contract came up.

    They'll only be brought inside for repairs, won't be deployed in big #s on flight decks, & will replace SAR/ASW/AWACS helos, so the size/performance trade off is worth it IMO. They could also be based on other ships, if need be. A tanker could be modified with a hangar carrying fuel & spare parts will free up a lot of space. If they r going to send an ocean tug along anyway, it could also tow a medium/large barge with a dozen of them.

    Oh come on... if they are bringing along extra barges with helos on then bring one with a Mi-26 on it. It has already be developed and is better than the Chinook in every regard. And it is already in service.

    I believe it was mentioned somewhere that the Yak-44 was designed to operate both from a catapult and from the sky jump of the kuznetov.

    No, a big aircraft like a Yak-44 or Hawkeye wouldn't be able to use ramp on a carrier, and the Kuznetsov was not supposed to have a catapult, that was the slightly larger Ulyanovsk that the Yak was designed to operate from.

    The ski jump is for fit healthy athletes... MiG-33, Su-33, Yak-141...

    Afterall they were supposed to have two quite powerful d-27 propfan engines (maybe the Yak-44M will have PD-12 derivative turboprop or propfan).

    That is important... they have serious engine power... unlike the Su-80 which is designed for low cost cruise...

    Any new russian carrier will be equiped with catapults. RuN has clearly expressed that.

    Keep in mind that their current and likely planned fighters wont need catapult launch assistance, so this clearly means a large heavy AWACS platform is the main reason for these cats... now this might be manned or unmanned...

    The 4 Yak-44s may take more space than proposed large tandem-rotor helo, which can have 4-5 variants- ASW/SAR/AWACS/Marine assault/COD, while the Yak-44 only 2: AWACS & COD. IMO, a lot of $ can be saved by not fielding them.

    The Yak will take up a lot of space, but unlike a tandem rotor helicopter that does not exist yet in Russian service, the Yak will be able to fly at very useful heights and carry a rather large and powerful radar and a benefit of rather powerful engines will mean plenty of electrical power generation for running those electronics and systems it will be carrying. A transport version could be fitted out as an inflight refuelling aircraft and cargo transport aircraft too.

    However the amphibious version is really interesting for ASW as they could sit on the water and deploy their sonar without using fuel. Should be used from a a dedicated ASW helicopter carrier.

    Indeed, with the cost of sonar equipment you would think a dipping sonar on a helicopter or amphibious aircraft that could land on the water surface and do proper detailed searches through the various salt layers would be useful. Perhaps even an airship design that can land on the water surface and deploy dipping sonar...

    Frankly, I don't see any indication whatsoever of any work being restarted on he Yak-44. AFAIK, they r not dusting off its blueprints; knowing that it usually takes them longer than expected, they should've done it "yesterday", if their plans r as u all envision them to be.

    Yeah, if they are working on cats then wouldn't it make sense they are also developing something that would actually need cats to operate?

    Technology has moved on since the Yak-44... new composite materials and new engines and indeed new radar...

    We have not heard about progress with an AWACS platform but then we have not heard about progress with the EM cats either...

    Btw, China started testing a radar for her own E-2 counterpart a few years ago, & now is getting ready the plane itself:

    China has a different attitude to Russia, they just want something in service and don't seem to care whether it is state of the art or state of the ark.

    Certainly even if it is only a copy of an E-2 it would really be something because an E-2 is a good aircraft and miles ahead of anything Russia or the Soviet Union has ever operated from a carrier in terms of AWACS performance, but Russia seems to want better.

    Since they don't work on it or similar plane, at least to me it looks like it's been placed on a back burner, or "for later". Why spend $ now if the CVN design isn't finalized, much less ordered by the VMF?

    Aircraft don't drop from the sky, development takes time, so they have clearly decided on the fundamentals... 70K ton, nuclear powered, EMCATS, which requires an AWACS... so they would at least approach a few design bureaus to start basic preparation for design options... the fact that they are not talking about it doesn't mean nothing is happening.

    They will most likely take the "light a-100 radar" of the tu-214 awacs that is currently being developed and use it on a carrier based plateform and make it even lighter. So that all the AWACS arefrom the same family.

    Certainly no point in wasting effort that has already been expended, but these photonic radar systems sound interesting and relevant in terms of making a small system as effective as possible.

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 8030
    Points : 8014
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Isos Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:52 am

    It was an interesting design proposal, but it was a STOL design... the amount of space on a carrier deck means it practically has to be a VTOL or use catapults to operate.

    I have seen ground attack variants of it armed with all sorts of air to ground weapons, but AFAIK it was never actually a serious project with future prospects.

    I just saw the comparison with yak 44 and indeed it's not the same class. But it's still an interesting plane.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 1492
    Points : 1480
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:42 am

    Furthermore the yak-44 and for sure its eventual replacement will have foldable wings, reducing the space occupied on the deck.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5685
    Points : 5673
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Jun 28, 2019 6:05 pm

    If they are going to be laying mines in Russian waters then Russia will be doing the same in european and US waters... do you really think they would risk that?
    Besides... which is it... ice too thick or mines?
    The Bering Sea/Strait has Alaskan & international waters- mines can be released there to be carried by currents, in the waters that r ice free.
    Airfields are much easier to build than roads and are in more demand most of the time.
    By the same token, helipads & short strips r easier to build & maintain than runways.
    Which is worse for your argument as a NZ company is less likely to want a Russian aircraft over an American one, yet they chose the Russian one every time the contract came up.
    Russian companies charge le$$ & a lot closer than US based 1s that may be busy at home & elsewhere.
    if they are bringing along extra barges with helos on then bring one with a Mi-26 on it.
    In certain circumstances it could be a good idea, but that helo is too heavy- it could upset the barge's balance, it's needed more on land & will not be as feasible as Mi-38s & other smaller helos, & tandem/tilt-rotors. Brazilian Navy’s PHM Atlantico recently had two-week aviation training in January 2018 that involved British Apache, Chinook, and Merlin helicopters.
    https://www.janes.com/article/89574/brazilian-navy-s-phm-atlantico-takes-centre-stage

    CH-47 Fuselage length: 15.85m, vs. 26.97m/30.2 m of the CH-53D/K:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Specifications_(CH-47F)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53_Sea_Stallion#Specifications_(CH-53D)
    https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/ch53k/CH-53K-Brochure-2018.PDF

    By other data, the fuselage is still 20.5m, 4.65m longer than CH-47's:
    http://all-aero.com/index.php/contactus/35-helicopters/copters/10145-sikorsky-s-65--ch-53-sea-stallion--s-80

    Their tail boom can be folded, but even then, the length is reduced by ~5.53m (measured from the schematic below), bringing it to ~24.67m, or > the CH-47 length by ~8.82m:
    http://www.flyboyzblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ch53-folded-300x205.jpg

    If it's not too big there, a similar or 25% bigger helo will still fit well on future RF UDKs & CVNs. Btw, the Mi-38 is 19.7m long, exceeding the CH-47 by 3.85m:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-38#Specifications_(Mi-38)

    https://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/Pages/AmphibiousAssualtShip.aspx
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/USS_Wasp_%28LHD_1%29.jpg

    https://bluejacket.com/usmc/images/ch53e_b.jpg

    https://navylive.dodlive.mil/2016/07/27/interoperability-enhances-adaptability-in-amphibious-operations/

    https://news.usni.org/2016/08/17/21198_underway_uss_america

    https://news.usni.org/2019/05/20/lincoln-strike-group-and-kearsarge-arg-exercise-together-outside-persian-gulf#more-60089

    Certainly even if it is only a copy of an E-2 it would really be something because an E-2 is a good aircraft and miles ahead of anything Russia or the Soviet Union has ever operated from a carrier in terms of AWACS performance, but Russia seems to want better.
    it's not a copy, but a counterpart that may not be inferior to it. If the VMF won't get anything better, they could get a few &/ their designs from China & put their own engines, weapons, & avionics on them.
    ..the fact that they are not talking about it doesn't mean nothing is happening.
    the USSR secrecy rules r over; some1 would have leaked the news of it by now, as with other things they r working on. Journalists & bloggers need to make their living too.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Jun 29, 2019 12:37 am; edited 7 times in total (Reason for editing : add text, corrections)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30953
    Points : 31479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:04 am

    The Bering Sea/Strait has Alaskan & international waters- mines can be released there to be carried by currents, in the waters that r ice free.

    Yeah, lots of American and Russian and Japanese fishing boats operate in that area... when several of them explode and sink and the next Snowden stands up and squeals that it was the US government that ordered the mining of open sea waters then the US would be in the shit.

    By the same token, helipads & short strips r easier to build & maintain than runways.

    Are you crazy? I guess where you live there are only helipads and short strips because they are cheaper and easier to build and maintain?

    It doesn't matter where it is or what the conditions are helipads and short strips will always be cheaper and easier to build and maintain than proper airfields but guess what.... helipads and short strips are only good for short range aircraft like Helicopters and small light aircraft so if you have a mine that is producing 20 million tons of coal a year that simply does not cut it... you need a rail line.

    If that coal mine is to be operated properly you need lots of people and those people are not going to be living off the land... the rail line can take coal and bring in other stuff but with lots of people an airfield becomes justified and worth the money.

    Russian companies charge le$$ & a lot closer than US based 1s that may be busy at home & elsewhere.

    If it didn't get the job done they wouldn't rent it no matter how cheap it was.

    CH-47 Fuselage length:

    I am not understanding why you keep talking about the chinook and the super stallion like they would even be options for the Russian navy...

    it's not a copy, but a counterpart that may not be inferior to it. If the VMF won't get anything better, they could get a few &/ their designs from China & put their own engines, weapons, & avionics on them.

    I doubt the VMF will be looking to China for aircraft for their carriers.

    the USSR secrecy rules r over; some1 would have leaked the news of it by now, as with other things they r working on. Journalists & bloggers need to make their living too.

    Show me all your photos of the PAK DA and indeed the MiG-41 then please... Hell we don't even have an idea of what sort of carrier it will be operating from yet either.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 5038
    Points : 5062
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:42 am

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Furthermore the yak-44 and for sure its eventual replacement will have foldable wings, reducing the space occupied on the deck.

    some AWACS platform for sure but unlikely Yak-44 as this is almost 50 years' old design now, not to mention in 2030s



    The RuN aircraft carriers' soap continues...in short till 2023 we know that we dont know Razz

    26th of June 2019 Tass:

    Krylov center showed a project of an atomic aircraft carrier carrying up to 100 aircraft


    The ship for 76 thousand tons is equipped with an electromechanical catapult and springboard

    KUBINKA / Moscow Region /, June 26. / Tass /. The Krylov State Scientific Center presented at the International Military-Technical Forum Army-2019 a concept project of an average aircraft carrier with a nuclear reactor and an auxiliary gas turbine unit with a displacement of 76 thousand tons, capable of carrying up to 100 aircraft. The ship is equipped with an electromechanical catapult and springboard, TASS reported on Wednesday at the forum. general director of the center Pavel Filippov.

    "The proposed average modification of the Storm-KM project by our center is a 76,000-ton aircraft carrier with a nuclear reactor and an auxiliary gas-turbine installation. The hull is a semi-tamara ship, due to which the ship is approaching by the number of aircraft - up to 100 vehicles to an aircraft carrier of the Nimitz type, said Filippov.

    He noted that the electromechanical catapult offered for installation on an aircraft carrier in combination with a springboard reduces the load on deck pilots during takeoff to “quite comfortable” - 2 g.

    The head of the center said that the innovations offered by the center's specialists, including a unique hull shape, an improved propulsion control system, the combined use of an electromechanical catapult and springboard, "make it possible to maximize the operation of deck aircraft to the operation of aircraft and helicopters."

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6593379


    25th of June 2019, Tass Razz Razz Razz

    Scientific Director of KGNC: at the forum "Army-2019" we will present the solution of the aircraft carrier project

    https://tass.ru/interviews/6584440

    First of all, a fundamentally new solution of the aircraft carrier project. This is a full-fledged aircraft carrier. But with certain limitations. The first version of the conceptual project is a large aircraft carrier with a nuclear (energy) installation with the possibility of accommodating up to 100 aircraft and a displacement of about 100 thousand. tons. We demonstrated this option at the “Army-2017”. Last year, we demonstrated a light aircraft carrier. We are not ashamed of this term - a light aircraft carrier. This is the traditional design of the ship, which was used and used by experts. This year we are demonstrating a fully-fledged aircraft carrier with a displacement of about 60 thousand tons with a very serious, balanced fleet of aircraft.

    - What are the features of the ship and its advantages?

    A distinctive feature of the variant that is being offered to the fleet today is an aircraft carrier with a non-nuclear power plant. It is offered with a gas turbine power plant, roughly speaking - with full electric propulsion. To a certain extent, it can be compared with the English aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth. They are about the same in terms of displacement, but in terms of the number of aircraft, autonomy and, most importantly, the number of points of launch of aircraft, the advantage of the concept project of the Krylov Center takes place.



    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5685
    Points : 5673
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:10 am

    GarryB wrote:Yeah, lots of American and Russian and Japanese fishing boats operate in that area...
    In higher tensions they'll leave the area long before Russian CBG enters it.
    ..if you have a mine that is producing 20 million tons of coal a year that simply does not cut it... you need a rail line.
    There r gold fields & oil/gas wells w/o any railroads for 100s of miles around. That's why they r going to build them from Yakutsk to Magadan & on to Chukotka & Kamchatka.
    I am not understanding why you keep talking about the chinook and the super stallion like they would even be options for the Russian navy...
    they r of similar dimensions & the USN carriers have no problems accommodating them. If the VMF get Mi-38s & tandem/tilt-rotors of comparable/bigger sizes, it wouldn't be any different.
    I doubt the VMF will be looking to China for aircraft for their carriers.
    A time may come when they'll have to swallow their pride. They r already co-developing a big helo & an airliner.
    Show me all your photos of the PAK DA and indeed the MiG-41 then please...  Hell we don't even have an idea of what sort of carrier it will be operating from yet either.
    Those r still paper planes & u can find their speculative cg pics/videos in seconds: https://www.mk.ru/politics/2018/08/21/zaranee-boyatsya-ekspert-obyasnil-kritiku-mig41-v-ssha.html

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0vf--CLkUk

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZgHwxJMHZ4

    If there was a Yak-44 style plane in the works, they would've boasted about it by now. Even if the VMF rejects it, there would be other uses for that airframe, so the investment would be worth it. In the US, the retired S-2 Trackers were converted to fire bombers:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_S-2_Tracker#Civil_operators

    The C-1 Trader had proposed passenger & tanker variants:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_C-1_Trader#Variants
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30953
    Points : 31479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:36 am

    In higher tensions they'll leave the area long before Russian CBG enters it.

    How would they know... civilian fishing boats don't have radar... and why would they leave... their fishing season is fixed if they don't fish they don't get paid...

    And what level of tension do they stop fishing?

    There r gold fields & oil/gas wells w/o any railroads for 100s of miles around. That's why they r going to build them from Yakutsk to Magadan & on to Chukotka & Kamchatka.

    Gold fields don't require enormous volumes of product to be taken out like a coal field for instance, and gas and oil are easier to move by pipeline.

    There are lots of ways of moving things... rail or sea or air, but some are better suited than others. Moving coal by rail, you don't have one coal car per engine, you have two or three engines and a few hundred coal cars. The weight and volume of product means it is not efficient to move coal by air, so it would be mostly people and building materials by air.

    they r of similar dimensions & the USN carriers have no problems accommodating them.

    Still not interesting for the VMF who could not buy either aircraft from the US even if they wanted to.

    If the VMF get Mi-38s & tandem/tilt-rotors of comparable/bigger sizes, it wouldn't be any different.

    Makes very little sense for them to do so. Normally resupply can be sorted out much easier and faster with ships coming along side the carrier and offloading via cranes. There are few jobs they will be using transport helos for on their carriers. Remember the Russian carriers are air support for their carrier groups... not the other way around.

    A time may come when they'll have to swallow their pride. They r already co-developing a big helo & an airliner.

    Pride has nothing to do with it. The Chinese are not experts in aircraft design or carrier warfare yet.

    Those r still paper planes & u can find their speculative cg pics/videos in second

    But are those speculative pics accurate? And there are just as many speculative pics of Russian AWACS designs mostly based on the Yak-44...

    For all we know they might create something radically different, their new photonic radar might lead to a biplane design for their AWACS platform that looks like a scaled up An-2 updated with a much more powerful engine.

    The radar might be built in to the second wing and the huge wing area means the aircraft can operate from 50m strips of ground.... it might not even need EMALS... and its small engine might allow it to operate for enormous periods of time at high altitude because of its low wing loading... it wont be fast but speed is not really an important factor for an AWACS platform... it might even be amphibious... and able to land in the water next to the carrier and be lifted back on board with a crane for max payload takeoffs it could take off from the water and use kms of space for takeoffs.

    We really don't know.

    If there was a Yak-44 style plane in the works, they would've boasted about it by now. Even if the VMF rejects it, there would be other uses for that airframe, so the investment would be worth it. In the US, the retired S-2 Trackers were converted to fire bombers:

    But we haven't heard anything about anything... you are claiming there is no Yak-44 equivalent because we haven't heard about it... by the same logic there can be no tandem helicopter or tiltrotor AWACS either because we haven't heard about them either.

    We have heard about EMALs cats, which means they want to operate a heavy aircraft from their new carrier... you don't use EMAL cats or any cats on VTOL or helicopters, so why are they developing that?

    A carrier based fixed wing aircraft used for carrying a large radar and radar processing electronics and lots and lots of fuel is not really related to anything you would want on shore. Very simply the requirements for engine power to operate from a carrier conflict directly with the requirement for long range and long endurance... a land based small AWACS would have weak engine power because even if every air field was nuked it could operate from straight flat bits of motorway all over Russia... 2-3km long sections would be plenty and the bonus of being underpowered would be very low fuel burn and low cruise speed... when you are scanning an area for air threats you don't need to and don't want to cover a lot of ground.

    There is no point in resurrecting the Yak-44 which was custom designed for the Ulyanovsk if the new ship will have major differences in design.

    I would suggest what they most likely would do is have at least two teams... one will likely take the Yak-44 design and fully update it and modernise it with new materials to dramatically reduce weight and increase fuel volume and of course new engines to improve flight performance and new radar and electronics to maximise performance. The second team I would set the task of starting from scratch and using their imagination to make the best possible aircraft that can carry radar and cargo and fuel in the AWACS, transport, and inflight refuelling roles.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5685
    Points : 5673
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:30 pm

    GarryB wrote:How would they know... civilian fishing boats don't have radar... and why would they leave... their fishing season is fixed if they don't fish they don't get paid...
    The US/Russia will warn them. The media may also have news of it.
    Gold fields don't require enormous volumes of product to be taken out like a coal field for instance, and gas and oil are easier to move by pipeline.
    There r/were other mines:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_mine
    https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/stunning-photos-of-a-siberian-gold-mine-only-accessible-by-air-or-ice-road

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLtc0RAV1fI

    https://www.rbth.com/history/326157-kolyma-russias-far-eastern-land
    Still not interesting for the VMF who could not buy either aircraft from the US even if they wanted to.
    they could get some CH-47s from Iran & their spares from others, if only for training/eval. purposes, or build their own from the designs I posted.
    Normally resupply can be  sorted out much easier and faster with ships coming along side the carrier and offloading via cranes.
    Only in calm seas. VERTREPs r being done even in heavy seas. Those helos have the range to perform COD missions from the shore.
    The Chinese are not experts in aircraft design or carrier warfare yet.
    they r mastering it faster than the Russians & r already approaching their level. At least they didn't create extra work for themselves from a sunken drydock & a falling crane.
    But are those speculative pics accurate?
    Some may be close to the real thing. I saw many drawings in old magazines & books of possible future Soviet aircraft from the Cold War- they were pretty close to what was later actually produced.
    by the same logic there can be no tandem helicopter or tiltrotor AWACS either because we haven't heard about them either.
    my point is that they could build them later as an alternative to fixed wings for CVNs, UDKs, etc.
    We have heard about EMALS cats, which means they want to operate a heavy aircraft from their new carrier... you don't use EMAL cats or any cats on VTOL or helicopters, so why are they developing that?
    Don't count chicks before they hatch: EMALS may not be successful. Or they may think otherwise & found that years later, after loosing more planes, pilots, & crews than they anticipate.
    A carrier based fixed wing aircraft used for carrying a large radar and radar processing electronics and lots and lots of fuel is not really related to anything you would want on shore.
    FYI, not only the USN & FN operates them:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye#Other_operators

    The Argentine Naval Aviation received seven S-2As in 1962, six S-2Es in 1978 and three S-2Gs in the 1990s. They were used from both aircraft carriers, ARA Independencia and ARA Veinticinco de Mayo and used in the COD (US-2A conversions), Maritime Patrol and ASW roles. They were extensively used in the 1982 Falklands War, first from Veinticinco de Mayo, from where they detected the British Task Force and then from the mainland when the carrier returned to port after the sinking of the cruiser ARA General Belgrano. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-2_Tracker#Argentina

    When the PRC gets them (with IRPs- no need to carry lots of fuel), some may be based on Hainan &/ their SC Sea islands.
    Russia could use hers off their Arctic/Kuril islands & perhaps Syria, & India hers off the Nicobars & the mainland. In fact, they'll do well in Tibet/Himalayas too, using less hangar space & fuel than their 4 engine AWACS & ASW planes, saving a lot of $ on shorter range missions.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:51 pm; edited 5 times in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    avatar
    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 663
    Points : 671
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  ATLASCUB Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:11 pm

    All these new proposals and the continuing back and forth year after year after year only tell you one thing.... A new Russian carrier is at least a decade off.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11555
    Points : 11623
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  PapaDragon Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:39 pm

    ATLASCUB wrote:All these new proposals and the continuing back and forth year after year after year only tell you one thing.... A new Russian carrier is at least a decade off.

    Decade from decision at least two until contract plus several more years after that until construction starts

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5685
    Points : 5673
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:40 pm

    I expect the UDK, which is a small carrier, will come sooner.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10843
    Points : 10988
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  kvs Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:41 pm

    ATLASCUB wrote:All these new proposals and the continuing back and forth year after year after year only tell you one thing.... A new Russian carrier is at least a decade off.

    Russia needs to focus at the NATO dogs cramming its borders. This includes the breakdown of the INF treaty and the START treaty.
    Imperial marine punitive airforce platforms are a distinct N-th level priority. Russia's economy will be developing regardless of NATO
    and military spending will give the GDP further stimulus. Tens years from now it will be better off and can engage luxury projects.

    BTW, 10 years from now is only possible if the ship contract is signed today. I think 20 years from now is more realistic.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5685
    Points : 5673
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Jun 29, 2019 11:04 pm

    They already have modern symmetric & asymmetric means to deliver nukes & PGMs. More important tasks r preventing more anti-Russian color revolutions & civil wars on Russian perimeter & separatism in Russia itself, as well as land transportation to tie all the time zones of the country better. Some borders will also have to be redrawn, & soon.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30953
    Points : 31479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:09 am

    The US/Russia will warn them. The media may also have news of it.

    Well Russia wont warn them... all they are doing is sailing past... why would they warn them?

    And what is the US going to say to its fishing vessels... GTFO of there we are laying sea mines there shortly to start WWIII?

    The media might mention the tension and situation the Russian ships are being sent to, but they are hardly going to announce that the US navy has broken all international rules and openly mined an international water way without declaration of war...

    There r/were other mines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_mine

    In the title of that link it says it is a gold mine that has both ice road and air links... doesn't that prove my point?

    Gold mines don't produce thousands of tons of gold a week... so you could send the product out by truck or aircraft. Coal mines can produce thousands of tons of coal per day it is just not practical to take that out of the region by weather effected truck or aircraft.

    they could get some CH-47s from Iran & their spares from others, if only for training/eval. purposes, or build their own from the designs I posted.

    Doesn't need them and doesn't want them.

    Only in calm seas. VERTREPs r being done even in heavy seas.

    Amphibious aircraft can operate in a range of sea states, and most of the time sea states too rough for amphibious ops are generally also too rough to have a supply ship come along side and load with a crane.

    Those helos have the range to perform COD missions from the shore.

    Russia needs an aircraft carrier because it does not have military bases in every country around the world where they could base aircraft... most resupply for Russian vessels will be via Russian supply vessels.

    they r mastering it faster than the Russians & r already approaching their level.

    Says who? They haven't even managed to design and build their own naval fighter yet. We don't know what progress the Russians have made which makes your claim amusing at best.

    At least they didn't create extra work for themselves from a sunken drydock & a falling crane.

    No, they are too busy with their trade war with the US and occupation of Tibet and plans to take back Taiwan.

    Some may be close to the real thing. I saw many drawings in old magazines & books of possible future Soviet aircraft from the Cold War- they were pretty close to what was later actually produced.

    Depends on the artist, I remember a lot of US DoD drawings showing new Soviet equipment being exact copies of western equipment...

    my point is that they could build them later as an alternative to fixed wings for CVNs, UDKs, etc.

    Why spend a lot of money on an alternative that has worse performance and higher operational costs... spend that money to get real more practical designs working properly.

    High speed helos makes sense because the technology and designs can be applied as upgrades to existing types... the Hind has been improved with wings and main and tail rotors and engines developed for the Havoc as an example.

    Don't count chicks before they hatch: EMALS may not be successful.

    Hahahahaha... a bit like saying man will never set foot on Mars... the first systems don't need to be perfect... the only aircraft on board they have to get airborne are the AWACS platforms and they already have Ka-35s as backup for that anyway.

    Or they may think otherwise & found that years later, after loosing more planes, pilots, & crews than they anticipate.

    Would not be any worse than the money and time wasted with the VSTOL programmes of the past. The knowledge gained in vectoring afterburning jet engine nozzles and automated ejection systems was probably useful but not much else. With EMALS there is plenty of useful technologies that need to be mastered involving large amounts of electrical current, control and transfer of power, plasma, and of course magnetism and superconductors, as well as all electric drive which they are also working on. All of which will be very useful in the full range of uses from land and sea and undersea vehicles to aircraft and also space craft.

    When the PRC gets them (with IRPs- no need to carry lots of fuel), some may be based on Hainan &/ their SC Sea islands.
    Russia could use hers off their Arctic/Kuril islands & perhaps Syria, & India hers off the Nicobars & the mainland. In fact, they'll do well in Tibet/Himalayas too, using less hangar space & fuel than their 4 engine AWACS & ASW planes, saving a lot of $ on shorter range missions.

    Large fuel capacity is still important... with a catapult to help accelerate the aircraft the extra weight is actually a good thing as it provides momentum... it also means when refuelling mid flight you can take on more fuel and operate for longer without needing to refuel in flight too.

    With a larger load of fuel on board an AWACS can also refuel fighters operating with it to extend their operational range too... if you are operating 400km away from your carrier all the aircraft around you are directing need to have the fuel to fly 400km to return to the carrier to land safely... with a lot of fuel on board your AWACS aircraft it could refuel aircraft operating with it with a little top up to get home safely... having such an aircraft operating over the Kuznetsov in Syria would have saved two aircraft... a Fulcrum and a Flanker... they could have been topped up and flown to a land base when it was realised they could not land on the carrier.

    All these new proposals and the continuing back and forth year after year after year only tell you one thing.... A new Russian carrier is at least a decade off.

    No. It tells you they are thinking about what their actual needs are and are not just going to blunder forward with something bigger and more expensive than the previous model like the US does. Stealth will fix everything...

    Decade from decision at least two until contract plus several more years after that until construction starts

    They are already talking about laying down a carrier in about 2025, which makes that statement already wrong...

    I expect the UDK, which is a small carrier, will come sooner.

    There was an article mentioning a couple of Mistral replacements being started in the next few years...

    https://tass.com/defense/1065639

    More important tasks r preventing more anti-Russian color revolutions & civil wars on Russian perimeter & separatism in Russia itself, as well as land transportation to tie all the time zones of the country better.

    Russia needs to expand its access to the worlds countries outside of the west, and increase its trade with them, bypassing land and air trade routes that have to cross western controlled land and airspace... and by sea is the best way to do that.

    Russia also needs to push back and support anti west colour revolutions of their own... start interfering in spain and ireland and the US, there are oppressed people all over the west wanting support to get a fair deal in their own countries... start playing the game with the same rules the west applies to itself... but be careful to only do this with western countries... the rest of the world can be treated with dignity and respect so they don't confuse you for being more of the same (ie the west) when it comes to international relations...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5685
    Points : 5673
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:21 am

    GarryB wrote:Well Russia wont warn them... all they are doing is sailing past... why would they warn them?
    they'll warn their own; when they suddenly leave, others will follow.
    And what is the US going to say to its fishing vessels... GTFO of there we are laying sea mines there shortly to start WWIII?
    They won't need to reveal anything-just make something up- i.e. exercises, tests, etc.
    ..they are hardly going to announce that the US navy has broken all international rules and openly mined an international water way without declaration of war...
    there'll be all sorts of fake news & speculations, but the SVR/GRU will alert the VMF that something is up.
    In the title of that link it says it is a gold mine that has both ice road and air links... doesn't that prove my point?
    There r many resources undeveloped besides coal in Yakutia & Chukotka that can only be commercially exploited with year-round railroads extended there; to build them, V/STOLs r needed before, during & after their construction, to speed it up by improving logistics/supply/trade/firefighting/disaster relief/passenger service & save lives.
    Doesn't need them and doesn't want them.
    If true, that may change.
    Amphibious aircraft can operate in a range of sea states, and most of the time sea states too rough for amphibious ops are generally also too rough to have a supply ship come along side and load with a crane.
    tandem-rotors r more stable in the air & those amphibians in the water; UNREPs r safer as they can move against the wind/waves for more stability with a set speed. A freak wave/squall can slam 1 ship against the other at anchorage, toppling cranes/cargo & killing people/causing fires & other damage. The USN, FN & RN done UNREPs for decades for a reason.
    most resupply for Russian vessels will be via Russian supply vessels.
    most, but not all- emergency supplies of something they run out of can be flown to a closest country to be picked up by a deck based long range helo. The same with personnel transfers & medevacs.
    They haven't even managed to design and build their own naval fighter yet.
    That may not be true:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_FC-31#Future

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLQEtRxflEU

    They also have trainers that could be used as light fighters:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongdu_L-15#Design_and_development
    No, they are too busy with their trade war with the US and occupation of Tibet and plans to take back Taiwan.
    They recently done a refit of CV-16 while testing/building 2 new CVs & so far managed to avoid embarrassing accidents.
    Depends on the artist, I remember a lot of US DoD drawings showing new Soviet equipment being exact copies of western equipment...
    Didn't see those or they got smarter/fired by the time I saw the pics I'm referring to.
    Why spend a lot of money on an alternative that has worse performance and higher operational costs... spend that money to get real more practical designs working properly.
    They had tandem rotor helos before, but not fixed wing AWACS for CATOBAR ops; by trial & error, they'll learn what's best for them. Russian conditions r different, thus there's no need to emulate the USN & the PLAN. U can find a 100% guarantee only on a cemetery- most, if not all of the folks there paid taxes before being laid to rest.
    High speed helos makes sense because the technology and designs can be applied as upgrades to existing types...

    But COD helos don't need high speed.
    the only aircraft on board they have to get airborne are the AWACS platforms and they already have Ka-35s as backup for that anyway.
    I bet the CODs/ASW too; there was another 1: http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/ka-35.php

    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K0zCz_aikvA/TfootqBnG3I/AAAAAAAACAo/xD5_HvIZlao/s1600/Kamov_Ka-35.jpg
    With EMALS there is plenty of useful technologies that need to be mastered involving large amounts of electrical current, control and transfer of power, plasma, and of course magnetism and superconductors, as well as all electric drive which they are also working on.
    all that may take more time than they have before putting a CVN to sea.

    Large fuel capacity is still important... with a catapult to help accelerate the aircraft the extra weight is actually a good thing as it provides momentum...
    when land based, they can take less fuel & later get topped off mid-air, if need be.
    With a larger load of fuel on board an AWACS can also refuel fighters operating with it to extend their operational range too...
    bad idea- the turbulence from radome may not allow it. If something goes wrong u may lose a tanker/fighter instead of a more expensive AWACS + its entire crew.
    There was an article mentioning a couple of Mistral replacements being started in the next few years...
    https://tass.com/defense/1065639
    dead link!
    Russia needs to expand its access to the worlds countries outside of the west, and increase its trade with them, bypassing land and air trade routes that have to cross western controlled land and airspace... and by sea is the best way to do that.
    For that, they'll need overseas bases/artificial islands as the West still dominates/controls all the oceans except the Arctic. Plus canals across Iran, Nicaragua, & Thailand. As mentioned, most of their trade is within Eurasia & they need to secure their perimeter 1st before venturing to W. & S. Hemispheres. For ops in & around Syria, Venezuela & Cuba, they didn't fail so far w/o a CVN.
    What can Argentina, Brazil, Australia & NZ offer to Russia in terms of trade Russia can't get from Asia & Africa? Coffee, lamb, beef, & kangaroo meat? Minerals?They now have better agriculture; Siberia, Arctic & the FE has all the periodic table of elements; exotic products that most can't even afford r not in high demand there.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:31 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30953
    Points : 31479
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:40 am

    they'll warn their own; when they suddenly leave, others will follow.

    They are fishermen... when they see someone else leave they wont leave too... they will steal their spot...

    And again... what is Russia going to say to its fishermen?

    We are on our way to a dispute in central or south america, things might get a bit hot... everyone stop earning a living and go home... I don't think they would say that and even if they did I don't think they would listen...

    They won't need to reveal anything-just make something up- i.e. exercises, tests, etc.

    So even if they got their way and all the civilian craft left the region and they filled the place with sea mines and the Russian carrier and several major Russian ships are sunk... WWIII and the remaining ships in that little group can stop and launch cruise missiles at the US of A because it would be nice and close.... but then they could also mine the Med so what is your point?

    As long as America is prepared to start WWIII the Russian fleet is not going to be effective?

    But the obvious question is how do you get everyone out of there without tipping off everyone that something is up... and when they realise what you are doing, what is really to stop them doing exactly the same to you... a passing roll on roll off ferry dropping mines through the persian gulf or the med or outside the main international port of rotterdam or new york or london... mines are cheap and easy to mass produce and you can booby trap them easily enough too.

    there'll be all sorts of fake news & speculations, but the SVR/GRU will alert the VMF that something is up.

    And what do you expect to happen then? The VMF sends out some minesweepers and finds lots of live current model US mines all over the place... defuse them and put new fuses in them and lay them in the Persian gulf or just the waters of the US coast as paybacks?  Who cares if anyone gets sunk... after all they will be American mines, made in the US of A.

    There r many resources undeveloped besides coal in Yakutia & Chukotka that can only be commercially exploited with year-round railroads extended there; to build them, V/STOLs r needed before, during & after their construction, to speed it up by improving logistics/supply/trade/firefighting/disaster relief/passenger service & save lives.

    Yeah because that is what V-22s do all day... build rail lines through the Sahara desert and other desolate places... except it is actually cheaper to go into Siberia and use local wood and build rail lines by using rail cars carrying the people and materials needed to build rail lines... land an aircraft like an Il-476 first with heavy machinery like graders first to clear out and build a proper all weather runway and then bring in more heavy machinery with bigger aircraft like An-124s and start preparing the ground from that end and of course at the other end of the rail line you can use normal railcars for people and vehicles and tracks while a mobile mill can make all the wooden components you will even need... you are in Siberia after all.

    Helicopters are never used for building railways... they just are not efficient... you can use them to transport a group of people from anywhere to anywhere and small cargo loads, or individual trees in a selective logging operation but you don't use them to make roads or rails... or ports either.

    If true, that may change.

    Currently not trying to buy any. They tried tandem rotor design helos and didn't like them.. the Yakovlev design bureau made one from memory and it was useless... it lost in competition to the Mi-6 or something.

    tandem-rotors r more stable in the air & those amphibians in the water; UNREPs r safer as they can move against the wind/waves for more stability with a set speed. A freak wave/squall can slam 1 ship against the other at anchorage, toppling cranes/cargo & killing people/causing fires & other damage. The USN, FN & RN done UNREPs for decades for a reason.

    Coaxial rotor helos are just as stable and less effected by crosswinds, and several of their planned future high speed helicopter types are coaxials like the Kamov range of helos they already operate at sea.

    most, but not all- emergency supplies of something they run out of can be flown to a closest country to be picked up by a deck based long range helo. The same with personnel transfers & medevacs.

    With the current state of western sanctions and general hostility Russia can't rely on any country to cooperate, if it is emergency supplies a transport aircraft could fly direct to the carriers location and drop the supplies by parachute either onto the deck or to be picked up by SAR Ka-27... it would actually be faster.

    A carrier related light transport aircraft should have better range and much better speed than any tandem helicopter or tiltrotor aircraft.

    That may not be true:

    They can't even make their own engines...

    This is another paper aircraft and there is no evidence it is anywhere near operational... let alone its actual performance.

    They had access to the plans for the F-35 and they can monitor reports and information about problems and issues with the F-35 so there is every chance they might actually make a better aircraft and avoid some issues and problems with the original design, but I wont be holding my breath.

    They also have trainers that could be used as light fighters

    There is a common thought around the place that jet trainers are currently so expensive that the only way you can justify buying them is to pretend they can also replace light fighter aircraft.

    The problem there of course is that they are expensive for what they are so converting them into fighters makes a fairly weak fighter, that really isn't that cheap anyway. To make a current trainer useful as a fighter it needs new engines, new radar, new avionics suite, new self defence suite... you know... all the stuff that makes good fighters expensive.... and you end up with a small fighter that is not cheap that has short range and small payload because it was only supposed to be a trainer anyway...

    They recently done a refit of CV-16 while testing/building 2 new CVs & so far managed to avoid embarrassing accidents.

    And how would we know if they were having problems or not, their media seems geared to talking about success rather than defeat... it is very much modelled on western media you could say.

    Didn't see those or they got smarter/fired by the time I saw the pics I'm referring to.

    I remember T-80 drawings showing Abrams type vehicles, and of course the Tunguska, or ZSU-30-2 as it was known then looked exactly like Gepard but with single barrel 30mm cannon.

    They had tandem rotor helos before, but not fixed wing AWACS for CATOBAR ops;

    They had tandem rotor helos and rejected them because conventional rotor design models were better.

    For the problem of fixed wing CATOBAR ops for AEW they developed the Yak-44, not any tiltrotor or tandem helicopter design.

    But COD helos don't need high speed.

    Doesn't matter. The extra speed is there if wanted but they can fly as slow or as fast as they want. COD fixed wing aircraft can fly further and faster and likely with a better payload capacity too.

    I bet the CODs/ASW too; there was another 1

    Ka-35 is the new designation for the upgraded Ka-31 AEW helo.

    all that may take more time than they have before putting a CVN to sea.

    What makes you think that?

    Even if they layed down the keel tomorrow the ship would not be in the water for a good 8-10 years...

    when land based, they can take less fuel & later get topped off mid-air, if need be.

    They could do that at sea too.

    bad idea- the turbulence from radome may not allow it. If something goes wrong u may lose a tanker/fighter instead of a more expensive AWACS + its entire crew.

    Depends on the situation... and who says it will have a radome?

    The new photonic radar designs sound like they can be surface mounted on an aircrafts skin... a nose mounted array, a tail mounted array, and an array down the each side of the fuselage or even wingtip pods...

    dead link!

    26 Jun, 23:08
    Russia to start building 1st helicopter carrier in 2021, says source
    There are plans to build the lead universal amphibious assault ship and deliver it to the customer under the state armament program through 2027
    © Vitaly Nevar/TASS

    KUBINKA /Moscow Region, June 26. /TASS/. Russia plans to build two universal amphibious assault ships capable of carrying 15-20 helicopters under the state armament program through 2027, a source in the domestic defense industry told TASS on the sidelines of the Army-2019 international military and technical forum on Wednesday.

    "In the coming months but no later than the end of the year, the Defense Ministry will complete developing technical specifications for a universal amphibious assault ship and send them to the United Shipbuilding Corporation. The state armament program through 2027 includes two universal amphibious assault ships. A preliminary design has been worked out. Technical design work will begin in 2020 and the construction of the lead ship will start in 2021," the source said, adding that the work’s chief contractors had not yet been determined.

    There are plans to build the lead universal amphibious assault ship and deliver it to the customer under the state armament program through 2027 while the work on the first serial-produced vessel will be completed before the early 2030s, the source said.

    "Although the technical specifications have not yet been formulated, it is possible to speak already now that universal amphibious assault ships will get a large dock chamber to house assault boats and will also be capable of carrying a large air group of helicopters of various designation, including 15-20 permanently based attack gunships," the source said.

    Head of Russia’s United Shipbuilding Corporation Alexei Rakhmanov earlier said that Russia needed to build its own helicopter carriers in the future for the prompt deployment of a large grouping of forces. Moreover, these helicopter carriers should not repeat France’s Mistral project.

    Universal amphibious assault ships, also called helicopter carriers, are distinguished by their large displacement (20,000 tonnes and more) and can carry a large group of heavy helicopters of various designation (up to 16 helicopters aboard Mistral ships and more than 30 aboard US Wasp-class vessels), and also vertical take-off rotorcraft.

    Universal amphibious assault ships can carry from several hundred to over one thousand marine infantry personnel, boats and other craft for landing the assault force and transport the armor. Universal amphibious assault ships normally feature a powerful combat control system and can act as a command and control vessel for a grouping of forces.


    For that, they'll need overseas bases/artificial islands as the West still dominates/controls all the oceans except the Arctic.

    During the cold war teh Soviets simply created artifical moorings out in the open water for Soviet ships to dock and change crews and refuel and resupply.

    As mentioned, most of their trade is within Eurasia & they need to secure their perimeter 1st before venturing to W. & S. Hemispheres.

    They had a lot of trade with Europe but that is diminished because of EU sanctions. They need to look to alternative markets and trade partners that wont sanction them and bully them the way the west does... there are actually plenty of countries that don't want to tell Russia how to treat its gays and don't expect Russia to tell them the same... trading with Russia would be a refreshing change from dealing with the west.

    For ops in & around Syria, Venezuela & Cuba, they didn't fail so far w/o a CVN.

    They don't need any navy at all, but they have one, so they might as well make it safer in open waters away from Russian air cover.

    What can Argentina, Brazil, Australia & NZ offer to Russia in terms of trade Russia can't get from Asia & Africa? Coffee, lamb, beef, & kangaroo meat? Minerals?They now have better agriculture; Siberia, Arctic & the FE has all the periodic table of elements; exotic products that most can't even afford r not in high demand there.

    I wouldn't bother with Australia and New Zealand for the moment... we are too far up Americas arse to hear anything anyone else says... eventually we can improve trade links. Central and South America really don't know what normal international trade is because America has not allowed it... giving them alternatives will both help them and help Russia, and of course in Africa there is plenty of wealth, both mineral, vegetable, and human wealth too. There are plenty of countries in Africa that the west has branded bad and wont deal with normally... this is a real opportunity for Russia and China to go in and trade and help them grow and develop in a more healthy and normal way...


    Last edited by GarryB on Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:44 am; edited 1 time in total

    Sponsored content

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 38 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:40 am