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.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5731
    Points : 5721
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:43 pm

    GarryB wrote:They are fishermen... when they see someone else leave they wont leave too... they will steal their spot...
    They all got sat. comm./internet & can listen to each other- if the CG/VMF tells any of them to leave, &/ they see things heating up, they will all return to port or go elsewhere, instead of risking their lives, boats, catch, & insurance rates.
    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...
    During high tensions, the VMF won't risk getting caught in a narrow strait- they remember the Tsushima disaster in the wider strait. Losing even capital ships r not the same as losing armies & cities; they r not worth starting WWIII that would kill 100s of Ms. Mines can be used to delay/slow ships down or close some areas to traffic. Subs & planes then can use LR AShMs against them. They may save time using the NSR but not ships, aircraft, & lives.
    Helicopters are never used for building railways...
    They r accompanied with power/pipelines & other construction:
    The total time for constructing transmission lines was reduced by half in comparison with the usual methods.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02380168

    https://www.fairlifts.com/construction-helicopters/transmission-line-construction/
    https://www.tdworld.com/features/helicopters-lift-linemens-efficiency

    https://www.corporatehelicopters.com/helicopter-services/helicopter-utility/powerline-helicopters/

    https://air2.com/helicopter-utility-construction-projects/

    http://www.heli.co.nz/powerlinepipeline-construction/

    https://helihub.com/tag/pipeline-patrol/

    https://www.helicopterlinks.com/utility/
    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.
    Not completely useless: the Mi-6 appeared 4 years later:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-24#Design_and_development

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-6

    If it was a dead end concept, those designers wouldn't make fools of themselves. The West has the CH-53s but still keeps the CH-47s that can lift more, (even the CH-53K when flying hot/high over the mountains):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53_Sea_Stallion#Operators
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53K_King_Stallion#Operators

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53_Sea_Stallion#Specifications_(CH-53D)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_CH-47_Chinook_operators

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#CH-47F
    Coaxial rotor helos are just as stable and less effected by crosswinds, and several of their planned future high speed helicopter types are tandems like the Kamov range of helos they already operate at sea.
    IMO, they may not be big enough for more demanding AWACS/COD roles. With pulling props their speed will be sufficient.
    ..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.
    if the shutes don't open, the cargo is lost &/ causes damage on deck.
    In a storm, a diver lowered from a helo can die while attaching a hook to it.
    A carrier related light transport aircraft should have better range and much better speed than any tandem helicopter or tiltrotor aircraft.
    true, but having a common tandem/tilt-rotor airframe with ASW/SAR/Marine/VDV assault/COD/tanker variants will save a lot of $. A plane can only spot & drop survival gear while a helo/tilt-rotor can however/land & lift them out of the water/ground.
    They can't even make their own engines...
    wait a couple more years!
    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...
    that's besides the point: they have them!
    And how would we know if they were having problems or not,..
    their own local fans would've spilled the beans by now;
    u can't hide a disaster in China- even before Mao died in 1976, the West learned of famines & earthquakes there that killed Ms.
    They had tandem rotor helos and rejected them because conventional rotor design models were better.
    that was then; now new models can be as good, if not better in some applications.
    For the problem of fixed wing CATOBAR ops for AEW they developed the Yak-44, not any tiltrotor or tandem helicopter design.
    again, that was during the CW when the arms race was in full swing & every American system had to have its Soviet counterpart. Being so late, its development stopped with a mock up.
    What makes you think that?
    as a rule, most things there take longer to develop, if at all.
    They built the Buran but never used it. The US has USS Ford but may never use its EMALS as intended. The VMF may never even get a CVN. Russia may have a regime change & go quasi-socialist again. the process of re-building it with modern features will put the current naval buildup well "into the right".
    and who says it will have a radome?
    still, mixing 2 very different functions on expensive plane with a trained crew is dangerous. The USN had the S-3s that acted as ASW/EW/COD & tankers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_S-3_Viking#Variants
    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19789/the-insanely-logical-case-for-turning-s-3-vikings-into-the-navys-new-mq-25-tanker-drone
    During the cold war the Soviets simply created artificial moorings out in the open water for Soviet ships to dock and change crews and refuel and resupply.
    there rn't that many places outside of balmy Med. Sea to do it safely. China could do the same in the SC Sea but built permanent artificial islands on reefs & rocks instead.
    ..trading with Russia would be a refreshing change from dealing with the west.
    still, that volume of trade won't pay for CVNs.
    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.
    they need it, but if it's used wisely, it won't need as much air cover as CVN would bring. A UDK group can use its helo/drone AWACS to ID & shot down/sink attackers just as well.
    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...
    Most of those countries trade will be with China, as her middle class will be as big, if not bigger than the entire RF population. The VMF may bankrupt Russia even more than it did the USSR if it gets more CVNs & escorts, etc. that the country can support. Better to invest in Atomflot that can help on the NSR & be militarized in war time.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:29 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30681
    Points : 31211
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:34 am

    They all got sat. comm./internet & can listen to each other- if the CG/VMF tells any of them to leave,

    You haven't explained why either of those groups would order civilian vessels in the area to leave... and even if they did most are fishing boats, not nuclear cruisers operating at 30 Knots.

    &/ they see things heating up, they will all return to port or go elsewhere, instead of risking their lives, boats, catch, & insurance rates.

    It is a big ocean I rather doubt they would see the US mine layers or the Russian grouping heading through... and once it became common knowledge that the US was mining the areas where they fish they can forget about insurance anyway.

    During high tensions, the VMF won't risk getting caught in a narrow strait- they remember the Tsushima disaster in the wider strait. Losing even capital ships r not the same as losing armies & cities; they r not worth starting WWIII that would kill 100s of Ms. Mines can be used to delay/slow ships down or close some areas to traffic. Subs & planes then can use LR AShMs against them. They may save time using the NSR but not ships, aircraft, & lives.

    But the reverse is true too, the VMF have plenty of mine countermeasures vessels in service... more than NATO combined and are actually making a lot more, plus their new carriers and destroyers have mine countermeasures and anti sub capacity... plus western antiship missiles are no where near as lethal as current Russian anti ship missiles let alone the new ones they are in the process of introducing.

    Any evidence of US forces mining the strait between Russia and Alaska and they can simply use tactical nukes to clear the way... nothing sets off a mine field like an underwater nuclear detonation... quick and easy...

    They r accompanied with power/pipelines & other construction:

    For things 20m or more above the ground they are useful because they are quicker than using scaffolding, but for roads and rails and indeed runways then they are not useful at all.

    Not completely useless; the Mi-6 appeared 4 years later:

    That is my definition of useless... they made a few but didn't come up with a real replacement till four years later... in other words they had every chance to fix it and make it work but in the end something else that was much better was made instead.

    If it was a dead end concept, those designers wouldn't make fools of themselves. The West has the CH-53s but still keeps the CH-47s that can lift more, (even the CH-53K when flying hot/high over the mountains):

    Yeah, but American helos have proven useless in afghanistan and they have had to resort to using a real helicopter at least two times to recover aircraft they would otherwise have had to leave there...

    IMO, they may not be big enough for more demanding AWACS/COD roles. With pulling props their speed will be sufficient.

    They don't have to be, they are fine for what they do... it makes sense to develop a new platform for AWACS/COD based on a more conventional aircraft using EMALS.

    if the shutes don't open, the cargo is lost &/ causes damage on deck.

    The VDV could manage their parachutes, they are pretty much world class experts.

    In a storm, a diver lowered from a helo can die while attaching a hook to it.

    Why would they deliver cargo during a storm. Why recover cargo during a storm. If they operate during storms then they just have to accept a level of death amongst their crews.

    true, but having a common helo/tilt-rotor airframe with SAR/COD variants will save a lot of $.

    You mean like the VSTOL model of the F-35 saves money too... the programme is costing 1.5 trillion dollars.

    It only makes sense to use standardised airframes if that airframe is also suitable to the job... it actually works the other way around if they are not.

    A plane can only spot & drop survival gear while a helo/tilt-rotor can however/land & lift them out of the water/ground.

    We are talking about a carrier group that likely has a dozen rather massive ships in the group with all sorts of sensors and equipment... high speed small boats used for carrying small teams of special forces could be sent out to recover pilots or people in the water if needed too there are plenty of options available.

    that's besides the point: they have them!

    Most countries have jet trainers...

    their own local fans would've spilled the beans by now;

    Spilled what beans... there were lots of cases of Chinese engines bought by Russia having mechanical problems... logically speaking it would be fairly natural therefore to assume Chinese ships with the same engines probably had problems too... how many local fans posted info on that exactly?

    It is not a rip at China... good reliable engines are hard to make even when you have some to copy... Russia thought the Chinese engines would be good so they bought some, but it turns out they need a lot of work to get them to be reliable... clearly mistakes were made during copying, likely in terms of the materials parts were made of and their durability.

    Time and operational experiences would lead to clues as to which components need to be stronger or better made and over time the problems could be solved, but why would Russia waste time and money waiting for China to get that right, when they could use their own immature engines and do the same and get reliable Russian engines eventually.

    u can't hide a disaster in China- even before Mao died in 1976, the West learned of famines & earthquakes there that killed Ms.

    Simple satellite imagery showing missing houses that are not rebuilt or food crops damaged by weather or disease or insects will give indications of such things, but wont tell you if that aircraft they have built that looks like an F-35 is actually as stealthy as a real American F-35 or if it can even effectively use its weapons and systems in combat or not.

    that was then; now new models can be as good, if not better in some applications.

    Some calculations on paper or computer model might suggest that, but who is going to fund production on the suggestion that it might be an OK helo that fits in the middle of the current Russian helicopter range. Especially now that Russia and China are making a new middle weight heavy lift helo that is really in between the Mi-38 and Mi-26 performance range anyway.... a new tandem type would be expected to sit in there somewhere too which makes them rather less likely to be built or needed.

    again, that was during the CW when the arms race was in full swing & every American system had its Soviet counterpart. Being so late, its development stopped with a mock up.

    When funding was cut for the carrier that it was going to operate it, its funding stopped too, but AFAIK it was not cancelled as such.

    They built the Buran but never used it.

    They used it once in unmanned mode and it worked fine.

    The VMF may never even get a CVN. Russia may have a regime change & go socialist again. Re-building it with better features will put naval buildup well "into the right".

    A socialist change wouldn't effect the future of the VMF that much... if they are to expand in the future they need to do it by sea.

    there rn't that many places outside of balmy Med. Sea to do it safely. China could do the same in the SC Sea but built permanent artificial islands there instead.

    There aren't many places they actually need to do it.

    still, that trade won't pay for CVNs.

    If they don't have a world wide naval surface group then who is going to trade with little Russia... the US can just park an aircraft carrier off that countries shore and claim their leader is not an elected leader but is a dictator and try to overthrow that country after crushing it with economic sanctions.

    If Russia can't defend its friends with sea power they wont end up having many friends.

    they need it, but if it's used wisely, it won't need as much air cover as CVN would bring. A UDK group can use its helo/drone AWACS to ID & shot down/sink attackers just as well.

    JUST AS WELL... hahahahahahahahahahahhaha... are you going to tell the PVO or can I tell them that all their MiG-31 and MiG-29/35 and Su-27/30/34/35/57 are just an expensive waste of time and what they really need is tiltrotors with AWACS and they will be fine...

    Any real enemy air force would cut through such a defence like butter.

    Most of their trade will be with China, as her middle class will be as big, if not bigger than the entire RF population.

    The Chinese middle class seem to want American shit, not Russian. Besides only trading with each other would not be healthy for either state, they need to trade with the rest of the world and the rest of the world wants to trade with them.

    The VMF may bankrupt Russia even more than it did the USSR if it gets more CVNs & escorts that the country can support.

    So you keep claiming, yet even a 5 billion dollar CVN will take 10 years to build so spreading 5 billion dollars over 10 years is a tiny fraction of what NATO countries are going to be paying to keep their F-35s operating... not buy them or their over priced weapons... just operational costs.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5731
    Points : 5721
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:42 am

    GarryB wrote:You haven't explained why either of those groups would order civilian vessels in the area to leave...
    even w/o being ordered, they'll leave in high tensions knowing the US will/may be waiting for them in the strait.
    It is a big ocean I rather doubt they would see the US mine layers or the Russian grouping heading through...
    the Bering Strait isn't that big; it's a choke pint like Gibraltar, Bab El Mandeb, Tsushima & Malakka straits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait
    plus western antiship missiles are no where near as lethal as current Russian anti ship missiles let alone the new ones they are in the process of introducing.
    a dozen B-52s/1Bs/P-3/8s + 1 SSGN from within Alaskan airspace/waters & launchers on the shore can saturate them with new LRAShMs - it's irrelevant what AShMs the VMF has in this case.
    Any evidence of US forces mining the strait between Russia and Alaska and they can simply use tactical nukes to clear the way..
    & then having to go through the radioactive cloud worse than USS Reagan got into during the Fukushima disaster, aircraft, armaments & decks, besides sickening the crew, killing tons of fish/crabs &  contaminating 100s of miles of rich fishing grounds for years.
    ..but for roads and rails and indeed runways then they are not useful at all.
    I never said they r; other things r best done by helos in remote areas even with railroads present. Trains take long time to come & they can't leave rails; other vehicles they may bring r also slow & may not be able to get too far in the taiga & mountains to inspect/repair el./pipelines, suppress fires, protect forests/wildlife, conduct surveys, do med. evacuations, deliver mail/supplies, etc.
    That is my definition of useless... they made a few but didn't come up with a real replacement till four years later...
    Yakovlev built this single & most plane-like helo & later worked on planes only. If he was ordered to improve it or design another & better 1, he would have done it. The Mil kept producing classic helos (except the 2 Mi-12s) & Kamov specialized in coaxial naval/civ. helos. They didn't really need CH-46/47-like helos, but now their mil. doctrine/tactics changed & they may need them, along with tilt-rotors, esp. for the VDV/SOF/VMF/Marines/NG/FSB/MChS.
    Yeah, but American helos have proven useless in Afghanistan..
    Not the CH-47s: they did/do their jobs despite crashes & shot downs; Soviet/Russian helos were also shot down there, in Chechnya & Georgia before:  https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14540/chinooks-over-afghanistan-the-unsung-workhorse-of-americas-never-ending-war

    Many other current & new users will keep ordering them:
    https://www.rotorandwing.com/2018/07/24/indias-first-ch-47-takes-flight-boeing-prepares-massive-foreign-chinook-campaign/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwu-HoBRD5ARIsAPIPenfRprA_9eF-yRYsReWPjdEtf6HW13QN6yAujkX5Dh1nEa7cxY3CZrQaAvSrEALw_wcB
    Why would they deliver ..recover cargo during a storm.
    It may last many days & they may need something/some1 in/out of there quickly.
    You mean like the VSTOL model of the F-35 saves money too... the programme is costing 1.5 trillion dollars.
    It's not like combining an attack helo with large transport/SAR/AWACS/ASSAULT/ASW/COD helo. But OTH they did it with the Mi-8/17s; the Mi-24/35s r assault/attack flying BMPs. They r more successful in Afghanistan then US helos, & they didn't bankrupt them or any1 else.
    It only makes sense to use standardized airframes if that airframe is also suitable to the job...
    with large internal volume, tandem helos r like planes that can carry more people, cargo, sensors, avionics, weapons, survival/rescue gear, & fuel.
    small teams of special forces could be sent out to recover pilots or people in the water if needed..
    not as fast & far as helos can.
    Most countries have jet trainers...
    not all can be navalized for light attack role off a CV/N.
    a new tandem type would be expected to sit in there somewhere too which makes them rather less likely to be built or needed.
    later, they may still decide to have it. 1 doesn't exclude the other. 2 main rotors r better than 1. The CH-53s & CH-47 co-exist for decades now & will soldier on together for decades more.
    They used it once in unmanned mode and it worked fine.
    it was a test flight, not a real world mission to orbit.
    ..if they are to expand in the future they need to do it by sea.
    they did expand already into Alaska, California & Hawaii, but had to sell or abandon them. Their Hadrian Wall r their borders & coast. I doubt they need to expand any farther than USSR border & perhaps a few more overseas bases (not colonies), at the max. Their resources r estimated to be worth ~$400T & they better defend what they already have.
    There aren't many places they actually need to do it.
    amen, see above!
    If Russia can't defend its friends with sea power they wont end up having many friends.
    they put BMs/SAMs/Mig-25s in Cuba/Vietnam/Egypt & it worked well; a DDG/CG/SSGN/Tu-22M3s/160s with LACMs can do the same with less drama. https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/06/26/US-Navy-tracking-movement-of-advanced-Russian-frigate-in-Cuba/7091561566932/
    ..all their MiG-31 and MiG-29/35 and Su-27/30/34/35/57 are just an expensive waste of time and what they really need is tiltrotors with AWACS and they will be fine...
    some of those fighters could be used on UDKs.
    The Chinese middle class seem to want American shit, not Russian.
    I mean trade with those other countries u listed, not Russia.
    So you keep claiming, yet even a 5 billion dollar CVN will take 10 years to build so spreading 5 billion dollars over 10 years is a tiny fraction of what NATO countries are going to be paying to keep their F-35s operating...
    it's still big $ for them. I'm afraid their CVNs won't be spending as much time at sea to justify having them & occupying piers, yards, airfields, hangars & crew barracks for many months at a time. It's a death spiral: too expensive to deploy them & not deploying while maintaining them isn't cheap either. 1-2 would be more than enough; $ & manpower saved can be better used on UDKs, nuclear icebreakers, other ships/subs, ekranoplans, & aircraft.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:20 am; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : add text, links)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30681
    Points : 31211
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:41 am

    even w/o being ordered, they'll leave in high tensions knowing the US will/may be waiting for them in the strait.

    I really don't understand the scenario you are describing... are you suggesting WWIII has already started and the US and Russia is at war, so when the Russian fleet moves through the Bering Strait, then the US Navy might openly attack them?

    Big whoop... with their current level of armament their might be problems but this future carrier group with 7K ton Gorshkov destroyers and 20K ton Gorshkov cruisers and a carrier plus other support vessels and subs then the US is going to have to mount a fairly full on enormous force to counter them there because they will have Backfire and Foxhound support launching Kinzhals and likely the air launched Zircons... even if the US had 5 carrier groups sitting there waiting in ambush it is going to be a Massacre and I really don't think it will be in favour of the US because they have no defence and their naval F-35s have very ordinary performance...

    the Bering Strait isn't that big; it's a choke pint like Gibraltar, Bab El Mandeb, Tsushima & Malakka straits

    You are quite right, but that also puts the entire region within range of Far East based Foxhounds with Kinzhals and Backfires with Zircons and Kh-32s... which is no where the US Navy wants to be.

    a dozen B-52s/1Bs/P-3/8s + 1 SSGN from within Alaskan airspace/waters & launchers on the shore can saturate them with new LRAShMs - it's irrelevant what AShMs the VMF has in this case.

    Russian missiles have multi role guidance and can just as easily target land based targets and aircraft from far east airfields could easily carry nuclear armed cruise missiles to take down airbases in Alaska... they will probably use the attack as an excuse to wipe out any ABM radar and missile locations too while they are at it because the next step will be SLBMs and ICBMs.

    & then having to go through the radioactive cloud worse than USS Reagan got into during the Fukushima disaster, aircraft, armaments & decks, besides sickening the crew, killing tons of fish/crabs & contaminating 100s of miles of rich fishing grounds for years.

    Given the choice of losing ships or clearing the way of mines I think the choice is pretty obvious.

    The new ships are not just stealthy they are Chem/bio/nuke rated... all their old ships are designed to operate in an NBC environment too... not really a huge deal.

    I never said they r; other things r best done by helos in remote areas even with railroads present. Trains take long time to come & they can't leave rails; other vehicles they may bring r also slow & may not be able to get too far in the taiga & mountains to inspect/repair el./pipelines, suppress fires, protect forests/wildlife, conduct surveys, do med. evacuations, deliver mail/supplies, etc.

    They already have those helicopters and don't need any new designs except the new designs already designed... (ie Ansat, Ka-60/62, Mi-8 family, Mi-38 etc).

    They didn't really need CH-46/47-like helos, but now their mil. doctrine/tactics changed & they may need them, along with tilt-rotors, esp. for the VDV/SOF/VMF/Marines/NG/FSB/MChS.

    They didn't need new tandem designs because their conventional designs already did and do the job at hand... not really going to change IMHO.

    It may last many days & they may need something/some1 in/out of there quickly.

    Yeah... storms that prevent conventional amphibious and conventional fixed wing operations on carriers normally also preclude tilt rotors and helos operating too...

    Many other current & new users will keep ordering them

    Yeah, that is mainly because America is a spoilt little bitch that throws their toys if anyone buys weapons from someone else.

    But OTH they did it with the Mi-8/17s; the Mi-24/35s r assault/attack flying BMPs. They r more successful in Afghanistan then US helos, & they didn't bankrupt them or any1 else.

    The Mi-8 transport helo was the basis for the Mi-24 attack helo and also the Mi-14 naval helo... but they didn't try to make it do everything... they only adapted it to roles where its modifications made it suitable, they didn't try to force it on everything.

    with large internal volume, tandem helos r like planes that can carry more people, cargo, sensors, avionics, weapons, survival/rescue gear, & fuel.

    As I keep saying to you, that large internal volume creates a larger external volume, but with all the speed and range limitations of a helicopter. A fixed wing aircraft can have the volume advantages plus the flight speed and range of a small fixed wing transport aircraft...

    not as fast & far as helos can.

    They have helos too.

    not all can be navalized for light attack role off a CV/N.

    And how many countries actually have light trainers in the light attack role on aircraft carriers?

    The Soviets and Russians haven't. Their only trainer ironically the opposite... it was a variant of the ground attack Su-25, but it was only a trainer and had no ground attack capacity at all.

    it was a test flight, not a real world mission to orbit.

    It was designed so it could operate completely automatically so for their first mission they flew it without a human crew.

    they did expand already into Alaska, California & Hawaii, but had to sell or abandon them. Their Hadrian Wall r their borders & coast. I doubt they need to expand any farther than USSR border & perhaps a few more overseas bases (not colonies), at the max.

    America has spent enormous efforts over the past decade or so trying to isolate Russia and limit its ability to find foreign partners... do you think that is by accident. Given the choice should Russia remain isolationist and inward looking and refuse to grow as a country?

    They don't need to invade or occupy other countries, but when offering trade deals with countries they have no land or sea border with it would be critical that they can get their products to those countries and get those countries products to Russia, or where they need to go.

    Just having a carrier is not enough... Argentina had a CV during the Falklands war.

    Their resources r estimated to be worth ~$400T & they better defend what they already have.

    If they don't find new trading partners those 400 trillion dollars in resources will go to increasing the wealth of the 1 or 2% in the west... what a terrible waste that would be for both the west and Russia and the rest of the world.

    some of those fighters could be used on UDKs.

    You are missing my point... if the Russian Navy doesn't need carriers with potent fighter interceptors then why does Russia need an air force?

    Surely helicopters and some tiltrotors and so civilian aircraft with hundreds of AAMs could do the job...

    I mean trade with those other countries u listed, not Russia.

    That would be fine too, Russia is not the US... it doesn't demand exclusive trading rights with its trading partners...

    It's a death spiral: too expensive to deploy them & not deploying while maintaining them isn't cheap either. 1-2 would be more than enough; $ & manpower saved can be better used on UDKs, nuclear icebreakers, other ships/subs, ekranoplans, & aircraft.

    It could easily become one, like it has in the US, but I suspect Russians are just a bit too patriotic to be that stupid/selfish.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30681
    Points : 31211
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:44 am

    To be clear the Russian carriers are not for WWIII or to fight the US Navy or NATO navy... they are an instrument to support a surface group of Russian ships that will actually be doing the job at hand.

    How very different the situation in Venezuela could have turned out if the US decided to invade... if Russia had an operational carrier and a few ships to operate with her... they could send them to the Venezuelan coast for last minute organised exercises... the US would never have invaded...
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 5025
    Points : 5049
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:39 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    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


    meh, a decision is made already. They start in 3-34 years. To design in the meantime we can follow Russian CV soap   Razz Razz Razz




    Tsavo Lion wrote:I expect the UDK, which is a small carrier, will come sooner.

    I wouldn't count on that. IMHO It will be closer to Mistral (Priboi/Lavina) then LHD Wasp
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 5025
    Points : 5049
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:47 am

    GarryB wrote:


    not all can be navalized for light attack role off a CV/N.

    And how many countries actually have light trainers in the light attack role on aircraft carriers?

    The Soviets and Russians haven't. Their only trainer ironically the opposite... it was a variant of the ground attack Su-25, but it was only a trainer and had no ground attack capacity at all.

    This is how it was in the past (80s were 40 years ago ;-) from Russian MIC / MOD interviews it looks like attack functions will be mainly carried out by UACV.



    GB wrote:
    some of those fighters could be used on UDKs.

    You are missing my point... if the Russian Navy doesn't need carriers with potent fighter interceptors then why does Russia need an air force?


    following your logic all fighters in RuAF should be MiG-31s Razz Razz Razz

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5731
    Points : 5721
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:34 am

    I really don't understand the scenario you are describing... are you suggesting WWIII has already started and the US and Russia is at war, so when the Russian fleet moves through the Bering Strait, then the US Navy might openly attack them?
    no, only in the crisis period between US-RF. The VMF won't risk the Arctic/Bering strait transit were US/UK satellites, SSNs & bombers will have no problem finding & targeting a CBG. The straits along the NSR & the Bering Strait r narrower than the GIUK gap.
    You are quite right, but that also puts the entire region within range of Far East based Foxhounds with Kinzhals and Backfires with Zircons and Kh-32s... which is no where the US Navy wants to be.
    An EMP burst will render a CBG useless- 1 SSBN can do it from the Gulf of Alaska, US West Coast/Hawaii.

    They already have those helicopters and don't need any new designs except the new designs already designed... (ie Ansat, Ka-60/62, Mi-8 family, Mi-38 etc). If new proposed helos/tilt-rotors r going to be more capable & can do it better, why not getting them?

    not really going to change IMHO.
    it already changed: the VDV wants them.
    Yeah... storms that prevent conventional amphibious and conventional fixed wing operations on carriers normally also preclude tilt rotors and helos operating too...
    The sea states can be high but the winds permissible to flight ops. I rode a typhoon Zeb 150 miles off Okinawa- with bif white crested waves & not so strong winds.
    Yeah, that is mainly because America is a spoilt little bitch that throws their toys if anyone buys weapons from someone else.
    Many US aircraft were license produced or bought 2nd hand all over the world by those who could afford it, for many decades- don't tell me they were forced to do it or there was an alternative.
    The USSR returned some land-leased planes after 1945.
    And how many countries actually have light trainers in the light attack role on aircraft carriers?
    U asked about China's planes, & I answered. They have the planes to stop gap before others r fielded.
    Just having a carrier is not enough... Argentina had a CV during the Falklands war.
    true, they need a well balanced fleet like the PLAN will be or the USN, + bases or free access to them.
    I
    f they don't find new trading partners those 400 trillion dollars in resources will go to increasing the wealth of the 1 or 2% in the west...
    & their own oligarchy.
    if the Russian Navy doesn't need carriers with potent fighter interceptors then why does Russia need an air force?
    Its AF at home & when deployed abroad can assist the VMF, defend the RF perimeter & allied airspace w/o CVNs.
    Surely helicopters and some tiltrotors and so civilian aircraft with hundreds of AAMs could do the job...
    indeed, they'll make the Marine Infantry & SOF jobs easier!
    Planes & helos have their strong & weak points. Otherwise, they could've replaced all An-12/26/72s with Mi-26/38s. But more expensive hybrid aircraft narrow their differences; u get what u pay for. tandem-rotor helos rn't that fast/long ranged but they offer higher internal volume & performance than helos with only 1 main rotor.
    So, they could spend less on them & still get better bang for the buck, even if the future tilt-rotors specs will give only marginal gains & planes will have very few places to land in the North, Siberia/FE.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30681
    Points : 31211
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:42 am


    following your logic all fighters in RuAF should be MiG-31s

    It is not my logic, it is his that states the Russian navy doesn't need air power at all... no fighters, no AWACS, no AEW... all they need to do is develop a Chinook copy and a V-22 copy and they will be fine.

    Ground based air defence networks are greatly improved and made vastly more effective with aircraft... both with radars and missiles to intercept air threats.

    no, only in the crisis period between US-RF. The VMF won't risk the Arctic/Bering strait transit were US/UK satellites, SSNs & bombers will have no problem finding & targeting a CBG. The straits along the NSR & the Bering Strait r narrower than the GIUK gap.

    Even in a crisis period moving ships including aircraft carriers is not an act of war and even the fucking stupid american administration would not attack a Russian naval formation sailing in international waters... no matter their destination or purpose.

    If they did try to attack them they have rather more to lose than Russia because for Russia its navy is largely expendable when it comes to national defence, but their new surface action groups are going to be very well armed and equipped and I have pity for any country thinking of messing with them.

    An EMP burst will render a CBG useless- 1 SSBN can do it from the Gulf of Alaska, US West Coast/Hawaii.

    Well it would render radar and radio communications useless for perhaps 30 minutes or so but Russian SAMS and systems have optical backups... that EMP pulse will also wipe out all the NORAD radars in Alaska and Canada rendering the US vulnerable to ICBM and SLBM attack.... they wont see it coming...

    And lets face it, if the US set off an enormous EMP pulse over a Russian carrier group it is not to ask it to stop or turn back, it is with the intent to try to attack and sink it... the next step would be full nuclear strike on Russia, so Russias only choice would be to notify China that they are now going to obliterate the US and her allies... it was nice knowing you... suggest you launch an attack on local US forces because they are going to be launching their missiles soon and will likely launch at everyone including you.

    it already changed: the VDV wants them.

    Yeah, no one else in Russia uses BMD either... they are not widespread use vehicles, they are purpose build VDV equipment that no one else uses or needs.

    A change of leadership and they might want hovercraft instead... when they find out how much it costs they might decide to spend their budget on something else.

    The sea states can be high but the winds permissible to flight ops. I rode a typhoon Zeb 150 miles off Okinawa- with bif white crested waves & not so strong winds.

    Using freak uncommon conditions to suggest a new technology is needed is dishonest... they have managed so far without and can continue to do so.

    Many US aircraft were license produced or bought 2nd hand all over the world by those who could afford it, for many decades- don't tell me they were forced to do it or there was an alternative.

    Of course politics has nothing to do with the US selling off its old crap and making allies buy it instead of better alternatives... all of south and central america love the F-5 because it is the best fighter in the world... the US is actively economically attacking countries for buying Russian weapons... they didn't do that in the past but military aid... which has to be spend on US products was dependent on you buying american crap whether it was suitable for your needs or not.

    And if you crossed the us you are cut off... hense venezuela has F-16s that wont fly because there are no spare parts.

    Here in New Zealand we still have Skyhawks we can't sell to anyone because the US says we can't... they still own them you know... even though we had to pay for them.

    If we had bought F-16s then things would probably be fine but you can't be nice to a junkie if they are trying to throw your habit...

    The USSR returned some land-leased planes after 1945.

    The USSR was required to by law... anything that was destroyed in combat was written off, but anything not returned had to be paid for at fairly high prices for what was basically surplus unwanted crap. When the US carriers that came to collect the aircraft sailed out of Russian waters with the lend lease aircraft on deck when they hit international waters they pushed them all over the side into the water... they didn't want them but didn't want the Soviets to have them.

    & their own oligarchy.


    Mineral and energy extraction in Russia pays rather more tax than other industries to pay the people of Russia for their mineral resources... they benefit from the wealth beneath their feet rather more than we in the democratic west ever did.

    Its AF at home & when deployed abroad can assist the VMF, defend the RF perimeter & allied airspace w/o CVNs.

    The Russian navy is not talking about whether it needs aircraft carriers or not... that discussion is over... what they are talking about is what sort of carrier they need and they have clearly already decided they want a nuclear powered ship that will carry fixed wing AWACS aircraft on board... otherwise talk of cats would not be needed.

    Planes & helos have their strong & weak points. Otherwise, they could've replaced all An-12/26/72s with Mi-26/38s.

    They do, but cheaper and simpler makes more sense... tilt rotor aircraft are never going to replace conventional aircraft... they are slower and more expensive and have less capacity and range with all other things being equal. Tilt rotor aircraft are better than helos in terms of flight speed and range, but the new high speed helo designs will narrow that margin and make tiltrotors unnecessary freaks of the aviation industry... like autogyros...

    tandem-rotor helos rn't that fast/long ranged but they offer higher internal volume & performance than helos with only 1 main rotor.

    Bullshit... the Mi-26 is a vertical take off an landing C-130... the Chinook doesn't even come close.

    So, they could spend less on them & still get better bang for the buck, even if the future tilt-rotors specs will give only marginal gains & planes will have very few places to land in the North, Siberia/FE.

    When they talk about infrastructure expansion in the north and far east what they are talking about is air fields and rail lines and roads and ports... making tilt rotors rather less attractive because fixed wing aircraft get to different places much faster and much more efficiently and once there a conventional helo can do the rest.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 5025
    Points : 5049
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:19 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    following your logic all fighters in RuAF should be MiG-31s

    It is not my logic, it is his that states the Russian navy doesn't need air power at all... no fighters, no AWACS, no AEW... all they need to do is develop a Chinook copy and a V-22 copy and they will be fine.

    Ground based air defence networks are greatly improved and made vastly more effective with aircraft... both with radars and missiles to intercept air threats.


    I didnt find info abotu no fighters. Tsavo wasnt writing this AFAIK. As for what fighters ...what is potent interceptor to you? Mig-35 is relatively small, point of defense, fighter not an interceptor. Su-30 is relatively slow but has good range and payload?

    None of western navies have potent interceptor on deck: F-18? Rafale? F-35?

    so no you dont need the best of the best, you need good enough.



    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7908
    Points : 7892
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Isos Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:33 pm

    I didnt find info abotu no fighters. Tsavo wasnt writing this AFAIK. As for what fighters ...what is potent interceptor to you? Mig-35 is relatively small, point of defense, fighter not an interceptor. Su-30 is relatively slow but has good range and payload?

    None of western navies have potent interceptor on deck: F-18? Rafale? F-35?

    so no you dont need the best of the best, you need good enough.

    All of them can carry pre emptive strikes before the ships are attacked. That's nato strategy, they don't wait that the enemy has the ability to attack them, they destroy him before that.

    Mig 35 has a range of 1000km. With fuel tanks and 260km range kh-35 its strike range is something like 1700km. Su30 is even greater.


    With an AWACs detecting targets at 600-700km away you don't need very fast interceptors. Mig-35 or su-30 is enough. The thing is that ka-31 radar has a range of less than 300km which gives little time to react. They need a yak-44 on steroides.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7908
    Points : 7892
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Isos Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:37 pm

    An EMP burst will render a CBG useless- 1 SSBN can do it from the Gulf of Alaska, US West Coast/Hawaii.

    EMP are well known. Russian and US nuclear triades are protected against that. They aren't stupid to not protect them against that. A Farraday cage is realy easy to make in order to protect critical computers or bases.

    EMP block transistors which can start again after some minutes depending on the power of the EMP. It has no effect on antennas. All the need to do is protect the computers inside missiles, inside firing units and inside bases. Pretty easy and probably done since long time ago.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 1487
    Points : 1477
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:31 pm

    Isos wrote:
    An EMP burst will render a CBG useless- 1 SSBN can do it from the Gulf of Alaska, US West Coast/Hawaii.

    EMP are well known. Russian and US nuclear triades are protected against that. They aren't stupid to not protect them against that. A Farraday cage is realy easy to make in order to protect critical computers or bases.

    EMP block transistors which can start again after some minutes depending on the power of the EMP. It has no effect on antennas. All the need to do is protect the computers inside missiles, inside firing units and inside bases. Pretty easy and probably done since long time ago.

    That is one of the reason I didn't like the mistral ships.
    They are peacetime ships.
    Not only they were very lightly armed,  to save money they built them to commercial standards, and not to military standard, so their survivability in case of being hit by missiles or guns, and their resistance against electronic weapons is much lower than that of a "real" warship.

    Apparently Russia is going in a proper direction with their amphibious assault ships and aircraft carrier plans.
    No converted civilian ships, but proper warships, with the modified 11711 that will be something between a san Giorgio class (if low end) and a Rotterdam class (upper hand), the helicopter carriers that will be proper aviation cruisers or helicopter destroyers (and may have nuclear propulsion), and the nuclear carrier that will probably be a similar concept to the soviet ulianovsk, but with modern technologies.

    The first two class of ships will be commissioned in the mid 2020s and will carry Ka-52 and updated ka-27/29/31(that later will replaced and or complemented by the ship-based Minoga helicopters).

    For the proper aircraft carrier we will have to wait more, but I can expect that the construction of the first new carrier will start in the mid 2020s (and it will be commissioned in the early 2030s)
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5731
    Points : 5721
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:44 pm

    GarryB wrote:It is not my logic, it is his that states the Russian navy doesn't need air power at all... no fighters, no AWACS, no AEW... all they need to do is develop a Chinook copy and a V-22 copy and they will be fine.
    I never implied "no fighters"; & stressed more capable tandem/tilt-rotors than Chinooks a V-22s.
    ..even the fucking stupid american administration would not attack a Russian naval formation sailing in international waters...
    The VMF won't speculate on their mental abilities; they'll look at the capabilities & the risks involved. There's a reason the USN CVN stays out of the Strait of Hormuz right now.
    that EMP pulse will also wipe out all the NORAD radars in Alaska and Canada rendering the US vulnerable to ICBM and SLBM attack...
    low yield nukes used over the Bering Sea won't do it. Also, the US could ask JMSDF for their more quiet SSKs to sneak on them for torpedo attacks.
    Yeah, no one else in Russia uses BMD either... they are not widespread use vehicles, they are purpose build VDV equipment that no one else uses or needs.
    aircraft have more utility than ground vehicles. Transporting more people & supplies using tandem/tiltrotor hybrids of An-12/26 & Mi-17/38  faster then helos will save lives & shorten wars. The RF Marine Infantry is the maritime counterpart of VDV.
    Vasily Margelov, who was later to modernize the Soviet Airborne Forces (VDV), had previously served with a Naval Infantry unit in World War II, and procured telnyashkas for the VDV as a mark of their elite status. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telnyashka#History
    Using freak uncommon conditions to suggest a new technology is needed is dishonest... they have managed so far without and can continue to do so.
    Cold & stormy conditions r a constant factor in & around Russian waters; the climate change will bring more storms there & in all other oceans.
    Of course politics has nothing to do with the US selling off its old crap and making allies buy it instead of better alternatives... all of south and central america love the F-5 because it is the best fighter in the world...
    they got French & Israeli planes too.
    And if you crossed the us you are cut off...
    the Egyptians kicked out all Soviet advisers & switched to Western planes after realizing that they depended on Soviet engine maintenance support, which restricted their entire AF ops- so it goes both ways.
    they benefit from the wealth beneath their feet rather more than we in the democratic west ever did.
    at the cost of property rights & other freedoms. Their legal system allows for rule through the laws made by the ruling elite (who sends their $ & kids to the West to where they themselves can flee when the going gets tough), not rule by the laws made by lawmakers & the society at large.
    what they are talking about is what sort of carrier they need..
    they can keep talking & designing all they want, but whether they will be able to afford it to make it happen is up in the air.
    they are slower and more expensive and have less capacity and range with all other things being equal.
    the same can be said about helos & planes; yet the slower Mi-26 can land & TO where the An-12 & other fixed wings can only crash land.
    Tilt rotor aircraft are better than helos in terms of flight speed and range, but the new high speed helo designs will narrow that margin and make tiltrotors unnecessary freaks of the aviation industry...
    speed isn't the main thing; on the plus side, they can self deploy on short notice & start their job quickly; high speed helos with 1 main/coaxial rotor(s) won't be able to carry as much cargo as large tandem/tilt/quad-rotor helos. The Chinook is an advanced multi-mission helicopter that will provide support to the Indian armed forces during disaster relief, medical evacuation, search and rescue missions, aircraft recovery and parachute drops. Each Chinook can carry goods and cargo weighing up to 9.6 tonnes. The cargo can include men and machines such as artillery guns and light armoured vehicles. Chinook is suited for operations in the Himalayas and has the capability to ferry heavy cargo like road construction equipment over difficult terrain.
    https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/chinook-helicopter-iaf-air-force-chopper-india-feature-1485864-2019-03-25
    Tandem-rotor helos will do well in Russia's & Central Asian mountains which r not as high as the Indian Himalayas.
    the Mi-26 is a vertical take off an landing C-130... the Chinook doesn't even come close.
    true; pl. pay attention to my posts: I never said that any future Russian tandem-rotor helos should have CH-47 specs. They can design them with 25-35-40T payload capacity. Decades ago, the Mi-12 with 2 Mi-6 rotors & 4 engines could lift max. 40T: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_V-12#Specifications_(V-12)

    The Yak-60 design with 2 Mi-6 rotors & 4 engines had 42T max. payload, 4x the capacity of the CH-47: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-60

    If reduced to 1/2 of its size, it would still have 2x > the max. CH-47 payload. Here is it's model next to the Yak-24 model:
    https://topwar.ru/53398-proekt-tyazhelogo-voenno-transportnogo-vertoleta-yak-60.html

    The future Ка-102 could fly as far as 1100 км at 500 км/h vs 741 km at 296 km/h of the CH-47F: http://avia.pro/blog/ka-102  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Specifications_(CH-47F)

    Now compare that with the V-22's specs:
    Maximum speed: 509 km/h at sea level 565 km/h at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
    Cruise speed:446 km/h at sea level
    Range: 1,627 km

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Specifications_(MV-22B)
    ..making tilt rotors rather less attractive because fixed wing aircraft get to different places much faster and much more efficiently and once there a conventional helo can do the rest.
    still, besides the military, in some applications like law/border enforcement, firefighting, SAR, disaster relief & as med. evacs they can be better suited. The North, Siberia & the FE will never have enough well maintained & prepared long airstrips needed to make them totally useless.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:54 am; edited 8 times in total (Reason for editing : add text, links)
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 5025
    Points : 5049
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Thu Jul 04, 2019 12:45 am

    Isos wrote:
    All of them can carry pre emptive strikes before the ships are attacked. That's nato strategy, they don't wait that the enemy has the ability to attack them, they destroy him before that.

    Mig 35 has a range of 1000km. With fuel tanks and 260km range kh-35 its strike range is something like 1700km. Su30 is even greater.


    With an AWACs detecting targets at 600-700km away you don't need very fast interceptors. Mig-35 or su-30 is enough. The thing is that ka-31 radar has a range of less than 300km which gives little time to react. They need a yak-44 on steroides.


    That's what I meant, MiG-35 class of fighter should be more then enough to protect carrier group. You dont need to fly 30kms and 4 thousands km range. Especially when there are available long range airborne hypersonic AShM. With 1000 radius + 1,500kms missile range you harbor one CVN in Murmansk and can block anything from UK till island
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30681
    Points : 31211
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:40 am

    None of western navies have potent interceptor on deck: F-18? Rafale? F-35?

    So?

    Western navies have a habit of working together and strangely currently outnumber the Russian navy in most regards, so do you think for their 200 odd Naval fighters for their 2 CVNs and the Kuznetsov they should go for MiG-21s or Su-57s?

    Naval Air Arms are never cheap... the F-35 is the most expensive fighter ever... so while going for affordable they missed by an fing mile... but what should Russia do... any aircraft will be better than none and presumably in use they will be as much use as airborne radar and IRST as they will be for anything else.

    Their whole purpose is to protect the surface fleet and to do so they don't need to have a 5,000km flight radius or ICBMs for air to air missiles... the ships they will be supporting will be armed to the teeth, so even if they just spot targets and pass that data back to the ships they are operating with it gives the ships plenty of time to start acting.

    Any 500 missile attack on a group of ships would be tough to defend against, but if you have a dozen aircraft that detect them coming from 600km away and they can shoot down 6-7 missiles each, but also monitor the incoming missiles so ship based long range radar guided SAMs can start shooting down those incoming missiles well before they are any where near the radar horizon the chances of those ships surviving the encounter go up exponentially... especially if those fighters can engage the ships and aircraft carrying some of those 500 weapons and can shoot at them before they launch.

    A MIG-29M2 moves at similar flight speeds to the much bigger Flanker and can carry the same air to air weapons to the same altitudes.

    Having these fighters replaced with Chinooks and tilt rotors however makes the air defence much weaker.

    so no you dont need the best of the best, you need good enough.

    Well they need to scrap the Su-57 and Armata vehicle family because we don't want the best... we want good enough... except it seems they do want the best...

    All of them can carry pre emptive strikes before the ships are attacked. That's nato strategy, they don't wait that the enemy has the ability to attack them, they destroy him before that.

    Mig 35 has a range of 1000km. With fuel tanks and 260km range kh-35 its strike range is something like 1700km. Su30 is even greater.

    Plus the fact that while the west might only have F-18s and F-35s and Rafales... they actually have quite a few of them on quite a few aircraft carriers... and that does not include their Typhoons and F-22s and of course F-15s and F-16s that are land based around the entire planet...

    The thing is that ka-31 radar has a range of less than 300km which gives little time to react. They need a yak-44 on steroides.

    The range of the Ka-31 is not that great, but the critical thing is that from a 4km operating altitude its radar horizon is much much better than any radar at or just above sea level. The huge radars on the ships will have enormous ranges against high flying targets but many threats fly low for that very reason... which makes the Ka-31 useful, but would make a real AWACS aircraft even more useful.

    EMP are well known. Russian and US nuclear triades are protected against that. They aren't stupid to not protect them against that. A Farraday cage is realy easy to make in order to protect critical computers or bases.

    EMP block transistors which can start again after some minutes depending on the power of the EMP. It has no effect on antennas. All the need to do is protect the computers inside missiles, inside firing units and inside bases. Pretty easy and probably done since long time ago.

    Tests with nuclear blasts in the upper atmosphere show the ionisation of the atmosphere effects radar and radio communications for up to half an hour, which makes it a useful precursor to an attack.


    Apparently Russia is going in a proper direction with their amphibious assault ships and aircraft carrier plans.
    No converted civilian ships, but proper warships, with the modified 11711 that will be something between a san Giorgio class (if low end) and a Rotterdam class (upper hand), the helicopter carriers that will be proper aviation cruisers or helicopter destroyers (and may have nuclear propulsion), and the nuclear carrier that will probably be a similar concept to the soviet ulianovsk, but with modern technologies.

    They were talking about a unified hull design for heavy ships... perhaps a unified design for cruisers and helicopter carriers?

    I never implied "no fighters"; & stressed more capable tandem/tilt-rotors than Chinooks a V-22s.

    They don't need them... the Ka-27 and its replacement will do everything they need for ship and carrier use.

    A decent AWACS platform is what they need, not some half arse tilt rotor piece of crap.

    There's a reason the USN CVN stays out of the Strait of Hormuz right now.

    Cowardice? The US Navy doesn't know the meaning of a fair fight... it loves taking on speed boats and Airbuses though...

    low yield nukes used over the Bering Sea won't do it. Also, the US could ask JMSDF for their more quiet SSKs to sneak on them for torpedo attacks.

    Low yield nukes wont to bugger all, you need a 10 Megaton range weapon to get the effect you want on the Russian ships and such a thing would be very damaging to all of Alaska and Japan too.

    I doubt Japan wants their subs sunk for no real practical reason.

    Transporting more people & supplies using tandem/tiltrotor hybrids of An-12/26 & Mi-17/38 faster then helos will save lives & shorten wars.

    What are you smoking? There are no tilt rotor or tandem rotor hybrids of anything in Russia and there certainly wont be any of those cold war dinosaurs.

    The new high speed helos look interesting but the Il-276 will be much faster than any model An-12 or upgrade... and the same could be said for the Il-112 and Il-114.

    The RF Marine Infantry is the maritime counterpart of VDV.

    It certainly is, but they don't use BMD vehicles either...

    Cold & stormy conditions r a constant factor in & around Russian waters; the climate change will bring more storms there & in all other oceans.

    You mean like the heavy fog they get in London all the time?

    [quote]the Egyptians kicked out all Soviet advisers & switched to Western planes after realizing that they depended on Soviet engine maintenance support, which restricted their entire AF ops- so it goes both ways. [/qutoe]

    Of course the US is totally hands off and Egypt completely supports their own vehicles aircraft and equipment from the US... totally...

    at the cost of property rights & other freedoms.

    What property rights and freedoms?

    Their legal system allows for rule through the laws made by the ruling elite (who sends their $ & kids to the West to where they themselves can flee when the going gets tough), not rule by the laws made by lawmakers & the society at large.

    Actually I agree their laws are probably totally fucked up, because most of them were made with the help of America... that is where they get that fucked up law about presidents only being allowed to serve two consecutive terms... I don't know of any other country with such laws except the US... I guess it is so the corruption is spread and one party doesn't stay in charge for too long... remember political parties are like babies nappies... need to be changed regularly and for the same reasons.

    they can keep talking & designing all they want, but whether they will be able to afford it to make it happen is up in the air.

    That will be part of the planning process.

    ....BTW this is hilarious coming from a person from a country where a politician and current president says elect me again and we will cure cancer....

    the same can be said about helos & planes; yet the slower Mi-26 can land & TO where the An-12 & other fixed wings can only crash land.

    Your problem is that you think therefore the proper solution is a tilt rotor or tandem Mi-26 to try to turn the Mi-26 into an An-12.

    I am telling you the better solution is simply to use the Mi-26 to move the load from where it needs to be lifted vertically to the nearest place the Il-276 can operate and transfer it to the much faster aircraft and get the benefit of the advantages of both types of aircraft.

    speed isn't the main thing; on the plus side, they can self deploy on short notice & start their job quickly; high speed helos with 1 main/coaxial rotor(s) won't be able to carry as much cargo as large tandem/tilt/quad-rotor helos.

    If tiltrotors and tandems are so wonderful where are they all?

    There is only the Chinook and the V-22 that I am aware of and no great mass of customers ranging up to buy them.

    Meanwhile Mi-26s and Mi-17s are out there doing the job.

    If they were so wonderful why are they relatively rare?

    Tandem-rotor helos will do well in Russia's & Central Asian mountains which r not as high as the Indian Himalayas.

    Mi-26s can carry twice that weight... when the Indians lose some Chinooks up there they will most likely hire Mi-26s to recover them.

    true; pl. pay attention to my posts: I never said that any future Russian tandem-rotor helos should have CH-47 specs.

    blah blah blah... read my posts... they already have helicopters better than Chinook and super stallion, they don't need to make copies of American helicopters or tilt rotor aircraft. They already have a programme with China to make heavy lift helos... if China wanted a tandem or tiltrotor then why are they working with Russia on them?

    This thread is about the Russian carrier programmes and future aircraft... they sure as hell wont have a 42 ton payload helicopter on any of their carriers... there is no need... they have landing boats for that shit and there is no room for aircraft that big anyway.

    The North, Siberia & the FE will never have enough well maintained & prepared long airstrips needed to make them totally useless.

    Most major settlements will justify a proper air strip and smaller communities already get by with An-2 and upgrades and Mi-17s.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5731
    Points : 5721
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Jul 04, 2019 8:59 am

    GarryB wrote:Having these fighters replaced with Chinooks and tilt rotors however makes the air defence much weaker.
    I didn't imply swapping fighters for them! what r u smoking?
    They don't need them... the Ka-27 and its replacement will do everything they need for ship and carrier use.
    what about UDKs? The USN uses CH-46/53s & V-22s, not UH-60s to land Marines/SOFs ashore & behind enemy lines.
    A decent AWACS platform is what they need, not some half arse tilt rotor piece of crap.
    what's ur definition of decent AWACS? E-2 Service ceiling: 34,700 ft (10,600 m)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye#Specifications_(E-2C)

    V-22 Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Specifications_(MV-22B)

    CH-47 Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (6100 m)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Specifications_(CH-47F)

    The Russian tandem/tilt-rotors may exceed that with AWACS variants in mind.
    Cowardice? The US Navy doesn't know the meaning of a fair fight...
    no, it's prudence. U can't hide a CVN even in the middle of the Gulf. It's like a box canyon in Arizona- 1 way in, 1 way out. In the 1700s & 1800s, if u r not killed & scalped entering it, u well could be while there or trying to exit it.
    Low yield nukes wont to bugger all, you need a 10 Megaton range weapon to get the effect you want on the Russian ships and such a thing would be very damaging to all of Alaska and Japan too.
    or they could take out Russian navigation satellites or jam/alter their signals- w/o them, their AWs won't easily find a CVN to recover on. Detonate a few mini nukes underwater & their subs r ether sunk or so damaged to become useless- it will take to replace them (they too could be wiped out); a CVN is then so vulnerable to SSN/Ks that it'll have to pull in port & stay there.
    I doubt Japan wants their subs sunk for no real practical reason.
    the Bushido code is still with them. If his master orders so, a samurai would kill his own mother & sister. The JMSDF needs real combat experience they didn't have since 1945. Losing an older SSK may be worth it, at least to their admirals.
    There are no tilt rotor or tandem rotor hybrids of anything in Russia and there certainly wont be any of those cold war dinosaurs.
    If the V-22 is a hybrid of C-130 & CH-53/46, Russia can have a hybrid of An-12/26 & Mi-6/26/38, i.e. a tilt-rotor that would leave the V-22 in the dust.
    The new high speed helos look interesting but the Il-276 will be much faster than any model An-12 or upgrade... and the same could be said for the Il-112 and Il-114.
    as if the speed of cargo planes is so important vs. range, volume & payload...
    It certainly is, but they don't use BMD vehicles either...
    but the helos they do use, & in the future they'll have common airframes.
    You mean like the heavy fog they get in London all the time?
    fogs r common in the Arctic & the FE, but many frequent storms there r no less strong then in the North Sea/Atlantic.
    Of course the US is totally hands off and Egypt completely supports their own vehicles aircraft and equipment from the US... totally...
    the army there owns Egypt, but the US de-facto owns the President General Pharaoh Sisi, with Israel & it's lobby in the US having the last word most of the time.
    What property rights and freedoms?
    ask journalists, activists, Khodorkovsky & other tycoons who fled Russia.
    ...BTW this is hilarious coming from a person from a country where a politician and current president says elect me again and we will cure cancer....
    criticism has no borders...
    ..use the Mi-26 to move the load from where it needs to be lifted vertically to the nearest place the Il-276 can operate..and get the benefit of the advantages of both types of aircraft.
    that will require 2 airfields, 2 aircraft & 2 crews, plus 2x support personnel; by the time the load is transferred between them, the weather & other conditions may change & time/lives/$ will be lost. Thus IMO, a somewhat slower tandem/tilt rotor of the same payload is more feasible- "the slower u go, farther way u'll get", as the old Russian saying goes.
    If tiltrotors and tandems are so wonderful where are they all?
    they r not mature yet, just like ekranoplans & SSTs.
    There is only the Chinook and the V-22 that I am aware of and no great mass of customers ranging up to buy them.
    those who do, buy them in large batches, so it's azero sum game of sorts.
    Meanwhile Mi-26s and Mi-17s are out there doing the job.
    yes, but there'l be more jobs better handled by different aircraft. Il-76/8s r doing their job in RF & China but the IL-476/8s & Y-20s will supersede them; the same with An-22/124 & IL-106/Slon.
    Mi-26s can carry twice that weight... when the Indians lose some Chinooks up there they will most likely hire Mi-26s to recover them.
    that won't bankrupt them; they'll save more by operating more CH-47s than the Mi-26s. China too chose to develop a smaller 15T payload helo instead of license producing/copying the Mi-26 monster.
    they already have helicopters better than Chinook and super stallion, they don't need to make copies of American helicopters or tilt rotor aircraft.
    u didn't get it: they'll make better helicopters/tilt-rotors than the Americans have.
    if China wanted a tandem or tiltrotor then why are they working with Russia on them?
    they may have plans to do it later with Russia or w/o her; 1st they need to master large helo design/production.
    This thread is about the Russian carrier programmes and future aircraft... they sure as hell wont have a 42 ton payload helicopter on any of their carriers...
    true, but if they can design it, surely a smaller 1 for naval use can be designed as well that will still outperform the CH-47s & V-22s.
    Most major settlements will justify a proper air strip and smaller communities already get by with An-2 and upgrades and Mi-17s.
    as those huge areas get more development, new aircraft will be needed to serve them; they can't be upgrading the An-12/24/26s, Yak-40s & Mi-17s forever.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30681
    Points : 31211
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:36 pm

    I didn't imply swapping fighters for them! what r u smoking?

    It is your idea that Russian tandem and tilt rotor aircraft could replace AWACS designs and make EMALS redundant, and that all current aircraft used in siberia could be replaced with such aircraft too... it will save on airfields... helicopter pads are cheaper to make and maintain that airstrips remember...

    Sounds like you think Russia can't afford a CVN and should have something like Mistral with Ka-52 and Chinookski...

    what about UDKs? The USN uses CH-46/53s & V-22s, not UH-60s to land Marines/SOFs ashore & behind enemy lines.

    Currently the troop transport helo for the navy is the Ka-29, and its replacement is being developed... that is not a tandem or a tilt rotor...

    what's ur definition of decent AWACS? E-2 Service ceiling: 34,700 ft

    The E-2 is the only aircraft you actually mentioned with the radar and electronics on it to do the job... add that weight and drag to those other two choices and their performance will be seriously degraded... it is the 21st C... Russia should aim higher, not lower.

    Making their new AWACS platform a tandem helo or a tilt rotor is an unnecessary step backwards and likely not enough of an improvement over the Ka-31 they already have for the job.

    no, it's prudence. U can't hide a CVN even in the middle of the Gulf. It's like a box canyon in Arizona- 1 way in, 1 way out. In the 1700s & 1800s, if u r not killed & scalped entering it, u well could be while there or trying to exit it.

    But they are the all powerful US Navy, surely all cower before them and they wont hide from a fight... they can defeat two countries at a time in two different wars in two different places... we are told...

    or they could take out Russian navigation satellites or jam/alter their signals- w/o them, their AWs won't easily find a CVN to recover on.

    Hahaha... the Russians can probably already do that to US satellites... and even when they don't there are cargo ships to navigate around... they don't track their own CVNs using navigation satellites...

    Detonate a few mini nukes underwater & their subs r ether sunk or so damaged to become useless- it will take to replace them (they too could be wiped out); a CVN is then so vulnerable to SSN/Ks that it'll have to pull in port & stay there.

    Are you kidding... if the US starts detonating nuclear weapons to damage or sink Russian subs do you not think they might decide to return the favour... no western sub would be safe... which kinda pisses all over that numbers advantage you have going there... how stupid can you get?

    the Bushido code is still with them. If his master orders so, a samurai would kill his own mother & sister. The JMSDF needs real combat experience they didn't have since 1945. Losing an older SSK may be worth it, at least to their admirals.

    Of course... that explains why Desert Storm attacks were led by Japanese forces... they insisted on being in the front line... hell they might even sink their own SSK just to make the other SSKs pay attention during training... What a Face

    If the V-22 is a hybrid of C-130 & CH-53/46, Russia can have a hybrid of An-12/26 & Mi-6/26/38, i.e. a tilt-rotor that would leave the V-22 in the dust.


    The main problem is that they don't want that... the V-22 has nothing like the payload performance of either of those two aircraft... the only advantage it has over the Super Stallion is speed and the difference is not really that big.

    With new high speed helo technology why waste time replicating tilt rotor technology?

    as if the speed of cargo planes is so important vs. range, volume & payload...

    You claimed it was urgent, that makes speed important.

    but the helos they do use, & in the future they'll have common airframes.

    No they don't. The VDV use Mils, the Russian naval infantry use Kamovs. Before the conflict in Georgia they didn't even train to work together.

    the army there owns Egypt, but the US de-facto owns the President General Pharaoh Sisi, with Israel & it's lobby in the US having the last word most of the time.

    So which is it? Egypt has sovereign control of its military equipment choices or the US has the say?

    ask journalists, activists, Khodorkovsky & other tycoons who fled Russia.

    Oh, fuck off, that criminal scum stole from the Russian people are are adored in the west because they wanted only the worst for the people of Russia.

    Vagina Riot is a classic example of your patriotic Russian activists oppressed by evil Putin... I am sure if they masturbated in St Pauls Cathedral with dead chickens in London they would be treated rather worse than the Russian authorities treated them...

    One Russian political activist who set fire to the door of the FSB in Moscow was freed an immediately fled to France... where he set fire to a door of a major bank in protest... and guess what... they put him in jail too but he said conditions in France are worse than in Russia in jail... imagine that...

    that will require 2 airfields, 2 aircraft & 2 crews, plus 2x support personnel; by the time the load is transferred between them, the weather & other conditions may change & time/lives/$ will be lost. Thus IMO, a somewhat slower tandem/tilt rotor of the same payload is more feasible- "the slower u go, farther way u'll get", as the old Russian saying goes.

    Having airfields and aircraft is a GOOD thing, not a problem. Weather conditions seem to change to suit your scenario... if someone is having a heart attack and the weather closes in and there is no doctor they die. A tilt rotor wont fly in weather a helicopter wont fly in.

    Your opinion doesn't matter when there are no tandem helos or tilt rotor options... they don't need them.

    The amount of money they would need to invest to develop them would be big, they are already investing in new helos with China and new high speed helos and when they are available tandem and tilt rotor aircraft wont offer any speed or range advantage they will just cost money and offer nothing useful.

    they r not mature yet, just like ekranoplans & SSTs.

    With no one developing them they wont get mature.

    those who do, buy them in large batches, so it's azero sum game of sorts.

    Would you mind checking for me then... which countries are buying enormous numbers of Chinooks and V-22s that are also operating Mi-26 and Mi-38 helicopters...

    I think you will find countries operating those two Mils or about to really wont be interested in Chinooks and V-22s because they already have aircraft to do those jobs already...

    Il-76/8s r doing their job in RF & China but the IL-476/8s & Y-20s will supersede them;

    Il-76 and Il-78 are old aircraft and are being replaced by new upgraded versions... just like the Mi-17 and Mi-26 will eventually be up engined and eventually replaced by newer models.

    that won't bankrupt them; they'll save more by operating more CH-47s than the Mi-26s.

    You can claim anything you like, but I would wager large American helos cost more to operate than large Russian ones.

    China too chose to develop a smaller 15T payload helo instead of license producing/copying the Mi-26 monster.

    Indeed China doesn't have light armour forces like the VDV does that can be carried by helo or light transport planes... they will be focused on MRAPs and such rubbish.

    u didn't get it: they'll make better helicopters/tilt-rotors than the Americans have.

    They already have helicopters better than American ones...

    they may have plans to do it later with Russia or w/o her; 1st they need to master large helo design/production.

    But surely if they want tandems or tilt rotors then they need to work with American companies rather than Russian ones...

    true, but if they can design it, surely a smaller 1 for naval use can be designed as well that will still outperform the CH-47s & V-22s.

    The Mi-38 could probably already do that.

    as those huge areas get more development, new aircraft will be needed to serve them; they can't be upgrading the An-12/24/26s, Yak-40s & Mi-17s forever.

    Hello.... is there any one there?

    There are no plans to upgrade the An-12 or the An-24 or An-26, they are being replaced by the Il-276, Il-114, and Il-112. The Yak-40 will likely be replaced by the MS-21, and the Mi-17 will be replaced with the Mi-38...
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 5025
    Points : 5049
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Thu Jul 04, 2019 2:48 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    None of western navies have potent interceptor on deck: F-18? Rafale? F-35?

    So?

    Western navies have a habit of working together and strangely currently outnumber the Russian navy in most regards, so do you think for their 200 odd Naval fighters for their 2 CVNs and the Kuznetsov they should go for MiG-21s or Su-57s?


    outnumber? Russian fighters will be always outnumbered the whole RuAF is to have 700 fighters as US Navy aviation has 1000 fighters. BTW there is no way 200 Russian fighters will be deck based. Currently there is 23 MiGs and 18 Su-33 (?) of which 14 was on deck in Syria.

    Whether Su-57 will be deck based is not decided yet, as not decided how large/how many CVNs will be in service. IMHO currently MiG-35 would be best option but in second half 2030s not anymore.



    GB wrote:

    Naval Air Arms are never cheap... the F-35 is the most expensive fighter ever... so while going for affordable they missed by an fing mile... but what should Russia do... any aircraft will be better than none and presumably in use they will be as much use as airborne radar and IRST as they will be for anything else.
    ...
    A MIG-29M2 moves at similar flight speeds to the much bigger Flanker and can carry the same air to air weapons to the same altitudes.

    precisely! But , then you dont need cable interceptor but small fighter is good enough to defend ships what twas to be proven lol1 lol1 lol1 .









    so no you dont need the best of the best, you need good enough.

    Well they need to scrap the Su-57 and Armata vehicle family because we don't want the best... we want good enough... except it seems they do want the best...

    76 ordered Su-57 vs 700 fighters im the whole RuAF makes it like 10%. So 90 is good enough right? 20,000 tanks (with storag eones?) and how many T-14 is ordered? because T-72B3M is good enough






    TsavoL wrote:All of them can carry pre emptive strikes before the ships are attacked. That's nato strategy, they don't wait that the enemy has the ability to attack them, they destroy him before that.

    Mig 35 has a range of 1000km. With fuel tanks and 260km range kh-35 its strike range is something like 1700km. Su30 is even greater.
    [/quote]

    1000km+260km !== 1700 km lol1 lol1 lol1 MiG 35 perhaps not but new deck fighter will have likely airborne hypesonic missiles with (as already "leaked") range ~1,500 kms

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7908
    Points : 7892
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Isos Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:13 pm

    1000km+260km !== 1700 km lol1 lol1 lol1 MiG 35 perhaps not but new deck fighter will have likely airborne hypesonic missiles with (as already "leaked") range ~1,500 kms

    1000km range empty + 260km of the kh-35 + fuel tanks.

    With kh-59mk2 it's even more.

    Hypersonic missile with 1500km range will be huge and used from tupolevs. Not deck fighter, even less likely a small one like a mig-35.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 5025
    Points : 5049
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:19 pm

    Isos wrote:
    1000km+260km !== 1700 km  lol1  lol1  lol1 MiG 35 perhaps not but new deck fighter will have likely airborne hypesonic missiles with (as already "leaked") range ~1,500 kms

    1000km range empty + 260km of the kh-35 + fuel tanks.

    With kh-59mk2 it's even more.

    Hypersonic missile with 1500km range will be huge and used from tupolevs. Not deck fighter, even less likely a small one like a mig-35.

    with length less then 5m and weight around 1,500kg why not? payload is 6,500kg.
    Approaching US CSG to 300km is a suicide mission for fighter pilot
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30681
    Points : 31211
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  GarryB Fri Jul 05, 2019 3:54 am

    outnumber? Russian fighters will be always outnumbered the whole RuAF is to have 700 fighters as US Navy aviation has 1000 fighters. BTW there is no way 200 Russian fighters will be deck based. Currently there is 23 MiGs and 18 Su-33 (?) of which 14 was on deck in Syria.

    And considering that most of the time these aircraft will be outnumbered, don't you think it makes sense to make them the best planes they can make, or is it more important to just make them small and cheap... of course having said that even the land based Su-57 seems to be one of the cheapest modern fighters you could buy...

    Two CVNs with 100 aircraft each plus Kuznetsov, plus land based training and testing aircraft as well.

    Not all 200 would be on the carriers and not all carriers would be at sea at one time, but 60 fighters on each of the two nuclear powered carriers and another 30 odd on the K, plus another 50 or so at the two land based carrier simulation facilities in case extra fighters are needed...

    They could easily be a mix of Su-57 and MiG-35 based designs...


    Whether Su-57 will be deck based is not decided yet, as not decided how large/how many CVNs will be in service. IMHO currently MiG-35 would be best option but in second half 2030s not anymore.

    Well with further upgrades either aircraft should be able to do a passable job, but the Su-57 will have more growth potential, but then a non stealthy version should be able to carry more weapons and stores and be cheaper to operate.

    precisely! But , then you dont need cable interceptor but small fighter is good enough to defend ships what twas to be proven

    But a bigger aircraft can fly further and for longer and carry bigger sensors that can also see further and include equipment smaller aircraft don't carry like L band wing mounted AESA radar...

    76 ordered Su-57 vs 700 fighters im the whole RuAF makes it like 10%. So 90 is good enough right? 20,000 tanks (with storag eones?) and how many T-14 is ordered? because T-72B3M is good enough

    76 Su-57 ordered so far, there is no way to tell what the final production number will be especially when potential naval orders can be added.

    The CFE required Russia to get rid of most of their tanks down to a level of 6,000 in its european region. The CFE agreement is not in effect because the other members refuse to sign it but Russia met the numbers requirement for that agreement, what they didn't meet were demands to withdraw their (peacekeeping) soldiers from Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh...

    They are going to have four vehicle families each of which will have a member that equates to a tank, but then they will also be making enormous numbers of Armata vehicles... think of all the different types of vehicles in a division... the numbers of other vehicles dwarf the number of actual tanks in any div whether it is a motor rifle div or a tank div... so how many armata tanks do you think they will actually need?

    Approaching US CSG to 300km is a suicide mission for fighter pilot

    With AESA radar and other sensors a US CSG could be detected from rather greater distances than that... the target information passed back to the ships to launch long range anti ship missiles in enormous numbers while the fighters observe the results and deal with any missiles or aircraft coming the other way, both via detection and actual missile self defence.

    Just as importantly a Kh-31 with a scramjet motor offering twice or three times the flight speed, using a similar amount of fuel... well a 600kg Kh-31 moving at about 650m/s to a range of 240km... so that means engine burning for about 6 minutes... so moving at say 2.2km/s for about 5 minutes perhaps, you are looking at 650km range fairly easily... and you could easily triple the weight of the weapon to further improve range performance...
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 2269
    Points : 2259
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:01 am

    https://flotprom.ru/2019/%D0%9C%D0%B2%D0%BC%D1%817/
    For the first time, the Neva Design Bureau will present the promising aircraft carrier Lamantin at the International Navy Salon 2019.
    ...
    Displacement "Lamantina" - 80-90 thousand tons, clarified in response to the question of the publication in the Nevsky PKB. No other details were reported at the enterprise
    ...
    The Ninth International Naval Salon will be held in St. Petersburg from July 10 to 14. In the first three days, from 10 to 12 July, the event is open to professionals and members of foreign delegations, and on July 13 and 14, to a mass audience.

    Edit: this is a flyer for the 44Kton 'light CV'
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 04-7653837-mtsav-s-gtu
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7908
    Points : 7892
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Isos Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:13 pm

    That's the shtorm KM from last year designed for export. Nothing new.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 2269
    Points : 2259
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  hoom Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:42 pm

    Yes its that one from last year but I think the stats page is new.

    Sponsored content

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. - Page 39 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:45 pm