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


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2459
    Points : 2468
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:39 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:So the game guys who have lied time and time again about their capabilities are the ones your taking for their word now, funny.

    and REALLY they always could build them it's just they had to build them in sections and weld it together.

    The thing is it will take them forever to make a single carrier or Helio carrier.

    Also nowhere in that statement did they mention 7k plus ton carriers, thats a lie on your part.

    FRankly, we have yet to see what they will even DECIDE to build they keep going back and forth unable to make up their dam minds.

    Always lost, always surpassed by the reality:

    A prospective aircraft carrier of the Navy will receive a displacement of not less than 70 thousand tons

    The Navy considers it inexpedient to build lightweight aircraft carriers, the deputy head of the Russian Navy for armament, Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk

    ST.PETERSBURG, April 25. / TASS /. A prospective aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy will have a displacement of at least 70 thousand tons, its technical project is not yet ready. Vice-Admiral Viktor Bursuk told journalists about this from the deputy naval commander of the Russian Navy on armament.
    "The fleet believes that lightweight aircraft carriers should not be built for the Russian Federation from the point of view of the economic" price-quality ratio. "It is preferable to build aircraft carriers with a displacement of about 70 thousand tons, which allow carrying more aircraft on board," he said.

    Bursuk added that "the technical specifications and the design of [such a ship] have not yet been developed, during the creation of the technical design it will be determined what is needed," but "it is already clear that its displacement will be about 70 thousand tons."

    Before the Russian Navy stated that the Russian fleet expected to receive a promising aircraft carrier with an atomic power plant by the end of 2030. Earlier, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov reported that the contract for the construction of an aircraft carrier could be signed by the end of 2025. The Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation Denis Manturov informed that the sketch design of the aircraft carrying ship has already been created and submitted to the Ministry of Defense of Russia.

    At the same time, the Krylov State Research Center, part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, developed a new project for a new aircraft carrier, which was also offered for the Russian fleet. Project 23000 was named "Storm". The sketch assumes that the ship will have a displacement of 80-90 thousand tons, it will be equipped with a combined power plant (both an atomic reactor and a gas turbine engine), the air group of the ship must number up to 60 units.

    Подробнее на ТАСС:
    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5157561
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4903
    Points : 4899
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:39 am

    A prospective aircraft carrier of the Navy will receive a displacement of not less than 70K T
    Only the underlined in bold text r the key words here. As the Russian saying goes: "chicks r counted in the fall" & the American 1: "don't count chickens before they hatch!"
    avatar
    kumbor

    Posts : 297
    Points : 293
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  kumbor on Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:57 am

    eehnie wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:So the game guys who have lied time and time again about their capabilities are the ones your taking for their word now, funny.

    and REALLY they always could build them it's just they had to build them in sections and weld it together.

    The thing is it will take them forever to make a single carrier or Helio carrier.

    Also nowhere in that statement did they mention 7k plus ton carriers, thats a lie on your part.

    FRankly, we have yet to see what they will even DECIDE to build they keep going back and forth unable to make up their dam minds.

    Always lost, always surpassed by the reality:

    A prospective aircraft carrier of the Navy will receive a displacement of not less than 70 thousand tons

    The Navy considers it inexpedient to build lightweight aircraft carriers, the deputy head of the Russian Navy for armament, Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk

    ST.PETERSBURG, April 25. / TASS /. A prospective aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy will have a displacement of at least 70 thousand tons, its technical project is not yet ready. Vice-Admiral Viktor Bursuk told journalists about this from the deputy naval commander of the Russian Navy on armament.
    "The fleet believes that lightweight aircraft carriers should not be built for the Russian Federation from the point of view of the economic" price-quality ratio. "It is preferable to build aircraft carriers with a displacement of about 70 thousand tons, which allow carrying more aircraft on board," he said.

    Bursuk added that "the technical specifications and the design of [such a ship] have not yet been developed, during the creation of the technical design it will be determined what is needed," but "it is already clear that its displacement will be about 70 thousand tons."

    Before the Russian Navy stated that the Russian fleet expected to receive a promising aircraft carrier with an atomic power plant by the end of 2030. Earlier, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov reported that the contract for the construction of an aircraft carrier could be signed by the end of 2025. The Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation Denis Manturov informed that the sketch design of the aircraft carrying ship has already been created and submitted to the Ministry of Defense of Russia.

    At the same time, the Krylov State Research Center, part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, developed a new project for a new aircraft carrier, which was also offered for the Russian fleet. Project 23000 was named "Storm". The sketch assumes that the ship will have a displacement of 80-90 thousand tons, it will be equipped with a combined power plant (both an atomic reactor and a gas turbine engine), the air group of the ship must number up to 60 units.

    Подробнее на ТАСС:
    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5157561

    Proposed carrier for VMF than would be roughly the size of USN Gerald Ford class, which is not much smaller than Nimitz, as after numerous refits airwing group of Nimitz counts at about 60-70 aircraft, much less than initial 100! Combined powerplant would be alike to that of Kirow arrangement with nuclear for long range passage and burst speed and conventional for auxiliary, slow speed and close range passages. 60 plane airgroup fits in a ship of no less than 70Ktons, which is not smaller than late 80s, ill-fated Ulyanowsk!
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4972
    Points : 4998
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 08, 2018 4:54 pm

    LMFS wrote:@Gunship:

    I'm getting worried that there is something wrong with us since we are increasingly agreeing after a long discussion, definitely not normal lol1


    that means you are growing up and expanding horizons respekt respekt respekt






    Apart from offending for free, I meant that STOVL are more expensive and have inherently limited fuel capacity + extra weight. Barring a tremendous design and/or technology breakthrough that removes such limitations, they should only be used where CTOL or STOBAR are not an option. And that means to me essentially small LHDs. With few of these vessels planed for service and few planes per ship, total STOVL numbers should be low me thinks.

    True that this is more challenging task to build VSTOL. Though if you can see Russia is pumping lots of resources in developing aerospace industry. Perhaps VSTOL/tiltrotors or super duper velocity choppers are part of this technological breakthrough?

    I dont think either that VSTOL fighter will be shipborne only. Just my educated guess.




    Yes. And it makes difficult for anyone to foresee what will be done, since Russian power projection doctrine does not seem very clear. Sergey Vlasov from Nevskoye complained about the ever changing doctrinal approach and the lack of continuity in carrier building and operations. He is right IMO, without continued effort there is little hope of progress in this concrete area of development.

    Agreed, however my thinks that before Russian military might grows ho ho ho there is no need to 12 carrier groups. Especially with current development of orbital bomber. One hour and bomb is dropped whenever you want.




    I'd presume is actually very important.  Stealth to come closer to shore and destroy AADs before operation starts.
    They would be used against developing countries to start with. The bigger carriers would take care of main AD sites. Marines would be more busy with SHORAD, but at short range the level of stealth of a F-35 is questionable. Israel is successfully attacking Syria, where only modern AD assets are short range, with 4G fighters+ stand-off weapons so I am not sure a stealth fighter is really critical in such conditions. Lighter, faster one without weapons bays would do IMO.

    Every fighter has to fill its purpose. You dont need bomber range or payload if all you need to carry is 4 AA missiles and be stealth. F-35 was build for different purpose or perhaps its purpose was redefined too many times (mind thet Hitler wanted Me-262 to be a Schnellbomber what hampered effectively delayed Me-262 development by year...

    Yet still good enough to fit its role.




    because is funded by a nation with exceptionalism ideology so every fighter must be exceptional in some sense. This was in financial one.  Laughing  Laughing  Laughing
    Totally, and I'm not sure until when this can be sustained. Lockheed proposing the F-22 / F-35 hybrid and some countries reducing their orders. Procurement of F-35 forcers services to save beyond reasonable on the rest of programs. If stealth hype loses steam any time soon (already signs of this are visible and procurement is planed to go until 2039 IIRC) numbers could be notably reduced.

    or again redesigned? lol1 lol1 lol1



    for point defense ? yup heavy, expensive fighters in vestigial numbers instead of many smaller capable fighters
    Who says point defence? Sukhois would use their range to move the fight away from the carrier and fight for air dominance. Again no evidence that the numbers would be bigger (and by how much) with STOVL planes.


    Kuz originally could take 24-30 Su-33? ekhm with this number you want to fight on air dominance? affraid affraid affraid






    Hey, I am comparing platforms not avionics. It would be unreasonable to compare a future plane in which you invest billions with an old, neglected Flanker version. An updated Su-33 would  have an Irbis radar, all the Russian missiles and the 41F-1S engines at least, and still be orders of magnitude cheaper than a new development. And it would not fight alone as you can imagine, against F-35s it would most probably rely on other assets, apart from the fact that F-35s cannot take off from nowhere, their basing would be very easy to locate and hence attack.

    So be it but when you mean new fighters then you dnt need Su-33 sized. On carriers place is scarce.



    Unless detection fails massively, I simply don't see how F-35s could take on Sukhois with R-37Ms.

    There si no other platrofm to R-37 then MiG-31 in use to my knowledge. Do you want to have MiG-31 carrier based? Very Happy:D:D





    Thus higher speed actually remains unused asset in most of situations?
    Yes unless when you actually need to fight  What a Face

    dogfight - then yess





    At least a superior fighter will have better exchange rates against the opponent and allow to partially compensate the exorbitant numerical superiority of USN. That is why a naval Su-57 would be important, US is not expected to field anything comparable in the next 20 years. Would the F-22/F-35 hybrid address this potential capability gap of their naval aviation too??

    With ratio 10:1 unlikely it would make any difference




    so length - 19,8m and after folding wings still as wide as F-35 without folded wings? BTW so we have now onlu 28,6% longer, lets say same width so place is
    (1,286) 2 = 1,65 more space needed.  Not 2 so progress.
    Again at maths... 28% longer and 13% narrower makes by your questionable footprint calculation method 14% more area. But more relevant as said is how you use the hangar and deck area and this is sadly not so easy to asses. Reason for this is that dimensions of the fighter and the place where it needs to be stored are comparable therefore you cannot use up all the space, like storing irregularly shaped items on a box leaves much unused space.

    Well this means in short - smaller fighter more units on CVN. No need to over anlyze.




    Nevertheless keep in mind this is fan art, no idea if they could make it more compact. And in any case, deployments of the K have not been with full air wing until now.
    But if the price for making a compact plane is make it incapable of supersonic flight due to low fineness ratio / high wave drag then it is not worth it. The exchange rates against a naval Su-57 would be dismal.









    Not exactly true. Kuz is almost 60ktons. Show me 40-30ktons with STOBAR please?
    The light CV just presented at Army?? It has even EMALS mind you...
    Yup, they presented a model and this one is USS Enterprise - from Tamiya  Razz  Razz  Razz
    I REALLY hope Krylov made some numbers and feasibility considerations before presenting this proposal you know...


    I've read an interview with Krylov cheif deisgner (i believe Smile and I'll try to find it. Anyway in short:

    -he explicitly said that sees very high risk in EMALS for Russia at the moment

    -Russia should build CV fleet on US model

    -44ktons is OK for many fighters but just needs to have ,limited supplies of fuel and ammo on board


    Mind if I stop here?

    Can you fit 44fighters + a number of helos on 44ktons ship. Yes you can. As yu dont need to put only 4 passengers in your old VW Beetle. Not sure how battle worthy and autonomous would be such a ship though

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 90407-most-people-into-WV



    My understanding is that Kylov is loosing its position/personnel reductions and tries to show that they are doing anything. It would be hard to sell anything if they dont know what fleet wants though.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4972
    Points : 4998
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 08, 2018 4:57 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    A prospective aircraft carrier of the Navy will receive a displacement of not less than 70K T
    Only the underlined in bold text r the key words here. As the Russian saying goes: "chicks r counted in the fall" & the American 1: "don't count chickens before they hatch!"

    what do you have against chicken? lol1 lol1 lol1
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 9733
    Points : 9815
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:04 pm


    Fact remains that Russia has far superior aircraft industry than naval industry.

    And potentially having problems with development and production of STOVL fighter aircraft is far less problematic and financially harmful than having problems with massive naval vessel project.

    They are simply playing to their strengts in addition to following​ their defense needs which put emphasis on aircraft over ships simply as a result of geography.

    Also, any STOVL project will inevitably result in development of standard take off version of that aircraft so it's two birds with one stone.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4903
    Points : 4899
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:13 pm

    In the USN sailor slang, CVNs r called bird farms.
    Another Russian saying meaning the same thing: "don't divide up a bear hide of a live bear!"
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6681
    Points : 6671
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:56 pm

    -44ktons is OK for many fighters but just needs to have ,limited supplies of fuel and ammo on board


    Mind if I stop here?

    Can you fit 44fighters + a number of helos on 44ktons ship. Yes you can. As yu dont need to put only 4 passengers in your old VW Beetle. Not sure how battle worthy and autonomous would be such a ship though

    That's small if you want to use it like US and bomb a country for 10 years.

    If you want to use it to win a naval battle and destroy ships or make limited strikes with cruise missile against a conventional force, it is very good and far more than enough.

    Kuznetsov with 20 mig-29k is a better air force than 90% of countries. Armed with with kh-59 they could destroy valuable targets. And with kh-31 and kh-35 they could destroy most of the fleets around the globe prety easily.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4972
    Points : 4998
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:38 pm

    Isos wrote: If you want to use it to win a naval battle and destroy ships or make limited strikes with cruise missile against a conventional force, it is very good and far more than enough.


    you mean like colonial wars? Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy agreed


    Kuznetsov with 20 mig-29k is a better air force than 90% of countries. Armed with with kh-59 they could destroy valuable targets. And with kh-31 and kh-35 they could destroy most of the fleets around the globe pretty easily.

    that's precisely my reasoning based on. I cannot see how Krylov guys want to squeeze want to squeeze more planes on 25% smaller ship though
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4972
    Points : 4998
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:56 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Fact remains that Russia has far superior aircraft industry than naval industry.
    And potentially having problems with development and production of STOVL fighter aircraft is far less problematic and financially harmful than having problems with massive naval vessel project. They are simply playing to their strengts in addition to following​ their defense needs which put emphasis on aircraft over ships simply as a result of geography.

    Also, any STOVL project will inevitably result in development of standard take off version of that aircraft so it's two birds with one stone.


    hear me folks: PD dude knows exactly how is goes respekt respekt respekt




    I can only imagine
    admiral:................................................we need 80ktons AC
    little red guy with horns
    on his shoulder,shipyrd GM......................oh no no no you need 100kts and not one 4 at least

    admiral: .................................................but but I would need also LHD

    little red guy:...........................................ohno worry we can start next year building 4 of them ! just trust us!

    OK lets go demand budget !

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Screenshot_1-17

    after : hmm perhaps 2-3 LHS type VSTOL carriers will be very nice indeed thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup



    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4972
    Points : 4998
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:57 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:In the USN sailor slang, CVNs r called bird farms.
    Another Russian saying meaning the same thing: "don't divide up a bear hide of a live bear!"


    against live bears too?! Razz Razz Razz
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2345
    Points : 2347
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:57 pm

    I dont think either that VSTOL fighter will be shipborne only. Just my educated guess.
    This would make little economic sense and we have not heard anything about a Russian equivalent to F-35 but who knows what will be decided in the end. Mind you, not all MoDs decisions are correct and they are changed often.

    or again redesigned?  lol1  lol1  lol1
    This hybrid means that implicitly. The force structure they were planning is seen as less and less capable each time, now J-20 and Su-57 cannot be disregarded as pipe dreams anymore. USAF cannot hold their own in air superiority trusting almost only in F-35s.

    Kuz originally could take 24-30 Su-33? ekhm with this number you want to fight on air dominance? affraid  affraid  affraid
    Against what enemy, in what numbers? Exchange rates count. If with my Flanker based naval fighter I can keep your STOLV fighters at arm's distance and shoot them down while they cannot reach me, I am not going to need many planes you know Very Happy

    So be it but when you mean new fighters then you dnt need Su-33 sized. On carriers place is scarce.
    Hey, I have researched quite a bit and bothered thinking layout and dimensions(and even 3D model) of a "light" fighter that could be shipborne, obviously the smaller the footprint the better. And the current lack of capable competitors in the arena of naval air superiority fighters (thanks to US killing the F-14) would make possible to field a competitive plane even being smaller than a Flanker. But you are supposing that your STOVL would be also much smaller. Currently as discussed the F-35B has no folding wings and so on one dimension is bigger than the Su-33 so not much space would be saved

    There si no other platrofm to R-37 then MiG-31 in use to my knowledge. Do you want to have MiG-31 carrier based? Very Happy:D:D
    That would be cool, please make some VLS cells and rocket boosters to launch the MiGs Very Happy
    R-37M was thought for the new Flankers and MiG-31. Don't know if it has already been achieved for the Sukhois. In the case of navy, no MiGs available so the interceptor role should be covered by whatever plane is chosen and this missile would be very valuable as the Phoenix was for the F-14. Platform-wise both T-10 and T-50 are compatible, the later including internal carriage. But given the altitude and speed delta, it is quite possible that smaller MRAAM would do. I would not spare the more expensive missile in a naval fight were capital vessels are at risk though.

    Thus higher speed actually remains unused asset in most of situations?
    Yes unless when you actually need to fight  What a Face
    dogfight - then yess
    ? I mean BVR

    At least a superior fighter will have better exchange rates against the opponent and allow to partially compensate the exorbitant numerical superiority of USN. That is why a naval Su-57 would be important, US is not expected to field anything comparable in the next 20 years. Would the F-22/F-35 hybrid address this potential capability gap of their naval aviation too??
    With ratio 10:1 unlikely it would  make any  difference
    Sorry, who would make this 10:1?

    Well this means in short - smaller fighter more units on CVN. No need to over anlyze.
    We can agree that the smaller the better. Now if you want to throw some numbers you need to go into the details.

    Nevertheless keep in mind this is fan art, no idea if they could make it more compact. And in any case, deployments of the K have not been with full air wing until now.
    But if the price for making a compact plane is make it incapable of supersonic flight due to low fineness ratio / high wave drag then it is not worth it. The exchange rates against a naval Su-57 would be dismal.
    Short and thick planes as the F-35 have no chance of having low drag in supersonic flight. You need a plane that looks like fast planes look, you know...

    Can you fit 44fighters + a number of helos on 44ktons ship. Yes you can. As yu dont need to put only 4 passengers in your old VW Beetle. Not sure how battle worthy and autonomous would be such a ship though

    Apparently you need 1k ton per plane, in typical layouts. I guess this can be improved with automation and better design / materials / manufacturing.

    My understanding is that Kylov is loosing its position/personnel reductions and tries to show that they are doing anything.  It would be hard to sell anything if they dont know what fleet wants though.
    I am not informed about that but of course they try to show willingness and capacity. Decision makers in MoD are not ready yet apparently.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4903
    Points : 4899
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:13 pm

    It means the same as "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it". In other words, don't plan on getting something that can only be done after certain steps. Since u can't skin a live bear, it must be tracked & killed 1st. Certain people think that it's a done deal that the VMF will have 70K T. CVN. The real world doesn't work this way.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4972
    Points : 4998
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:10 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:It means the same as "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it". In other words, don't plan on getting something that can only be done after certain steps. Since u can't skin a live bear, it must be tracked & killed 1st. Certain people think that it's a done deal that the VMF will have 70K T. CVN. The real world doesn't work this way.


    agreed I was jut winding you up,no harm meant tho thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4903
    Points : 4899
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Sep 09, 2018 12:57 am

    Short and thick planes as the F-35 have no chance of having low drag in supersonic flight.

    The A version been breaking the sound barrier many times here over S. Arizona in the last few months. As for the B,
    The next software upgrade includes weapons, and allows 5.5 g and Mach 1.2, with a final target of 7 g and Mach 1.6
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B

    “Flying at 400 knots and pulling 4.5 g’s in this fighter is difficult because it wants to do so much more,” Miller said. “Tactically we are rarely going to be flying the aircraft at less than 400 knots.”
    http://aviationweek.com/blog/pilot-reaction-flying-f-35b

    Who Cares About the F-35: This Is Why Russia Doesn't Fear American Weapons https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/who-cares-about-f-35-why-russia-doesnt-fear-american-weapons-29342

    Their STOVL will be like Niva SUV, & a lot Le$$ costly.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4972
    Points : 4998
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:12 am

    LMFS wrote:
    I dont think either that VSTOL fighter will be shipborne only. Just my educated guess.
    This would make little economic sense and we have not heard anything about a Russian equivalent to F-35 but who knows what will be decided in the end. Mind you, not all MoDs decisions are correct and they are changed often.


    sure, this one though ws on demand of the Supreme Commander and decision was made upon primary risk assessment. OR because Putin favors my posts over yours and Gerry's

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Mig


    Besides as Papa mentioned: Russia has far stronger aerospace industry then the naval one. It's a calculated risk: lets go for small capable  VSTOL fighter then mamoth ship. Once fghter is there perhaps ship problem is also solved if not you build LHAs thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup






    Kuz originally could take 24-30 Su-33? ekhm with this number you want to fight on air dominance? affraid  affraid  affraid
    Against what enemy, in what numbers? Exchange rates count. If with my Flanker based naval fighter I can keep your STOLV fighters at arm's distance and shoot them down while they cannot reach me, I am not going to need many planes you know Very Happy


    oh yes Yamato and Mushashi had bigger guns too you know







    interceptor role should be covered by whatever plane is chosen and this missile would be very valuable as the Phoenix was for the F-14. Platform-wise both T-10 and T-50 are compatible, the later including internal carriage. But given the altitude and speed delta, it is quite possible that smaller MRAAM would do. I would not spare the more expensive missile in a naval fight were capital vessels are at risk though.

    Well there is no need to spare but its better to take 8 x 175 kg R77 ~200kms then 2x37 ~300kms. or if you really need long hand use K-175 (400kms). But you dont build 60ktons carrier and invest billions on AWACS and again billions for emals, and navlzation of Su-57 just havewhat?

    slightly better functionality than VSTOL carrier for 1/4 price?




    Thus higher speed actually remains unused asset in most of situations?
    Yes unless when you actually need to fight  What a Face
    dogfight - then yess
    ? I mean BVR


    actually BVR (then we dotn talk about Su-33 anymore) must "see" F-35 before F-35 shoots back. Russian fighter also has to see other fighter to shoot right?
    So either R-77 or ARAAM-120 have similar capabilities.




    At least a superior fighter will have better exchange rates against the opponent and allow to partially compensate the exorbitant numerical superiority of USN. That is why a naval Su-57 would be important, US is not expected to field anything comparable in the next 20 years. Would the F-22/F-35 hybrid address this potential capability gap of their naval aviation too??
    With ratio 10:1 unlikely it would  make any  difference
    Sorry, who would make this 10:1?

    like meeting 3 CVNs vs Russian super 24 Su-33s?




    Well this means in short - smaller fighter more units on CVN. No need to over anlyze.
    We can agree that the smaller the better. Now if you want to throw some numbers you need to go into the details.

    -life cycle costs
    -fulfilling assumed tasks

    I canot recall that Russia in their doctrine set tasks of bombing foreign lands vis CVNs. For fleet point defense is enough 20-30 fightrs. Syria war 20-30.  Yes well I got it !!!

    you dontneed a workhorse that does its task. You need prestige!!!  not performance. You dont need Honda Civic you need Mercedes A klasse  cheers cheers cheers







    Can you fit 44fighters + a number of helos on 44ktons ship. Yes you can. As yu dont need to put only 4 passengers in your old VW Beetle. Not sure how battle worthy and autonomous would be such a ship though

    Apparently you need 1k ton per plane, in typical layouts. I guess this can be improved with automation and better design / materials / manufacturing.

    So why Ford 100k is taking only 70 fighters on board, Nimitz 106kyons up to 90 with helos lol1 lol1 lol1 Dont you think they are well automated and carrying planes significantly smaller than Su-33? The truth is hard to hide: the bigger fighter the more space it takes.




     Decision makers in MoD are not ready yet apparently.
    true, we are exchanging blows opinions only lol1 lol1 lol1
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4972
    Points : 4998
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:17 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Short and thick planes as the F-35 have no chance of having low drag in supersonic flight.

    The A version been breaking the sound barrier many times here over S. Arizona in the last few months.

    I am sure thet between all hypes as bets fighter in the world and no way ti's gonna fly there is lots of space for upgrading parameters if needs arise. But in secret I'll tell you that there is a secret society of VSTOL-haters here lol! lol! lol!




    Their STOVL will be like Niva SUV, & a lot Le$$ costly.

    Niva 2 wont be as cheap I'm afraid lol1 lol1 lol1

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Lada-concept
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4903
    Points : 4899
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:41 am

    The MiG-31s r too big CVNs, but they could be deployed from Russia or nearby friendly airfields to help protect the CBGs.
    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 10.Il-78-provodit-dozapravku-MiG-31.

    Interceptor variants of the TU-22M &/ the SU-34 may also appear.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2345
    Points : 2347
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:23 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:The A version been breaking the sound barrier many times here over S. Arizona in the last few months. As for the B,
    The next software upgrade includes weapons, and allows 5.5 g and Mach 1.2, with a final target of 7 g and Mach 1.6
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B.
    Yes, I know they can go supersonic, unsurprisingly since they have an engine that generates 40.000 pounds thrust. The F-16 makes 2 M with an engine developing 28.600 lb so you can imagine the difference in drag between both. Its top speed is way below F-22s cruise speed... try to control engagement against a fighter with that speed / range advantage and on top of that, flying 5 km higher, good luck. For USAF you can say they have the F-22, but who will call navy when opponents bring capable air superiority fighters to the battlefield?[/quote]
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4903
    Points : 4899
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:02 am

    A fighter going Mach 1 & above is to catch with, or get away from the area & escape from some1. But dogfighting at such speeds, even if it was possible, is going to destroy today's planes. That's why future UCAVs will take over were human pilots won't be able to withstand high G forces.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2345
    Points : 2347
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:31 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:sure, this one though ws on demand of the Supreme Commander and decision was made upon primary risk assessment. OR because Putin favors my posts over yours and Gerry's
    You clearly have him eating out of your hand  Laughing

    Besides as Papa mentioned: Russia has far stronger aerospace industry then the naval one. It's a calculated risk: lets go for small capable  VSTOL fighter then mamoth ship. Once fghter is there perhaps ship problem is also solved if not you build LHAs thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
    Well they have the K. And then, having a functional shipbuilding industry is a must for Russia, it doesn't matter if it takes one or twenty years.

    oh yes Yamato and Mushashi had bigger guns too you know
    Hahaha, that is a very relevant point  Suspect

    Well there is no need to spare but its better to take 8 x 175 kg R77 ~200kms then 2x37 ~300kms. or if you really need long hand use K-175 (400kms). But you dont build 60ktons carrier and invest billions on AWACS and again billions for emals, and navlzation of Su-57 just havewhat?

    slightly better functionality than VSTOL carrier for 1/4 price?
    R-77M is already operational?? The K-175  does not really exist as far as I know. But of course as already said the MRAAMs launched from a faster platform flying higher have much more range and could allow to dominate the encounters even without LRAAMs

    If they go for a carrier is not because of a slight performance increase. Compare the capabilities of an America class and a Ford carrier, nobody in its right mind would try to counter the later with the air wing of the first. As much as I agree than some aspects of carrier operations should be simplified to allow for a reduction of the displacement of vessels, I don't think a simple LHA is going to be a match for the performance of a STOBAR or CATOBAR carrier the size of the K anytime soon.

    actually BVR (then we dotn talk about Su-33 anymore) must "see" F-35 before F-35 shoots back. Russian fighter also has to see other fighter to shoot right?
    So either R-77 or ARAAM-120 have similar capabilities.
    E-2D have L-band radar, specifically because they want to be able to detect VLO planes. If you have OTH and other early warning + AWACS + shipborne radars you are likely at least to detect the incoming planes even far way, allowing your fighters to inspect the threat and clear it before it comes too close to the fleet. On the other hand, missiles with active seeker can be guided to the airspace sector where the threat is present and only then activate their seekers, so as far as I know you don't necessarily require an X-band lock from the fighters radar before launch.

    Opposing fighters will see each other soon but the engagement windows of their missiles and ROE will determine when missiles will be launched. That is where kinematics of the missile carriers are crucial, because the side dominant in that regard can launch sooner, stay out of the opponent's engagement window while giving midway guidance updates to the missiles and in case of need disengage in case of danger. This does not produce exchange ratios proportional to force size but rather very skewed in favour of the side with the faster, higher flying, longer ranged fighter with big payloads.

    Don't understand what you mean referred to R-77 and AMRAAM

    like meeting 3 CVNs vs Russian super 24 Su-33s?
    How many of your LHAs would you need to match the air power of 3 US type CVNs?? Like 20??

    -life cycle costs
    -fulfilling assumed tasks

    I canot recall that Russia in their doctrine set tasks of bombing foreign lands vis CVNs. For fleet point defense is enough 20-30 fightrs. Syria war 20-30.  Yes well I got it !!!

    you dontneed a workhorse that does its task. You need prestige!!!  not performance. You dont need Honda Civic you need Mercedes A klasse  cheers cheers cheers
    There is no prestige without credible capability. Otherwise on your first deployment some AShM end in the hands of some non-state proxy, or a regional vassal does something "irrational" (downing of the Su-24 in Syria comes to mind) and your bluff is called out.

    Don't know what Russian doctrine says but the first and only deployment of the K was to do precisely that: bomb foreign lands. And of course, fleet point defence is enough with 20-30 fighters, unless like in the case you presented above you face 3 CSGs, then you are screwed I guess.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2345
    Points : 2347
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Sun Sep 09, 2018 5:03 pm

    Carrier-related topics from an interview with Sergey Vlasov from Nevskoye Design Bureau from February this year:

    https://tass.ru/interviews/4965950

    — In your opinion, in what direction will evolve carriers?


    — First of all should improve the automation of the ship to improve its electronic equipment, should improve protection (e.g., anti-aircraft weapons), the habitability for personnel who will live on this ship. Will improve our aircraft fleet and all the necessary devices and mechanisms that this fleet would operate. Together with the development of our science and technology should "grow" and these ships.

    Large or small they are — the question is not obvious. But whatever it was, seaworthiness of a small ship is much lower than a big. But seaworthiness is directly dependent restrictions on aviation.

    — We are with you in previous conversations, talked about the fact that the desire of the fleet to "cram" in the ship as many features as possible, in General, indestructible...

    The carrier must be a carrier. It is not necessary to dump all you can

    And today, unfortunately, there are such trends. We are trying to resist them. Our opinion on this issue has not changed — the carrier must be a carrier. It is not necessary to dump all that you can. If the ship is large, this does not mean that it needs to carry everything. Usually by the aircraft carrier are a few ships that solve all the associated tasks. It's his business to run and to take back the aircraft. In addition, the saturation of the different systems and weapons will automatically lead to appreciation of the project. The hull, hardware is pennies compared to the cost of components, electronics, weapons. As soon as we start something at him to "push" the price begins to rise. This is the simple argument for those who wait on the aircraft carrier ship all at once.

    — Last year, Deputy defense Minister Yuri Borisov officially declared about the establishment in Russia of the aircraft vertical takeoff and landing, and ships under them. You, as the designer, reported about such plans?

    We have not seen any materials on this issue. The last aircraft vertical takeoff and landing Yak-141 was made in the late 80-ies of the last century for the "Admiral Gorshkov". Nothing new we haven't seen.

    ...


    — Is it true that the first Soviet aircraft carrier could be created in 1950-e years? If the Bureau has completed this development, perhaps the appearance and capabilities of Soviet and Russian aircraft carrier fleet would be very different?


    — Yes, the project 72 was developed in 1943 on the initiative of the then commander-in-chief of the Navy Nikolai Gerasimovich Kuznetsov. Our office conducted a study predescessor of the project, the Yakovlev design Bureau and the Tupolev was working on their own versions of the two types of carrier-based aircraft, and presented them to the people's Commissariat of the Navy. The review took place in August 1944, however; feasibility designs were not approved.

    — When the idea of a nuclear aircraft carrier?


    — In the 1960-ies, when were studied the project 1160 and 1153. Naval institutions have conducted scientific research proved that the carrier needed to create groups in remote areas of the World ocean. Work began on the project in 1160. There participated, besides shipbuilders, the firm Mikoyan, Sukhoi and Beriev, who worked on the aircraft anti-submarine defense. We considered eight variants of the ship of project 1160, with different tonnage from 40 thousand to 100 thousand tons, with different power plants. All this considered, the Ministry of defense, the Politburo.
    Aircraft carriers have always been very expensive construction

    But carriers have always been very expensive construction. In September 1973, Dmitry Ustinov suggested as alternatives to the project 1160 to build a modernized anti-submarine cruisers of the type "Kiev". In 1972, the first of them was launched.

    — For the creation of the project in 1153 with nuclear power called himself Admiral of the fleet of the Soviet Union Sergei Gorshkov?


    — Yes, but again at the top this case has been suspended, although such ships with a displacement of 70 thousand tons have already started to modernize the black sea plant in the Ukraine. Bought a 900-ton Finnish cranes, which stand there still.

    It was suggested to revise the technical design of the ship 1143М. So there were four Soviet aircraft carrying cruiser, which became the "Admiral Gorshkov", and then "young Vikramaditja". And then there was the project 11435 "Admiral Kuznetsov" and "Varyag". Ideas that were laid in the project in 1153, and in some measure they used.

    But still most sad fate of the seventh aircraft carrier "Ulyanovsk".


    — Yeah, but there's certainly nothing could be done. (In 1992, fully formed body of an aircraft carrier due to the lack of funding was cut for scrap — approx. TASS)

    — Sergey, in concluding our conversation, I ask you to speak on the topic one way or another are constantly discussing in the online space. Sad to read that we have lost all competence in shipbuilding, and can't afford a real aircraft carrier.


    — My personal opinion is — we can normally, as the saying goes, slowly build ships of any size — aircraft carrier, amphibious assault, and any other, in the presence of desire and certain possibilities. Of course, it's not cheap, but the money is not being spent for six months, and spent 10-12 years. If the price of an aircraft carrier to sort by year, then, in principle, everything is possible.

    Another thing is that today the mass of both supporters and opponents large ships. Whose point of view wins, to tell now difficult. But perhaps it is time to put the fundamental point in these differences.

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4972
    Points : 4998
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:51 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    You clearly have him eating out of your hand  Laughing

    Oh no no no I am just his trusted  VSTOL adviser   russia  russia  russia




    Besides as Papa mentioned: Russia has far stronger aerospace industry then the naval one. It's a calculated risk: lets go for small capable  VSTOL fighter then mamoth ship. Once fghter is there perhaps ship problem is also solved if not you build LHAs thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
    Well they have the K. And then, having a functional shipbuilding industry is a must for Russia, it doesn't matter if it takes one or twenty years. [/quote]

    It does actually. Challenges are being faced  all the time. You just need to build economically viable ships that fit purpose. Im afraid if you'd start to build mammoth-ware you'll end up with obsolete design still on shipyard. After years.





    oh yes Yamato and Mushashi had bigger guns too you know
    Hahaha, that is a very relevant point  Suspect

    meh unrelated  same if I said Maus was better  lol1  lol1  lol1





    slightly better functionality than VSTOL carrier for 1/4 price?
    R-77M is already operational?? The K-175  does not really exist as far as I know.

    R-77M-1? like5 years iike 180 BD not yet tho. But doest it really matter which model?  There will me always missiles with similar performance in both sides. Light and heavy fighters can carry the alike.





    I don't think a simple LHA is going to be a match for the performance of a STOBAR or CATOBAR carrier the size of the K anytime soon.

    and what in which characteristics? in ASW capabilities? for transport or perhap ship grouping point defense? Kuz is 60ktons  Wasp 40ktons / Juan Carlos I 26ktons
    LHA is an universal ship.  Sea-control is one of roles. If you go CV you still need build something for amphibious forces (and eventually ASW ships) .  


    Did you see any bombings in Syria by RuAF? how many KABs-500 were carrying Su-34 in most of sorties?  1-2?  and what was radius of action? 300-400kms?




    E-2D have L-band radar, specifically because they want to be able to detect VLO planes. If you have OTH and other early warning + AWACS + shipborne radars you are likely at least to detect the incoming planes even far way, allowing your fighters to inspect the threat and clear it before it comes too close to the fleet. On the other hand, missiles with active seeker can be guided to the airspace sector where the threat is present and only then activate their seekers, so as far as I know you don't necessarily require an X-band lock from the fighters radar before launch.

    OK then we agree that not a fighter but missile is a key here?



    Opposing fighters will see each other soon but the engagement windows of their missiles and ROE will determine when missiles will be launched. That is where kinematics of the missile carriers are crucial, because the side dominant in that regard can launch sooner, stay out of the opponent's engagement window while giving midway guidance updates to the missiles and in case of need disengage in case of danger. This does not produce exchange ratios proportional to force size but rather very skewed in favour of the side with the faster, higher flying, longer ranged fighter with big payloads.

    Kinematics- if you have 1,8 of 2Ma is so different in ~180kms?



    Don't understand what you mean referred to R-77 and AMRAAM
    roughly same class




    like meeting 3 CVNs vs Russian super 24 Su-33s?
    How many of your LHAs would you need to match the air power of 3 US type CVNs?? Like 20??

    +++
    unless like in the case you presented above you face 3 CSGs, then you are screwed I guess


    and you said thet this is not about Midway scenario.  lol1  lol1  lol1  They are not designed for this task as well as those you'd love to see. Russia cannot respond with same resource scale. So always will be less and smaller CVGs forces. If Russia would build 2 very expensive CSGs  they can 4  more CSGs just to extr cover them.  Tsi is a game costly for you that you cannot win.





    Don't know what Russian doctrine says but the first and only deployment of the K was to do precisely that: bomb foreign lands. And of course, fleet point defence is enough with 20-30 fighters, .

    Iraqi destruction Freedom took 5 CSGs same time you know. That is bombing foreign lands  Conflict with Nigerian pirates or Syria is say "colonial low insensitivity war " category.


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:30 am; edited 1 time in total
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4972
    Points : 4998
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:29 am

    LMFS wrote:Carrier-related topics from an interview with Sergey Vlasov from Nevskoye Design Bureau from February this year:

    interesting thx thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4903
    Points : 4899
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:49 am

    Besides projecting power ashore, they may also be sent to help confront the reformed US 2nd Fleet in the N. Atlantic & the Arctic Oceans, the banal Med. Sea, i.e. the classic Soviet TAKR mission.
    https://www.axios.com/us-navy-reinstates-fleet-to-explore-russian-military-52aecf7b-73cd-4ead-832a-f888a924a4a6.html
    https://news.usni.org/2018/08/24/cno-new-2nd-fleet-boundary-will-extend-north-edge-russian-waters
    https://www.rt.com/news/437001-us-second-fleet-arctic-atlantic/
    https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2161337/us-navy-re-establishes-atlantic-fleet-russian

    Perhaps it'll be their main role. Most stationary targets (inc. ships & subs in port) can be hit by Surface/Sub/ALCMs from Med., Black, White, Red, Caspian, Baltic, Okhotsk, & Japan Seas with less risk & inve$tment, leaving less targets to CVN AWs.

    Sponsored content

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:38 am