Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Vladimir79 wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:BTW why precisely Mistral cannot use V/STOLS? Like no possible to park or or land?  it can land on helipad if floor is with temp resistant coating/layer

They can certainly land them but it doesn't have the take off length needed for a combat load.  If they take off vertically they have to trade fuel for weapons.  

True, sir, my point was : Mistral can use V/STOL was not designed to have own fixed wing though. BTW STOL take off distance for F-35B is not 400feet (i.e. 120m)?

Perrier

Because nobody in the world want the costs and techical complexities of a STOVL aircraft if it has to be employed from land.

The british and US Marine have been and still are the only in the world operating STOVL aircrafts on land bases.

Nobody else does it, period.

Italians should be before your period ok?   Tjhis is not about complexity but about price. Russians can go for more economical design because not all features have to be on the same level. Soviet Union pertty much interested in  usage of light STOL fighters.

Perrier
For a STOVL aircraft the airframe has to be purpose built, the JSF born day one with the requirement for a STOVL version, so because Su-57 did not born with a requirement for a STOVL version, the airframe of any hypothetical STOVL aircraft will have to be purposedly designed. Yak-141 is so old on any possible technological aspect that could not be of any use as well.

By the way, it has to be expected some LO requirement for the aiframe to fulfill, too.

The engine will have to be designed almost from scratch as well, and to follow the whole test and certification procedure of any new engine, along with related time and costs.

Avionic will have to be closely adapted to the airframe, its specific internal space arrangement, cooling capabilities, electric power generation and so on.

Su-57 is large, IMHO way to large for any fleet adaptation. Indeed you need to adaption of parameters but it is a bit less expensive in term or resources. And yes re-building Yak-141 in current form makes absolutely no sense.

BTW  Boeing  X-32 kind of plane looks cute to me though 

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:
says enough about your economic skills.

If the people is not accepting your arguments is because they are very weak.

PAK-FA was developed by ~$20blns ,  of which India paid like half.  BTW remind me what is with your budgeting or project management skills? you never managed neither budget nor project. Then please dont talk about something you have little idea of

And your experiencie? My experience is enough to see this in your numbers:

https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02298.pdf

$21.0 Billion = Development costs F-22

GunshipDemocracy wrote:PAK-FA was developed by ~$20blns ,  of which India paid like half.

http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160324_Fact-Sheet.pdf

$55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Fighters - say 10-12blns to develop.  Where UAE also is interested in export. Russian part5-6 bllions.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf

$04.7 Billion = Development cost G Ford Aircraft Carriers
$12.9 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-78 G Ford Aircraft Carrier)
$11.4 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-79 JF Kennedy Aircraft Carrier)
$13.0 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-80 Enterprise Aircraft Carrier)
$13.0 Billion = My estimation of the Cost per unit (CV-81 ????? Aircraft Carrier)
$55.0 Billion = Total cost of development of the G Ford Aircraft Carriers plus construction of the 4 aircraft carriers

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Shtorm? 1x14 blns+ 1 bln for catapult

Awesomely in your projections for the main fighter and the heavy aircraft carrier the costs would be in tie with the costs for the US, while the costs for the "VTOL" aircraft are for Russia 1/5 of the costs of the US (discount of the 80%, nothing less), that goes to 1/10 (discount of the 90%) thanks to the United Arab Emirates.

Are you kidding us? Do you want really to sustain these numbers?

Hey buddy guess what F-35's are operational sure in small numbers bu countries like Norway, Isreal etc are operating them.


$55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)

That line is sooooo wrong it's comical.

kvs wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Hey buddy guess what F-35's are operational sure in small numbers bu countries like Norway, Isreal etc are operating them.


$55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)

That line is sooooo wrong it's comical.

It is you who are the laugh riot:

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/31/how-dods-15-trillion-f-35-broke-the-air-force.html

$1.5 trillion and counting.   Best POS committee jet ever designed.

While I do agree the F-35, by all means, costs way too much and a single aircraft can never be the answer to everything.

Articles like this are a riot by themselves, I wonder if I posted an article like this about the T-50 and watch guys like you cry "bullshit".

Moral of this story is you are blinded by your own hate.

Cause I could find tons and tons and tons of web posting about what a POS the T-50 is.

Clowns will be clowns I guess

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

kvs wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Hey buddy guess what F-35's are operational sure in small numbers bu countries like Norway, Isreal etc are operating them.


$55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)

That line is sooooo wrong it's comical.

It is you who are the laugh riot:

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/31/how-dods-15-trillion-f-35-broke-the-air-force.html

$1.5 trillion and counting.   Best POS committee jet ever designed.

While I do agree the F-35, by all means, costs way too much and a single aircraft can never be the answer to everything.

Articles like this are a riot by themselves, I wonder if I posted an article like this about the T-50 and watch guys like you cry "bullshit".

Moral of this story is you are blinded by your own hate.

Cause I could find tons and tons and tons of web posting about what a POS the T-50 is.

Clowns will be clowns I guess

You cut the link for the quote in your ridiculous comment saying the data is wrong and comical (red), but the data is from an inform for the US Congress. The pdf has two pages, and you will see easily both data, the $55 billions (page 2 second table) and the $1.5 Trillions (page 2 first table). Have fun with it.

http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160324_Fact-Sheet.pdf

Owned...

eehnie wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

kvs wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Hey buddy guess what F-35's are operational sure in small numbers bu countries like Norway, Isreal etc are operating them.


$55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)

That line is sooooo wrong it's comical.

It is you who are the laugh riot:

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/31/how-dods-15-trillion-f-35-broke-the-air-force.html

$1.5 trillion and counting.   Best POS committee jet ever designed.

While I do agree the F-35, by all means, costs way too much and a single aircraft can never be the answer to everything.

Articles like this are a riot by themselves, I wonder if I posted an article like this about the T-50 and watch guys like you cry "bullshit".

Moral of this story is you are blinded by your own hate.

Cause I could find tons and tons and tons of web posting about what a POS the T-50 is.

Clowns will be clowns I guess

You cut the link for the quote in your ridiculous comment saying the data is wrong and comical, but the data is from an inform for the US Congress. The pdf has two pages, and you will see easily both data, the $55 billions (page 2 second table) and the $1.5 Trillions (page 2 first table). Have fun with it.

http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160324_Fact-Sheet.pdf

Nice fail reply, when did I mention cost? Not once. Nor did I say the price was wrong

I said your statement is wrong never said which part but of course you double down on this.

You said there was no procurement and that is wrong the aircraft is in service.

$55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)

you see, you are trying to focus on one part of the report to say "The Aircraft isn't in service" you are correct 55 Billion was spent on testing.

However there is also a procurement section in there.

Long story short you are falsifying information and trying to present it a certain way to fit the framework of your argument.

so if you are going to use Congress reports use them correctly not presenting them how you want

There's a lot of energy going into this thread for zero returns... Looks like nothing more than a pissing contest...

Big_Gazza wrote:There's a lot of energy going into this thread for zero returns...  Looks like nothing more than a pissing contest...

Agreed

Big_Gazza wrote:There's a lot of energy going into this thread for zero returns...  Looks like nothing more than a pissing contest...

That's why I am bailing out till real news appear in press releases. 

Edited: Discussion with eehnie and atlascub is not really bringing new facts.

If someone still do not know Seig Soloyvov, the self labeled US "soldier" in Syria:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7072p475-syrian-civil-war-news-16#213462

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

kvs wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:Several Twitter accounts claim that US air strike against SAA will soon come.

And they will be just as effective as they were before.

I also expect another chemical attack hoax.to try and save the hides of the terrorists in the western pockets that are being
systematically removed by the SAA.

Like the September 2016 air raid where A-10's killed around 100 and wounded another 100 or so SAA members.

Assad better hope then Russia actually defends them this time if we do decide to bomb them again.

It is obvious the value of his words about future Russian aircraft carriers. In the cathegory of the pure trolling always. Nothing better to be expected.


Returning to the subject of the topic...

eehnie wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:
says enough about your economic skills.

If the people is not accepting your arguments is because they are very weak.

PAK-FA was developed by ~$20blns ,  of which India paid like half.  BTW remind me what is with your budgeting or project management skills? you never managed neither budget nor project. Then please dont talk about something you have little idea of

And your experiencie? My experience is enough to see this in your numbers:

https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02298.pdf

$21.0 Billion = Development costs F-22

GunshipDemocracy wrote:PAK-FA was developed by ~$20blns ,  of which India paid like half.

http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160324_Fact-Sheet.pdf

$55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Fighters - say 10-12blns to develop.  Where UAE also is interested in export. Russian part5-6 bllions.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf

$04.7 Billion = Development cost G Ford Aircraft Carriers
$12.9 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-78 G Ford Aircraft Carrier)
$11.4 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-79 JF Kennedy Aircraft Carrier)
$13.0 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-80 Enterprise Aircraft Carrier)
$13.0 Billion = My estimation of the Cost per unit (CV-81 ????? Aircraft Carrier)
$55.0 Billion = Total cost of development of the G Ford Aircraft Carriers plus construction of the 4 aircraft carriers

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Shtorm? 1x14 blns+ 1 bln for catapult

Awesomely in your projections for the main fighter and the heavy aircraft carrier the costs would be in tie with the costs for the US, while the costs for the "VTOL" aircraft are for Russia 1/5 of the costs of the US (discount of the 80%, nothing less), that goes to 1/10 (discount of the 90%) thanks to the United Arab Emirates.

Are you kidding us? Do you want really to sustain these numbers?

Why this discount of the 80% GunshipDemocracy, while the rest remains like in the US?

kvs wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:
says enough about your economic skills.

If the people is not accepting your arguments is because they are very weak.

PAK-FA was developed by ~$20blns ,  of which India paid like half.  BTW remind me what is with your budgeting or project management skills? you never managed neither budget nor project. Then please dont talk about something you have little idea of

You crossed the line with this revisionist BS you did not even try to back up with a citation.    Precisely zero of the cost of the PAK-FA came from India or elsewhere.    You are
deliberately or through stupidity confusing the potential contribution from the two-seat PAK-FA variant which India wanted and was going to pay money to get.   But this program branch never got off the ground so all the Indian money is mythical.

Actually India did commit 120 million into PAK-FA project. Far from 5 billion that is expected for joint development, but..still, there was some Indian money in it.

Actually India did commit 120 million into PAK-FA project. Far from 5 billion that is expected for joint development, but..still, there was some Indian money in it.

Serioulsky ? And they complain about it not going fast ...

Well we can imagine their reactions if they gave the 5 billion ...

Isos wrote:

Actually India did commit 120 million into PAK-FA project. Far from 5 billion that is expected for joint development, but..still, there was some Indian money in it.

Serioulsky ? And they complain about it not going fast ...

Well we can imagine their reactions if they gave the 5 billion ...

Well we do not know what they agreed behind the door to be honest. Tho Indians are famous for being drama queens when its about military procurements.

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:

Actually India did commit 120 million into PAK-FA project. Far from 5 billion that is expected for joint development, but..still, there was some Indian money in it.

Serioulsky ? And they complain about it not going fast ...

Well we can imagine their reactions if they gave the 5 billion ...

Well we do not know what they agreed behind the door to be honest. Tho Indians are famous for being drama queens when its about military procurements.

Drama queens? you know Bollywood and so,  yet they are the biggest Russia's weapon importer. Isnt it?

Peŕrier wrote:Nobody will purchase a STOVL fighter from Russia, because there is exactly nobody in friendly relations with Russia needing a STOVL fighter, period.

Of course they won't, they'll be purchasing conventional derivative of that fighter

What exactly makes all of you so fixated on STOVL?

This is just ridiculous between eehnies optimism and your lots VTOL obsession I cannot make out any realistic discussion about future Russian aircraft carriers.

Would it be too mutch to ask for you to rather post your pro VTOL BS in the naval VTOL topic?

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7135-russian-stovl-vtol-fighter-development

Anyway your idea of VTOL naval aircraft for the Russian navy makes my satirical idea of 920mm howitzers look good now could you please just go polute another topic.

The-thing-next-door wrote:What exactly makes all of you so fixated on STOVL?

This is just ridiculous between eehnies optimism and your lots VTOL obsession I cannot make out any realistic discussion about future Russian aircraft carriers.

Would it be too mutch to ask for you to rather post your pro VTOL BS in the naval VTOL topic?

Well well and real discussion was about never implemented Shtorm right?! and you are the superior court and police cheif in one? 
BTW VTOL thread was closer or removed some time ago because of eehnie and co offending others.

The-thing-next-door wrote:What exactly makes all of you so fixated on STOVL?.............

No fixation, it's just least bad option.

I am against fixed-wing aircraft carriers in general. It's an obsolete concept.

But if they do decide to have carrier fleet then STOVL/LHD is least harmful option from financial and strategic standpoint.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:What exactly makes all of you so fixated on STOVL?

This is just ridiculous between eehnies optimism and your lots VTOL obsession I cannot make out any realistic discussion about future Russian aircraft carriers.

Would it be too mutch to ask for you to rather post your pro VTOL BS in the naval VTOL topic?

Well well and real discussion was about never implemented Shtorm right?! and you are the superior court and police cheif in one? 
BTW VTOL thread was closer or removed some time ago because of eehnie and co offending others.

I was not who insulted others. You seems to remember me to say this, but seems to remember not important questions, that come after the link:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7151-off-topic-bollocs#213362

eehnie wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:
says enough about your economic skills.

If the people is not accepting your arguments is because they are very weak.

PAK-FA was developed by ~$20blns ,  of which India paid like half.  BTW remind me what is with your budgeting or project management skills? you never managed neither budget nor project. Then please dont talk about something you have little idea of

And your experiencie? My experience is enough to see this in your numbers:

https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02298.pdf

$21.0 Billion = Development costs F-22

GunshipDemocracy wrote:PAK-FA was developed by ~$20blns ,  of which India paid like half.

http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160324_Fact-Sheet.pdf

$55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Fighters - say 10-12blns to develop.  Where UAE also is interested in export. Russian part5-6 bllions.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf

$04.7 Billion = Development cost G Ford Aircraft Carriers
$12.9 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-78 G Ford Aircraft Carrier)
$11.4 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-79 JF Kennedy Aircraft Carrier)
$13.0 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-80 Enterprise Aircraft Carrier)
$13.0 Billion = My estimation of the Cost per unit (CV-81 ????? Aircraft Carrier)
$55.0 Billion = Total cost of development of the G Ford Aircraft Carriers plus construction of the 4 aircraft carriers

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Shtorm? 1x14 blns+ 1 bln for catapult

Awesomely in your projections for the main fighter and the heavy aircraft carrier the costs would be in tie with the costs for the US, while the costs for the "VTOL" aircraft are for Russia 1/5 of the costs of the US (discount of the 80%, nothing less), that goes to 1/10 (discount of the 90%) thanks to the United Arab Emirates.

Are you kidding us? Do you want really to sustain these numbers?

Why this discount of the 80% GunshipDemocracy, while the rest remain like in the US?

Well how about another alterative what if Russia were to make a heavy missile carrier that could carry hypersonic missiles with a range greater than 3000 km as well as the S-500,many Pantsir-Ms,some mid range,AA anti sub missiles and launch long range tiltrotor recon drones.

Such a vessel could perform land attack,anti sub warfare,anti surface duties,missiles defence and area air denial therefor it would be an effective ship for both defence and power projection.

And one thing to also note with a Storm class there would be no midway engagmenst only quarter of the way ones thanks to the aircraft on the Shtorm calss being able to deliver Zircon missiles.

Although LHDs r not the same as LHAs, & Russia may combine some elements of both- a "super LHD" but w/o dock, making it more like LHA; and they can still build bigger LHDs inspired by Mistal- if they didn't believe in it, why order 2 of them in France & plan to build to at home?

The America class ..design is based on USS Makin Island, itself an improved version of the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship. ..to allow more room for aviation facilities she does not have a well deck, and has smaller medical spaces. With a displacement of 45,000 tons, she is as large as the aircraft carriers of many other countries' navies, and can fulfill similar missions when configured with 20 F-35B strike fighters. ... The removal of the well deck for landing craft allows for an extended hangar deck with two significantly wider high bay areas, each fitted with an overhead crane for aircraft maintenance.
These changes were required in order to operate the F-35B and MV-22, which are considerably larger than the aircraft they replace.The typical aircraft complement is expected to be 12 MV-22B transports, six STOVL F-35B attack aircraft, four CH-53K heavy transport helicopters, seven AH-1Z/UH-1Y attack helicopters and two Navy MH-60S for air-sea rescue. The exact makeup of the ship's aircraft complement will vary according to the mission. America can carry 20 F-35B and 2 MH-60S[12] to serve as a small aircraft carrier as demonstrated by LHD operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(LHA-6)

The new Russian UDK is going to be its direct counterpart, with more defensive armaments. They export Su-35s, S-300/400s, etc. & don't need to built that many STOVLs; what they'll spend on them will be saved on navalizing Su-57, with $ to spare. but even if not, NK & Pakistan showed that 1 can be "ready to eat grass" & get needed weapon systems operational. A naval fighter is a different bird. A Baltic saying states: "seagulls don't land on pine trees!" It can be adopted for AF use like the A-4s, F-4s, F-111 (designed for, but never adopted by the USN), & F-18s (operated by AFs of Australia, Canada, Spain, Malaysia, & Finland), but not vise versa! The F-16 was made into F-18C/D, then it to evolved into F-18E/F, while the F-15s & F-22s
were not even considered for navalization. If the Su-33 was that good, the Russians would have restarted its production. China doesn't have MiG-29Ks & must produce more J-15s for her CAWs. By 2050, she'll have 5-6 medium & large CV/Ns, while Russia can get away with having a mix of 4-6 UDKs, 3-4 LHDs, & max. 2-3 medium CV/Ns. If need be, even a nuclear icebreaker can tow a large barge with a flight deck for transport/attack helos & STOVLs!

Tsavo Lion wrote:Although LHDs r not the same as LHAs, & Russia may combine some elements of both- a "super LHD" but w/o dock, making it more like LHA; 

Indeed talking about evolution: lets check at source. The well deck removed and more room for aircrafts...




http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4

The largest of all amphibious warfare ships; resembles a small aircraft carrier; capable of Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing (V/STOL), Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL), Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) tilt-rotor and Rotary Wing (RW) aircraft operations; contains a well deck to support use of Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) and other watercraft (with exception of the first two LHA(R) class ships, LHA 6 and LHA 7, which have no well deck). LHA 8 will feature a well deck.

USS America (LHA 6), along with the future USS Tripoli (LHA 7) are LHD variants optimized for aviation capability. The propulsion plant and electrical distribution and auxiliary systems designed and built for USS Makin Island are also used aboard USS America and USS Tripoli, the first ships in the LHA Replacement Program. USS America was delivered to the U.S. Navy on April 10, 2014 and USS Tripoli is currently under construction at Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) in Pascagoula, Mississippi and is expected to join the fleet in 2018. LHA 6 and LHA 7, commonly referred to as Flight 0 ships, contain key differences from the LHD class to include: an enlarged hangar deck, enhanced aviation maintenance facilities, increased aviation fuel capacity, additional aviation storerooms, removal of the well deck, and an electronically reconfigurable C4ISR suite

Russian tilt rotor drones are also in design/testing phases. Why d much fuss if VTOL was not an important for military?

eehnie wrote:

Why this discount of the 80% GunshipDemocracy, while the rest remain like in the US?

apart that Russia doesn't need any Nimitz kinda carrier with current doctrine anyway , tell me what fighter you want to see on deck? PAK FA? or MiG-41? no other will be enough viable option in 2030s.  And you did compare surface needed to store PAK FA and  F-35 right? so which is smaller? 
Hint: why F-22 was never navalized?

apart that Russia doesn't need any Nimitz kinda carrier with current doctrine anyway , tell me what fighter you want to see on deck? PAK FA? or MiG-41? no other will be enough viable option in 2030s. And you did compare surface needed to store PAK FA and F-35 right? so which is smaller?
Hint: why F-22 was never navalized?

It's not because of the size but just that the US navy wants different fighters than air force. They never navalized the f-16 which was small btw.

It makes them start new projects and take more money from their people so the get richer ...

Su 57 is already planed to be navalized and used with mig 29k. Its size is smaller than su-27/33 which already doesn't take much more space than a mig 29k on a deck.