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


+31
Singular_Transform
kumbor
hoom
Tsavo Lion
Isos
GunshipDemocracy
SeigSoloyvov
PapaDragon
AlfaT8
Tingsay
JohninMK
eehnie
GarryB
LMFS
Hole
Rodion_Romanovic
verkhoturye51
x_54_u43
George1
Azi
Kimppis
miketheterrible
KomissarBojanchev
runaway
Big_Gazza
kvs
Admin
Peŕrier
sda
The-thing-next-door
ATLASCUB
35 posters

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1324
    Points : 1380
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:51 pm

    Isos wrote:
    GarryB wrote:STOL/VTOL... but both are extremely expensive as they need totally new aircraft designs that are fundamentally compromised...

    I know but I mean something on the ship that helps the fighter to take off. Perrier said strings.

    Also thought about an old idea I had, ricket assisted take off but they would need to much rockets for intensive operations.

    Or another idea is to use a catapult that would work with a jet engine. It's not as powerfull as normal catapults but with a ski jump it could help an awacs to take off by providing enough power because it could work with post combustion. They don't need a big engine just something good enough to accelerate the aircraft as they already can take off without any help but for bigger awacs it is a simple and cheap way to substitute the normal catapulte.

    You caould use a rocket powered sled with a reusable motor.

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Aircra10
    avatar
    Peŕrier


    Posts : 275
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:06 pm

    Rockets are not reusable, unless sent back to factory.

    And rockets' fumes are usually corrosive and contaminating agents, in addition to rockets themselves being dangerous items to be managed as live ordnance and obviously in defined numbers putting a cap on the number of available take offs.

    Anything like or resemnbling RATO or JATO operations has been discarded around half a century ago, to never come back again.

    To take off from an aircraft carrier, or you are alone with your thrust like in short take offs with or without a ski jump, or you have a catapult assisting you with the acceleration.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11377
    Points : 11345
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:18 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    GarryB wrote:STOL/VTOL... but both are extremely expensive as they need totally new aircraft designs that are fundamentally compromised...

    I know but I mean something on the ship that helps the fighter to take off. Perrier said strings.

    Also thought about an old idea I had, ricket assisted take off but they would need to much rockets for intensive operations.

    Or another idea is to use a catapult that would work with a jet engine. It's not as powerfull as normal catapults but with a ski jump it could help an awacs to take off by providing enough power because it could work with post combustion. They don't need a big engine just something good enough to accelerate the aircraft as they already can take off without any help but for bigger awacs it is a simple and cheap way to substitute the normal catapulte.

    You caould use a rocket powered sled with a reusable motor.

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Aircra10

    I hope Eehnie don't use this beautifful drawning as a "source" lol1

    Yeah rockets are not really good for using it intensively. The same thing but with a smaller jet engine that could be change quickly if broken would be better. You could also put it Under the deck by making special space for it
    eehnie
    eehnie


    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2428
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:04 pm

    Isos wrote:Yeah rockets are not really good for using it intensively. The same thing but with a smaller jet engine that could be change quickly if broken would be better. You could also put it Under the deck by making special space for it

    Lego developments made in Isos. He always expends 7 years in Preliminary Designs working with Lego lol1
    George1
    George1


    Posts : 18385
    Points : 18882
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  George1 Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:15 pm

    https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/184035.html
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11377
    Points : 11345
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:06 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Isos wrote:Yeah rockets are not really good for using it intensively. The same thing but with a smaller jet engine that could be change quickly if broken would be better. You could also put it Under the deck by making special space for it

    Lego developments made in Isos. He always expends 7 years in Preliminary Designs working with Lego lol1

    Call tthe santa and tell him I will order one carrier with my design lol1 don't forget to put that on your golden website lol1
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13371
    Points : 13413
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:13 pm

    Isos wrote:................
    I hope Eehnie don't use this beautifful drawning as a "source" lol1
    ..........

    How can he not use it as a source? You just posted official MoD classified document, that system is already in production phase!!! Cool




    George1 wrote:https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/184035.html

    That thing is 1/3 longer than it needs to be, would make sense if they decide to launch planes with full load without catapults or ski-jump and just rely on runway length....
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1324
    Points : 1380
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:42 pm

    [quote="PapaDragon"]
    Isos wrote:
    George1 wrote:https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/184035.html

    That thing is 1/3 longer than it needs to be, would make sense if they decide to launch planes with full load without catapults or ski-jump and just rely on runway length....

    Not long enough.

    Where are the TU-22s? You cannot have a Russian aircraft carrier without medium bombers.

    Also it needs lasers,railguns (these are just for show really as they are utterly useless against anything but tanks) and ofcourse an EM gun that can put satalites into orbit.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13371
    Points : 13413
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:15 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:............
    Not long enough.

    Where are the TU-22s? You cannot have a Russian aircraft carrier without medium bombers.

    Also it needs lasers,railguns (these are just for show really as they are utterly useless against anything but tanks) and ofcourse an EM gun that can put satalites into orbit.


    Screw everything, they should make it 300% longer so you can launch Tu-160 and have underwater hangars for 2 Typhoon subs which are coming back into production as we speak. In fact first unit is already under construction at secret location. Just check the source!!!
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11377
    Points : 11345
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:37 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:............
    Not long enough.

    Where are the TU-22s? You cannot have a Russian aircraft carrier without medium bombers.

    Also it needs lasers,railguns (these are just for show really as they are utterly useless against anything but tanks) and ofcourse an EM gun that can put satalites into orbit.


    Screw everything, they should make it 300% longer so you can launch Tu-160 and have underwater hangars for 2 Typhoon subs which are coming back into production as we speak. In fact first unit is already under construction at secret location. Just check the source!!!

    Kids ... They are already fiting the nuclear reactors from their super icebreakers to THE MOTHERLAND !!!

    They will just move russia to the enemy. It's in the State Armament Program 2018-2027 in a secret page only accissible by Putin and its clones. cheers pwnd
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov


    Posts : 3752
    Points : 3732
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:00 pm

    Isos wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:............
    Not long enough.

    Where are the TU-22s? You cannot have a Russian aircraft carrier without medium bombers.

    Also it needs lasers,railguns (these are just for show really as they are utterly useless against anything but tanks) and ofcourse an EM gun that can put satalites into orbit.


    Screw everything, they should make it 300% longer so you can launch Tu-160 and have underwater hangars for 2 Typhoon subs which are coming back into production as we speak. In fact first unit is already under construction at secret location. Just check the source!!!

    Kids ... They are already fiting the nuclear reactors from their super icebreakers to THE MOTHERLAND !!!

    They will just move russia to the enemy. It's in the State Armament Program 2018-2027 in a secret page only accissible by Putin and its clones. cheers pwnd

    Putin? he wishes he had access to that information only the worlds most trusted internet sites have access to that information
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6101
    Points : 6121
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:10 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    That's my question why do you need so huge airwing if you have no plans for Midway style wars?

    They will have the naval version of the SU-57 and Zircon missiles giving them vast range superiority over any us carrier.

    Alos could someone please get hold of the list of anti ship weapons carried by a us carrier? I believe they are lacking in the department of cruise missiles that can outrange modern Russian air defences.


    AGM-158C LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile) i pretty stealth and can have 1,600 km range. New sea-tomahawk is around 900 miles ( so 1,300 km) . LRASM can be carried by deck fighters. If there is on eRussian CSG then US can send 2-3 own. Really do you think this is impregnated against US attacks?

    BTW One cruiser has 122 VLS one Burke destroyer 96 VLS. A saturation salvo of stealth long range sea skimming missiles is not easy to stop I am afraid.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Guest Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:31 pm

    Dont you dare saying that subsonic AShMs are of any value. Only Granits and Onyx are of any value.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11377
    Points : 11345
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:47 pm

    Militarov wrote:Dont you dare saying that subsonic AShMs are of any value. Only Granits and Onyx are of any value.

    Well french exocet showed that it was a good missile but its replacement will be a supersonic missile.
    Supersonic missiles offers much better results and with the scramjet engines and universal VLS, Russian made the good choice for countering US carrier.

    BTW One cruiser has 122 VLS one Burke destroyer 96 VLS. A saturation salvo of stealth long range sea skimming missiles is not easy to stop I am afraid.

    Much harder when it's supersonic missiles. You have more time to intercept subsonic missiles when you have an awac and fighterd in the air than supersonic ones. Supersonic at low altitudes means that all defences have to be in front of the missile to destroy it because the speed will dicrease the range of your defences against a supersonic missile if their are behind it or on the side at some tens of km. Mach 2 from the back at low alitudes means it is safe from any air to air missile and anti air system will have just few sec to react and lunch an attack.

    Soviet designed them supersonic to go through defences really fast and deny possibiloty of shooting it. Even if it is detected you can't shot it for sure. You will have just one chance and it will be a small window of few seconds before it hits the ship.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6101
    Points : 6121
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:42 am

    Isos wrote:
    BTW One cruiser has 122 VLS one Burke destroyer 96 VLS. A saturation salvo of stealth long range sea skimming missiles is not easy to stop I am afraid.

    Much harder when it's supersonic missiles. You have more time to intercept subsonic missiles when you have an awac and fighterd in the air than supersonic ones. Supersonic at low altitudes means that all defences have to be in front of the missile to destroy it because the speed will dicrease the range of your defences against a supersonic missile if their are behind it or on the side at some tens of km. Mach 2 from the back at low alitudes means it is safe from any air to air missile and anti air system will have just few sec to react and lunch an attack.

    Soviet designed them supersonic to go through defences really fast and deny possibiloty of shooting it. Even if it is detected you can't shot it for sure. You will have just one chance and it will be a small window of few seconds before it hits the ship.

    Not really. Supersonic missiles do not "deny possibility shooting it" only make it harder. There must have been a reason why Orlans had 20 Granits and Anteys 949 24 otherwise 1-2 should be enough dont you think?

    Subsonic can flow very low, evade and also attack in packs with well coordinated tactics. Do you think why AI and smart systems are installed?. Imagine a volley of 50 stealth missiles is sent. Do you really think all could be shoot down?







    Militarov wrote:Dont you dare saying that subsonic AShMs are of any value. Only Granits and Onyx are of any value.

    oh ok in such case  i wont  respekt respekt respekt
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11377
    Points : 11345
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:12 am

    Not really. Supersonic missiles do not "deny possibility shooting it" only make it harder. There must have been a reason why Orlans had 20 Granits and Anteys 949 24 otherwise 1-2 should be enough dont you think?

    Subsonic can flow very low, evade and also attack in packs with well coordinated tactics. Do you think why AI and smart systems are installed?. Imagine a volley of 50 stealth missiles is sent. Do you really think all could be shoot down?

    Yeah I didn't meant deny in the sense it can't be shot down but much harder. Sorry.

    IA, stealth, low altitude are also present in supersonic missiles. Very low altitude is just the final attack run. During cruising they will be like 100m above the sea to not hit the waves.

    Russian missiles are meant to attack carriers supported by jets and awacs. Subsonic missiles are more likely to be destroyed than supersonic. Those IA thing is not new. It is just an evasive manoeuvre at the end to try to evade ciws and short range missiles. A buk will easily destroy them at 20 km from the ship because they go straight at this moment.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39641
    Points : 40137
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:56 am

    Wait I saw that thing in the thumbnail of some ultra low quality text to speach youtube videos and I thought it was a joke.

    Did the Russian MOD seriously make this model?

    Anyway it reminds me of an idea I had when i was 7 years old I wanted to make a submersible aircraft carying super battleship.

    I remember in the late 1980s playing a game called F18 Interceptor or something... by Bob Dinnerman set in the San Francisco area I think where just off the coast a Soviet Submersible carrier was launching "MiG-29s". In fact the MiG-29s were actually black coloured F-16s or something from memory... What stood out most for me was it was the first flight sim I had where you could view the aircraft from the outside in flight... it was only later in Birds of Prey where you could see external weapons though...

    Anyway either way the internal volume available on a sub would make it very unsuitable for more than one aircraft... and having just one aircraft would make it pretty useless.

    Unlikely global with 2 CVs. Size of population and economy will not really allow Russia to get even close to US in terms of naval power projection.

    You are confusing global with Imperial... Russia just needs to be able to send a group of ships to anywhere by sea they need to go... they don't need to protect the entire planet via the sea 24/7.

    It is like the difference between the coverage of air defence over Russia and being able to send a strategic bomber to the US.

    They don't need to shoot down all air power over the US... they just need to sneak a few nuclear warheads past anything operating there at the time of the attack.

    Those 2 ACs have no chance against US carrier groups. Russian power projection it will be at level of UK not US. This of course will be much better then France unless Germans who would have to pay for plans or Napoleon Micron plans Laughing Laughing Laughing

    I will be able to concentrate its forces with there only likely being one carrier group at sea operating at any one time... and even a Corvette armed with 12 hypersonic anti ship missiles has more striking power than a carrier group when it comes to actually sinking shit.

    In comparison if they only had subsonic missiles they would need dozens of ships and hundreds of missiles and even then an organised enemy with layered defences that can attack back would still be a problem...


    That's my question why do you need so huge airwing if you have no plans for Midway style wars? In US first Nimitz was 13bln USD without planes. Interesting that Russia would have to build NEW type of AWACS for naval use thus again couple of billions for 4-6 planes? and for catapults US one costs 1bln USD and doesnt work as planned yet

    I doubt it would ever actually operate with a full compliment of aircraft, but if you go somewhere with 12 or 24 aircraft then you are vulnerable if there is an enemy airforce that can shoot down your aircraft... the loss of a few aircraft would force a withdraw... with 70-80 aircraft you have more layers of protection and more combat persistence...

    A new type of AWACS aircraft that is medium sized would be a very useful aircraft... at sea and on land... you might have noticed they use naval versions of land based SAMs, and a naval PAK FA would further unify things, so a naval AWACS aircraft designed to operate with a small group of fighters would be very useful on land and at sea... smaller airstrips and lower costs would mean you could have 20 of them to replace perhaps 5 A-100s of a similar price...

    When the cats work... and I would suggest the Russians will be rather more practical than the Americans ever have been, then they will gain long range radar at medium to high altitude, which will make their navy far safer and far more dangerous.

    EM technology is worth investing in anyway.

    That's your interpretation. Article says: 2 skijumps and 1 "acceleration device". Possible you're correct but you cannot be sure without seeitn this Smile
    Ah and 2 aisles.

    Look at the design of the Kuznetsov... three main take off runs... one longer for heavier aircraft and two from shorter locations... it would not be that hard to make the skijump narrower so the two shorter launch positions use it and a longer launch run runs beside it but does not go up the ski jump for heavier aircraft.

    For vising this countries and present Russian flag much smaller and cheaper Ac than 10bln USD onr would be just fine.

    For visiting a country under naval blockade a proper carrier makes more sense in the future... it is not just about showing the flag, but about inspiring confidence that Russia can back up its words when it needs to outside of Europe and close Asia...

    The trade with countries it encourages and supports will make the costs seem less of an issue... the US and UK and France don't have carriers for fun or just because they can afford them... they add capability and improve safety and security.

    I know but I mean something on the ship that helps the fighter to take off. Perrier said strings.

    He was being a smartass.

    Also thought about an old idea I had, ricket assisted take off but they would need to much rockets for intensive operations.

    Solid rockets are not cheap and would add a huge burden on the logistics... a burden of very dangerous material that need to be constantly sent to the carrier to maintain operations...

    Or another idea is to use a catapult that would work with a jet engine. It's not as powerfull as normal catapults but with a ski jump it could help an awacs to take off by providing enough power because it could work with post combustion. They don't need a big engine just something good enough to accelerate the aircraft as they already can take off without any help but for bigger awacs it is a simple and cheap way to substitute the normal catapulte.

    So add all the complication and cost of a catapult but make it external?

    You caould use a rocket powered sled with a reusable motor.

    How many sleds would you need to carry?

    Why do you think this would be safe on the deck of a carrier?

    Why do you think this would be cheaper and easier and cleaner than an EM cat?

    Dont you dare saying that subsonic AShMs are of any value. Only Granits and Onyx are of any value.

    A simple analogy would be in small arms...

    Dont you dare saying that pistol calibre weapons are of any value. Only Rifle calibre Assault Rifles and Machine guns are of any value.

    The only way you can make a subsonic anti ship missile a capable system is to use lots... ie SMGs rather than pistols.

    Without air based AWACS then low flying subsonic anti ship missiles are very dangerous... having air based eyes and sensors and also air based fly swatters then they are rather less effective and you need to use even more of them to be effective... to the point where you need so many you become vulnerable because you start loading Anti Ship missiles in tubes you would normally load SAMs or anti sub weapons in...

    Well french exocet showed that it was a good missile but its replacement will be a supersonic missile.

    Actually in the Falklands war it showed that little carriers with VSTOL aircraft and no fixed wing AWACS aircraft are more vulnerable to attack than larger carriers with better AEW capability.

    Not really. Supersonic missiles do not "deny possibility shooting it" only make it harder. There must have been a reason why Orlans had 20 Granits and Anteys 949 24 otherwise 1-2 should be enough dont you think?

    For use against carrier groups of more than large 10 ships you would need more than one or two missiles even if they were guaranteed a hit.

    Supersonic missiles reduce engagement times assuming they will be detected, they use high speed to improve their chances of getting through.

    In actual fact many of the missile types actually tried to go around the defences too... the SS-N-22 Moskit flew below the 7m minimum altitude of Standard SAMs, while many other missiles including Kh-22M flew above at 40km altitude... which took it above Phoenix missile altitudes...

    Subsonic can flow very low, evade and also attack in packs with well coordinated tactics. Do you think why AI and smart systems are installed?.

    the only operational anti ship missiles that cooperate and operate in packs are the supersonic Soviet missiles.

    Imagine a volley of 50 stealth missiles is sent. Do you really think all could be shoot down?

    The best chance of surviving such an attack would include an airborne sensor system... and the delay in making the carriers will likely lead to more time to perfect those photonic radars they keep talking about, which would be ideal for detecting stealthy threats as soon as possible... which would be the most critical requirement to defeating any attack.

    However, if he drops another Lider/Shtorm-class sized turd again it's scorched earth rolling thunder no mercy mode in full throttle.

    If you break the rules concerning abuse you will get a break from this forum... as will anyone else... including your friend in question...

    I don't expect in my lifetime for Russia to have strategic/vital interests in in the Southern Atlantic or Southern Pacific, or off the coast of Africa or Asia outside of the RFE or South America, unless they decide to colonize Antarctica!

    The UK didn't become a global power and THEN develop a powerful navy... the same for the US.

    You have to have a navy powerful enough to operate anywhere on the globe before you can assure those you are trading with that if the US or others say no, you can say yes and actually back it up with real force.

    They don't need 13 carrier groups of ships 5m longer than each equivalent US Navy warship and they don't need thousands of ships produced at the rate China seems to be making them.

    They can't afford an enormous fleet but what they do have needs to be able to operate on its own for long periods and they need to be able to support them...

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39641
    Points : 40137
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:07 am

    For aircraft... how about airship...

    You could build a decent sized airship able to carry payloads of several thousand tons... hover over a carrier and attach a cable to where the arrester hook attaches to the aircraft and raise the aircraft into the belly of the airship so it is hanging vertically. Space them out inside the airship so you can walk on a gantry to the top for the pilot to get in and below to load weapons and fuel... load up 20 aircraft and then dump ballast and climb to 10,000m... let the crewman get into the fighter and with the under carriage still retracted release the aircraft vertically down. it can start its engines before release... the heat could either be diverted out the top or used to further increase the buoyancy of the airship.

    Release the aircraft vertically down from a decent height so they can pull back on the flight stick and fly away.

    They can land back on the carrier when their mission is complete and get taken back on board the air ship ready to be refuelled and rearmed.

    the sides of the airship could consist of enormous radar antenna and the airship could perform the AWACS role.

    The airship could meet other supply vessels and take on thousands of tons of fuel to support the aircraft that it operates as well as hundreds of tons of ordinance...
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39641
    Points : 40137
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:10 am

    For a 50 stealth missile attack the airship with its enormous radar could easily carry hundreds of medium and long range AAMs for self defence and with an enormous airborne radar actually defend itself quite well.

    With modern fire proof nomex and carbon fibre and kevlar structure it can be enormously strong yet resistant to fire and damage...
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1324
    Points : 1380
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:48 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    You caould use a rocket powered sled with a reusable motor.

    How many sleds would you need to carry?

    Why do you think this would be safe on the deck of a carrier?

    Why do you think this would be cheaper and easier and cleaner than an EM cat?



    I was thinking of a captive sled that would be towed back into position and refueld.

    As for would it be safe well no but niether are jet engines CIWS guns nuclear reactors (although the danger posed by thes is highly over rated) or hypersonic cruise missiles.

    Anyway your zeplin idea is even worse next you are going to be saying that Russia needs a space elevator lol.

    Just how long do you think it will take to hoist an aircraft up to the hight required would be?

    You claim my ideas are stupid but then you come up with this.

    Anyway

    How about vertical launch fighters? Could you elevate the fighter 75-90 degrees and then launch it like that?

    But wait if you really just want a simple and reliable way to launch aircraft from a ship you could just make the ship longer and launch them like you would from an airfield I like this option it allows for more hangars and air deffence missiles.

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11377
    Points : 11345
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:52 pm

    How about vertical launch fighters? Could you elevate the fighter 75-90 degrees and then launch it like that?

    Already done

    http://www.whiteeagleaerospace.com/first-super-sabre-zll/
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6101
    Points : 6121
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:14 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Fine, you know what? I will stop but only because YOU asked me to. I am ready to bury the hatchet for the time being.

    Thanks, I appreciate  it.  Now let's focus on  bashing GarryB for disrespect for V/STOL fighters Smile




    eehnie wrote:Trying your best you too, by the same way, collaborating yourself in the damage to the forum.
    But in the refered to me, with the same result of the rest. Zero.
    I need nothing from you, thanks.
    The time will talk, and habitually the time leaves not in bad place my opinion.


    Not sure what you mean but I prefer to focus on military stuff not off topics. That's why I am here mate.
    eehnie
    eehnie


    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2428
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:31 pm

    George1 wrote:https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/184035.html

    Comparing the content, this and the recent article of sputnik linked by azi seems to have the same origin, both would be refered to the same TV program (bolded in blue):

    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnavy-korabel.livejournal.com%2F184035.html

    ...The last issue of the program "Military Acceptance" of the TRC "Zvezda" dedicated to the Main Armament Directorate of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation flashed the model of a prospective aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy ( reference 1 - 00:48), shot in the office of the Deputy Minister of Defense Y. Borisov, , as is known, questions of the military-technical policy and military-technical support of the Armed Forces....

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 0_18674b_da0c2b2a_orig
    1. Screenshot from the program "Military Acceptance", issue "Russian weapons of the future., Made under the control of the GUV" dated 25.02.2018

    ...

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.sputniknews.com%2Ftechnik%2F20180225319701993-russland-marine-flugzeugtraeger%2F&edit-text=

    Russia's navy can look forward to new aircraft carriers

    technology
    18:02 25.02.2018   (updated 19:19 25.02.2018)   To the short link

    The Russian naval forces can wait tensely for a new aircraft carrier.  A corresponding project has now been prepared, reported on Sunday, the TV channel "Zvezda".

    According to preliminary calculations, the length of the new ship should be 330 meters, the width - 40 meters.  The ship is to carry up to 90 aircraft and helicopters and can record radar early warning aircraft.

    Faster than Bullet: New Missiles for Russian Navy >>>

    Crew des russischen Atomkreuzers Pjotr Welikij (Archivbild)
    ©️ Sputnik / Grigory Syssoew

    The launching system of the new aircraft carrier will consist of a so-called ski jump, a kind of "ski jump", and a device for acceleration.  The departure deck of the ship should be twice as large as that of Admiral Kuznetsov , who is currently the only aircraft carrier in the service of the Russian Seekriegsflotte.

    With the development of the new ship, the Russian Krylov Research Center in St. Petersburg should deal.  Construction is scheduled to commence under the new state-of-the-art upgrade program for the period 2018-2025.

    Both articles offer complementary information about the program.

    As commented before, it is clear that the sputnik article is talking about a design strongly related to the previously known export variant of the project 23000. The numerical data agree, as we can see in every source:

    http://www.deagel.com/Fighting-Ships/Project-23000E_a003273001.aspx

    Dimensions
    Beam: 40 meter (131 foot)
    Draft: 11 meter (36.1 foot)
    Length: 330 meter (1,083 foot)

    The article included by George would add a picture of a model from the office of Y Borisov, obtained from the same program. It would make sanse if the model is from the new iteration, like is said in the article, together with a model of the Mistral ships, to send a message of improvement despite sanctions. If this is the case, the model would be the variant (iteration) of the Project 23000 for the Russian Armed Forces.


    Last edited by eehnie on Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6101
    Points : 6121
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:11 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    You are confusing global with Imperial... Russia just needs to be able to send a group of ships to anywhere by sea they need to go... they don't need to protect the entire planet via the sea 24/7. It is like the difference between the coverage of air defence over Russia and being able to send a strategic bomber to the US.
    They don't need to shoot down all air power over the US... they just need to sneak a few nuclear warheads past anything operating there at the time of the attack.


    that exactly proves my opinion that to 1-2 uber-ACs make little sense with country of economy, population like Russia.



    GarryB wrote:
    I will be able to concentrate its forces with there only likely being one carrier group at sea operating at any one time... and even a Corvette armed with 12 hypersonic anti ship missiles has more striking power than a carrier group when it comes to actually sinking shit.

    In comparison if they only had subsonic missiles they would need dozens of ships and hundreds of missiles and even then an organised enemy with layered defences that can attack back would still be a problem...


    Well the problem is that they HAVe those ships already. And can procure new ones faster then Russia. Now I am just speculating but what about 1 extra SSGN Ohio per US AC with 150 missiles alone. Or one full US CSG following Russian one? they can afford.


    Besides in 2030-2035 when Russian ACs go eventually on line Prompt Global Strike and orbital bombers (kinda X37) can be online too






    I doubt it would ever actually operate with a full compliment of aircraft, but if you go somewhere with 12 or 24 aircraft then you are vulnerable if there is an enemy airforce that can shoot down your aircraft... the loss of a few aircraft would force a withdraw... with 70-80 aircraft you have more layers of protection and more combat persistence...

    A new type of AWACS aircraft that is medium sized would be a very useful aircraft...

    Again two points: you still are talking about full naval air-air battles otherwise for colonial wars 1/3 of airwing is just fine. But admiralty is to choose not me Smile
    As for AWACS no need to convince me. But what would you propose? re-stars 50 years old Yak-44 concept? Or play with convertiplanes. Regardless it will cost a lot.
    Besides if Russia needed small AWACS for land forces they already would have worked on this dont you think?




    [quote=GarryB]
    For visiting a country under naval blockade a proper carrier makes more sense in the future... it is not just about showing the flag, but about inspiring confidence that Russia can back up its words when it needs to outside of Europe and close Asia...
    [/quote]

    For visiting country under blockade something much much smaller has similar effect. Nobody dares to shoot to Russian Navy as long as Smarts can bring response to Washington DC in 25 minutes. Again against Uber-carrier are costs. This is like 20-25% of yearly MoD !!! budget for ships alone not to mention the whole groups.



    [quote=GarryB]
    Subsonic can flow very low, evade and also attack in packs with well coordinated tactics. Do you think why AI and smart systems are installed?.
    the only operational anti ship missiles that cooperate and operate in packs are the supersonic Soviet missiles.

    [/quote]


    This was in 80s true. Now we have 2018 and in USAF is already accepted and in US Navy will be from 2019 LARSM. Check its characteristics:
    low observability both radar and IR, passive sensors, AI algorithms for attack and decide strategies on swarm attack. They prioritize not only on size but also as they say "electronic order of battle" .


    Not confirmed yet but I have found also info about versions only dedicated to EW.

    Underestimating your opponent is not really the best option. I am not saying that LARSM is indestructible but definitely something every admiral has to recon with.






    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 6101
    Points : 6121
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:15 pm

    Isos wrote: Russian missiles are meant to attack carriers supported by jets and awacs. Subsonic missiles are more likely to be destroyed than supersonic. Those IA thing is not new. It is just an evasive manoeuvre at the end to try to evade ciws and short range missiles. A buk will easily destroy them at 20 km from the ship because they go straight at this moment.


    Not sure if they go straight, second thing is somehow Buk has to find them and this is nto going to be so easy. And AI is not about evasive maneuvering but taking best strategies at the time and no it is no told it is new. Especially towards swarm management.

    Sponsored content


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jul 22, 2024 11:15 pm