Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:

Militarov wrote:Russia doesn't have interest abroad.

What the actual fuck xD

Which russian interest abroad needs a carrier for defence ?

1 russian carrier won't stop US attacking poor countries. They launched attack on SAA more than once while russia has an airbase comparable to a carrier in Syria and they were not stoped.

To be fair not like Russians were burning with desire to fight Coalition over Syria. However it would be quite different story if 50 miles from the US carries was parked 80.000t Russian carrier with 10 ship strong escort, as they wouldnt be there in such situation in a first place.

How about Russian installations in Cuba lets say. Or Kuril Islands. You think its easier to defend Kurils in case of, highly unlikely conflict but lets say for the sake of it, with or without naval wing?

What if Russians decided to prevent lets say... US attacking NK in 5 years. How are they going to do it... by walking down to Pyongyang? No, you park the carrier group, say, if you attack them, you are attacking us too, bla bla bla, negotiations table and stuff.

Its not same if you come with carrier and 4 destroyers or when you come with floating bathtub that has Gibka and 76mm peashooter. As much as military asset (expencive one i know), carrier is a statement too. Liked we that or not, South Korea and Japan are big time interested in real carriers, even tho lets say... they dont really need them either at this point. But i myself do not need Audi A8, doesnt mean i wouldnt like to have one in the times when i want to make a clear statement, if you know what i mean.

You are far away from reality. You say 4 carriers would be what they need with each 10 escort ships it's just impossible for russia. To protect north korea ? And cuba ?

Why don't let communist china protect them ? They are world communist leaders, russia is not communist anymore and their interest in those two countries are inexistant. They even closed an observation center in cuba not long ago.

For its neighbouring area they have air force and kalibr and nuks to deal with any invasion force.

Isos wrote:

You are far away from reality. You say 4 carriers would be what they need with each 10 escort ships it's just impossible for russia. To protect north korea ? And cuba ?

Why don't let communist china protect them ? They are world communist leaders, russia is not communist anymore and their interest in those two countries are inexistant. They even closed an observation center in cuba not long ago.

For its neighbouring area they have air force and kalibr and nuks to deal with any invasion force.

Permanent escort for carrier doesnt have to be 10 ships, and not all of them are required to be destroyers. Smaller ships from Black sea fleet can join taskgroup in Meds, so 10 ship escort is far from being unrealistic.

So who remains then if we remove Cuba and Venezuela as Russian "ally" in that part of the world? Noone?

Thats why there is saying "God help those that are relying on Russia for defence and Greece for food".

The Ekranoplan aircraft carrier by Robert Bartini
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2018-06-15/8_1000_bartini.html?print=Y

Can operate in sea state 9, has enough a/c to do what GarryB said!
For the price of 1 CVN, several of them could be had, & it won't need as many escort ships, which could also be smaller ekranoplans!

So, given that the discussion about carriers revolves always about the assumption that fully-loaded aircraft cannot take off from STOBAR, I've done a little research and found a small ski-jump simulator:

http://cppcms.com/files/skijump/

Taking the aero parameters from the existing F-18 E/F simulation and 30 knots wind over deck speed and changing takeoff length, thrust and weight:

> A MiG-29K (2x92.2kN take-off thrust, 22400 kg MTOW) could take off fully loaded from the longest launch position (ca. 200 m) but not from the shortest (ca. 100 m)
> A PAK-FA with AL-41F1(2x147 kN, ca. 35000 kg MTOW) could take off fully loaded from the longest launch position but not from the shortest.
> A PAK-FA with Izd. 30 engines (assuming 2x170 kN) could take off fully loaded both from the longest and shortest positions
> A light fighter with 1xIzd. 30 could take off from both launch positions up to a TOW of 19 T

This is a rough approximation that could be improved with accurate aero values, which could be available at least for the MiG-29. But nevertheless makes one point clear:

Planes with T/W ratio according to the capacities of 5G engines are not limited by the fact of using STOBAR launching.

This is IMO a major conclusion that would allow for smaller and cheaper carriers without catapults with full fighter combat capability. I have not checked still how it would look like for AEW and tanker planes but they would be probably limited by their notably smaller T/W ratio, so modified fighters should cover their roles

“In our simulation, we discovered that not only could the Super Hornet take-off from a ski-jump, but could do so with a significant weapons load.” (Boeing’s campaign manager for the Indian F-18 E/F deal Michael E. Rietz)

China is now building the Type 075 amphibious assault ship, a 40,000-ton vessel with a length of 820 feet, or 250 meters.
This compares closely the the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship which also weighs in at 40,000 tons and has a length of 844 feet, or 257 meters. Today they are primarily designed to haul helicopters and troops, which is what the Wasp-class is designed to do. But if China get hold of the F-35B’s engine technology and apply it to its own stealth aircraft program, then the Type 075 would be a significant force multiplier for China equipped with stealth aircraft and a bigger factor in China’s regional power projection strategy. http://www.atimes.com/article/why-china-could-be-after-the-f-35b/
https://thediplomat.com/2016/11/type-075-watch-chinas-navy-may-soon-be-second-to-the-us-navy-in-amphibious-assault/

Although RFN CVNs, if built, will be bigger, they & UDKs/LHDs could use STOVLs. As I mentioned, they may be well suited for their defense of Arctic & Kurils.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

China is now building the Type 075 amphibious assault ship, a 40,000-ton vessel with a length of 820 feet, or 250 meters.
This compares closely the the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship which also weighs in at 40,000 tons and has a length of 844 feet, or 257 meters. Today they are primarily designed to haul helicopters and troops, which is what the Wasp-class is designed to do. But if China get hold of the F-35B’s engine technology and apply it to its own stealth aircraft program, then the Type 075 would be a significant force multiplier for China equipped with stealth aircraft and a bigger factor in China’s regional power projection strategy. http://www.atimes.com/article/why-china-could-be-after-the-f-35b/
https://thediplomat.com/2016/11/type-075-watch-chinas-navy-may-soon-be-second-to-the-us-navy-in-amphibious-assault/

Although RFN CVNs, if built, will be bigger, they & UDKs/LHDs could use STOVLs. As I mentioned, they may be well suited for their defense of Arctic & Kurils.

Here is size comparison with Laoning. It's obvious that pursuing anything other than STOVL for Russian Navy is total waste. Something like this is more than enough:

A MiG-29K (2x92.2kN take-off thrust, 22400 kg MTOW) could take off fully loaded from the longest launch position (ca. 200 m) but not from the shortest (ca. 100 m)

Interesting. GarryB has argued this is the case for Su-33 as well.
Its a logical design choice but I've not found any reference to it being actually the case, so interesting to see some maths supporting it.

I've been trying to work out how you could layout a ~K size deck to enable using 2* long runs simultaneously/1* long run & simultaneous landing, not really come up with a successful idea though.
Inspired by Vikramaditya I feel part of the solution is to actually extend the long run further so that the setup is aft/to port of the landing run, would also want an aft port lift.
I like to think the extra length could enable a 2-seat AEW or something.

I had thought with extra thrust of new-gen engines & experience with ski-jump planes it should be relatively easy to design-in a little ski-jump optimisation for a new-gen plane compared to messing around with complex, expensive, heavy dedicated VTOL version or outright completely different plane.

hoom wrote:

A MiG-29K (2x92.2kN take-off thrust, 22400 kg MTOW) could take off fully loaded from the longest launch position (ca. 200 m) but not from the shortest (ca. 100 m)

Interesting. GarryB has argued this is the case for Su-33 as well.
Its a logical design choice but I've not found any reference to it being actually the case, so interesting to see some maths supporting it.

I've been trying to work out how you could layout a ~K size deck to enable using 2* long runs simultaneously/1* long run & simultaneous landing, not really come up with a successful idea though.
Inspired by Vikramaditya I feel part of the solution is to actually extend the long run further so that the setup is aft/to port of the landing run, would also want an aft port lift.
I like to think the extra length could enable a 2-seat AEW or something.

I had thought with extra thrust of new-gen engines & experience with ski-jump planes it should be relatively easy to design-in a little ski-jump optimisation for a new-gen plane compared to messing around with complex, expensive, heavy dedicated VTOL version or outright completely different plane.

Yeah, for me the STOVL issue is essentially dead after checking numbers. It simply does not make sense anymore to deal with such a problematic issue if a Kuz-sized ship can launch fully loaded 5G fighters even from the short runs. This is supported not only by this simulation site but also basic dynamics and including drag /rolling friction effects. The numbers are reasonably consistent for a rough approach in my opinion. What I want to check now is how this would look for a E-2 type plane, but even in case it does not work without catapults, I think for the early warning role nowadays is not mandatory to have a different airframe. Side bays of a 5G fighter could be adapted for carrying a big side-looking AESA antenna and that would take care of threats below the radar horizon of the ship. So the catapult requirement may be removed as well.

So, with the proper T/W ratio of the aircraft, the two existing launch positions would be fully usable and you don't need to create additional long ones. If you want to match the take-off rate of a supercarrier (one plane every twenty to thirty seconds with four catapult crews) you could maybe use smaller planes and re-arrange the deck, but I don't know if this is considered an important requirement

LMFS wrote:

hoom wrote:

A MiG-29K (2x92.2kN take-off thrust, 22400 kg MTOW) could take off fully loaded from the longest launch position (ca. 200 m) but not from the shortest (ca. 100 m)

Interesting. GarryB has argued this is the case for Su-33 as well.
Its a logical design choice but I've not found any reference to it being actually the case, so interesting to see some maths supporting it.

I've been trying to work out how you could layout a ~K size deck to enable using 2* long runs simultaneously/1* long run & simultaneous landing, not really come up with a successful idea though.
Inspired by Vikramaditya I feel part of the solution is to actually extend the long run further so that the setup is aft/to port of the landing run, would also want an aft port lift.
I like to think the extra length could enable a 2-seat AEW or something.

I had thought with extra thrust of new-gen engines & experience with ski-jump planes it should be relatively easy to design-in a little ski-jump optimisation for a new-gen plane compared to messing around with complex, expensive, heavy dedicated VTOL version or outright completely different plane.

Yeah, for me the STOVL issue is essentially dead after checking numbers. It simply does not make sense anymore to deal with such a problematic issue if a Kuz-sized ship can launch fully loaded 5G fighters even from the short runs. This is supported not only by this simulation site but also basic dynamics and including drag /rolling friction effects. The numbers are reasonably consistent for a rough approach in my opinion. What I want to check now is how this would look for a E-2 type plane, but even in case it does not work without catapults, I think for the early warning role nowadays is not mandatory to have a different airframe. Side bays of a 5G fighter could be adapted for carrying a big side-looking AESA antenna and that would take care of threats below the radar horizon of the ship. So the catapult requirement may be removed as well.

So, with the proper T/W ratio of the aircraft, the two existing launch positions would be fully usable and you don't need to create additional long ones. If you want to match the take-off rate of a supercarrier (one plane every twenty to thirty seconds with four catapult crews) you could maybe use smaller planes and re-arrange the deck, but I don't know if this is considered an important requirement

Well said.

The steam/electromagnetic catapult was a mandatory equipment prior of the high power aircraft engines.

I think it is quite safe to say the unmaned aerial vehicles are more fit for early warning purposes.

Singular_Transform wrote:

LMFS wrote:

hoom wrote:

A MiG-29K (2x92.2kN take-off thrust, 22400 kg MTOW) could take off fully loaded from the longest launch position (ca. 200 m) but not from the shortest (ca. 100 m)

Interesting. GarryB has argued this is the case for Su-33 as well.
Its a logical design choice but I've not found any reference to it being actually the case, so interesting to see some maths supporting it.

I've been trying to work out how you could layout a ~K size deck to enable using 2* long runs simultaneously/1* long run & simultaneous landing, not really come up with a successful idea though.
Inspired by Vikramaditya I feel part of the solution is to actually extend the long run further so that the setup is aft/to port of the landing run, would also want an aft port lift.
I like to think the extra length could enable a 2-seat AEW or something.

I had thought with extra thrust of new-gen engines & experience with ski-jump planes it should be relatively easy to design-in a little ski-jump optimisation for a new-gen plane compared to messing around with complex, expensive, heavy dedicated VTOL version or outright completely different plane.

Yeah, for me the STOVL issue is essentially dead after checking numbers. It simply does not make sense anymore to deal with such a problematic issue if a Kuz-sized ship can launch fully loaded 5G fighters even from the short runs. This is supported not only by this simulation site but also basic dynamics and including drag /rolling friction effects. The numbers are reasonably consistent for a rough approach in my opinion. What I want to check now is how this would look for a E-2 type plane, but even in case it does not work without catapults, I think for the early warning role nowadays is not mandatory to have a different airframe. Side bays of a 5G fighter could be adapted for carrying a big side-looking AESA antenna and that would take care of threats below the radar horizon of the ship. So the catapult requirement may be removed as well.

So, with the proper T/W ratio of the aircraft, the two existing launch positions would be fully usable and you don't need to create additional long ones. If you want to match the take-off rate of a supercarrier (one plane every twenty to thirty seconds with four catapult crews) you could maybe use smaller planes and re-arrange the deck, but I don't know if this is considered an important requirement

Well said.

The steam/electromagnetic catapult was a mandatory equipment prior of the high power aircraft engines.

I think it is quite safe to say the unmaned aerial vehicles are more fit for early warning purposes.

@Papadragon. F-35B concept was initially projected in USSR for Yak-141 STOVL jet, as well as its engine layout. In 1994 Russia sold the whole technical documentation to Americans. So, F-35 STOVL concept has russian roots.
If Russians wanted to proceed with STOVL concept, they would have not sold the documentation. Yak-141 was a good plane, but couldn`t match capabilities of Su-33 or MiG-29K, not to mention Su-57! So, it`s time to proceed with CATOBAR and get fully capable carrier.

kumbor wrote:......
@Papadragon. F-35B concept was initially projected in USSR for Yak-141 STOVL jet, as well as its engine layout. In 1994 Russia sold the whole technical documentation to Americans. So, F-35 STOVL concept has russian roots.
If Russians wanted to proceed with STOVL concept, they would have not sold the documentation. Yak-141 was a good plane, but couldn`t match capabilities of Su-33 or MiG-29K, not to mention Su-57! So, it`s time to proceed with CATOBAR and get fully capable carrier.

Russians didn't pursue concept because they couldn't even afford to pay for food, not because it was inferior

And they sold documentation because they were corrupt scum

PapaDragon wrote:

kumbor wrote:......
@Papadragon. F-35B concept was initially projected in USSR for Yak-141 STOVL jet, as well as its engine layout. In 1994 Russia sold the whole technical documentation to Americans. So, F-35 STOVL concept has russian roots.
If Russians wanted to proceed with STOVL concept, they would have not sold the documentation. Yak-141 was a good plane, but couldn`t match capabilities of Su-33 or MiG-29K, not to mention Su-57! So, it`s time to proceed with CATOBAR and get fully capable carrier.

Russians didn't pursue concept because they couldn't even afford to pay for food, not because it was inferior

And they sold documentation because they were corrupt scum

The sale of that documentation was a very good move from Russia.

Without that the US probably would not consider the vertical take off as necessary requirement of the f35, and it would means that the F35 will become a usable airplane, instead of the current financial /technical disaster.

Actually, the f35 is an improved yak141 + 500 billion $ wasted.

If Russians wanted to proceed with STOVL concept, they would have not sold the documentation.

That was then, but now they came a full circle, back to STOVL on UDKs, even if later they'll get CVNs with ST/CATOBAR. The USN has both CVNs & LHAs/LHDs- 1 doesn't exclude the other.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

If Russians wanted to proceed with STOVL concept, they would have not sold the documentation.

That was then, but now they came a full circle, back to STOVL on UDKs, even if later they'll get CVNs with ST/CATOBAR. The USN has both CVNs & LHAs/LHDs- 1 doesn't exclude the other.

Russia cannot obtain funding for both STOVL and dedicated carrier based fighter at the same time. No money!

Singular_Transform wrote:....

The sale of that documentation was a very good move from Russia.

Without that the US probably would not consider the vertical take off as necessary requirement of the f35, and it would means that the F35 will become a usable airplane, instead of the current financial /technical disaster.

Actually, the f35 is an improved yak141 + 500 billion $ wasted.

Yes, yes, I am sure it was all part of a cunning plan to screw over USA 30 years later, 5D chess right there...

They sold tech for peanuts and 30 years later they will still be doing LHD/STOVL approach Japan style (if they are lucky to get even that done)

Russia cannot obtain funding for both STOVL and dedicated carrier based fighter at the same time.

1st they'll get UDKs, then perhaps CVNs, so don't worry, it won't be at the same time $ crunch!

Singular_Transform wrote:Well said.

The steam/electromagnetic catapult was a mandatory equipment prior of the high power aircraft engines.

I think it is quite safe to say the unmaned aerial vehicles are more fit for early warning purposes.

Hey, I think that is an interesting idea. Today's electronically scanned radars do not need the traditional AWACS dish antenna, see below this proposal for a Russian naval AWACS:



This could be placed in the leading and trailing edges of such a UAV as the X-47 or similar, where aerodynamic surfaces are not compromised:



Together with this function, reconnaissance, attack, EW, tanker roles can be covered by such a plane complementing the manned fighters with a disposable and low footprint platform. PLAN and US Navy already walking this path and Russia will most probably follow soon

The take-off issue could be managed on a ski-jump carrier with a reasonably powered engine, high lift, low stall speed aerodynamic design and using the whole length of the deck, at least in case the number of such aircraft on board is small and their endurance high they would not affect excessively the landing operations.

@kumbor: the numbers indicate that CATOBAR is not needed, STOBAR is more than enough for 5G fighters (unless you ruin a monster engine as in the case of the F-35 )

What about CODs? Helos may not be enough, so tiltrotors will need to be developed! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_onboard_delivery

Tsavo Lion wrote:What about CODs? Helos may not be enough, so tiltrotors will need to be developed! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_onboard_delivery

There is a solution also for that, no tiltrotors (apparently very complex and costly) needed:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7577p425-russian-naval-aviation-news#228298



These are helicopters with capacity for 30 people @ 550 km/h. So roughly equivalent to a tiltrotor and much simpler

LMFS wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:What about CODs? Helos may not be enough, so tiltrotors will need to be developed! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_onboard_delivery

There is a solution also for that, no tiltrotors (apparently very complex and costly) needed:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7577p425-russian-naval-aviation-news#228298



These are helicopters with capacity for 30 people @ 550 km/h. So roughly equivalent to a tiltrotor and much simpler

This is just concept. More likely is that new Chinese/Russian heavy helicopter will get this gig. Chinese required it to be navalized by default.

PapaDragon wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:....

The sale of that documentation was a very good move from Russia.

Without that the US probably would not consider the vertical take off as necessary requirement of the f35, and it would means that the F35 will become a usable airplane, instead of the current financial /technical disaster.

Actually, the f35 is an improved yak141 + 500 billion $ wasted.

Yes, yes, I am sure it was all part of a cunning plan to screw over USA 30 years later, 5D chess right there...

They sold tech for peanuts and 30 years later they will still be doing LHD/STOVL approach Japan style (if they are lucky to get even that done)

It wasn't a cunning plan.

It was simply a case of a not so usable, low priority design.

The CCCP went for Kuznetsov/catapult style aircraft carrier , and I think it is safe to say the vertical take off aircraft was as successful as the ekranoplans.


I think if the USA wants to buy the plans the ekranoplans then Russia would be happy to sell it even today.

And the US was so stupid to make a stealth, joint strike übermachine from the Yak.

kumbor wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:

If Russians wanted to proceed with STOVL concept, they would have not sold the documentation.

That was then, but now they came a full circle, back to STOVL on UDKs, even if later they'll get CVNs with ST/CATOBAR. The USN has both CVNs & LHAs/LHDs- 1 doesn't exclude the other.

Russia cannot obtain funding for both STOVL and dedicated carrier based fighter at the same time. No money!

No need.
Governments are not bound by money, they bound by priorities.

PapaDragon wrote:
This is just concept. More likely is that new Chinese/Russian heavy helicopter will get this gig. Chinese required it to be navalized by default.

Yes of course is just a concept. But given its advantages and the fact that such a concept exists officially, United Helicopters is working on the high speed project since early 2000 and on Minoga since 2006, it would be rather strange to develop a tiltrotor instead of this. One does not spend 15 or 20 years developing something without a major reason, so I take these high-speed concepts for very real ongoing work.

BTW, why would the Russians use the joint heavy helicopter with the Chinese when they are already running a project for a new naval helo? A prototype apparently going to be inspected by the military early next year and maiden flight in 2020

[quote="LMFS"]

PapaDragon wrote:....
BTW, why would the Russians use the joint heavy helicopter with the Chinese when they are already running a project for a new naval helo? A prototype apparently going to be inspected by the military early next year and maiden flight in 2020

Because joint project helicopter is 3 times the size of local one. Different roles and he was talking about resupply.

LMFS wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:Well said.

The steam/electromagnetic catapult was a mandatory equipment prior of the high power aircraft engines.

I think it is quite safe to say the unmaned aerial vehicles are more fit for early warning purposes.

Hey, I think that is an interesting idea. Today's electronically scanned radars do not need the traditional AWACS dish antenna, see below this proposal for a Russian naval AWACS:



This could be placed in the leading and trailing edges of such a UAV as the X-47 or similar, where aerodynamic surfaces are not compromised:



Together with this function, reconnaissance, attack, EW, tanker roles can be covered by such a plane complementing the manned fighters with a disposable and low footprint platform. PLAN and US Navy already walking this path and Russia will most probably follow soon

The take-off issue could be managed on a ski-jump carrier with a reasonably powered engine, high lift, low stall speed aerodynamic design and using the whole length of the deck, at least in case the number of such aircraft on board is small and their endurance high they would not affect excessively the landing operations.

@kumbor: the numbers indicate that CATOBAR is not needed, STOBAR is more than enough for 5G fighters (unless you ruin a monster engine as in the case of the F-35 )

It rquire high bandwith ,secure connection with the drone .


Means each drone needs a high speed , s-400 class X band radar as secure connection.