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

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5832
    Points : 5788
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:19 pm

    ..and maybe AEW with speed, range and payload.

    That may be harder or impossible to achieve on a helo, but they could be deployed on escorts &/ supply ships to make up for it, so there's no need for E-2's speed & range.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5088
    Points : 5084
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:30 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:That may be harder or impossible to achieve on a helo, but they could be deployed on escorts &/ supply ships to make up for it, so there's no need for E-2's speed & range.

    Last thing I heard was like 30 people, 1000 km, >500 km/h for the Ka-92, but that was preliminary information. Slightly less range than the MV-22 but same speed and similar payload. As you say their lower footprint would allow to deploy them in smaller vessels too.
    Admin
    Admin


    Posts : 2926
    Points : 3798
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Admin Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:34 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    ..and maybe AEW with speed, range and payload.

    That may be harder or impossible to achieve on a helo, but they could be deployed on escorts &/ supply ships to make up for it, so there's no need for E-2's speed & range.

    Without a catapult the only way to get that is something like a V-22 AEW. The heliborne AEW the British are using is a joke compared to what the French and Americans have. If we were serious about naval aviation we would get catapults and make an Il-112V AEW. But then we aren't really serious about it.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5832
    Points : 5788
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:06 pm

    The radome/folding antenna & all electronic gear will increase weight & drag, thus decreasing its range & speed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-92
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201804031154-qkfd.htm

    Time will tell!
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5088
    Points : 5084
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:44 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:The radome/folding antenna & all electronic gear will increase weight & drag, thus decreasing its range & speed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-92
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201804031154-qkfd.htm

    Time will tell!

    Good link at Zvezda

    Main option for the AEW role on a carrier would be IMHO a big UAV, not a helo. Alternatively, the antenna may be integrated in the rotor in the future, since the blades get thicker and slower in order to reduce tip's speed and the propeller takes over the horizontal propulsion, who knows?

    @Vladimir79: Russian navy does not look serious about carriers because it has still (apparently) not found their own needs, doctrine and corresponding solutions. This will develop in coming decades I think.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5832
    Points : 5788
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:50 pm

    The construction of the century in Turkey: Ankara intends to dig up another Bosporus
    At the Montreux convention, the construction of a new channel will not be affected in any way. After all, it (the convention) applies not only to the Bosporus, but also to the Dardanelles.
    https://finobzor.ru/66358-turciya-gotova-stroit-dubler-bosfora.html?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

    They'll need to dig a 2nd canal to bypass it too, since:
    The Dardanelles is 61 kilometres (38 mi) long, and 1.2 to 6 kilometres (0.75 to 3.73 mi) wide, averaging 55 metres (180 ft) deep ..
    The very narrow and winding shape of the strait is more akin to that of a river. It is considered one of the most hazardous, crowded, difficult and potentially dangerous waterways in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardanelles#Present_morphology
    If of them r built, Russia can have her future CVNs sail in/out of the Black Sea bypassing the Montreux convention restrictions. To prohibit them in the Black Sea, a new treaty will need to be drafted & ratified by all.


    eehnie
    eehnie


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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:50 pm

    https://www.russiadefence.net/t5535p175-military-aviation-industry-news#232258

    miketheterrible wrote:here is an article about what was said apparently:

    https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=3051169&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

    The domestic aviation industry is undergoing big changes. In a year and a half, Russia will supply the market with the brand-new MC-21 medium-haul airliner — this is the main hope of our civil aviation. Meanwhile, the Russian Air Force has high hopes for the main military breakthrough — the Su-57 fifth-generation jet fighter. When will it go into service? What other kinds of aircraft should we expect?

    Yuri Slyusar, the head of the United Aircraft Corporation, spoke about this with our reporter Nailya Askerzade.

    The Su-57 jet fighter is in the sky over Zhukovsky. Fast, maneuverable, and completely invisible to foreign radar systems. A 300-meter-long runway is enough for it in order to take off.

    Nailya Askerzade, reporter: "Of course, many people dream of at least approaching the top-secret Su-57 fifth-generation jet fighter. We have a unique opportunity to look at it in detail. This "king of dogfighting" is so unique that we aren't allowed to film everything. The state-of-the-art target acquisition system allows target tracking at a considerable distance, the engine features greater thrust and fuel efficiency, and the smart cockpit advises the pilot how to operate.

    Taras Artsebarsky, test pilot: "In fact, having flown this plane, when I happen to fly the previous generation jet, I can't help noticing the imperfections, the things that are missing compared to the new one. The new jet features a powerful AI support system for the pilot; it performs a lot automatically and, overall, it allows the pilot to concentrate on the main combat tasks without any distractions".

    Taras Artsebarsky is a first-class test pilot. He is the son of cosmonaut Anatoly Artsebarsky, so he's been close to the sky since his childhood. He has already mastered more than 20 types of aircraft, so he has a big sample size for comparison.

    - Do you remember your first flight on this fighter?

    - Of course, I do. Pilots always remember such things; any sortie on a new type of aircraft is unforgettable and even more so if it is such a fighter jet.

    - What nickname did you and your colleagues give this aircraft?

    - We nicknamed it affectionately, kindly, by his index name — "Poltinnik" (fifty). And we're still calling it that because we're used to now.

    The West got intrigued by these aircraft after two such jets were transported to Syria in February.

    - When will the Ministry of Defense take charge of these planes?

    Yuri Slyusar, President of the United Aircraft Corporation: By the end of this summer. I think, at Patriot Park, we'll sign a contract with the Defense Ministry regarding the delivery of the first production batch. This is such a significant event for us. In total, we have planned to purchase around 12 jets so, next year, they will be supplied directly to the unit.


    lol! lol! lol!

    What a sweet moment Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

    The reality coming to hit the hardest way to the anti Project 23000 Shtorm trolls thumbsup thumbsup

    With the Project 23000 Shtorm Aircraft Carrier, Russia may not need even a navalized variant of the Su-57, and likely will be able to operate in the new aircraft carriers with the main variant of the Su-57.

    What a way of saving money in the development of redundant model of aircrafts and increasing the available number of fighters that can operate in the aircraft carrier thumbsup thumbsup

    https://www.russiadefence.net/t7032p50-state-armament-program-2018-2027#213329

    Now, all the anti Project 23000 Shtorm trolls can go to cry by the corners. Also the VTOL/STOVL fighter trolls. russia russia
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38470
    Points : 38970
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:54 am

    The only runway on Falklands was bombed by the RAF Vulcan. The AAF/N was expecting more raids on it & moved all their fighters to the mainland.

    The Mirage fighters were their most capable and were not able to operate on the islands because the runway was too short.

    If they had a decent runway and operational aircraft with BVR capability the Vulcans never would have attempted an attack.

    If Russia is going to develop her own manned tilt rotors eventually, & I think they will, they could have AWACS & tankers based on them, saving on the CAT system & the Yak-44. They still have enough time to do it before the planned start of their 1st CVN construction.

    Money is already being spent on EMALs... and even just improvements in monorail design makes the investment worth it... let alone the experience working with new materials and systems...

    By the same token, it would suit the smaller RuN CVNs as well!

    The Russians don't have anything like that anywhere near operational and it would probably cost more to get something to that stage than it would to finish what they have with the EMALS... the US wont sell Ospreys and I doubt they would want them anyway...

    The only advantage over an Mi-26 or Mi-38 would be speed... which is not important to an AWACS platform.

    I am referring to the concept itself, not to the angled deck which is a single feature that can be good or bad depending on the implementation

    I don't understand. The fixed wing conventional (ski jump) takeoff but arrested landing concept? With a straight deck you need two full sized decks, but with angled deck you can operate with one deck... sounds like the simpler smaller single deck carrier is good enough for the job.

    Russian carriers are a long term project. Air wing needs to be conceived considering prospective solutions, not only existing ones. Especially if this is going to mean important compromises like size, use of catapults and other defining considerations

    New carriers take a lot of time and planning.... not to mention the requirement for a lot of land and sea based support needed for carrier operations... it takes 20 years from the decision to build to actually getting something operational, and going by todays practise the cost of the air wing is going to be very very expensive anyway... even without the carrier and the cruisers and destroyers that will operate with it.

    And remember, you need to be able to land at any take-off weight (discounted consumed fuel of course) in case of emergency. So landing remains the limiting value for those planes it seems...

    The only weight variable for an AWACS platform will be fuel, and for long operational periods it will hopefully be a significant number... but for an emergency landing it can easily dump fuel if needed.

    That would be a great idea, if the engine is not a source of radiation. This is dubious given the restricted use it has, at least until now.

    The UAV could be made enormous... a nuclear engine on a bomber makes little sense because while it saves needing to carry an enormous payload of fuel, the weight of the nuclear engine and its shielding usually meant the payload is pathetic, so it makes more sense to carry normal engines and lots of fuel and a bigger payload for the target.

    The point is that this UAV is carrying radar equipment but no bombs so unlimited range and continuous electrical power are rather more important... it does not need to be very fast, but powerful radar and good communications equipment (ship and satellite) and unlimited flight range and endurance is all you would want... there could be plenty of room for shielding to prevent radiation leaks or air pollution...

    In case of intense jamming or enemy air attack the AWACS can be isolated, silenced or pulled back. An isolated fighter has some level of use and autonomy by being manned, an isolated AWACs has no use apart from being an easy, high value target for the enemy.

    The Soviets had laser based communications equipment that could not be jammed as it was line of sight (used between satellites... to intercept you had to get between the satellites)... an AWACS UAV operating over Russian military ships would be a difficult target... trying to jam it would be an enormous risk as it would only be effective from close range... a distance where a surface ship could fire an home on jam missile to destroy the emitter... S-400 out to 400km and S-500 out to 600km... not to mention any naval based PAK FA with R-37M able to hit targets at 400km, plus they have shown an air launched Iskander... with four times the range and 50% more speed... the same improvement for an air launched S-500 would make it seriously dangerous...

    The whole idea of an AWACS sounds vulnerable, but it can see anything approaching and direct ships and aircraft to intercept before they become a real problem... having what appears to be a big vulnerable AWACS platform is actually much safer than not having one and relying on luck to detect a low flying threat... by the same token a huge carrier sounds vulnerable, but actually having it extends the reach and range of sight of the surface vessels and offers several extra rings of defence that another ship just can't do.

    Technology allows to distribute this role among more numerous, less costly and more survivable platforms and this is what will probably happen in future IMHO. In fact is already happening with planes like F-35 and its intelligence and communication capabilities

    So putting up a half dozen fighters to do the same job as one AWACS platform... makes you wonder why NATO bothers with those big expensive Sentry aircraft it has... I mean what a huge target... just having some F-35s flying around would be much better...

    Garry, you are dodging the answer you know? Very Happy There are many carrier operators but very few of them operate catapults. Why?

    The USN has steam cats on most of its old carriers and is just putting EMALS cats on its brand new carrier. The US marines use STOVL carriers... a better question would be... the British used to have little VSTOL carriers like the Hermes and took them to war, yet their new carriers are also STOVL which require VSTOL aircraft...

    So they are saving money by not having to develop a bigger ship, or modern catapult systems (they had steam cats decades ago, so developing new cats.... even steam ones would be expensive and time consuming), and accepting the penalty of a much more expensive plane they are buying off the shelf of lower performance than they would have gotten if they had just made the typhoon a naval plane.

    Kinda sad really as all the very important technology in carriers was a British invention, but now they have lost the technology of the catapult and don't have the money or time to develop EMALS...

    Yes, this remains an interesting option. I have not seen any suggestion that industry is exploring it so I remain cautious but if applicable would open many excellent options as discussed.

    They have sold large numbers of land based tethered airships... used for communications relay and AEW in mountainous regions to China and other customers... they have models that are powered via their tethers that can operate for 2-3 months at a time unmanned...

    Even their new Armata tank has a tethered UAV reportedly with thermal and radar sensors that is powered via the tether and communicates silently to the vehicle via the tether.

    That may be harder or impossible to achieve on a helo, but they could be deployed on escorts &/ supply ships to make up for it, so there's no need for E-2's speed & range.

    Speed is not really important for AEW... range and endurance as well as altitude are important though.

    Without a catapult the only way to get that is something like a V-22 AEW. The heliborne AEW the British are using is a joke compared to what the French and Americans have. If we were serious about naval aviation we would get catapults and make an Il-112V AEW. But then we aren't really serious about it.

    EMALS cats are being developed in Russia and I would suggest a small AEW like the Il-112V would actually be rather popular... a smaller lighter cheaper air combat management aircraft is actually a valuable thing... especially where ground control and radar coverage is patchy... it is what the west calls a force multiplier.


    Main option for the AEW role on a carrier would be IMHO a big UAV, not a helo. Alternatively, the antenna may be integrated in the rotor in the future, since the blades get thicker and slower in order to reduce tip's speed and the propeller takes over the horizontal propulsion, who knows?

    The main rotor moves too fast... but new radar technology is progressing and aircraft skin antenna designs could simply require the front and sides of the nose and the rear and sides of the tail area to carry antenna, plus some side mounted arrays...



    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5088
    Points : 5084
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:29 am

    eehnie wrote:
    With the Project 23000 Shtorm Aircraft Carrier, Russia may not need even a navalized variant of the Su-57, and likely will be able to operate in the new aircraft carriers with the main variant of the Su-57.
    I think you are stretching this a bit:

    1. These 300 m can hardly mean full load from a flat surface.

    2. That take-off run would mean to put fighters to take off in a conventional carrier where they need to land. You don't do that

    3. Takeing off is fine, but landing is even better. How you do that on a flat top without arrestor hooks?

    4. Operation from a carrier requires an extreme level of resistance to salty environment, for all involved hardware.

    5. Stress to the airframe and landing gear for carrier operations is extreme too.

    Navalized Su-57 can be very similar to conventional one me thinks, but I doubt conventional ones could operate from a carrier. AF and navy have separate structures after all.

    Now, all the anti Project 23000 Shtorm trolls can go to cry by the corners. Also the VTOL/STOVL fighter trolls.  russia russia
    Well, in fact it seems they are pushing for the STOVL, that points (sadly) rather to half-arsed carriers than to Shtorms!
    eehnie
    eehnie


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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:07 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    With the Project 23000 Shtorm Aircraft Carrier, Russia may not need even a navalized variant of the Su-57, and likely will be able to operate in the new aircraft carriers with the main variant of the Su-57.
    I think you are stretching this a bit:

    1. These 300 m can hardly mean full load from a flat surface.

    2. That take-off run would mean to put fighters to take off in a conventional carrier where they need to land. You don't do that

    3. Takeing off is fine, but landing is even better. How you do that on a flat top without arrestor hooks?

    4. Operation from a carrier requires an extreme level of resistance to salty environment, for all involved hardware.

    5. Stress to the airframe and landing gear for carrier operations is extreme too.

    Navalized Su-57 can be very similar to conventional one me thinks, but I doubt conventional ones could operate from a carrier. AF and navy have separate structures after all.

    Now, all the anti Project 23000 Shtorm trolls can go to cry by the corners. Also the VTOL/STOVL fighter trolls.  russia russia
    Well, in fact it seems they are pushing for the STOVL, that points (sadly) rather to half-arsed carriers than to Shtorms!

    1.- This is not explicitly said. Neither if it is for full load or partial load. Data for full load is more habitual.

    2.- In every aircraft carrier with 3 or 4 take-off points, the take off-trajectory of some of them cuts the landing runway.

    3.- Landing distance is shorter than not assisted take-off distance that is habitually given for maximum load. As example, landing never is done with maximum load because of the consum of fuel during the fly.

    4.- Most of the aditional structural efforts of the variants for aircraft carrier have been until now to make the aircraft to reduce its take-off distance, in order to be able to operate from aircraf carriers. All them are included in the main variant of the Su-57.

    5.- The simultaneous designs help to make the Su-57 compatible with the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carriers. It would be very negligent to have not mutual feedback and influence. Certainly, this has been happening in approximately, the last 10 years.

    6.- At this point a navalized Su-57 would include solutions for storage and little more. But with the potential use of standard aircrafts based on land this becomes less important. As example. When you have a specific aircraft to operate from aircraft carriers it is important to store 90 of them instead of 60, because there are not aditional land based specific units. But when standard aircrafts are used frin aurcraft carriers, near the mainland the aircraft fleet of the aircraft carrier can become 60 (carrier based) + 60 (land based), because the aircraft carrier can be used by land based aircrafts as transit and maybe supply base. Still it is an advantage to be be considered, that can be also useful for land based Su-57.

    7.- The 300 m runway lenght, means the availability of the main variant of the Su-57 ifor use from aircraft carriers. This is the most important part. With it, the Su-57 in its main variant has not competitor, not in cost, neither in performance. VTOL/STOVL solutions will be underperformers and more expensive.

    8.- The achievement of the first fly by 2025 of the Tu-PAK-DA, the MiG-41, and even of a replacement of the Su-34 developped from the Su-57, is doable independently of other projects without problem, but if the Russian United Aircraft Corporation, and specially Yakovlev, would have resources for more by 2025, there are strong need to attend in the refered to the transport and airliner aircrafts, that is where they are more delayed in order to complete the new generation of armament and auxiliary equipment. The MS-21 is not enough, a good number of projects need still impulse.

    9.- August 2018, and there is not alternative project publicly known to the Project 23000 that can become its competitor. Providing the use of the Su-57 from aircraft carriers, the Project 23000 Shtorm has not competitor. Abysmal performance difference.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5088
    Points : 5084
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:43 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    I am referring to the concept itself, not to the angled deck which is a single feature that can be good or bad depending on the implementation

    I don't understand. The fixed wing conventional (ski jump) takeoff but arrested landing concept? With a straight deck you need two full sized decks, but with angled deck you can operate with one deck... sounds like the simpler smaller single deck carrier is good enough for the job.

    I am referring in general to the conventional single hull. Hull is thin and with a form factor that does not allow for big internal space, unless you go to extreme dimensions.

    On a multi-hull concept, you could use angled deck or not, it depends on many things. But due to the form factor, you get huge hangars and internal space with great sea-worthiness (trimaran) and speed.

    Depending on how you solve the AEW / refuelling issues, you could also use a design similar to the Kuznetsov's one to go the low risk path.

    New carriers take a lot of time and planning.... not to mention the requirement for a lot of land and sea based support needed for carrier operations... it takes 20 years from the decision to build to actually getting something operational, and going by todays practise the cost of the air wing is going to be very very expensive anyway... even without the carrier and the cruisers and destroyers that will operate with it.
    Agree, therefore, better to consider what technology will allow in terms of unmanned flight and AEW then.

    The whole idea of an AWACS sounds vulnerable, but it can see anything approaching and direct ships and aircraft to intercept before they become a real problem... having what appears to be a big vulnerable AWACS platform is actually much safer than not having one and relying on luck to detect a low flying threat...  by the same token a huge carrier sounds vulnerable, but actually having it extends the reach and range of sight of the surface vessels and offers several extra rings of defence that another ship just can't do.
    Yes, but you need to consider numbers. USN has such a huge amount of carriers and so big air wings that you should spread the risk on platforms capable of self defence instead of concentrating it on little survivable assets like AWACS. You would struggle to protect them.

    So putting up a half dozen fighters to do the same job as one AWACS platform... makes you wonder why NATO bothers with those big expensive Sentry aircraft it has... I mean what a huge target... just having some F-35s flying around would be much better...
    Well, we move progressively in that direction. Not that AWACS are going to disappear any time soon, but as the rest of platforms are more and more capable they may be "less irreplaceable" than before.

    So they are saving money by not having to develop a bigger ship, or modern catapult systems (they had steam cats decades ago, so developing new cats.... even steam ones would be expensive and time consuming), and accepting the penalty of a much more expensive plane they are buying off the shelf of lower performance than they would have gotten if they had just made the typhoon a naval plane.
    They have uncle Sam to help in case of need, that could be a reason. Nevertheless catapults seem prohibitive for most navies fro some reason. Let us see what happens with EMALS.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5832
    Points : 5788
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:11 pm

    ..the basic documents for shipbuilders are the state defense order and the state program of armaments, and only there it is stipulated which ships will be built for the Russian Navy. "As soon as some of these documents appear or disappear, it's worth returning to this topic," the source said.
    http://www.ng.ru/news/625563.html?print=Y
    Russia to create new vertical takeoff aircraft
    http://www.pravdareport.com/news/science/tech/21-08-2018/141430-vertical_takeoff-0/
    As of 2018 a number of recent developments within the Russian military, and the Russian Navy in particular, could well lead to the revival of the Yak-141 program. As Russia’s economy began a slow recovery from the year 2000, and the country sought to enhance its military capabilities under a massive modernisation drive initiated in 2008, a number of partially completed Soviet era weapons program have been revived. From the late 2000s Chief of the Russian General Staff General Nikolai Makarov has strongly advocated the need for light carriers to enter service in the country’s navy, with four such carriers planned under a joint project with France from which Paris withdrew in 2014. Russia has since worked to develop the capabilities to built light carrier warships domestically, and according to Navy Deputy Commander in Chief Viktor Bursuk the country is set to begin construction of the first of these ships in 2020. Two carrier variants are currently planned, which have been referred to as the “universal amphibious assault ship” and “large amphibious assault ship.” The first of these are, according to Deputy Defence Minister Yuri Borisov, set to enter service in the early 2020s, and the heavier class reportedly could displace up to 40,000 tons.
    With the resurrection of a light carrier program, the Russian Navy will for the first time since the USSR’s fall have need for advanced VTOL capable fighter aircraft. With a number of states which field light carriers set to acquire F-35B short takeoff vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for their warships, Japan’s Izumo Class, the United States’ Wasp and America Class assault ships and Italy’s Cavour and Giuseppe Garibaldi among them, Russia may well follow this trend and attempt to induct a fighter with yet more sophisticated VTOL capabilities. With the Yak-141 already in late prototype stages at the time of its cancellation, research and development costs to move the design to a production ready stage would be significantly reduced. With a significant demand for low cost aircraft capable of operating from light carriers, with China, Thailand and South Korea all potential clients which field such warships, the Yak-141 could also potentially become a major export success for Russian military aviation. With China currently building three 075 amphibious assault ships, massive 40,000 ton vessels each capable of deploying up to 30 aircraft, Beijing is likely to be a major client for an advanced Russian VTOL fighter - with export sales subsiding the cost of starting the program and making it considerably more cost effective.
    The VTOL fighters are set to serve as an effective force multiplier for any carrier strike group which fields them, with the aircraft likely to deploy some of Russia's most capable standoff weapons allowing them to threaten enemy aircraft and warships at extreme ranges. Considering that the original Yak-141 was to be equipped with R-77 air to air missiles, long range platforms and the most advanced in the Russian inventory at the time, it remains possible that a modern adaptation of the platform could deploy lethal new K-77 air to air missiles - platforms based on the R-77 but extensively modified for deployment by next generation fighters and retains an unparalleled 193km strike range and a high degree of precision. State of the art anti ship missiles far surpassing those fielded by Western carrier based fighters such as the F-35B,  weapons such as the Mach 3 Kh-41 and 300km range Kh-35U and P-800, allow even relatively small carrier warships the size of the Dokdo or Mistral Class to deploy lethal firepower and thus gain an asymmetric advantage at sea by fielding even a small contingent of Yak-141 jets. Equipping the fighter with advanced AESA radars based on those recently developed for the MiG-35 and Su-57 also remains a significantly possibility. Considering the high potential for exports and Russia’s considerable need for these aircraft for its own navy should the country’s light carrier program be seen through, the completion of the Yak-141 program and finally inducting the advanced fighter into active service, most likely with a number of modernisations applied, represents a potentially highly feasible project and one which there is a good chance the Russian military will pursue.
    https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/70726

    The new STOVL fighter may be as different from the Yak-141 as the TU-22 is from the TU-22M: https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/547228-rossiya-samolyot-vertikalnyi-vzlyot-posadka

    I can already hear GarryB saying that "they won't be related"!
    avatar
    kumbor


    Posts : 311
    Points : 303
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  kumbor Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:08 pm


    My opinion is that the revival of STOVL Yak-141 would be a mistake, as that plane was projected 35 years ago and it has never been finalised except for few prototype aircraft.
    With SU-57 Russia has designed an airframe for the next 50 years, or so, including future naval (palubnaya) version. We can only wait and see, but with such numerous naval, airforce and land programs underway, i think it would be too much to go for new STOVL airplane. No money.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5832
    Points : 5788
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:36 pm

    Still le$$ than 80-100K Ton CVN that neither India nor any1 else will buy, w/o which it's unaffordable now & into foreseeable future. At least STOVLs may be exported & used by the VKS too.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5088
    Points : 5084
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:22 pm

    New light carrier proposal from Krylov:

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5476445

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 47789610
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8


    Posts : 2439
    Points : 2430
    Join date : 2013-02-01

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  AlfaT8 Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:36 pm

    Well if the Ruskies want to re-learn the mistakes of the Kiev the hard way, then by all means, carry on.
    We t will simply have to wait for them to come back to the Carrier.
    How tragically Cyclical.

    As for exports, other than India who else is there?
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8


    Posts : 2439
    Points : 2430
    Join date : 2013-02-01

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  AlfaT8 Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:01 pm

    LMFS wrote:New light carrier proposal from Krylov:

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5476445

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 47789610

    Ok

    This is most definitely not the purposed 70KT carrier.
    It's a cheaper light carrier, basically the Kuz with a wider deck, smaller tower, a bit more length, less firepower scratch  and no Catapult.
    Apparently it's meant for export, so it'll use gas turbine engines.

    Weighs 44 thousand tons and can carry up to 46 aircraft.
    I would have gone for something closer to 60KT.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11233
    Points : 11203
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:32 pm

    LMFS wrote:New light carrier proposal from Krylov:

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5476445

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 47789610

    They could have allowed more space for launching the fighters. They almost start on the ski-jump while they could start 50m behind where the mig is on the lift.

    They didn't correct the mistakes from K. It's a shame that they propose that. It clearly shows a lack of work. But still better than the chinese copy, indian copy of Vikramanditya or even K.
    avatar
    kumbor


    Posts : 311
    Points : 303
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  kumbor Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:54 pm

    Isos wrote:
    LMFS wrote:New light carrier proposal from Krylov:

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5476445

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 47789610

    They could have allowed more space for launching the fighters. They almost start on the ski-jump while they could start 50m behind where the mig is on the lift.

    They didn't correct the mistakes from K. It's a shame that they propose that. It clearly shows a lack of work. But still better than the chinese copy, indian copy of Vikramanditya  or even K.

    You say it is, allegedly, GT powered. Where is the funnel? I see no funnel? Apparently nuclear powered. Moreover, Kuz is 304m long OA. A piece of a ship! I guess displacement of this project at 60.000t standard/70.000 full load, not less. About 50 aircraft. I think it is just what Russian navy needs. Also, this is only a model, It is not even start-up project. And guys from Krylov institute know their job. Also, by the time this hypothetic carrier is launched, Chinese may have even better project for export.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5832
    Points : 5788
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:13 pm

    Apparently it's meant for export, so it'll use gas turbine engines.
    Storm offered to India was a CVN, so nuclear propulsion can be exported.
    Also, by the time this hypothetic carrier is launched, Chinese may have even better project for export.
    They r not even remotely short of $, & will be building CV/Ns for their navy 1st, not for Brazil, Argentina, Thailand, Turkey, Pakistan & certainly not for India.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13191
    Points : 13233
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:19 pm


    This is not helicopter/STOVL carrier.

    Where is that one? Cool
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11233
    Points : 11203
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:22 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    This is not helicopter/STOVL carrier.

    Where is that one? Cool

    Rogozin took it with him lol1 They will build it on the moon cheers
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5088
    Points : 5084
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:29 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    1.- This is not explicitly said. Neither if it is for full load or partial load. Data for full load is more habitual.
    OK, we can just speculate. Have never seen the PAKFA doing that, only the rotation phase takes nearly that.

    2.- In every aircraft carrier with 3 or 4 take-off points, the take off-trajectory of some of them cuts the landing runway.
    Normally, the ones at the front are the main ones. What you say would mean using only the ones at the rear that interfere the landing strip, and it is really not necessary with a sky jump, even for a standard Su-57

    3.- Landing distance is shorter than not assisted take-off distance that is habitually given for maximum load. As example, landing never is done with maximum load because of the consum of fuel during the fly.
    You mean, breaking the plane is shorter than take off? Have you seen any video of operations at the Kuznetsov? Why do you think carriers have arrestors then???

    4.- Most of the aditional structural efforts of the variants for aircraft carrier have been until now to make the aircraft to reduce its take-off distance, in order to be able to operate from aircraf carriers. All them are included in the main variant of the Su-57.
    I am not aware of that and it makes no sense. Increasing weight to improve take-off?

    5.- The simultaneous designs help to make the Su-57 compatible with the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carriers. It would be very negligent to have not mutual feedback and influence. Certainly, this has been happening in approximately, the last 10 years.
    Certainly. I see no problem for a navalized Su-57, only the position of the arrestor hook could interfere with the rear bay. I am sure the wings could be folded for small footprint, just by seeing what was achieved with the Su-33.

    6.- At this point a navalized Su-57 would include solutions for storage and little more. But with the potential use of standard aircrafts based on land this becomes less important. As example. When you have a specific aircraft to operate from aircraft carriers it is important to store 90 of them instead of 60, because there are not aditional land based specific units. But when standard aircrafts are used frin aurcraft carriers, near the mainland the aircraft fleet of the aircraft carrier can become 60 (carrier based) + 60 (land based), because the aircraft carrier can be used by land based aircrafts as transit and maybe supply base. Still it is an advantage to be be considered, that can be also useful for land based Su-57.
    CVs are designed to operate far from home. Apart that you keep ignoring that you need to arrest the plane during landing and you need a hook for that.

    7.- The 300 m runway lenght, means the availability of the main variant of the Su-57 ifor use from aircraft carriers. This is the most important part. With it, the Su-57 in its main variant has not competitor, not in cost, neither in performance. VTOL/STOVL solutions will be underperformers and more expensive.
    Agree with the last part but not on the first one. A navalized Su-57 would not need to be expensive at all.

    9.- August 2018, and there is not alternative project publicly known to the Project 23000 that can become its competitor. Providing the use of the Su-57 from aircraft carriers, the Project 23000 Shtorm has not competitor. Abysmal performance difference.
    There is one already
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5832
    Points : 5788
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:57 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    This is not helicopter/STOVL carrier. Where is that one? Cool

    U may contact Krylov & Nevskoe Design Bureau public relations offices for a tentative date models of it'll be released. If it's not by them, I hope u'll be redirected to appropriate entity. But be rest assured that some sketches of it already exist.
    A number of reports have also indicated that Russia is considering developing a specialised fighter jet to operate from the hull of its carriers, either the larger warships alone or both types of vessel, which could be heavily based on the Yak-141 vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft. These fighters could potentially field cutting edge Russian fifth generation technologies including Phazotron Zhuk AE active electronically scanned array radars and K-77 air to air missiles - allowing them to effectively fulfil a fleet defence role and complement the integrated air defence networks of Russia’s carrier strike groups. https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/70771
    eehnie
    eehnie


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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:26 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Apparently it's meant for export, so it'll use gas turbine engines.
    Storm offered to India was a CVN, so nuclear propulsion can be exported.
    Also, by the time this hypothetic carrier is launched, Chinese may have even better project for export.
    They r not even remotely short of $, & will be building CV/Ns for their navy 1st, not for Brazil, Argentina, Thailand, Turkey, Pakistan  & certainly not for India.

    No, the Project 23000 variant to export was also non nuclear.

    Sponsored content


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 32 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:05 pm