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 and Deck Aviation. #3

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2289
    Points : 2289
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  LMFS on Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:27 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:i've never seen anything about separate classes,I frankly doubt it will be there same as no displacement is mentioned.
    Difference between CV an LHD is not only displacement starting from hull design to systems and features, as discussed in this thread several times. So it is rather the mention of different missions that I am searching for and that was mentioned by some commentators on the naval strategy. Will try to compile statements in this regard when I have the time.

    USN will have in 2030s FA/XX which is long range.
    Silence in US about this issue. If I was USN I would be developing full steam, they need a new plane now. But they need to finish the concept phase together with required technologies, open official projects and budgets, develop prototypes and the rest of development process until that thing is ready for deployment. Based in previous experience this would take until 2040 easily, there is not even a clear understanding of what a 6G platform is. And then, by early 2030 they will be still sourcing F-35s so it needs to be seen how much money will be left, depending on how military budgets develop in US. So it is not a given that they will have the NGAD as early as stated.

    Drones, F-35 with ADVENT engines update will make them a,so long range.

    Yes, but Russia can have those too and with a better platform they will still have an advantage. Original AL-41 was already variable cycle, naval drone plans are contemplated in state program and procurement strategies.

    As for fleet defense I agree. But in such case the only logical - military and financial -  compromise would be small airwing 20-30 fighters + hard missile punch both in attack and defense.  Welcome back  to TAKR assumptions...
    2-3 sqdn. is in line with a carrier the size of the K or slightly bigger. The missiles can be carried by the ship and or the fighters. In any case every Russian carrier has been called TAKR, regardless of armament.

    BTW Why would you assume  Russians would prefer less capable fighters then US ones?
    You know I consider STOVL handicapped due to vertical lift needs. So either they take STOBAR/CATOBAR for their main carriers or will have a deficit in some parameters vs. USN, PLAN, Indian Navy and maybe others. They want to stay on the same level so I guess they will use essentially the same strategies and procurement lines than the other leading navies.

    AWACS is not level of detail in strategy docs but surely this or another way will be implemented. If Russians dont want to build large CV with catapults then very likley tiltrotor and or drone is gonna perform AEW function...
    Yes, I don't know. In any case its performance must be top of the line or they will lose at that point the possibility to match their potential opponents. Either a conventional AWACS like the E-2 or a tilt-rotor will be newly developed so Russia has some freedom of choice there and I guess they will aim for the best.

    Devil i always in details, what is long range? F-35C has 50% longer radius than MiG-29k and more less on pair with Su-33.
    See my previous comment to that claim... not really clear how you justify that.

    Long or short range is relative to your rivals of course.

    Will deck fighter be heavy one in Russian case? who knows  scratch  scratch  scratch  all western, currently used, deck fighters are small.
    F/A-18E and F-35C are all but small. They are heavy and can carry lots of payload but have not especially long range compared to Flanker or Su-57.
     
    From the other hand USN FA/XX looks like heavy, long range, with 2 engines. I guess Russians will focus to counter its performance rather then F-35.
    Maybe the delay in announcing serial production plans for PAK-FA has to do with the intention to have some space to manoeuvre if in the future data are disclosed about PCA and NGAD that force MoD to modify the plane. Hence the comments abut making a 6G plane out of it, maybe.

    Frankly speaking in Russia's case there is a little expediency in large aircraft carriers.

    Large or small is the same to me. Important is capability. But if ship-launched missiles can do the job both offensively and defensively you don't need a carrier, at all. So the question is: why do you think MoD insists in having their carriers?

    Fighting air-battles RuN never ever gets parity, neither global nor local, with USN. USN has like 1,000 of deck fighters.
    But with missiles they will reach it? How many vessels and missiles does USN have? What will happen if no air assets impede USN fighters from shooting their ASMs at will against Russian fleet, will it improve Russian chances to impose unacceptable conventional loses on them, or rather the contrary?

    it's nto about numbers but learning lessons on fails.   The 29k is a failed project. Fat, design flaws, mediocre performance. Indians are laud because of their internal struggles, Russians did replacement more elegant way.  But effect is the same.
    These are claims of yours but I still have to see official evidence, have answered this above in detail.

    And in any case, MiG-35 uses the same airframe of the K and M with some further refinements, especially in terms of avionics:

    The single-seat MiG-35 and two-seat MiG-35D are multi-purpose “4++” generation fighters representing further refinement of the MiG-29K/KUB and MiG-29M/M2 warplanes aimed at higher combat effectiveness and versatility, as well as better operating performance.
    https://uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lineup/military/mig-35/

    The MiG-35/MiG-35D fighters structure is based upon the following achievements obtained on the MiG-29K/KUB, MiG-29M/M2 aircraft:
    – increased weapons load stored at nine external stations;
    – increased fuel capacity, in-flight refueling and possibility of using as a tanker;
    – airframe & main systems anti-corrosion protection technology which meets the standards developed for carrier-based aircraft thus simplifying fighters operation in tropical weather conditions;
    – significantly reduced radar signature;
    – three channel fly-by-wire control system with quadruple redundancy.
    http://migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/new-unified-family-of-the-fighters/mig-35-mig-35d

    New unified family of the MiG-29K/KUB, MiG-29M/M2, MiG-35/MiG-35D fighters
    In 2005 the RAC "MiG" commenced production of new unified family of multi-role fighters, belonging to the "4++" generation. All fighters have a high level of structure, power plant, airborne systems, avionics and weapons unification. The fighters unified family will be in production and subjected to improvements for a long time.
    http://migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/new-unified-family-of-the-fighters
    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 and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:15 am

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:i've never seen anything about separate classes,I frankly doubt it will be there same as no displacement is mentioned.
    Difference between CV an LHD is not only displacement starting from hull design to systems and features, as discussed in this thread several times. So it is rather the mention of different missions that I am searching for and that was mentioned by some commentators on the naval strategy. Will try to compile statements in this regard when I have the time.

    True that Russian Navy needs LHDs too doesnt mean they have to build them instead of CV. But financially this would make sense. Especially that battle mgmt system wont be so different in both cases. All will be netcentric with command nodes.

    Recent Rakhmanov info about "universal ship" wasn't unrelated to spring competition I presume.



    LMFS wrote:
    USN will have in 2030s FA/XX which is long range.
    Silence in US about this issue. If I was USN I would be developing full steam, they need a new plane now. But they need to finish the concept phase together with required technologies, open official projects and budgets, develop prototypes and the rest of development process until that thing is ready for deployment. Based in previous experience this would take until 2040 easily, there is not even a clear understanding of what a 6G platform is. And then, by early 2030 they will be still sourcing F-35s so it needs to be seen how much money will be left, depending on how military budgets develop in US. So it is not a given that they will have the NGAD as early as stated.


    Did you hear a lot about Russian 6g fighters? me neither but work is on. In the usa they wont be ready in 2020s as assumed originally but by mid 2030s is very likely they'll be ready.

    http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/next-gen-combat-aircraft-development-gains-momentum

    I wouldn't worry about budget of pentagon. If anything will be more expensive US just rises budget by next billions.




    LMFS wrote:
    Drones, F-35 with ADVENT engines update will make them a,so long range.
    Yes, but Russia can have those too and with a better platform they will still have an advantage. Original AL-41 was already variable cycle, naval drone plans are contemplated in state program and procurement strategies.

    true, but my point is that we cannot assume USN has worse tech or equal numbers. Tech is on pair and numbers are always greater.



    LMFS wrote:
    As for fleet defense I agree. But in such case the only logical - military and financial -  compromise would be small airwing 20-30 fighters + hard missile punch both in attack and defense.  Welcome back  to TAKR assumptions...
    2-3 sqdn. is in line with a carrier the size of the K or slightly bigger. The missiles can be carried by the ship and or the fighters. In any case every Russian carrier has been called TAKR, regardless of armament.

    that's actually the other way around, Russian air carrying ships were called cruises because they were armed as ones + airwing. In 2030 strategy on Kremlin's site it nowhere aircraft carrier mentioned either. It is "ship-borne aircraft carrying complex" only. Will it materialize more similar to current CVNs? we need to wait till spring 2019 to see.


    LMFS wrote:
    BTW Why would you assume  Russians would prefer less capable fighters then US ones?
    You know I consider STOVL handicapped due to vertical lift needs. So either they take STOBAR/CATOBAR for their main carriers or will have a deficit in some parameters vs. USN, PLAN, Indian Navy and maybe others. They want to stay on the same level so I guess they will use essentially the same strategies and procurement lines than the other leading navies.

    You have full right to consider VSTOL  handicapped. It is nto what Russian MoD says tho. Considering that penalty for VSTOL so far is not more than navalization and  essential befits of VSTOL on sea is undisputed, no wonder that this is the way Ru Navy has chosen.

    Yes Russians made a choice. For a reason. China and USA have budgets way beyond Russian ones.





    "LMFS"
    ]Devil i always in details, what is long range? F-35C has 50% longer radius than MiG-29k and more less on pair with Su-33.
    See my previous comment to that claim... not really clear how you justify that.

    850km MiG vs. 1240km F-35C


    LMFS wrote:
    Will deck fighter be heavy one in Russian case? who knows  scratch  scratch  scratch  all western, currently used, deck fighters are small.
    F/A-18E and F-35C are all but small. They are heavy and can carry lots of payload but have not especially long range compared to Flanker or Su-57.


    You forget that navalized version is heavier (20% + for F-35) so without serious redesign you wont have same payload nor range. Anyway Russian deck fighter will be suited to Russian doctrine so far payload and stealth are traded for  stol and agility. So more to be fighters then strike aircraft.


    Seriously? large did you see size of Su-57 in comparison?
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 File







    LMFS wrote:
    From the other hand USN FA/XX looks like heavy, long range, with 2 engines. I guess Russians will focus to counter its performance rather then F-35.
    Maybe the delay in announcing serial production plans for PAK-FA has to do with the intention to have some space to manoeuvre if in the future data are disclosed about PCA and NGAD that force MoD to modify the plane. Hence the comments abut making a 6G plane out of it, maybe.

    Su-57 is great fighter but time does not stand still either.  Its design was started in 2004. In 2030 will be a quarter of century old to newest tech advancements. Im sure that  process wil be twofold:
    1) keeping PAK FA in pair of completion (ideally ahead of)
    2) working on totally new platform with clean "robotic" design and very likely DEW weapons


    LMFS wrote:
    Frankly speaking in Russia's case there is a little expediency in large aircraft carriers.
    Large or small is the same to me. Important is capability. But if ship-launched missiles can do the job both offensively and defensively you don't need a carrier, at all. So the question is: why do you think MoD insists in having their carriers?

    to me looks like not only air-war with USN is in  Russian agenda. Syria like conflicts, flag waving.  Strong ship armament wont exclude 20-30 airwing size. But you save on escort size having same effect.

    BTW
    NYT I quoted in thso ot carrier thread is ~$50,000, let Russian will be 50% of that. 200hrs per year is what $5m per fighter, you add 100 more you have a destroyer er year less only because you decided to have large airwing. With no actual change in effects.





    LMFS wrote:
    Fighting air-battles RuN never ever gets parity, neither global nor local, with USN. USN has like 1,000 of deck fighters.
    But with missiles they will reach it? How many vessels and missiles does USN have? What will happen if no air assets impede USN fighters from shooting their ASMs at will against Russian fleet, will it improve Russian chances to impose unacceptable conventional loses on them, or rather the contrary?


    there will be never parity, cannot be. Im not sure why it is so hard for you to understand it. USN deck aviation only has more ~50% fighters then all Russian air force. What parity are you talking about? without asymmetrical approach Russians cannot win. That's why you see Kinzhals, GZURS, Zircons.

    Budget nominally is 15x more PPP is 8x



    LMFS wrote:
    it's nto about numbers but learning lessons on fails.   The 29k is a failed project. Fat, design flaws, mediocre performance. Indians are laud because of their internal struggles, Russians did replacement more elegant way.  But effect is the same.
    These are claims of yours but I still have to see official evidence, have answered this above in detail.

    so you brought marketing info to prove what exactly?  "significantly reduced RCS" from what value to what value exactly? like Sensodyne toothpaste  gives you 20% shinier smile  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup

    VSTOL is on, pak ka will replace 29ks. No plants to buy 29k, no tenders with 29k anymore

    6 35s procured only by AF nothing ever discussed by Navy

    Bondaryew  already said: every 4++ fighter is already obsolete


    what else officially do you need? dunno dunno dunno
    eehnie
    eehnie

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  eehnie on Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:39 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Today, excluding the last Harriers, only the Rafale and the F-35 are used in aircraft carriers of the size of the Indian aircraft carriers. The Rafale is optimized likely for the use in their own aircraft carrier, that is of the size of the Indian aircraft carriers. Thanks to it, can be better addapted to the Indian aircraft carriers, but this means not that is better than the MiG-29 K.

    French just better made navalization of Rafale. You always pay performance penalty on deck version. But Im sure that F-18 can also use skijump.



    Surely it would be possible to do a variant of the MiG-29/35 well addapted to the Indian aircraft carriers. Very likely only introducing some small modifications over the MiG-29K basis, at the cost of reducing a little the payload, and as consequence, the firepower.
    there's no 29k anymore now MiG offers only 35.

    India should not complain very much. They have good aircrafts for their aircraft carriers. Between the bests for all the countries that design not their own fighters for aircraft carriers.

    they hve full right to complain, they paid money and received failed product.



    About MiG as brand, the people must not forget that their main product in recent decades has been the MiG-25/31. On Fighter Interceptors they are leaders in Russia and Worldwide. It makes that MiG has not problems to survive as brand, while the concept of Fighter Interceptor remains successfull, and this is assured because the Fighters (FAS, FMR) evolved recently in a form where the speed is not their main feature.


    MiG is just nw a virtual barnd of OAK same as Sukhoi or Yak. They will survive but 29k  fail is really sad for PR and 35 competitivness on market.

    I do not agree. The Rafale is optimized for the size of the French aircraft carrier, and the MiG-29 K was very likely optimized for the Project 11435.

    It means the Rafale is better for aircraft carriers of 45000 tons, but very likely the MiG-29 K and the Su-33 are better for aircraft carriers of 60000 tons. And it said with some reserve because Im not totally sure about the compatibility of the Rafale with the Indian Project 11434 aircraft carrier.

    The F-18 seems not used in aircraft carriers of this size. And the F-35 must probe still to be not an underperformer.

    Basically India has enough MiG-29K for the two aircraft carriers. My previous comment was more about the design of a new "variant" from the basis of the MiG-29K to work with the aircrafts like if it would be a "modernization", because likely the replacement of some component can be required. The operation in the smaller Indian aircraft carrier means bigger tensions on take off and landing for a big and powerfull aircraft in relative terms like the MiG-29 K. It seems to produce some failure by fatigue. To correct it requires not a big structural reinforcement.

    If India would be smart they would try to do the reinforcement themselves with Russian assistance, and likely they would learn something.

    In the refered to the future of MiG, the project that will mark the future position of strength or weakness of the brand is clearly the MiG-41.
    avatar
    kumbor

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  kumbor on Wed Dec 26, 2018 11:51 am

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:i've never seen anything about separate classes,I frankly doubt it will be there same as no displacement is mentioned.
    Difference between CV an LHD is not only displacement starting from hull design to systems and features, as discussed in this thread several times. So it is rather the mention of different missions that I am searching for and that was mentioned by some commentators on the naval strategy. Will try to compile statements in this regard when I have the time.

    USN will have in 2030s FA/XX which is long range.
    Silence in US about this issue. If I was USN I would be developing full steam, they need a new plane now. But they need to finish the concept phase together with required technologies, open official projects and budgets, develop prototypes and the rest of development process until that thing is ready for deployment. Based in previous experience this would take until 2040 easily, there is not even a clear understanding of what a 6G platform is. And then, by early 2030 they will be still sourcing F-35s so it needs to be seen how much money will be left, depending on how military budgets develop in US. So it is not a given that they will have the NGAD as early as stated.

    Drones, F-35 with ADVENT engines update will make them a,so long range.

    Yes, but Russia can have those too and with a better platform they will still have an advantage. Original AL-41 was already variable cycle, naval drone plans are contemplated in state program and procurement strategies.

    As for fleet defense I agree. But in such case the only logical - military and financial -  compromise would be small airwing 20-30 fighters + hard missile punch both in attack and defense.  Welcome back  to TAKR assumptions...
    2-3 sqdn. is in line with a carrier the size of the K or slightly bigger. The missiles can be carried by the ship and or the fighters. In any case every Russian carrier has been called TAKR, regardless of armament.

    BTW Why would you assume  Russians would prefer less capable fighters then US ones?
    You know I consider STOVL handicapped due to vertical lift needs. So either they take STOBAR/CATOBAR for their main carriers or will have a deficit in some parameters vs. USN, PLAN, Indian Navy and maybe others. They want to stay on the same level so I guess they will use essentially the same strategies and procurement lines than the other leading navies.

    AWACS is not level of detail in strategy docs but surely this or another way will be implemented. If Russians dont want to build large CV with catapults then very likley tiltrotor and or drone is gonna perform AEW function...
    Yes, I don't know. In any case its performance must be top of the line or they will lose at that point the possibility to match their potential opponents. Either a conventional AWACS like the E-2 or a tilt-rotor will be newly developed so Russia has some freedom of choice there and I guess they will aim for the best.

    Devil i always in details, what is long range? F-35C has 50% longer radius than MiG-29k and more less on pair with Su-33.
    See my previous comment to that claim... not really clear how you justify that.

    Long or short range is relative to your rivals of course.

    Will deck fighter be heavy one in Russian case? who knows  scratch  scratch  scratch  all western, currently used, deck fighters are small.
    F/A-18E and F-35C are all but small. They are heavy and can carry lots of payload but have not especially long range compared to Flanker or Su-57.
     
    From the other hand USN FA/XX looks like heavy, long range, with 2 engines. I guess Russians will focus to counter its performance rather then F-35.
    Maybe the delay in announcing serial production plans for PAK-FA has to do with the intention to have some space to manoeuvre if in the future data are disclosed about PCA and NGAD that force MoD to modify the plane. Hence the comments abut making a 6G plane out of it, maybe.

    Frankly speaking in Russia's case there is a little expediency in large aircraft carriers.

    Large or small is the same to me. Important is capability. But if ship-launched missiles can do the job both offensively and defensively you don't need a carrier, at all. So the question is: why do you think MoD insists in having their carriers?

    Fighting air-battles RuN never ever gets parity, neither global nor local, with USN. USN has like 1,000 of deck fighters.
    But with missiles they will reach it? How many vessels and missiles does USN have? What will happen if no air assets impede USN fighters from shooting their ASMs at will against Russian fleet, will it improve Russian chances to impose unacceptable conventional loses on them, or rather the contrary?

    it's nto about numbers but learning lessons on fails.   The 29k is a failed project. Fat, design flaws, mediocre performance. Indians are laud because of their internal struggles, Russians did replacement more elegant way.  But effect is the same.
    These are claims of yours but I still have to see official evidence, have answered this above in detail.

    And in any case, MiG-35 uses the same airframe of the K and M with some further refinements, especially in terms of avionics:

    The single-seat MiG-35 and two-seat MiG-35D are multi-purpose “4++” generation fighters representing further refinement of the MiG-29K/KUB and MiG-29M/M2 warplanes aimed at higher combat effectiveness and versatility, as well as better operating performance.
    https://uacrussia.ru/en/aircraft/lineup/military/mig-35/

    The MiG-35/MiG-35D fighters structure is based upon the following achievements obtained on the MiG-29K/KUB, MiG-29M/M2 aircraft:
    – increased weapons load stored at nine external stations;
    – increased fuel capacity, in-flight refueling and possibility of using as a tanker;
    – airframe & main systems anti-corrosion protection technology which meets the standards developed for carrier-based aircraft thus simplifying fighters operation in tropical weather conditions;
    – significantly reduced radar signature;
    – three channel fly-by-wire control system with quadruple redundancy.
    http://migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/new-unified-family-of-the-fighters/mig-35-mig-35d

    New unified family of the MiG-29K/KUB, MiG-29M/M2, MiG-35/MiG-35D fighters
    In 2005 the RAC "MiG" commenced production of new unified family of multi-role fighters, belonging to the "4++" generation. All fighters have a high level of structure, power plant, airborne systems, avionics and weapons unification. The fighters unified family will be in production and subjected to improvements for a long time.
    http://migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/new-unified-family-of-the-fighters

    USAF FA-XX is still only paper project. It is still not even shown as a model. By 2030s USAF will have FA-XX? In what dream! Obviously it will be another trillion dollar project of unknown quality!
    avatar
    kumbor

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  kumbor on Wed Dec 26, 2018 11:53 am

    eehnie wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    eehnie wrote:Today, excluding the last Harriers, only the Rafale and the F-35 are used in aircraft carriers of the size of the Indian aircraft carriers. The Rafale is optimized likely for the use in their own aircraft carrier, that is of the size of the Indian aircraft carriers. Thanks to it, can be better addapted to the Indian aircraft carriers, but this means not that is better than the MiG-29 K.

    French just better made navalization of Rafale. You always pay performance penalty on deck version. But Im sure that F-18 can also use skijump.



    Surely it would be possible to do a variant of the MiG-29/35 well addapted to the Indian aircraft carriers. Very likely only introducing some small modifications over the MiG-29K basis, at the cost of reducing a little the payload, and as consequence, the firepower.
    there's no 29k anymore now MiG offers only 35.

    India should not complain very much. They have good aircrafts for their aircraft carriers. Between the bests for all the countries that design not their own fighters for aircraft carriers.

    they hve full right to complain, they paid money and received failed product.



    About MiG as brand, the people must not forget that their main product in recent decades has been the MiG-25/31. On Fighter Interceptors they are leaders in Russia and Worldwide. It makes that MiG has not problems to survive as brand, while the concept of Fighter Interceptor remains successfull, and this is assured because the Fighters (FAS, FMR) evolved recently in a form where the speed is not their main feature.


    MiG is just nw a virtual barnd of OAK same as Sukhoi or Yak. They will survive but 29k  fail is really sad for PR and 35 competitivness on market.

    I do not agree. The Rafale is optimized for the size of the French aircraft carrier, and the MiG-29 K was very likely optimized for the Project 11435.

    It means the Rafale is better for aircraft carriers of 45000 tons, but very likely the MiG-29 K and the Su-33 are better for aircraft carriers of 60000 tons. And it said with some reserve because Im not totally sure about the compatibility of the Rafale with the Indian Project 11434 aircraft carrier.

    The F-18 seems not used in aircraft carriers of this size. And the F-35 must probe still to be not an underperformer.

    Basically India has enough MiG-29K for the two aircraft carriers. My previous comment was more about the design of a new "variant" from the basis of the MiG-29K to work with the aircrafts like if it would be a "modernization", because likely the replacement of some component can be required. The operation in the smaller Indian aircraft carrier means bigger tensions on take off and landing for a big and powerfull aircraft in relative terms like the MiG-29 K. It seems to produce some failure by fatigue. To correct it requires not a big structural reinforcement.

    If India would be smart they would try to do the reinforcement themselves with Russian assistance, and likely they would learn something.

    In the refered to the future of MiG, the project that will mark the future position of strength or weakness of the brand is clearly the MiG-41.

    MiG-41, which of we still don`t know even vague appearance!
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2289
    Points : 2289
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  LMFS on Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:16 pm

    kumbor wrote:USAF FA-XX is still only paper project. It is still not even shown as a model. By 2030s USAF will have FA-XX? In what dream! Obviously it will be another trillion dollar project of unknown quality!
    I think they need to be significantly faster and more practical now Russia and China can field better naval fighters than them in a relatively short term, and they now it, so I would not expect the same blunders in this project than with F-35. It is quite possible that they are being specially secretive with the two ongoing 6G projects in order to negate Russia and China any useful info, now the big power struggle is on again. They may have advanced conceptual design and base technologies, variable cycle engine for instance is in the works since quite a while. But unless they are working full steam under state secrecy and have us all fooled, my guess is the plane would not be ready before 2040. In contrast, a Su-57K could be ready by 2025 or so.
    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 and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Dec 27, 2018 12:08 am

    LMFS wrote:
    kumbor wrote:USAF FA-XX is still only paper project. It is still not even shown as a model. By 2030s USAF will have FA-XX? In what dream! Obviously it will be another trillion dollar project of unknown quality!
    I think they need to be significantly faster and more practical now Russia and China can field better naval fighters than them in a relatively short term, and they now it, so I would not expect the same blunders in this project than with F-35. It is quite possible that they are being specially secretive with the two ongoing 6G projects in order to negate Russia and China any useful info, now the big power struggle is on again. They may have advanced conceptual design and base technologies, variable cycle engine for instance is in the works since quite a while. But unless they are working full steam under state secrecy and have us all fooled, my guess is the plane would not be ready before 2040. In contrast, a Su-57K could be ready by 2025 or so.

    Chinese AFAIK are talking about j-31 in the future as a deck fighter Russia is working to have deck VSTOL on 2030. I m not sure where is this better fighter potential in short time?
    BTW Su-57k doesnt exist unless Russian boss of naval AF was laying, Perhaps pak ka will be unified till some degree with Su-57. But 10 years assumed to add a hook is unlikely to me.
    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 and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:27 am

    I believe Tsavo mentioned somewhere here (or other thread?!) article in Izvestia about Admirals interview. Very interesting, if you didnt have a chance to read it yet just check this one below:

    Most interesting parts, relvant to this thread.  More about AiP subs and "global silent" SS(G)Ns read full text. The interview below is
    with commander in chief of the Navy, Admiral Vladimir Korolev.

    http://redstar.ru/tempy-razvitiya-voenno-morskogo-flota-neuklonno-rastut/


    • According to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, in 2019 and in the short term, work will be carried out to further enhance the combat stability of submarines by further improving the characteristics of their secrecy, increasing the combat capabilities of countermeasures and self-defense.

    • In the future, the basis of the groupings of ships in the ocean zone will be frigates and large amphibious ships, which have increased combat capabilities in terms of  attack and defensive potential.

    • Work will continue on the creation of ships of the "destroyer" class and the "universal landing ship"

    • "In order to combat capabilities of the Marine Corps as a separate kind of forces of the Navy, in the medium term, it is planned to create and adopt for the armament a series of naval infantry vehicles to deliver troops by sea to the place of the combat mission, destruction and destruction of the enemy armored personnel support fire assault at all stages of the combat mission.





    so RuMC as VDV will be separate cool, as for "large amphibious ships with increased level of attack and defensive potential" doesnt look like LHD to me.  Rather something closer to TAKR but takrs didnt carry marines. Of perhaps a Cv like QE2 with large contingent of marines but no dekc well? ( Grens will do "dirty job") we'll see in couple of months .

    Ah last but not least - admiral didnt say abotu timescale. By when those grouppings and how he understands "udk"
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26622
    Points : 27160
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:38 am

    This could provide, indeed, some plausible explanation but then  again just proves that MiG-29k  is failed project to navalize decent land fighter.

    So the failed MiG-29 which is ordered, produced and in service with the Russian Navy is a failure, but you are pinning your hopes on STOVL that has been cancelled in the past with no production super successful and powerful Yak-41s and other drawings...

    Sorry, but I have stopped listening to you now GD...
    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 and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:28 am

    GarryB wrote:
    This could provide, indeed, some plausible explanation but then  again just proves that MiG-29k  is failed project to navalize decent land fighter.

    So the failed MiG-29 which is ordered, produced and in service with the Russian Navy is a failure, but you are pinning your hopes on STOVL that has been cancelled in the past with no production super successful and powerful Yak-41s and other drawings...

    dont listen, if you mix reality with fanboyish fantasies. RuNavy decided to switch plans for VSTOL as soon as they started using 29k. Other facts only proved MiG-29k was fail. IMHO an epic one.
    l
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6636
    Points : 6626
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Isos on Fri Dec 28, 2018 8:32 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    This could provide, indeed, some plausible explanation but then  again just proves that MiG-29k  is failed project to navalize decent land fighter.

    So the failed MiG-29 which is ordered, produced and in service with the Russian Navy is a failure, but you are pinning your hopes on STOVL that has been cancelled in the past with no production super successful and powerful Yak-41s and other drawings...

    dont listen, if you mix reality with fanboyish fantasies. RuNavy decided to switch plans for VSTOL as soon as they started using 29k. Other facts only proved MiG-29k was fail. IMHO an epic one.
    l

    This new STOVL project has more to do with the fact that they can't buy/build big carriers. Many nation are converting their heli carrier into aircraft carrier thanks to f-35. Russia operated kiev class and kuz class so they know the capabilities of both types. It is cheaper than a 100kt carrier full of su-57.

    Mig-29k was first designed in the 80s/90s. Even with deep modernization it will suffer loses against f-35 or modern fighters. That doesn't mean ot is a bad fighter. Su-33 is just as good and cheaper to upgrade than new build migs.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26622
    Points : 27160
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:53 am

    Russia operated kiev class and kuz class so they know the capabilities of both types. It is cheaper than a 100kt carrier full of su-57.

    Why even mention a 100KT carrier?

    That has never been an option for Russia... only wide eyed fan boys.

    they operated the Kiev class and the Kuznetsov class and decided what they decided in the 1980s that they want something slightly bigger than a Kuznetsov class with catapults and bigger fighters.

    ie They want Ulyanovsk carriers with Su-57s.

    It might be of the new cat hull design and it could even be lighter than a Kuznetsov, but its capacity will be slightly bigger than Kuznetsov and instead of Granits it will have UKSK launchers. It will also have Poliment/Redut, and it will have short range air defence systems and it will have S-500 air defence systems.

    It might even have some STOVL fighters, but I would not hold my breath on that...

    This new STOVL project has more to do with the fact that they can't buy/build big carriers.

    It has just upgraded its far east shipyard to handle ships up to 350KTs... why do you think they can't build large carriers?

    Mig-29k was first designed in the 80s/90s. Even with deep modernization it will suffer loses against f-35 or modern fighters. That doesn't mean ot is a bad fighter. Su-33 is just as good and cheaper to upgrade than new build migs.

    You could just as easily say that a deep modernisation of the MiG-29K could lead to victories against all modern fighter types... by the time the Kuznetsov is back in the water in the mid-2020s the MiG could easily have a modern AESA radar and L band AESA sensors that render F-35 stealth meaningless, so the cost of purchase and operation mean it will remain in service for the next 40 years.

    Any new STOVL fighter they produce will need to be a 5th gen fighter... and it will need to take off vertically and operate from carriers... meaning you want a BMW car that can tow a ship, and be totally invisible at the push of a button... go from 0 to 100mph in 3 seconds but be cheap and easy to maintain...

    You are dreaming... it just is not going to happen... and it is what the F-35 was supposed to be and isn't and its customers are reducing their orders which is pushing up the price steadily too.

    The people complaining about the MiG and claiming the STOVL will solve all of Russias problems remind me of Vann complaining about Putin and saying a more aggressive and simpler leader is what Russia needs right now...[/quote]
    [/quote]
    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 and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:48 pm

    Isos wrote:

    This new STOVL project has more to do with the fact that they can't buy/build big carriers. Many nation are converting their heli carrier into aircraft carrier thanks to f-35. Russia operated kiev class and kuz class so they know the capabilities of both types. It is cheaper than a 100kt carrier full of su-57.

    Mig-29k was first designed in the 80s/90s. Even with deep modernization it will suffer loses against f-35 or modern fighters. That doesn't mean ot is a bad fighter. Su-33 is just as good and cheaper to upgrade than new build migs.



    what can I say: you've got a point. I'd say buy and maintenance expenses (1hr F-35 flight is ~$50,000 according to NYT). The other thing is philosophy of application. Me thinks that Russians just have chosen hypesonic missiles over massive air-raids, thus no need for air armada for power projection.

    Interestingly is to what extent Su-57 and VSTOL will be unified.
    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 and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Dec 28, 2018 11:15 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Russia operated kiev class and kuz class so they know the capabilities of both types. It is cheaper than a 100kt carrier full of su-57.

    Why even mention a 100KT carrier?

    you weren't a big fanboi of emals and Shtorm?  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect





    GB wrote: hey operated the Kiev class and the Kuznetsov class and decided what they decided in the 1980s that they want something slightly bigger than a Kuznetsov class with catapults and bigger fighters.

    ie They want Ulyanovsk carriers with Su-57s.

    Perhaps they want it even more than you do but so far nothing indicates that it is gonna happen. Ulyanovsk displacement was 80kts BTW


    We obviously disagree about facts interpretation but we have to agree on facts. Facts relvant to thread I've listed below:

    A) Kremlin, WWW, signed by Putin: Strategy 2030, points 44-46: there is shipborne aircraft carrying complex planned in 2030 strategy, no aircraft carrier mentioned.


    B) Chief-In-Commander (CiC) of RuN aviation said:  aval AR expects to receive new Perspective Aviation Complex of Shipborne Aviation (so no word about MiG-29k nor Su-57k)


    C)  Chief-In-Commander (CiC) of RuN  said: basis of Russian be in far sea zone will be frigates and amphibious ships with "big punch"
    + and we will keep working on destroyers and universal landing ships
    + all new ships will be modular and universal

    {here I'd love to see timeline - I presume he was talking about nearest time horizon - till 2030s nut this is jut my guess }


    D) Chief of USC Rakhmanov: one of our design bureaus make a design of universal "expeditionary" ship which includes LHS/Helo carrier/ aircraft Carrier. She' ll be modular.


    E) Dept MoD Borisov: since 2017 there i project VSTOL running to replace Su-33 and  MiG-29k

    F)  Dept MoD Borisov: spring 2019 there will be finalized competition of aircraft carrying ships design








    GB\" wrote:It might be of the new cat hull design and it could even be lighter than a Kuznetsov, but its capacity will be slightly bigger than Kuznetsov and instead of Granits it will have UKSK launchers. It will also have Poliment/Redut, and it will have short range air defence systems and it will have S-500 air defence systems.
    G
    Well, chief in comander of RuN said that they expect "amphibious ships with good attacks and defense abilities"  + Ulyanovsk was to be armed as cruiser - 12(16) Granits (depending on surce), 192 kinzhals, 8 CIWS + RGB, so nothing alike US CVs.


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 News-183_10b





    GB wrote:It might even have some STOVL fighters, but I would not hold my breath on that...

    No worries, leave to professionals - Borisov, Chermezov, Rakhmanov & Co - kid   thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup




    GB wrote:
    This new STOVL project has more to do with the fact that they can't buy/build big carriers.

    It has just upgraded its far east shipyard to handle ships up to 350KTs... why do you think they can't build large carriers?


    Money + inability to solve challenges in symmetrical way. Big displacement is needed for LG tankers








    GB wrote:
    Mig-29k was first designed in the 80s/90s. Even with deep modernization it will suffer loses against f-35 or modern fighters. That doesn't mean ot is a bad fighter. Su-33 is just as good and cheaper to upgrade than new build migs.

    You could just as easily say that a deep modernisation of the MiG-29K could lead to victories against all modern fighter types... by the time the Kuznetsov is back in the water in the mid-2020s the MiG could easily have a modern AESA radar and L band AESA sensors that render F-35 stealth meaningless, so the cost of purchase and operation mean it will remain in service for the next 40 years.


    ekhm,  nothing here is supported  by real world evidence.  F-35 is not meaningless and so far 29k has virtually  chance against it. . MiG is adequate as long as there are no 5gen fighters around.  No modernization will make it 5gen fighter.

    Opinion of Gen Bondaryev  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup





    GB wrote: The people complaining about the MiG and claiming the STOVL will solve all of Russias problems remind me of Vann complaining about Putin and saying a more aggressive and simpler leader is what Russia needs right now...

    well, how would you describe a person, who claims that he knows Russian military, financial and technological situation better then Russian MoD and OAK ? in short person climing that Russians kick started  the whole program without any risk, tech or cost/benefit assessment?   dunno  dunno  dunno
    eehnie
    eehnie

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  eehnie on Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:00 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    GB wrote: hey operated the Kiev class and the Kuznetsov class and decided what they decided in the 1980s that they want something slightly bigger than a Kuznetsov class with catapults and bigger fighters.

    ie They want Ulyanovsk carriers with Su-57s.

    Perhaps they want it even more than you do but so far nothing indicates that it is gonna happen. Ulyanovsk displacement was 80kts BTW


    We obviously disagree about facts interpretation but we have to agree on facts.  Facts relvant to thread I've listed below:

    A) Kremlin, WWW, signed by Putin: Strategy 2030, points 44-46: there is shipborne aircraft carrying complex planned in 2030 strategy, no aircraft carrier mentioned.

    B) Chief-In-Commander (CiC) of RuN aviation said:  aval AR expects to receive  new Perspective Aviation Complex of Shipborne Aviation (so no word about MiG-29k nor Su-57k)

    C)  Chief-In-Commander (CiC) of RuN  said: basis of Russian be in far sea zone will be frigates and amphibious ships with "big punch"
    + and we will keep working on destroyers and universal landing ships
    + all new ships will be modular and universal

    {here I'd love to see timeline - I presume he was talking about nearest time horizon - till 2030s nut this is jut my guess }

    D) Chief of USC Rakhmanov: one of our design bureaus make a design of universal "expeditionary" ship which includes LHS/Helo carrier/ aircraft Carrier. She' ll be modular.

    E) Dept MoD Borisov: since 2017 there i project VSTOL running to replace Su-33 and  MiG-29k

    F)  Dept MoD Borisov: spring 2019 there will be finalized competition of aircraft carrying ships design

    G  
    Well, chief in comander of RuN said that they expect "amphibious ships with good attacks and defense abilities"  + Ulyanovsk was to be armed as cruiser - 12(16) Granits (depending on surce), 192 kinzhals,  8 CIWS + RGB, so nothing alike US CVs.

    This is your composition, but not the reality. In fact your list ignores the most important facts:

    - The Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 is the most important strategic document vigent about the future of the Russian Navy. Everything else, including the document you mention in the point A are theoric developments of lower level, they are partial developments of the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015. In fact recently the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 has been recited to describe the plans for the Russian Naval Aviation.

    - The Russian Navy said they want aircraft carriers over 70000 tons. Clearly. The low limit has been stablished. There are not news about the high limit.

    - The Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 said the future Russian aircraft carriers must be multirole, and excludes explicitly the heavy cruiser aircraft carriers, like the project 11435 of the current generation and the Project 11437 (Ulyanovsk).

    - The Russian Navy announced that they will not purchase helicopter carriers.

    - The Russian Navy said they want amphibious ships without reference to the size.

    - There is a limit for the reception of projects of aircraft carriers, that expires with the end of 2018. It means 3 days to go.

    - By the spring of 2015 has been announced the final decission about the future aircraft carrier. One of the preliminary projects will be approved.

    - The necessary reform of the Russian Zvezda shipyard will be ready in agreement with the timeline necessary for a fast begin of the construction of the first ship of the project of aircraft carrier approved.

    - The reference to the future shipborne fighter of Russia, called later "Perspective Aviation Complex of Shipborne Aviation", and its timeline of 2030, were introduced in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015.

    - The Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 said the new shipborne fighter must be of a new generation. Said in 2015 it means 5th Generation. It excludes developments from previous generations like the (like the Yak-41/141, and every other STOVL development of Sovietic origin.


    Plus:

    - The alone Russian project of aircraft carrier over 70000 tons publicly known until now is the Project 23000 Shtorm. It was presented its export variant, the variant for the Russian Armed Forces will include changes, like nuclear propulsion and more.

    - There is a real projection about the use of the Su-57 as shipborne fighter, in the presence of the Su-57 in the presentation of the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carrier.

    - There is real evidence about mutual feedback in the development of the Project 23000 Shtorm and the Su-57. They are compatible.


    Instead:

    - The public references to a STOVL aircraft are very weak and very recent. If there is something, the work would be very recent. In doubt if can compatible with the timeline stablished until 2030.

    - The first unit of the Project 11437, Ulyanovsk, was in production in Ukraine at the end of the Soviet Union, and was scrapped in 1992. Full load 73400 tons.


    Last edited by eehnie on Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:18 pm; 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 and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:28 am

    @eehne,

    mate, you can believe in whatever you want.  I believe only in things either  published in Rusan media as as an interview with top brass and/or MoD and official texts on MoD/Kremlin sites. I dont read blogs unless recognized ones (Bastion, BMPD). Not translations of translations but Russian sources.

    BTW "hard evidence" for you are plastic Su-57k from 2015 but official statement of deputy PM is weak and Kremlin strategy from 2018 is irrelevant thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup  
    ok for me, but this doesn't affect reality. I'm a nice guy and wont remind you about those Liders that were already being build last years according to your "hard evidence".



    Chronologically in February they said there is already  draft. Then in May that several "refined" projects will be submitted to MoD by end of 2018. If any of them will be chosen in 2019 R&D phase can start.  Some of them are ships of large displacements.  In December Rakmanov - we designed an universal "expeditionary ship" combining 4 functions: aircraft carrier, helo carrier and LHD + command ship.

    So what is written in stone? nothing, absolutely nothing. We need to wait.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26622
    Points : 27160
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:50 am

    you weren't a big fanboi of emals and Shtorm?

    Emals are necessary for AWACS platforms.

    Storm is too big.

    Perhaps they want it even more than you do but so far nothing indicates that it is gonna happen. Ulyanovsk displacement was 80kts BTW

    Yes, they were looking at the 70-90KT range in terms of weight.


    A) Kremlin, WWW, signed by Putin: Strategy 2030, points 44-46: there is shipborne aircraft carrying complex planned in 2030 strategy, no aircraft carrier mentioned.

    Yeah, and for the last 70 years you wont find designated marksman rifle or assault rifle mentioned by their army, yet you will find SVDs and AKs were developed... you just need to recognise that they use different terms from the west.

    B) Chief-In-Commander (CiC) of RuN aviation said:  aval AR expects to receive new Perspective Aviation Complex of Shipborne Aviation (so no word about MiG-29k nor Su-57k)

    And here we have the bending of the truth again.... you claim it is VSTOL, yet the actual quotes V is a mere possibility because he is not ruling it out, while you claim it is evidence and fact and therefore proof.

    + all new ships will be modular and universal

    So no aircraft only ships... hence no mention of aircraft carriers... they will be aircraft carrying armed cruisers...

    D) Chief of USC Rakhmanov: one of our design bureaus make a design of universal "expeditionary" ship which includes LHS/Helo carrier/ aircraft Carrier. She' ll be modular.

    And can we both accept that the chances of EMALS are not that much different from the chances of STOVL fighters so these modular ships might not be aircraft carriers in the western accepted sense... they might just be helicopter carriers and landing ships, while bigger vessels will be needed for fixed wing carrier aircraft.

    Thing is that if EMALs fails, they can still operate fighters from a large carrier it will just mean plans for AWACS need to be revised.

    With small carriers the STOVL aircraft goes ahead whether it is any good or if it is shit.

    They preferred the Su-33 over the MiG when given a choice.... they took the MiG when it was available because production was already paid for, but you think they will spend billions making a STOVL aircraft especially for 3-4 little carriers?

    Yeah, right...

    E) Dept MoD Borisov: since 2017 there i project VSTOL running to replace Su-33 and  MiG-29k

    No.

    There is a project to develop a light 5th gen fighter that will have STOL performance to allow its use on carriers... Borisov said it may have V meaning it may not... I rather suspect there will be competition where both or one might be a V fighter, but in practise it will be a STOVL fighter and never actually take off vertically except for airshows...

    Whether it makes it anywhere near service is another matter.

    F)  Dept MoD Borisov: spring 2019 there will be finalized competition of aircraft carrying ships design

    Which is no where near enough time to determine if it will have STOVL or STOL capabilities... which means it will need to be big, and a naval Su-57 will be needed too.

    Well, chief in comander of RuN said that they expect "amphibious ships with good attacks and defense abilities"  + Ulyanovsk was to be armed as cruiser - 12(16) Granits (depending on surce), 192 kinzhals, 8 CIWS + RGB, so nothing alike US CVs.

    The difference is that America has always relied on its air power to do everything... it is why they have little in the way of SAMs in their Army... their army expects to operate under a protective umbrella provided by its air force.

    The US Navy does not expect support from the USAF... it expects to operate under an umbrella of its own aircraft.

    The Russian Navy has no such history of being able to operate under its own air power, and the purpose of its carriers is to provide air cover for its ships.

    Attacking land targets was previously not of interest and only today with land attack missiles it is even less interested in using aircraft for that.

    No worries, leave to professionals - Borisov, Chermezov, Rakhmanov & Co - kid

    In the quotes you misrepresent as proving the new aircraft will be VSTOL clearly show the V is speculation even from the professionals you have such confidence in.

    The makers of the Yak-41 were professionals too...

    Big displacement is needed for LG tankers

    Throughout its construction it has said it is for large civilian ships and large military vessels too.

    ekhm,  nothing here is supported  by real world evidence.

    F-35s do not dare operate near the IADS in Syria with S-300 missiles... the IADS around a Russian carrier will be at least as formidible and consist of a much wider range of much more potent SAMs and aircraft...

    F-35 is not meaningless and so far 29k has virtually  chance against it. . MiG is adequate as long as there are no 5gen fighters around.  No modernization will make it 5gen fighter.

    5th gen is stealth, and with new radar technologies... including the already in use integration of radars operating in different bands (ie NEBO) that can be used with L band wing mounted AESA types, and a future of even more exotic photon based radars... do you really think the extremely expensive stealth performance of the F-35 will hold up?

    Opinion of Gen Bondaryev

    He has to be cautious... when Russia ends up with much better fighters than the US the money will be well spent... it is not like they are spending what the US is spending on defence or anything.

    well, how would you describe a person, who claims that he knows Russian military, financial and technological situation better then Russian MoD and OAK ? in short person climing that Russians kick started  the whole program without any risk, tech or cost/benefit assessment?

    You mean a person who bold face lies and claims they are developing VSTOL fighters, when the quote clearly only mentions V as a possibility...

    yeah, you can't really trust such a person...

    - The first unit of the Project 11437, Ulianovsk, was in production in Ukraine and was scrapped in 1992.

    They scrapped it because they would never need it and wanted to make sure Russia never got it...

    The value of scrapping it would get them peanuts compared with what Russia might have paid them... but screw them... Russia is better off starting a new design from scratch that takes into account the UKSK launchers and Redut etc etc and other new systems and sensors... and nuke propulsion.

    I'm a nice guy and wont remind you about those Liders that were already being build last years according to your "hard evidence".

    So no on the nice guy thing right?

    So what is written in stone? nothing, absolutely nothing. We need to wait.

    Hahahahahaha... you funny guy... we don't know and have to wait... but everyone else is wrong and you are right... you really know how to discuss...
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6636
    Points : 6626
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Isos on Sat Dec 29, 2018 9:40 am

    It has just upgraded its far east shipyard to handle ships up to 350KTs... why do you think they can't build large carriers?

    Because you need more than only a big shipyard. They theorically could but in practice it would costs them just as much as for US xarrier and more since they should do everything from the begining. It would involve hundreds of companies that would need investment to do something new and then they would need to pay for construction and then they would need to buy the planes.

    The light shtorm with pantsirs and why not some buk launcher and a catapult is possible but a big one is in my opinion not scheduled.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26622
    Points : 27160
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:37 am

    Because you need more than only a big shipyard.

    Well the Soviet Union managed to build one Kuznetsov carrier plus a second was being built and a single Ulyanovsk larger carrier was also started at Nikelayev in the Ukraine... which other big shipyard did they have at the time?

    And you can bet your ass that the Zvezda shipyard in the Far East will be much better equipped to build big ships...

    The light shtorm with pantsirs and why not some buk launcher and a catapult is possible but a big one is in my opinion not scheduled.

    Because they are not building western carriers... they are building Russian aircraft carrying cruisers that will have UKSK launchers and the full range of Redut missiles and S-500 missiles as well...
    avatar
    kumbor

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  kumbor on Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:46 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Because you need more than only a big shipyard.

    Well the Soviet Union managed to build one Kuznetsov carrier plus a second was being built and a single Ulyanovsk larger carrier was also started at Nikelayev in the Ukraine... which other big shipyard did they have at the time?

    And you can bet your ass that the Zvezda shipyard in the Far East will be much better equipped to build big ships...

    The light shtorm with pantsirs and why not some buk launcher and a catapult is possible but a big one is in my opinion not scheduled.

    Because they are not building western carriers... they are building Russian aircraft carrying cruisers that will have UKSK launchers and the full range of Redut missiles and S-500 missiles as well...

    Why then none of the proposed carriers have UKSK. Finally they thought up that carrier should be a carrier, not a variant of through-deck cruiser.
    eehnie
    eehnie

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  eehnie on Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:54 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:@eehne,

    mate, you can believe in whatever you want.  I believe only in things either  published in Rusan media as as an interview with top brass and/or MoD and official texts on MoD/Kremlin sites. I dont read blogs unless recognized ones (Bastion, BMPD). Not translations of translations but Russian sources.

    BTW "hard evidence" for you are plastic Su-57k from 2015 but official statement of deputy PM is weak and Kremlin strategy from 2018  is irrelevant thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup  
    ok for me, but this doesn't affect reality. I'm a nice guy and wont remind you about those Liders that were already being build last years according to your "hard evidence".



    Chronologically in February they said there is already  draft. Then in May that several "refined" projects will be submitted to MoD by end of 2018. If any of them will be chosen in 2019 R&D phase can start.  Some of them are ships of large displacements.  In December Rakmanov - we designed an universal "expeditionary ship" combining 4 functions: aircraft carrier, helo carrier and LHD + command ship.

    So what is written in stone? nothing, absolutely nothing. We need to wait.

    You are distorting the reality in a form that is not right. You rarely use sources, very rarely, and when you use them the result is a composition that has nothing to with the reality. I have been giving you the same Kremlin source about the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015. And when you see the head of the Russian Naval Aviation reciting almost literally the text of the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 only a few weeks ago in order to clarify the future of the Russian Naval Aviation, there is not doubt that the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 remains vigent.

    eehnie wrote:This is your composition, but not the reality. In fact your list ignores the most important facts:

    - The Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 is the most important strategic document vigent about the future of the Russian Navy. Everything else, including the document you mention in the point A are theoric developments of lower level, they are partial developments of the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015. In fact recently the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 has been recited to describe the plans for the Russian Naval Aviation.

    - The Russian Navy said they want aircraft carriers over 70000 tons. Clearly. The low limit has been stablished. There are not news about the high limit.

    - The Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 said the future Russian aircraft carriers must be multirole, and excludes explicitly the heavy cruiser aircraft carriers, like the project 11435 of the current generation and the Project 11437 (Ulyanovsk).

    - The Russian Navy announced that they will not purchase helicopter carriers.

    - The Russian Navy said they want amphibious ships without reference to the size.

    - There is a limit for the reception of projects of aircraft carriers, that expires with the end of 2018. It means 3 days to go.

    - By the spring of 2015 has been announced the final decission about the future aircraft carrier. One of the preliminary projects will be approved.

    - The necessary reform of the Russian Zvezda shipyard will be ready in agreement with the timeline necessary for a fast begin of the construction of the first ship of the project of aircraft carrier approved.

    - The reference to the future shipborne fighter of Russia, called later "Perspective Aviation Complex of Shipborne Aviation", and its timeline of 2030, were introduced in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015.

    - The Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 said the new shipborne fighter must be of a new generation. Said in 2015 it means 5th Generation. It excludes developments from previous generations like the (like the Yak-41/141, and every other STOVL development of Sovietic origin.


    Plus:

    - The alone Russian project of aircraft carrier over 70000 tons publicly known until now is the Project 23000 Shtorm. It was presented its export variant, the variant for the Russian Armed Forces will include changes, like nuclear propulsion and more.

    - There is a real projection about the use of the Su-57 as shipborne fighter, in the presence of the Su-57 in the presentation of the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carrier.

    - There is real evidence about mutual feedback in the development of the Project 23000 Shtorm and the Su-57. They are compatible.


    Instead:

    - The public references to a STOVL aircraft are very weak and very recent. If there is something, the work would be very recent. In doubt if can compatible with the timeline stablished until 2030.

    - The first unit of the Project 11437, Ulyanovsk, was in production in Ukraine at the end of the Soviet Union, and was scrapped in 1992. Full load 73400 tons.


    All your comments about heavy cruiser aircraft carriers are out of the Doctrine. There is nothing about the the Ulyanovsk aircraft carrier.

    All your comments about STOVL fighter based on the Yak-41/141 and other old developments are out of the doctrine.

    And we have 3 days to go. Only the projects of aircraft carrier that can be submitted to the Russian Ministry of Defense before the end of the year will be in the competition.
    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 and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:16 am

    GarryB wrote:
    you weren't a big fanboi of emals and Shtorm?
    Emals are necessary for AWACS platforms. Storm is too big.

    so 40kt is too small and 80-90 is too big now?! Suspect Suspect Suspect

    emals are only needed if AEW will be based on conventional platforms not tilt rotors, what we donk know yet. With "expeditionary ship" IMHO unlikely will be implemented.



    GB wrote:
    A) Kremlin, WWW, signed by Putin: Strategy 2030, points 44-46: there is shipborne aircraft carrying complex planned in 2030 strategy, no aircraft carrier mentioned.

    Yeah, and for the last 70 years you wont find designated marksman rifle or assault rifle mentioned by their army, yet you will find SVDs and AKs were developed... you just need to recognize that they use different terms from the west.

    SVD - S stands form sniper, V from rifle, in Russian there is term aircraft carrier - avianosec BTW



    GB wrote:
    B) Chief-In-Commander (CiC) of RuN aviation said:  aval AR expects to receive new Perspective Aviation Complex of Shipborne Aviation (so no word about MiG-29k nor Su-57k)

    And here we have the bending of the truth again.... you claim it is VSTOL, yet the actual quotes V is a mere possibility because he is not ruling it out, while you claim it is evidence and fact and therefore proof.

    Im not the one who is beginning here. It is so gay form your side. He said what he said. Nothing more nothing less. Check this interview before you start bending facts over lol1 lol1 lol1



    GB wrote:
    + all new ships will be modular and universal
    So no aircraft only ships... hence no mention of aircraft carriers... they will be aircraft carrying armed cruisers...

    looks like...


    GB wrote:
    D) Chief of USC Rakhmanov: one of our design bureaus make a design of universal "expeditionary" ship which includes LHS/Helo carrier/ aircraft Carrier. She' ll be modular

    (1) And can we both accept that the chances of EMALS are not that much different from the chances of STOVL fighters so these modular ships might not be aircraft carriers in the western accepted sense... they might just be helicopter carriers and landing ships, while bigger vessels will be needed for fixed wing carrier aircraft.

    (2) Thing is that if EMALs fails, they can still operate fighters from a large carrier it will just mean plans for AWACS need to be revised.

    (3) With small carriers the STOVL aircraft goes ahead whether it is any good or if it is shit.

    (4) They preferred the Su-33 over the MiG when given a choice.... they took the MiG when it was available because production was already paid for, but you think they will spend billions making a STOVL aircraft especially for 3-4 little carriers? [/quote]


    (1) - emals make sense only if AEW will be classic approach not stol drone/tiltrotor. Only sure thing is that AEW are planned. Nothing sure about EMALS only about VSTOL so far.

    I believe that if they decide to build large CVNs then they will be equipped with emals.


    (2) however it be AEW will be there. Some time ago Russians considered MiG-29k UB with powerful radar as "mini AWACS" , connecting with data links to other fighters.


    (3) true, but it is good thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup


    (4) if you extrapolate 90s now I'd say you might be right. But both tech now is 30 years ahead, moeny is in supply. Same with Su-30MKI - now Russians stopped new contracts, same with MiG-31 they atarted MiG-41 instead.

    Frankly speaking now in Russia there is only Su-57 perspective fighter available now. MiG-41 and VSTOL will follow - not as alternatives but IMHO complimentary niches.




    E) Dept MoD Borisov: since 2017 there i project VSTOL running to replace Su-33 and  MiG-29k
    There is a project to develop a light 5th gen fighter that will have STOL performance to allow its use on carriers... Borisov said it may have V meaning it may not... I rather suspect there will be competition where both or one might be a V fighter, but in practise it will be a STOVL fighter and never actually take off vertically except for airshows...
    Whether it makes it anywhere near service is another matter. [/quote]

    Well, he clearly stated V , of course without knowing from what vertical stands from. VSTOL with rolling starts anyway has ~00% shorter runaway due to lift engines and TVC. Landing is also shorter than arrested one.

    If it makes it way? it does of course, otherwise Russia remains without any deck fighter. They will make as many iterations as it takes to make it happen. Same as with PAK FA.




    GB wrote:
    F)  Dept MoD Borisov: spring 2019 there will be finalized competition of aircraft carrying ships design
    Which is no where near enough time to determine if it will have STOVL or STOL capabilities... which means it will need to be big, and a naval Su-57 will be needed too.

    if Su-57 would be an option the why to start a new programme? you dont need 10 years to add arresting hook. Especially that from start PAK FA till first flight it took 7 years.




    [quote=GB"]The Russian Navy has no such history of being able to operate under its own air power, and the purpose of its carriers is to provide air cover for its ships.

    Attacking land targets was previously not of interest and only today with land attack missiles it is even less interested in using aircraft for that. [/quote]


    approach is strongly influenced by resources and then doctrine. Russians are better off fighting with CSGs then with hundreds of fighters. US deck aviation is ~1000 fighters, Russian whole AF is good when reaches 700 ones... confronting fighter to fighter you never win. That's why all those GZURs/Kizhals/Zircons.

    IMHO this in this or another way this would be a revival of TAKR concept tome.


    BTW Similarly that's why Russians build Su-57 which is worse in stealth characteristics than US counterparts? but much better in STOL, range an agility. Because it to defend area at first not to sneak-attack.


    GB wrote:
    No worries, leave to professionals - Borisov, Chermezov, Rakhmanov & Co - kid
    In the quotes you misrepresent as proving the new aircraft will be VSTOL clearly show the V is speculation even from the professionals you have such confidence in.

    kudos, its must be sooo hard to be a one multidimesional prodigy in land of flat money counting people thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
    Russian MoD wants to know your location geek geek geek



    GB wrote:
    Big displacement is needed for LG tankers
    Throughout its construction it has said it is for large civilian ships and large military vessels too.

    sure, they can even build soy sauce LG tankers with emals, if there is money and need



    GB wrote:
    ekhm,  nothing here is supported  by real world evidence.

    F-35s do not dare operate near the IADS in Syria with S-300 missiles... the IADS around a Russian carrier will be at least as formidible and consist of a much wider range of much more potent SAMs and aircraft..
    .

    same true as Su-57 dodnt dare to operate because of F-18 and Iron dome. You mix direct bombing with stealth application to me. Newest Us ideas is to have 1,600km range stealth missiles. You dont need to be stealth carrier to launch them. It will be beyond any S-500 range.



    GB wrote:
    F-35 is not meaningless and so far 29k has virtually  chance against it. . MiG is adequate as long as there are no 5gen fighters around.  No modernization will make it 5gen fighter.

    5th gen is stealth, and with new radar technologies... including the already in use integration of radars operating in different bands (ie NEBO) that can be used with L band wing mounted AESA types, and a future of even more exotic photon based radars... do you really think the extremely expensive stealth performance of the F-35 will hold up?

    either you mix reality with sci-fi or you are talkinhg about Su-57 then in the future not about MiG-29k. MiG has no AESA, no L bank radar too. nothing is planned so far. Existing zhuk can it can detect 3m2 RCS from 120-130km.

    RCS of F-35 is more less 0,01m2. There is no NEBO mounted on RuN.

    Su-57 is how many 12 net yes till 2023? F-35 is already more than 300.





    Opinion of Gen Bondaryev

    He has to be cautious... when Russia ends up with much better fighters than the US the money will be well spent... it is not like they are spending what the US is spending on defence or anything.



    GB wrote:
    well, how would you describe a person, who claims that he knows Russian military, financial and technological situation better then Russian MoD and OAK ? in short person climing that Russians kick started  the whole program without any risk, tech or cost/benefit assessment?

    You mean a person who bold face lies and claims they are developing VSTOL fighters, when the quote clearly only mentions V as a possibility...

    if you cannot discuss things but instead of argument start to make personal rants then I am talking to 6yo fanboi with judge dread complex.
    Everybody has heard what Borisov said. in 2017 and 2018

    And you can believe whatever you want thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup , even in plastic model shtorm with plastic su-57k as definitive proof . Clearly this gives you same credibility as burned runways and flying concrete slabs. lol1 lol1 lol1




    GB wrote:
    So what is written in stone? nothing, absolutely nothing. We need to wait.
    Hahahahahaha... you funny guy... we don't know and have to wait... but everyone else is wrong and you are right... you really know how to discuss...
    [/quote]

    fo course I am, because I listen to Russian MoD not to plastic models. VSTOL, universal carriers are happening in reality not in pastic so far. its enough to listne to M?oD and look at numbers.

    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 and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:20 am

    eehnie wrote:

    You are distorting the reality in a form that is not right. You rarely use sources, very rarely, and when you use them the result is a composition that has nothing to with the reality. I have been giving you the same Kremlin source about the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015. And when you see the head of the Russian Naval Aviation reciting almost literally the text of the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 only a few weeks ago in order to clarify the future of the Russian Naval Aviation, there is not doubt that the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 remains vigent.

    meh,better just you send me your only reliable sources-not-distorting-reality lol1 lol1 lol1


    So far I saw only docs I've mentioned. Links to you doctrine where is written shtorm. Original please . No rainbow needed

    No reiterating about tens of Liders in shipyards this time either.


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:25 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 and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:23 am

    kumbor wrote:

    Why then none of the proposed carriers have UKSK. Finally they thought up that carrier should be a carrier, not a variant of through-deck cruiser.

    That we dont know, we saw only 2 shtorm (actually slightly modernized Ulyanovsk) and this small ship with big deck . Nobody even said that this controversial small CV form Krylov is even in competition. There are more according to MoD. Otherwise they said 2 not several.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2289
    Points : 2289
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:24 am

    I saw at paralay.com the info about the Sukhoi S-56. They apparently planned to make it ultra-compact for carrier operations by making two folds on the wings and besides, making the landing gear capable of lowering the airframe so that hangars would be lower. I don't know if that approach with the undercarriage was the case really, but based in what I know it could be possible.

    In case it was adapted to the Su-57, wouldn't it allow to pack more planes in the same carrier, without even needing to develop wing folds in the plane? One plane would be stored next to the other, but lower by using the special landing gear, so the wings would be at different heights and planes could be parked much closer together.

    It may sound crazy and it may not be feasible in the end, but IMHO it would be better to modify the landing gear in that way than affecting the weight and the overload capabilities of a 5G plane which is intended to have extreme agility and dynamic performance for many decades to come as the Su-57Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 S-56-l10

    Sponsored content

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 19 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:51 am