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


    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 495
    Points : 525
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  mnztr on Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:58 am

    GarryB wrote:

    Not really... the sort of mini carriers they talk about... essentially 20K to 30K modified helicopter carriers... you can't launch something like a Hornet from them... even with cats... you would have to take Harriers or F-35Cs. Despite the presence of a catapult it takes distance to get a heavier aircraft airborne and it also takes distance to land them.



    Why pick De Gaulle? The Rafale is not a big fighter. At 42K tons it is on the small size, but at 261m long it is rather bigger than the modified helicopter carriers the VSTOL zealots suggest be used.... but I think the Kuznetsov at 55K tons normal load with Su-33s without a catapult is rather more impressive.

    A 30K ton ship can probably operate an air wing of 8 heavy fighters, which is really a pretty massive amount of fire power. Maybe 20 aircraft in total

    That is bloody useless... that is barely enough to keep two fighters in the air 24/7... and what about AWACS?

    Would be worse than useless... it could barely protect itself let alone the ships it was operating with...

    50% the cost of a real ship and 5% of the capacity... waste of money and time.

    An enemy attacking your carrier group is going to send more than one plane to attack you... probably four flights of four aircraft at a bare minimum... how are your fighters going to deal with that?

    Catapults only need less then 100m to launch a fully loaded plane. A 220m carrier can easily deal with that and launch any plane a US carrier can. Rafale has a payload of 9.5T, which is pretty damn impressive. A Carrier cannot defend itself fully, which is why they operate in a group. A Nimitz class carrier cannot defend itself from a full bore attach from TU-22's, which is why they have thrown in the towel in that. Having the ability to launch 8-10 fighter with 8T of ordinance is an enormous capability. I really doubt the 23900 will cost 50% of the 5-7B of a US carrier. It will probably cost about 1B. If the US ever attacks it, Russia will find a way to sink a US carrier in retaliation. Rafale is 25T MTOW, and 9.5T payload, that is REALLY impressive.

    The F18 has a 30T MTOW and only 8T of payload. So yes, with a CAT the 23900 can operate these types of planes. AWACs will be drones.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 338
    Points : 344
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  marcellogo on Sun Aug 30, 2020 8:55 am

    Sorry to say that, mnztr but your post show an about complete ignorance about decisive aspect of naval construction and warfare.

    So yes, with a CAT the 23900 can operate these types of planes. AWACs will be drones you said.

    Ok, let's install it on a Rogov, not needing much to do it.
    Once done there will be just a little problem to solve: where is the steam needed to make it work?

    Or, in alternative, the enormous electric generation capability needed to operate EMALS, something that even a Ford class struggle to obtain and that Chinese have renounced to pursue for the same reason.

    In any case, no matter the system you use to launch them, Catobar, Stobar, Stovl, LPDs and planes didn't mingle well at all, cause to the conflicting requirement between the two.
    Landing ships requires a LOT of free space and a LOT of autonomy at cruise speed to fulfill their main role and usually this is obtained using a Diesel only propulsion and azimuthal podded shaft.
    Carrier need instead to have a consistent speed in order to launch planes with enough payload to be worth of the effort.
    At MINIMUM it implies gas turbines (and powerful ones) and a conventional shaft arrangement that will eat out a lot of space (compared yo the one on LPD).

    Just compare said minimum i.e. the smallest carrier able to operate a modern (STOVL) plane with a Mistral i.e. a typical modern LPD.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Cavour
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral-class_amphibious_assault_ship

    Please, concentrate here on cost and propulsion system.

    Having both?
    Closest you can go is still to be completed:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_landing_helicopter_dock_Trieste

    And no, despite being larger and of about the same cost it would not be neither close to Cavour for what it came both number and performance of planes launched from it.

    To close the circle, let's compare the Minimum with this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikrant_(2013)

    Same propulsion system (although way different cost but this due to due to Indian shipyard messing around) .
    And it was absolutely not a coincidence:
    Fincantieri provided consultancy for the propulsion package while Russia's Nevskoye Design Bureau designed the aviation complex. (from Wiki)



    GarryB likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25917
    Points : 26463
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 30, 2020 11:29 am

    K is a joke compare to De Gaulle.

    Rafale is the best fighter right now in the world specially the naval version. It takes lot of space on a carrier however because no folding wings.

    But it is an obsolete 4th gen fighter... 5th gen fighters will rip it a new one... isn't that the problem with the MiG-35?

    De Gaulles carrier is perfect IMO. It carries one type of fighter, 2 AWACS and has aster-15 for self defence.De Gaulles carrier is perfect IMO. It carries one type of fighter, 2 AWACS and has aster-15 for self defence.

    So perfect the UK wants to borrow them so they don't need to pay for another carrier of their own...

    Too small.

    Pantsir-SM has better range than Aster-15... and will be much much cheaper...

    K is made with lot of "too much". Too much of missiles, too much of helicopters.

    Because they are more interesting in having a weapon of war that can deal with enemy subs, and defend itself from the mighty air power of HATO.

    Murdering African leaders and turning their countries into chaotic hellholes is what the French are best at, and for that you only need a few Rafales...

    And not enough of fighters and space for them. Su-33 is also totally outdated and doesn't stand a chance against modern fighters like rafale M.

    On their own you are probably right, but the Su-33 is operating within the cover of an IADS that will include all sorts of new missiles and weapons... I don't think it will be as clear cut as you seem to think... in a few years one Russian Corvette could kill any HATO carrier... do you think their fighters could do anything about that? What is the Rafales performance against Mach 10 objects at 50km altitude?

    The ski jump also limits its payload.

    The Ski Jump does nothing of the sort.

    Heavy planes like transports and AWACS planes can't use it, but most fighters benefit from a ski jump.

    They made it as a carrier + cruiser + ASW heli carrier when it should have been only a carrier.

    Rubbish. It has nothing like the large long range SAMs needed to be a cruiser... and you might get three Rafales in the space for the Granit Anti ship missiles...

    The actual location of the Granit launchers means even if they remove them they wouldn't be able to do much with the space anyway... it is already firewalled off... they might use it as a magazine for air to air missiles perhaps with a small lift at one end to bring them on to the deck.

    Its propulsion is also a joke. Soviet/russians mastered nuclear propulsion for decade and they should have given it to the K. They were stupid on this decision.

    Its propulsion is fine. Not amazing, but not super expensive either.

    Imagine trying to downplay Rafale cause of your bias.

    They are not an option for the Russian AF so why should I care about them?

    Even if they bought some and paid they wouldn't get delivered... Paris would find an excuse...

    Don't like the F-35 either, but more because it is actually a dog.

    Catapults only need less then 100m to launch a fully loaded plane.

    I know they do, but landing heavy plans on an aircraft carrier is something else... an Su-33 wouldn't fit on the Gorshkov... even with cats.

    Rafale has a payload of 9.5T, which is pretty damn impressive.

    Yeah... most of that will be external fuel...

    A Carrier cannot defend itself fully, which is why they operate in a group.

    Funny, you talk about an aircraft carrier like there is only one type...

    A Nimitz class carrier cannot defend itself from a full bore attach from TU-22's, which is why they have thrown in the towel in that.

    If the Tu-22Ms you are talking about are carrying Kh-32s I doubt any carrier could withstand that... that is their point.

    Having the ability to launch 8-10 fighter with 8T of ordinance is an enormous capability.

    No it is not... if you want to sink ships 1,000km away from your carrier sending subsonic Rafales loaded up with fuel and bombs and missiles to defend themselves is one option. The Russian method is that the aircraft on the carrier will operate with AAMs only and defend the fleet and Zircon missiles will sink the ships at mach 10...

    I really doubt the 23900 will cost 50% of the 5-7B of a US carrier. It will probably cost about 1B.

    The Admiral Gorshkov the Russians sold to India was 2.4 billion including the airgroup of MiG-29KR fighters and Ka-31 AEW helicopters. To put Rafales on it it would cost 8 billion just to buy 36 aircraft. F-35Cs are not cheaper.

    Yeah, I reckon the Russians can do aircraft carriers cheaper than the US can... and BTW the Ford class is closer to 14 billion and counting and it still does not work.

    If the US ever attacks it, Russia will find a way to sink a US carrier in retaliation.

    To make a point they could probably pick a few ships to sink, but a genuine attack should warrant sinking everything they can reach...

    Rafale is 25T MTOW, and 9.5T payload, that is REALLY impressive.

    The A-4 Skyhawk (also a carrier aircraft) has a payload capacity of almost 4T, which is even more impressive considering its empty weight is less than 4.5 tons... MTOW of just over 11 tons...

    Payload weights can sound interesting but most planes actually struggle to reach max weapon loads with most weapons.

    With a full load of AAMs and a centreline jamming pod most fighters would struggle to carry more than 3 tons...

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6183
    Points : 6175
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  Isos on Sun Aug 30, 2020 11:55 am

    But it is an obsolete 4th gen fighter... 5th gen fighters will rip it a new one... isn't that the problem with the MiG-35?

    That's the best carrier based fighter right now and they have the carrier and the jets.

    Mig-35 is produced in 2 samples. If Russia builds a carrier they will get it in 15 years and mig-35 will be totally obsolete because at that time France will be getting naval SCAF.

    Looking how the K + mig-29 did in Syria makes it it look even worse. 4 deployed on the ship and they lost one because of shitty equipement.

    So perfect the UK wants to borrow them so they don't need to pay for another carrier of their own...

    Too small.

    Pantsir-SM has better range than Aster-15... and will be much much cheaper...

    I don't get what you mean with UK. Their carrier don't even have the f-35 operational. They are more like heli carrier. UK can't have both because they can't have a navy able to defend its shores let alone a carrier in the pacific.

    Pantsir or aster doesn't matter. It's just for self defence and a carrier is always protected by a big ship with AD and cruise missiles. That's why they don't need to put plenty of missiles on them.

    Because they are more interesting in having a weapon of war that can deal with enemy subs, and defend itself from the mighty air power of HATO.

    I agree K was build for soviet doctrine. But it is long gone and the granit is outdated and pretty much all the plateforl that used to carry it will stop using it.

    A modern cruise can have 80 uksk cells so no need to put more on a carrier.

    in a few years one Russian Corvette could kill any HATO carrier... do you think their fighters could do anything about that? What is the Rafales performance against Mach 10 objects at 50km altitude?

    West is also developing such weapons. And both will cole up with a solution to destroy them.

    Anyway I don't think carrier are made for WW3. They are good to project power where you can't send ground force. But they are also good for reccon.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1941
    Points : 1941
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  LMFS on Sun Aug 30, 2020 12:18 pm

    Why are we discussing carriers in the UDK thread? pirat
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25917
    Points : 26463
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 30, 2020 1:16 pm

    Mig-35 is produced in 2 samples. If Russia builds a carrier they will get it in 15 years and mig-35 will be totally obsolete because at that time France will be getting naval SCAF.

    But Russia doesn't have any natives to bully yet... and the MiG-29M2 now is nothing like the MiG-29M from the 1980s so can we also guess that a MiG-35 from 15 years time wont be the same as it is now either?

    Looking how the K + mig-29 did in Syria makes it it look even worse. 4 deployed on the ship and they lost one because of shitty equipement.

    Yeah, but their job wasn't to murder the local leader and turn a functioning largely peaceful country into a shithole that is easier to steal oil from, so it didn't really effect the outcome.

    In the report I remember they said they completed about 1300 sorties and did all sorts of testing... mostly from land bases but they planned and managed the missions from the carrier, so it was still quite useful despite the problems with the arrester gear.

    I don't get what you mean with UK. Their carrier don't even have the f-35 operational. They are more like heli carrier. UK can't have both because they can't have a navy able to defend its shores let alone a carrier in the pacific.

    Didn't the UK ask if they could borrow a carrier in case of need so they didn't need to buy three carriers of their own... they don't have enough decent sized ships to escort the ones they have so a third carrier is never going to happen and the second one was iffy.

    Pantsir or aster doesn't matter. It's just for self defence and a carrier is always protected by a big ship with AD and cruise missiles. That's why they don't need to put plenty of missiles on them.

    But in 15 years time I really don't think a threat to a carrier is going to be one subsonic low flying missile...

    But that is fine.... the British were surprised by a French weapon in the Falklands they thought they knew inside out, but there are no countries buying low flying anti ship missiles from Russia or China with even better performance than that... I am sure a couple of missiles will be fine... Wink

    All the SAMs on the Kuznetsov are located around the edges of the ship where aircraft could not be carried instead... they have lots of anti ship missiles and realise a big ship is a missile magnet... an an important target for the enemy to take down as it dramatically reduces the air defence capacity of the surface group.

    But it is long gone and the granit is outdated and pretty much all the plateforl that used to carry it will stop using it.

    On the Oscar subs that carried the Granits they put three Onyx missile tubes in each Granit tube... 24 on Oscar class sub for 72 missiles... so 36 if they wanted to on the Kuznetsov... or perhaps 24 or more Zircon if they want instead. Go on... tell me 24 Mach 10 Hypersonic 1,000km plus range anti ship missiles is a waste of space...

    Russia just does things differently.

    A modern cruise can have 80 uksk cells so no need to put more on a carrier.

    It can, but that cruiser can use those 80 UKSK launch tubes to attack all sorts of targets itself if the Kuznetsov has its own and can use its own helicopters to find targets that it could then launch mach 2.5 40km range ballistic rockets with torpedoes mounted on them to engage submarines for itself.

    They could also take the time to develop much bigger missiles to reach even further especially for carriers...


    West is also developing such weapons. And both will cole up with a solution to destroy them.

    But the Rafale is the best forever and that will not change?

    Anyway I don't think carrier are made for WW3. They are good to project power where you can't send ground force. But they are also good for reccon.

    When you can send a ground force surely that operation and the ships providing support and the actual ground force need air cover.

    Don't ships and subs always become rather harder to deal with when they have air cover as well?

    I would think the IADS of Russia would be rather weaker if they didn't add aircraft... both fighters and AWACS platforms to go to areas of attack to improve defences during attacks, and of course long range missiles that damage any forces that are attacking to make attacking Russia a much more costly exercise than for example attacking targets in Syria or Libya or Kosovo.

    Why are we discussing carriers in the UDK thread?

    Some people think a modified helicopter carrier is the best solution for air power and that a few VSTOL fighters is all it needs to do the same job as a Charles De Gaul, or a Nimitz class carrier...
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6183
    Points : 6175
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  Isos on Sun Aug 30, 2020 1:42 pm

    Yeah, but their job wasn't to murder the local leader and turn a functioning largely peaceful country into a shithole that is easier to steal oil from, so it didn't really effect the outcome.

    Yes it was. You can hardly do anything else than kill with bombs and missiles.

    Didn't the UK ask if they could borrow a carrier in case of need so they didn't need to buy three carriers of their own... they don't have enough decent sized ships to escort the ones they have so a third carrier is never going to happen and the second one was iffy.

    First time I heard that. dunno

    On the Oscar subs that carried the Granits they put three Onyx missile tubes in each Granit tube... 24 on Oscar class sub for 72 missiles... so 36 if they wanted to on the Kuznetsov... or perhaps 24 or more Zircon if they want instead. Go on... tell me 24 Mach 10 Hypersonic 1,000km plus range anti ship missiles is a waste of space...

    That's not happening.

    If your Zirkon is so good that you need only two destroy a US carrier, why do you need hundreds of them. Use few of them to destroy the carriers and the airports and use the planes to bomb the enemy with dumb bombs.

    Russia is also getting those helicopter carrier and they will face new anti ship missiles of west that is also working on hypersonic missiles. They are also a waste of time according to your logic.

    But in 15 years time I really don't think a threat to a carrier is going to be one subsonic low flying missile...

    That's true for russian ships too... and looking at how their athm failed miserably durig an expo, they certainly don't have the Pk they say fir their AD systems.

    It can, but that cruiser can use those 80 UKSK launch tubes to attack all sorts of targets itself if the Kuznetsov has its own and can use its own helicopters to find targets that it could then launch mach 2.5 40km range ballistic rockets with torpedoes mounted on them to engage submarines for itself.

    If the sub is really attacking the carrier, your carrier will be already dead if it has to launch a torpedo missile 40km away...

    If you need missiles in huge number you use a SSGN or an arsenal ship.

    Don't ships and subs always become rather harder to deal with when they have air cover as well?

    Yes if they have a decent air cover. Which means not spending half of your money on a monstruosity like US carrier but also giving that carrier a good amount of real fighters.

    K is more a helicopter carrier than a real aircraft carrier as of now.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 495
    Points : 525
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  mnztr on Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:28 pm

    marcellogo wrote:Sorry to say that, mnztr but your post show an about complete ignorance about decisive aspect of naval construction and warfare.

    So yes, with a CAT the 23900 can operate these types of planes. AWACs will be drones you said.

    Ok, let's install it on a Rogov, not needing much to do it.
    Once done there will  be just a little problem to solve: where is the steam needed to make it work?

    Or, in alternative, the enormous electric generation capability needed to operate EMALS, something that even a Ford class struggle to obtain and that Chinese have renounced to pursue for the same reason.

    In any case, no matter the system you use to launch them, Catobar, Stobar, Stovl, LPDs and planes didn't mingle well at all, cause to the conflicting requirement between the two.
    Landing ships requires a LOT of free space and a LOT of autonomy at cruise speed to fulfill their main role and usually this is obtained using a Diesel only propulsion and azimuthal podded shaft.
    Carrier need instead to have a consistent speed in order to launch planes with enough payload to be worth of the effort.
    At MINIMUM it implies gas turbines (and powerful ones) and a conventional shaft arrangement that will eat out a lot of space (compared yo the one on LPD).

    Just compare said minimum i.e. the smallest carrier able to operate a modern (STOVL) plane with a Mistral i.e. a typical modern LPD.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Cavour
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral-class_amphibious_assault_ship

    Please, concentrate here on cost and propulsion system.

    Having both?
    Closest you can go is still to be completed:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_landing_helicopter_dock_Trieste

    And no, despite being larger and of about the same cost it would not be neither close to Cavour for what it came both number and performance of planes launched from it.

    To close the circle, let's compare the Minimum with this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikrant_(2013)

    Same propulsion system (although way different cost but this due to due to Indian shipyard messing around) .
    And it was absolutely not a coincidence:
    Fincantieri provided consultancy for the propulsion package while Russia's Nevskoye Design Bureau designed the aviation complex. (from Wiki)

    I think it is you that does not understand this stuff well. The CAT would have to be emals of course unless they go with nuclear propulsion. EMALS uses centrifugal accumulators so you really do not need a massive generator, you only need to provide for the cycle time you desire. The plan is to have HELOs on the ship, is a jet fighter going to some how take up 10x the space of a HELO? I would never propose mixing STOVL Planes and CATOBAR, you pick one, and go with it. If they can develop an EMALS, then its possible, if not STOVOL Is  the only option. The Chinese have one (they claim) perhaps the Russians can license or steal it to save some time. These ships are most likely to have COGAG propulsion, with COGOG you can often use the Turbine exhaust to generate electicity. EMALS requires only 134 KWh to launch the heaviest plane, but that has to be delivered in under 3 sec. The net total power is really not that much. A 10MW generator can launch 74 planes an hour. Simple math. We are talking less then 4000 kilos for a 10 mw apu set. Less  then 1 min between launches. If you want to just overbuild the ships genset to provision for this, or use the exhaust heat from the engines (you will be at full speed when launching) then the weight increase is trivial. The US went with this technology for very good and sound reasons (unusual for them I know) even though like most US projects it was a really botched development.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 495
    Points : 525
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  mnztr on Sun Aug 30, 2020 7:43 pm

    GarryB wrote:


    Catapults only need less then 100m to launch a fully loaded plane.

    I know they do, but landing heavy plans on an aircraft carrier is something else... an Su-33 wouldn't fit on the Gorshkov... even with cats.

    Rafale has a payload of 9.5T, which is pretty damn impressive.

    Yeah... most of that will be external fuel...

    A Carrier cannot defend itself fully, which is why they operate in a group.

    Funny, you talk about an aircraft carrier like there is only one type...

    A Nimitz class carrier cannot defend itself from a full bore attach from TU-22's, which is why they have thrown in the towel in that.

    If the Tu-22Ms you are talking about are carrying Kh-32s I doubt any carrier could withstand that... that is their point.

    Having the ability to launch 8-10 fighter with 8T of ordinance is an enormous capability.

    No it is not... if you want to sink ships 1,000km away from your carrier sending subsonic Rafales loaded up with fuel and bombs and missiles to defend themselves is one option. The Russian method is that the aircraft on the carrier will operate with AAMs only and defend the fleet and Zircon missiles will sink the ships at mach 10...

    I really doubt the 23900 will cost 50% of the 5-7B of a US carrier. It will probably cost about 1B.

    The Admiral Gorshkov the Russians sold to India was 2.4 billion including the airgroup of MiG-29KR fighters and Ka-31 AEW helicopters. To put Rafales on it it would cost 8 billion just to buy 36 aircraft. F-35Cs are not cheaper.

    Yeah, I reckon the Russians can do aircraft carriers cheaper than the US can... and BTW the Ford class is closer to 14 billion and counting and it still does not work.

    If the US ever attacks it, Russia will find a way to sink a US carrier in retaliation.

    To make a point they could probably pick a few ships to sink, but a genuine attack should warrant sinking everything they can reach...

    Rafale is 25T MTOW, and 9.5T payload, that is REALLY impressive.

    The A-4 Skyhawk (also a carrier aircraft) has a payload capacity of almost 4T, which is even more impressive considering its empty weight is less than 4.5 tons...  MTOW of just over 11 tons...

    Payload weights can sound interesting but most planes actually struggle to reach max weapon loads with most weapons.

    With a full load of AAMs and a centreline jamming pod most fighters would struggle to carry more than 3 tons...


    Ok its clear you don't like the French. Why would you load up the Rafale with fuel if the mission does not demand it. ANy criticism you level at this plane renders any carrier useless as the F-18E has an inferior range/payload to Rafale.

    Skyhawk has much less capability then Rafale, and no value in fleet defence either.Just a bomb truck. The primary role of the ship is amphibious assault, therefore the sortie range would not need to be that great. Sattellite intelligence can inform of any looming threats as well as other ships, drones can be radar pickets. If needed in a high threat environment you can deploy 4 of these, then you have 40 fighters with each ship costing 1B that is just about half the cost of a single Nimitz class.

    The Russians could deploy MIG-35 on these, very useful 7T of payload. Really 3T of payload with modern weapons and good radius is extremely useful. 10 planes 30T in one strike. 4 sorties if its close enough, then you have 120T of ordinance on target. That is 3 TU-160 payloads.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6183
    Points : 6175
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  Isos on Sun Aug 30, 2020 9:15 pm

    Rafale also enjoy a much small rcs, more hardpoints and better ones because they can put 3 guided bombs on 1. Bad point is that it carries only 1 exocet.

    Mig 35 isn't a bad aircraft either but it's still not produced and is just an improved mig-29.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 495
    Points : 525
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  mnztr on Sun Aug 30, 2020 10:01 pm

    Isos wrote:Rafale also enjoy a much small rcs, more hardpoints and better ones because they can put 3 guided bombs on 1. Bad point is that it carries only 1 exocet.

    Mig 35 isn't a bad aircraft either but it's still not produced and is just an improved mig-29.

    How many countries would the Mig-35 be ineffctive against in a naval strike, air support or air defence, anti-ship role. Answer is very very few. Also to counter it the opponent would have to mass much more airpower at THAT location, which is also a challange. Even the USA with its mega carriers would have to have a carrier within close range to counter such a ship. Its a big ocean, not that easy.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 338
    Points : 344
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  marcellogo on Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:52 am

    mnztr wrote:

    I think it is you that does not understand this stuff well. The CAT would have to be emals of course unless they go with nuclear propulsion. EMALS uses centrifugal accumulators so you really do not need a massive generator, you only need to provide for the cycle time you desire. The plan is to have HELOs on the ship, is a jet fighter going to some how take up 10x the space of a HELO? I would never propose mixing STOVL Planes and CATOBAR, you pick one, and go with it. If they can develop an EMALS, then its possible, if not STOVOL Is  the only option. The Chinese have one (they claim) perhaps the Russians can license or steal it to save some time. . EMALS requires only 134 KWh to launch the heaviest plane, but that has to be delivered in under 3 sec. The net total power is really not that much. A 10MW generator can launch 74 planes an hour. Simple math. We are talking less then 4000 kilos for a 10 mw apu set. Less  then 1 min between launches. If you want to just overbuild the ships genset to provision for this, or use the exhaust heat from the engines (you will be at full speed when launching) then the weight increase is trivial. The US went with this technology for very good and sound reasons (unusual for them I know) even though like most US projects it was a really botched development.

    Man, as for now EMALS CAT are experimenting a lot of problems, Ford has had a lot of delay and cost overrun, Chinese are reconsidering about installing them on their future carrier.
    It's everything than a settled issue  and be sure that they would not install them on a ship of about 200/250 meters length as Mistral and Ivan Rogov (or even Trieste although the immensely more sophisticated propulsion system it carry compared to them ).

    These ships are most likely to have COGAG propulsion, with COGOG you can often use the Turbine exhaust to generate electicity,

    WHAAAATT????????????? Ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah ,sorry but I have to confirm my previous judgement, you seriously have a great ignorance for what it come to naval matters. No one use gas turbines to generate electricity on a ship anymore by decades, even Burkes that still use a COGAG has separate diesel generators, and the necessity adequate them to the power output needed to operate DEW and the new Aesa radars was one of the reason for developing the Block 3 upgrade.

    Gas turbines are already not at all fuel efficient  in their main (if not just unique) role of providing the raw power necessary to reach top speed, they absolutely sucks in generating electricity compared to diesels and Steam engines (unless you put a reduction gear larger than the turbine itself).

    The one about HELO, sorry but I have some difficulties to understand.
    What means that a plane take 10X  the space of an HELO?
    First question: what's is an HELO? In case you mean helicopter,
    the abbreviation is helo not HELO (all capital letters words are for acronyms).

    Second one: where I ever said that a plane take in an hangar the space of ten helicopters?

    Please, read back my post; for real this time.

    It was never the space occupied in the hangar what I was talking about: it is the additional space that the propulsion system and above all the conventional shaft arrangement (needed to operate with gas turbines) of a 28/30knt capable aircraft carrier will require when compared to the 21/23 knots capable Diesel one and the associated electrically powered podded shaft of a typical LPD or LHC that will end up into eating half of the hangar you possibly can have on the latter design, not the place a thing instead of the other will take into said space.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 495
    Points : 525
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  mnztr on Mon Aug 31, 2020 3:40 am

    Wow you really live in the dark ages:

    https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/discover/2017/power-surge-ag9160.aspx

    RR Turbine gensets in 70 US Destroyers already.

    Turbines are NOT less efficient then diesels. In fact the most efficient thermal power stations are combined cycle gas turbine plants. COGOG is propulsion, such as on the Udaloy class.

    Propulsion for this class is not yet announced, but with Russian navy history I doubt they have the capability to produce large diesels that these ships would require, nor would steam turbines be desireable, although they do need to maintain this capability for their nuclear fleet. AZIPODS - don't have the tech. So Gas Turbines seem the most logical. Gas turbines are more compact then diesels by far.

    You said planes would take up too much space, point I was making is they would be not much larger then KA-52's M-17s either.

    HELO and helo mean the same thing. HELLO is a different word.

    EMALS has been certified operational, China has announced it is going with EMALS for their 3rd carrier or for their next LPD. We shall see. Russia has deployed neither and unless this ship has boilers and steam turbines, its not practical. If they were to develop something EMALS has a lot more practical application. For example EM cannons.

    Turbines are only inefficient at low or partial load. So you use a very small APU for hotel loads that just meets the ships demand, and a larger one for flight ops. They are all very small and compact.


    marcellogo wrote:
    mnztr wrote:

    I think it is you that does not understand this stuff well. The CAT would have to be emals of course unless they go with nuclear propulsion. EMALS uses centrifugal accumulators so you really do not need a massive generator, you only need to provide for the cycle time you desire. The plan is to have HELOs on the ship, is a jet fighter going to some how take up 10x the space of a HELO? I would never propose mixing STOVL Planes and CATOBAR, you pick one, and go with it. If they can develop an EMALS, then its possible, if not STOVOL Is  the only option. The Chinese have one (they claim) perhaps the Russians can license or steal it to save some time. . EMALS requires only 134 KWh to launch the heaviest plane, but that has to be delivered in under 3 sec. The net total power is really not that much. A 10MW generator can launch 74 planes an hour. Simple math. We are talking less then 4000 kilos for a 10 mw apu set. Less  then 1 min between launches. If you want to just overbuild the ships genset to provision for this, or use the exhaust heat from the engines (you will be at full speed when launching) then the weight increase is trivial. The US went with this technology for very good and sound reasons (unusual for them I know) even though like most US projects it was a really botched development.

    Man, as for now EMALS CAT are experimenting a lot of problems, Ford has had a lot of delay and cost overrun, Chinese are reconsidering about installing them on their future carrier.
    It's everything than a settled issue  and be sure that they would not install them on a ship of about 200/250 meters length as Mistral and Ivan Rogov (or even Trieste although the immensely more sophisticated propulsion system it carry compared to them ).

    These ships are most likely to have COGAG propulsion, with COGOG you can often use the Turbine exhaust to generate electicity,

    WHAAAATT????????????? Ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah,ah ,sorry but I have to confirm my previous judgement, you seriously have a great ignorance for what it come to naval matters. No one use gas turbines to generate electricity on a ship anymore by decades, even Burkes that still use a COGAG has separate diesel generators, and the necessity adequate them to the power output needed to operate DEW and the new Aesa radars was one of the reason for developing the Block 3 upgrade.

    Gas turbines are already not at all fuel efficient  in their main (if not just unique) role of providing the raw power necessary to reach top speed, they absolutely sucks in generating electricity compared to diesels and Steam engines (unless you put a reduction gear larger than the turbine itself).

    The one about HELO, sorry but I have some difficulties to understand.
    What means that a plane take 10X  the space of an HELO?
    First question: what's is an HELO? In case you mean helicopter,
    the abbreviation is helo not HELO (all capital letters words are for acronyms).

    Second one: where I ever said that a plane take in an hangar the space of ten helicopters?

    Please, read back my post; for real this time.

    It was never the space occupied in the hangar what I was talking about: it is the additional space that the propulsion system and above all the conventional shaft arrangement (needed to operate with gas turbines) of a 28/30knt capable aircraft carrier will require when compared to the 21/23 knots capable Diesel one and the associated electrically powered podded shaft of a typical LPD or LHC that will end up into eating half of the hangar you possibly can have on the latter design, not the place a thing instead of the other will take into said space.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 338
    Points : 344
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  marcellogo on Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:17 am

    [quote="mnztr"]Wow you really live in the dark ages:

    https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/discover/2017/power-surge-ag9160.aspx
    You said planes would take up too much space, point I was making is they would be not much larger then KA-52's M-17s either
    RR Turbine gensets in 70 US Destroyers already.

    Turbines are NOT less efficient then diesels. In fact the most efficient thermal power stations are combined cycle gas turbine plants. COGOG is propulsion, such as on the Udaloy class.

    Propulsion for this class is not yet announced, but with Russian navy history I doubt they have the capability to produce large diesels that these ships would require, nor would steam turbines be desireable, although they do need to maintain this capability for their nuclear fleet. AZIPODS - don't have the tech. So Gas Turbines seem the most logical. Gas turbines are more compact then diesels by far.

    You said planes would take up too much space, point I was making is they would be not much larger then KA-52's M-17s either.

    HELO and helo mean the same thing. HELLO is a different word.

    EMALS has been certified operational, China has announced it is going with EMALS for their 3rd carrier or for their next LPD. We shall see. Russia has deployed neither and unless this ship has boilers and steam turbines, its not practical. If they were to develop something EMALS has a lot more practical application. For example EM cannons.

    Turbines are only inefficient at low or partial load. So you use a very small APU for hotel loads that just meets the ships demand, and a larger one for flight ops. They are all very small and compact.  


    [quote="marcellogo"]
    mnztr wrote:

    I think it is you that does not understand this stuff well. The CAT would have to be emals of course unless they go with nuclear propulsion. EMALS uses centrifugal accumulators so you really do not need a massive generator, you only need to provide for the cycle time you desire. The plan is to have HELOs on the ship, is a jet fighter going to some how take up 10x the space of a HELO? I would never propose mixing STOVL Planes and CATOBAR, you pick one, and go with it. If they can develop an EMALS, then its possible, if not STOVOL Is  the only option. The Chinese have one (they claim) perhaps the Russians can license or steal it to save some time. . EMALS requires only 134 KWh to launch the heaviest plane, but that has to be delivered in under 3 sec. The net total power is really not that much. A 10MW generator can launch 74 planes an hour. Simple math. We are talking less then 4000 kilos for a 10 mw apu set. Less  then 1 min between launches. If you want to just overbuild the ships genset to provision for this, or use the exhaust heat from the engines (you will be at full speed when launching) then the weight increase is trivial. The US went with this technology for very good and sound reasons (unusual for them I know) even though like most US projects it was a really botched development.


    Sorry, MNRTZ but have you reading disfunction or what?
    I have not written anywhere the world Hello or HELLO in any of my post on this thread.
    Just making you note that it is not HELO or PLANE or SHIP or HELiCOPTER, just helo, plane, ship, helicopters.
    Using all capital letters stand for acronyms in military literature, so one understand immediately that AEGIS refers the four faced integral radar system on Ticonderoga and Burkes , not the mYthical shield of Zeus as the original world means.

    Same goes for your insistence in putting on my mouth something I have NEVER said.

    You said planes would take up too much space, point I was making is they would be not much larger then KA-52's M-17s either

    NO, NEVER,NOT IN ANY PLACE!
    I have said instead that if you put in a ship of a given dimension, like as an example the 220 mtrs and about 25000tons you have cited (but it is a general thing),the powerpack needed to reach the speed (28-30 knt) needed to operate efficently as a plane carrier compared to the one usually installed on a modern LSD or LHD (i.e. diesels and azimutal pods in the more modern one) the hangar or the loading space of said ship would be greatly reduced.
    For the rest it seems me, you are confusing POWER generation, with ELECTRICAL generation.
    Gas turbines produce a lot of the first one i.e. have an excellent weight/power ratio but are absolutely inefficient or what it come to fuel consumption and this even more if you pretend to use it for generate electricity.

    Above all , to utilize the huge power generated by them you need a conventional, mechanic gearbox and propeller shaft as an electrical one would not be nearly enough.

    Let's repeat it again, so you would not keep on with your self generating mental loop : it is THIS that eat out available space when compared to a Diesel/Electric one powerpack used on modern LHD, not the fact that a fighter plane is (slightly) larger than an helicopter.

    And is the same thing that make troubles, although on reverse size of the coin, with the idea of EMALS catapults on something smaller than a Ford class size CV,.

    To generate the ELECTRICAL power needed for them you need a steam propulsion, conventional or nuclear, anyway: diesel are not enough powerful and combined cycle Gas turbine are absolutely out of question due to the fuel they would consume.

    And let's repeat: Chinese are backpedalling at full force from the idea of installing them on their own CV, if you would have read read some military magazine instead of using the propaganda of engine makers as your source would have read more than one article reporting that.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25917
    Points : 26463
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 31, 2020 1:47 pm

    Yes it was. You can hardly do anything else than kill with bombs and missiles.

    True, but you can use those bombs and missiles to help or to subjugate and steal... ie Russian forces in the Crimea killed no one and let them vote and decide for themselves... imagine the situation if the Orcs had got there in much larger numbers and asked the US to bring in "peacekeepers"?

    It would be like Georgia invading South Ossetia... they didn't care about the South Ossetians on Georgian territory... they wanted the land but not the people... they would probably be most happy if all the South Ossetians and Abkhazians had moved over the border to Russia and left Georgia with all that extra land... I am sure the Serbs would have been happiest if all the oppressed and the non oppressed Albanians in Kosovo went back to Albania too... but neither was ever going to happen.

    That's not happening.

    Understandably the Granit launchers are fully isolated and firewalled from any aviation fuel or ammo or aircraft storage areas because of the fire risk, so while they wont be carrying Granits, which are out of production, there are not that many other options available to use that space for other things.

    As I mentioned they might use it for storing AAMs with a small lift, but most likely they will put a couple of UKSK launchers in there... which means they could load it with Zircon or indeed anti submarine or land attack missiles... They could even load S-400 missiles it seems with the upgrades and improvements...

    If your Zirkon is so good that you need only two destroy a US carrier, why do you need hundreds of them.

    Because the combined forces of the US and HATO have hundreds of ships... sure most will run away after the first few erupt in flames or the nuclear flash, but it would be better to pick off as many as you can initially because you might not be in a very good position to get them the next time you come across them...

    Use few of them to destroy the carriers and the airports and use the planes to bomb the enemy with dumb bombs.

    Planes will be busy forming CAP for the surface group of ships... a few Zircons to take out enemy surface ships, but land attack cruise missiles with a range of 5,000km would also be valuable too along with anti sub missiles too.

    Russia is also getting those helicopter carrier and they will face new anti ship missiles of west that is also working on hypersonic missiles. They are also a waste of time according to your logic.

    Not at all, Russia has VDV and they have naval infantry... suggesting they don't need helicopter landing ships is like suggesting they don't need cargo planes because they can be vulnerable too... and of course they both can... anything can... there is nothing on the battlefield that is safe and it is silly to think otherwise.

    That's true for russian ships too... and looking at how their athm failed miserably durig an expo, they certainly don't have the Pk they say fir their AD systems.

    Russian ships and modern Soviet ships have focussed on air defence and protection from missiles more than any other country on the planet... of course they are not invulnerable either, but an aircraft carrier with AWACS aircraft and fighters that can move around the place at high speed with long range missiles of their own makes them better protected and more capable and not less so.

    If the sub is really attacking the carrier, your carrier will be already dead if it has to launch a torpedo missile 40km away...

    From an enemy perspective a torpedo could be launched to sink a carrier or an anti ship missile could be launched to sink a carrier... but the carrier wont be alone and there will be other ships and lots of anti sub helicopters present as well as enemy subs.

    If a HATO sub launches a torpedo then the Russians have anti torpedo weapons, and if it launches a subsonic cruise missile or a supersonic cruise missile air cover is improved by AWACS platforms and fighter CAP...

    If you need missiles in huge number you use a SSGN or an arsenal ship.

    After they have made their fourth helicopter carrier to be used as a helicopter carrier they might decide that a few more could be made as hospital ships... and after they have made 2-3 of those they might decide that with its roll on roll off capability and enormous internal volume that a few extra as arsenal ships might be useful too...

    Which means not spending half of your money on a monstruosity like US carrier but also giving that carrier a good amount of real fighters.

    The problem with the US carriers is that they are attack helicopters and so half their planes are F-18s and the other half will be F-35s... what they could have done was upgraded their F-14s and used those as both interceptor and attack aircraft with much better range than either of the two current aircraft.

    If they wanted stealth then a stealthy cruise missile... in fact if you have two then you effectively have an aircraft launched F-117 with better range, comparable speed and a similar payload for a fraction of the development costs and no need for escorts.

    The new missiles the Russians are developing... essentially R-37s with mini-missiles so for instance a single missile can be launched 300km to a target area over an enemy airfield... the missile would cruise all the way there at high altitude and as it approached the target area it could release 4-6 small self contained missiles that could be released to attack 4-6 different targets autonomously... what better escort could there be for low flying stealthy missiles... any enemy fighters launched will be scanning for low level targets... launch an R-37X and have them clear the way to the target without risking any crew.

    K is more a helicopter carrier than a real aircraft carrier as of now.

    The MiG-35 is fully carrier capable, but they do need helicopters too... those new high speed helicopters they are developing should be quite useful.

    The CAT would have to be emals of course unless they go with nuclear propulsion. EMALS uses centrifugal accumulators so you really do not need a massive generator, you only need to provide for the cycle time you desire.

    Most EMALS I have seen need large amounts of energy to throw a 20 ton aircraft from standing start to 200km per hour in 100m.... they don't need it all at once but a conventionally powered small ship would seriously struggle to keep a high launch tempo without nuclear power.

    The plan is to have HELOs on the ship, is a jet fighter going to some how take up 10x the space of a HELO? I would never propose mixing STOVL Planes and CATOBAR, you pick one, and go with it. If they can develop an EMALS, then its possible, if not STOVOL Is the only option.

    From what LMFS has posted the Kuznetsov is getting some test EMALS cats, but that is for heavy planes, they don't need it for their fighters.

    EMALS requires only 134 KWh to launch the heaviest plane, but that has to be delivered in under 3 sec. The net total power is really not that much.

    It will need some way of storing and building up that level of power and the efficiency means they will likely need to generate 10 times more because it as sure as hell will not be a 100% efficient system of power management.

    You would also need a power reserve... one of the advantages of EMALS is it can adjust mid launch, so it it realises the object is not accelerating fast enough it can boost acceleration to give it a better chance of not going straight into the drink... with steam no chance.

    The US went with this technology for very good and sound reasons (unusual for them I know) even though like most US projects it was a really botched development.

    EMCATS make a lot of sense if you can get them to work... all the new electricity manipulation and management stuff is all a serious bonus too when it is working, but it requires a lot of new materials and new technology, but everything is going to electric vehicles anyway so that stuff will be enormously useful...

    Ok its clear you don't like the French.

    I have no problem with the French generally... I have a lot of respect for LSOS too, but why should that influence what Russia buys in terms of an aircraft carrier?

    Half are saying they don't need one at all, because they see what I am suggesting as somehow copying or trying to outdo the US.

    Others agree they do need air power but a mini carrier and VSTOL fighter can do it all... in fact this thread about a helicopter carrier is a good example of what they think they should have.

    I think if they manage it properly they could build their own CVNs from scratch for about 5 billion each and I think a naval version of the Su-57 is their best choice of carrier based fighter because it is their best.

    Their new MiG 5th gen fighter might be even better suited to the job but we have no idea at the moment... a carrier aircraft is going to be expensive, because you don't need hundreds unless you are already deploying them to land like the MiG-35 or Su-57... the rugged undercarriage is good for ships and short airstrips.

    The problem I have with the current French carrier is that it is too small, it does not carry more fighters than the Kuznetsov carriers and the Russians have experience with carriers.... Kiev class VSTOL carriers and then the Kuznetsov which are bigger with much much better fighters in the form of MiG-33s and Su-33s... and their plans were to go slightly bigger and heavier with more planes and catapults and therefore also AWACS aircraft in the Ulyanovsk in the 70-80K ton weight range... that was always the plan and testing in Syria with the K showed them they were on the right tracks.

    After all this experience and work, why would they now throw it all away and safe nothing making carriers to small to defend themselves let alone anything else and spend 15-20 billion developing a brand new VSTOL 5th gen stealth fighter that might be worse than useless... the Yak-38, Yak-38M and the Yak-41 all were.

    The Yak-41 on paper was in the same class as the MiG-29, but in every regard inferior. It was slower, shorter ranged, had pathetic payload capacity that could not be increased because of the small wing and the inability to carry any ordinance on the belly because of the hot jet exhaust from three after burning jet engines.

    Its radar was smaller and it was in every way inferior to the MiG-33 that was rejected in favour of the bigger longer ranged Su-33 that was essentially an Su-27 with folding wings and a tail hook and stronger undercarriage.

    The MiG-33 was fully multirole and able to carry R-77 ARH missiles, but they didn't buy any and the sophisticated electronics just made it almost as expensive as the Su-33... vastly more capable but shorter ranged.


    Skyhawk has much less capability then Rafale, and no value in fleet defence either.Just a bomb truck.

    In 1980 the Skyhawk was vastly superior to the Mirage 4000 concept that had not even had its first flight yet...

    Why would you load up the Rafale with fuel if the mission does not demand it.

    You were talking about the Rafales enormous payload capacity... I am pointing out to you that most fighter planes can't carry anywhere near their max payload in weapons for air to air roles. The only way they can approach their max weapon weights is with large 2 thousand kilo fuel tanks carried in pairs often, or bombs and other heavy air to ground ordinance.

    The Russian use of fighters for air defence renders its capacity to carry bombs irrelevant... most fighter planes might carry 8 air to air missiles all being less than 400kgs each for long range missiles and less than 150kgs for short range missiles... meaning even the Su-33 would struggle to carry more than 2.5 tons of weapons on a mission with a heavy air to air weapon load...

    The Russians could deploy MIG-35 on these, very useful 7T of payload. Really 3T of payload with modern weapons and good radius is extremely useful. 10 planes 30T in one strike. 4 sorties if its close enough, then you have 120T of ordinance on target. That is 3 TU-160 payloads.

    If the Russian Navy wanted strike aircraft they would have picked the MiG-33s over the Su-33s years ago.

    Rafale also enjoy a much small rcs, more hardpoints and better ones because they can put 3 guided bombs on 1. Bad point is that it carries only 1 exocet.

    With 9.5 tons of external equipment I am sure the RCS is tiny...

    Mig 35 isn't a bad aircraft either but it's still not produced and is just an improved mig-29.

    The Rafale started life as a twin engined Mirage 2000 called the Mirage 4000... has it really moved that much far ahead?

    In fact the most efficient thermal power stations are combined cycle gas turbine plants. COGOG is propulsion, such as on the Udaloy class.

    The propulsion for the Udaloy class was because it needed bursts of speed because it is a sub chaser...

    The Sovremmeny is a similar sized destroyer with different main armament and propulsion...

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 495
    Points : 525
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  mnztr on Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:12 pm

    marcellogo wrote:
    Gas turbines produce a lot of the first one i.e. have an excellent weight/power ratio but are absolutely inefficient or what it come to fuel consumption and this even more if  you pretend to use it for generate electricity.

    Above all , to utilize the huge power generated by them you need a conventional, mechanic gearbox and propeller shaft as an electrical one would not be nearly enough.

    Let's repeat it again, so you would not keep on with your self generating mental loop : it is THIS that eat out available space when compared to a Diesel/Electric one powerpack used on modern LHD, not the fact that a fighter plane is (slightly) larger than an helicopter.

    And is the same thing that make troubles, although on reverse size of the coin, with the idea of EMALS catapults on something smaller than a Ford class size CV,.

    To generate the ELECTRICAL power needed for them you need a steam propulsion, conventional or nuclear, anyway: diesel are not enough powerful and combined cycle Gas turbine are absolutely out of question due to the fuel they would consume.

    And let's repeat: Chinese are backpedalling at full force from the idea of installing them on their own CV, if you would have read read some military magazine instead of using the propaganda of engine makers as your source would have read more than one article reporting that.



    You can keep digging a hole, you said the Burkes use diesel gensets, and I included a link which shows 70 Burkes are using turbine gensets.  

    Diesels would also require a gearbox, unless they install a massive diesel, which they cannot manufacture today. It will be most likely steam or COGAG.

    Turbines have higher peak thermal efficiency then diesels. Use google, you will find this is true. Turbines are not efficient at partial load. This is why COGAG was created. The cruise turbines operate at peak power and efficiency while the ship cruises at 15 knots, when top speed is needed the boost turbines kick in and you have 3 to 4x the power to get to 30 knots.

    Its a well known architecture that you clearly do not understand. A turbine gearbox does not really have to be massive. If course Turbine Electric can also deliver some advantages.

    Even after I describe in detail to you how EMALS works with centriugal accumulators, you still persist on insisting you need a massive genset to power it. As for the physical device yes I am sure a linear motor that that push 40 tons off the deck is a considerable piece of gear, but it is liner and will be stretched out so packaging should be easily accomodated. to do 100 launches on EMALS you will need 14 MWh, (at the highest EMALS power setting) so what kind of genset would you need? you will need 1.4 MWh in a space of 40 min to launch 10 fighters.

    I have not heard of the Chinese backing off on EMALs and DC power architecture for carrier 003, perhaps you can share a link?

    https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/what-to-expect-from-china-s-upcoming-type-076-drone-mothership-carrier
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 495
    Points : 525
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  mnztr on Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:07 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    The CAT would have to be emals of course unless they go with nuclear propulsion. EMALS uses centrifugal accumulators so you really do not need a massive generator, you only need to provide for the cycle time you desire.

    Most EMALS I have seen need large amounts of energy to throw a 20 ton aircraft from standing start to 200km per hour in 100m.... they don't need it all at once but a conventionally powered small ship would seriously struggle to keep a high launch tempo without nuclear power.

    The plan is to have HELOs on the ship, is a jet fighter going to some how take up 10x the space of a HELO? I would never propose mixing STOVL Planes and CATOBAR, you pick one, and go with it. If they can develop an EMALS, then its possible, if not STOVOL Is  the only option.

    From what LMFS has posted the Kuznetsov is getting some test EMALS cats, but that is for heavy planes, they don't need it for their fighters.

    EMALS requires only 134 KWh to launch the heaviest plane, but that has to be delivered in under 3 sec. The net total power is really not that much.

    It will need some way of storing and building up that level of power and the efficiency means they will likely need to generate 10 times more because it as sure as hell will not be a 100% efficient system of power management.

    You would also need a power reserve... one of the advantages of EMALS is it can adjust mid launch, so it it realises the object is not accelerating fast enough it can boost acceleration to give it a better chance of not going straight into the drink... with steam no chance.

    The US went with this technology for very good and sound reasons (unusual for them I know) even though like most US projects it was a really botched development.

    EMCATS make a lot of sense if you can get them to work... all the new electricity manipulation and management stuff is all a serious bonus too when it is working, but it requires a lot of new materials and new technology, but everything is going to electric vehicles anyway so that stuff will be enormously useful...

    Ok its clear you don't like the French.

    I have no problem with the French generally... I have a lot of respect for LSOS too, but why should that influence what Russia buys in terms of an aircraft carrier?

    Half are saying they don't need one at all, because they see what I am suggesting as somehow copying or trying to outdo the US.

    Others agree they do need air power but a mini carrier and VSTOL fighter can do it all... in fact this thread about a helicopter carrier is a good example of what they think they should have.

    I think if they manage it properly they could build their own CVNs from scratch for about 5 billion each and I think a naval version of the Su-57 is their best choice of carrier based fighter because it is their best.

    Their new MiG 5th gen fighter might be even better suited to the job but we have no idea at the moment... a carrier aircraft is going to be expensive, because you don't need hundreds unless you are already deploying them to land like the MiG-35 or Su-57... the rugged undercarriage is good for ships and short airstrips.

    The problem I have with the current French carrier is that it is too small, it does not carry more fighters than the Kuznetsov carriers and the Russians have experience with carriers.... Kiev class VSTOL carriers and then the Kuznetsov which are bigger with much much better fighters in the form of MiG-33s and Su-33s... and their plans were to go slightly bigger and heavier with more planes and catapults and therefore also AWACS aircraft in the Ulyanovsk in the 70-80K ton weight range... that was always the plan and testing in Syria with the K showed them they were on the right tracks.


    You were talking about the Rafales enormous payload capacity... I am pointing out to you that most fighter planes can't carry anywhere near their max payload in weapons for air to air roles. The only way they can approach their max weapon weights is with large 2 thousand kilo fuel tanks carried in pairs often, or bombs and other heavy air to ground ordinance.

    The Russian use of fighters for air defence renders its capacity to carry bombs irrelevant... most fighter planes might carry 8 air to air missiles all being less than 400kgs each for long range missiles and less than 150kgs for short range missiles... meaning even the Su-33 would struggle to carry more than 2.5 tons of weapons on a mission with a heavy air to air weapon load...

    The Russians could deploy MIG-35 on these, very useful 7T of payload. Really 3T of payload with modern weapons and good radius is extremely useful. 10 planes 30T in one strike. 4 sorties if its close enough, then you have 120T of ordinance on target. That is 3 TU-160 payloads.

    If the Russian Navy wanted strike aircraft they would have picked the MiG-33s over the Su-33s years ago.



    With 9.5 tons of external equipment I am sure the RCS is tiny...

    Mig 35 isn't a bad aircraft either but it's still not produced and is just an improved mig-29.

    The Rafale started life as a twin engined Mirage 2000 called the Mirage 4000... has it really moved that much far ahead?

    In fact the most efficient thermal power stations are combined cycle gas turbine plants. COGOG is propulsion, such as on the Udaloy class.

    The propulsion for the Udaloy class was because it needed bursts of speed because it is a sub chaser...

    The Sovremmeny is a similar sized destroyer with different main armament and propulsion...


    What ship needs to travel at 35 knots all the time? Even nuclear carriers do not do this, they only speed up when flight ops are underway and prevailing winds are low.


    Your answers for EMALS power are all there, the centrifugal flywheels store 2-3x the required energy of a launch. they go from 9000 RPM down to 7000 RPM, then then are spun up by motors for the next launch. Its pretty efficient and quite clever IMHO. How much time in between launches? The math is easy. 4 min? you need 2MWh gen set for this. Not that big, 20 % loss? 2.4MWh 40% 2.8MWh.

    Russia did not see the need for strike aircraft in the past, that has changed with Syria. You can launch fighters with STOBAR but fuel and payloads suffer.

    Why would the French carrier experience not influence Russia? Russia has the same fiscal constraints France does and De Gaulle can surge to 100 sorties/day which is a *hitload of firepower. De Gaulle is way more capable then the UK's trash barges.

    Russia simply does not have the near term capability to build a large supercarrier. For them to exit the decade with 4 small carriers with 8-12 fighters, would be the best possible outcome and a real quantum leap in capability for the RuN
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 338
    Points : 344
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Thank for entering GarryB.

    Post  marcellogo on Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:45 pm

    Oooh, now that GarryB (and hopefully also others) enter fully in a multi persons discussion probably it would become more interesting when compared with a 1vs1 match in which , for my experience both part remain in their same position.

    Said so, allow me a series of small, pedantic, exposition of my own positions.
    First and foremost: I'm not advocating any solution and above all I will not i will not try to impose the one that my own country has adopted as an international standard.

    Just making present how such designs are actually, as they were very often post-WWII at the cutting hedge of naval design engineering between NATO countries.
    And that, differently of the ones introduced by USN, with their infatuation with anything "hi-tech", those "first of" actually function and lead to further innovations instead of ending into technological deads ends or into straight and terribly costly, failures.

    French and British carriers? They are great ships, EXACTLY like the F-22s are great planes.
    All of them have heavily damaged a whole branch of a great power's armed forces all by themselves: only problem was that they were their own ones.

    About combined naval propulsion systems, I know them quite well, so just name it: COSAG, CODOG, CODAG, COGAG, CODAD,CONAS, COGOG and the most modern ones like CODLAG and our trademark one CODELAGOG (yes , Italian FrEMM and PPA and with all probably also Trieste use this peculiar variant).
    Let's say that there is a very big difference between the "real" combined ones, that sports different model or even type of engines acting, together or separately to move the same shaft and spurious ones (CODAD, COGAG and so with identical ones adding one to another to reach the required power output).
    Needless to say, we are all for first type: our only COGAG were Garibaldi e Cavour, with Trieste we will be out if it hopefully.

    COGOG? Well, sorry, I know it was very popular in Soviet shipbuilding but I will put it into the "oddball" category, together with COSAG and CONAS.
    Not the most practical and convenient solution, once you have good naval diesel engines.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 338
    Points : 344
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  marcellogo on Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:07 pm

    mnztr wrote:

    It will need some way of storing and building up that level of power and the efficiency means they will likely need to generate 10 times more because it as sure as hell will not be a 100% efficient system of power management.

    You would also need a power reserve... one of the advantages of EMALS is it can adjust mid launch, so it it realises the object is not accelerating fast enough it can boost acceleration to give it a better chance of not going straight into the drink... with steam no chance.

    The US went with this technology for very good and sound reasons (unusual for them I know) even though like most US projects it was a really botched development.

    EMCATS make a lot of sense if you can get them to work... all the new electricity manipulation and management stuff is all a serious bonus too when it is working, but it requires a lot of new materials and new technology, but everything is going to electric vehicles anyway so that stuff will be enormously useful...


    What ship needs to travel at 35 knots all the time? Even nuclear carriers do not do this, they only speed up when flight ops are underway and prevailing winds are low.


    Your answers for EMALS power are all there, the centrifugal flywheels store 2-3x the required energy of a launch. they go from 9000 RPM down to 7000 RPM, then then are spun up by motors for the next launch. Its pretty efficient and quite clever IMHO. How much time in between launches? The math is easy. 4 min? you need 2MWh gen set for this. Not that big, 20 % loss? 2.4MWh 40% 2.8MWh.

    Russia did not see the need for strike aircraft in the past, that has changed with Syria. You can launch fighters with STOBAR but fuel and payloads suffer.

    Why would the French carrier experience not influence Russia?  Russia has the same fiscal constraints France does and De Gaulle can surge to 100 sorties/day which is a *hitload of firepower. De Gaulle is way more capable then the UK's trash barges.

    Russia simply does not have the near term capability to build a large supercarrier. For them to exit the decade with 4 small carriers with 8-12 fighters, would be the best possible outcome and a real quantum leap in capability for the RuN


    Can we proceed with real digits here. please?

    You can launch fighters with STOBAR but fuel and payloads suffer.

    Can someone around there provide some real data about how much it is this loss?
    I have found only some partial ones but for what I saw i would dare to say that almost for what it come to Mig-29K (but probably also J-16) they are not such much of a deal at all.
    What I know instead is that THERE IS NOT ANY SORTIE GENERATION PROBLEM with STOBAR: at the contrary both Russian than Indian and Chinese experience concord into the fact that is launching a plane into the air with such a system is extremely simple and fast with the added bonus of needing not a dedicated crew to handle the catapults.
    For STOVL it is instead the landing that take time and put heavy weight limitations, hence british experiments with rolling landing.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 338
    Points : 344
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  marcellogo on Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:47 pm

    Here it some videos to explain it better:



    This is even more complete: wheel blockers up at 0.15, stick to them at 0.23, plane check until 1.00, afterburner on at 1.11, blockers down at 1.18, on sky jump at 1.22, on air at 1.25, landing gear up at 1.33.


    On my own count 1 minute and 2 seconds to get on air.
    So, WHERE IS THE PROBLEM with sortie generation rate exactly?
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 495
    Points : 525
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  mnztr on Tue Sep 01, 2020 1:00 am

    marcellogo wrote:Oooh, now that GarryB (and  hopefully also others) enter fully in a multi persons discussion probably it would become more interesting when compared with a 1vs1 match in which , for my experience both part remain in their same position.

    Said so, allow me a series of small, pedantic, exposition of my own positions.
    First and foremost: I'm not advocating any solution and above all I will  not i will not try to impose the one that my own country has adopted as an international standard.

    Just making present how such designs are actually, as they were very often post-WWII at the cutting hedge of naval design engineering between NATO countries.
    And that, differently of  the ones introduced by USN, with their infatuation with anything "hi-tech", those "first of" actually function and lead to further innovations instead of ending into technological deads ends or into straight and terribly costly, failures.

    French and British carriers? They are great ships, EXACTLY like the F-22s are great planes.
    All of them have heavily damaged a whole branch of a great power's armed forces all by themselves: only problem was that they were their own ones.

    About combined naval propulsion systems, I know them quite well, so just name it: COSAG, CODOG, CODAG, COGAG, CODAD,CONAS, COGOG and the most modern ones like CODLAG and our trademark one CODELAGOG (yes , Italian FrEMM and PPA and with all probably also Trieste use this peculiar variant).
    Let's say that there is a very big difference  between the "real" combined ones, that sports different model or even type of engines acting, together or separately to move the same shaft and spurious ones (CODAD, COGAG and so with identical ones adding one to another to reach the required power output).
    Needless to say, we are all for first type: our only COGAG were Garibaldi e Cavour, with Trieste we will be out if it hopefully.

    COGOG? Well, sorry, I know it was very popular in Soviet shipbuilding but I will put it into the "oddball" category, together with COSAG and CONAS.
    Not the most practical and convenient solution, once you have good naval diesel engines.

    Its great you know all the variations of propulsion, so why do you persist in saying gas turbines are less effficient when they have such broad adoption among naval vessels of all stripes?
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 495
    Points : 525
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  mnztr on Tue Sep 01, 2020 1:06 am

    marcellogo wrote:Here it some videos to explain it better:



    This is even more complete: wheel blockers up at 0.15, stick to them at 0.23, plane check until 1.00, afterburner on at 1.11, blockers down at 1.18, on sky jump at 1.22, on air at 1.25, landing gear up at 1.33.


    On my own count 1 minute and 2 seconds to get on air.
    So, WHERE IS THE PROBLEM with sortie generation rate exactly?

    I never said there was a prob with sortie generation, the only issues are perhaps payload, needing very high thrust planes, (BS IMHO) but you do need a long ship unless you use VTOL planes. Also launch and simultaneous retrival become difficult unless you have a really long ship. There is even the possibility of using JATO bottles when you need super high payload missions. If the ship is long enough and the plane has enough thrust then payloads can be very good. I agree conventional planes with STOBAR are better then VTOL planes. I doubt the 23900 will be long enough to be a useful STOBAR carrier. After all its 85M shorter then Kuz.

    As for EMALs the math is clear, you do not need a huge electrical capacity to operate it.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 338
    Points : 344
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  marcellogo on Tue Sep 01, 2020 2:16 am

    mnztr wrote:
    marcellogo wrote:Here it some videos to explain it better:



    This is even more complete: wheel blockers up at 0.15, stick to them at 0.23, plane check until 1.00, afterburner on at 1.11, blockers down at 1.18, on sky jump at 1.22, on air at 1.25, landing gear up at 1.33.


    On my own count 1 minute and 2 seconds to get on air.
    So, WHERE IS THE PROBLEM with sortie generation rate exactly?

    I never said there was a prob with sortie generation, the only issues are perhaps payload, needing very high thrust planes, (BS IMHO) but you do need a long ship unless you use VTOL planes. Also launch and simultaneous retrival become difficult unless you have a really long ship. There is even the possibility of using JATO bottles when you need super high payload missions. If the ship is long enough and the plane has enough thrust then payloads can be very good. I agree conventional planes with STOBAR are better then VTOL planes. I doubt the 23900 will be long enough to be a useful STOBAR carrier. After all its 85M shorter then Kuz.

    As for EMALs the math is clear, you do not need a huge electrical capacity to operate it.


    Oooh, finally someone mention JATO, an updated version of it should be considered for launch AEW planes from a full fledged STOBAR carrier.
    About V/STOL planes, well I got a new:F-35B is less than ideal also in this aspect.

    First :unlike than with Harrier, it is not possible to perform a vertical take off with it, so they are STOVL only to be precise.
    Second: hot exhaust, we had to send the Cavour back to the Arsenal to install a new, metallic, flight deck cover. So we atually we have the planes but cannot use them. Also in this case, unlike the Harrier that have cold air exhausts.
    Third and, by far, the most important drawback:unlike Harrier AGAIN, you cannot use them on Garibaldiinstead.
    Because they completely SUCK when it come to take off run:they need 195 affraid meters to get into air.

    Garibaldi is 185 meters long, so go figure.
    For comparison: longest takeoff run trail on Kutnezov is 205 meters.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 338
    Points : 344
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  marcellogo on Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:10 am

    mnztr wrote:
    marcellogo wrote:Oooh, now that GarryB (and  hopefully also others) enter fully in a multi persons discussion probably it would become more interesting when compared with a 1vs1 match in which , for my experience both part remain in their same position.

    Said so, allow me a series of small, pedantic, exposition of my own positions.
    First and foremost: I'm not advocating any solution and above all I will  not i will not try to impose the one that my own country has adopted as an international standard.

    Just making present how such designs are actually, as they were very often post-WWII at the cutting hedge of naval design engineering between NATO countries.
    And that, differently of  the ones introduced by USN, with their infatuation with anything "hi-tech", those "first of" actually function and lead to further innovations instead of ending into technological deads ends or into straight and terribly costly, failures.

    French and British carriers? They are great ships, EXACTLY like the F-22s are great planes.
    All of them have heavily damaged a whole branch of a great power's armed forces all by themselves: only problem was that they were their own ones.

    About combined naval propulsion systems, I know them quite well, so just name it: COSAG, CODOG, CODAG, COGAG, CODAD,CONAS, COGOG and the most modern ones like CODLAG and our trademark one CODELAGOG (yes , Italian FrEMM and PPA and with all probably also Trieste use this peculiar variant).
    Let's say that there is a very big difference  between the "real" combined ones, that sports different model or even type of engines acting, together or separately to move the same shaft and spurious ones (CODAD, COGAG and so with identical ones adding one to another to reach the required power output).
    Needless to say, we are all for first type: our only COGAG were Garibaldi e Cavour, with Trieste we will be out if it hopefully.

    COGOG? Well, sorry, I know it was very popular in Soviet shipbuilding but I will put it into the "oddball" category, together with COSAG and CONAS.
    Not the most practical and convenient solution, once you have good naval diesel engines.

    Its great you know all the variations of propulsion, so why do you persist in saying gas turbines are less effficient when they have such broad adoption among naval vessels of all stripes?

    Becuse they are necessary for generate a great amount of power necessary to reach a determinate range of speed.
    Fact is that they are absolutely INEFFICIENT in doing that for what it come to fuel consumption, exactly like it happen with afterburners for what it come to fighter planes, great power output but even greater fuel consumption.
    Naval diesels are the right contrary:they are extremely fuel efficient but they have not a great power to weight ratio.

    Hence because generally CODAD is used for corvettes, avisos, OPV and above all landing ships , all being types of ships that doesn't require an high top speed and COGAG is instead used for big ships only: let's say from Burke and Ticonderoga upward as diesel would struggle with provide the sheer amount of power .
    The great majority of fighting ships however went on with CODOG or CODAG as it combine the best of two worlds: the fuel efficiency of naval diesels and the power output of TAGs.

    Still for the real big and bad ones, sorry but the only solution is the oldest XIX century one: steam.

    Conventionally or Nuclear generated (or the oddball CONAS of Kirov class) for what it come to the top dogs( SSN, SSBN, CATOBAR or STOBAR, Battlecruiser, Great icebreakers...) there are not real viable alternatives to it...

    ... until now i.e. Keep calm and wait for Trieste and Vikrant Twisted Evil .
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 495
    Points : 525
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  mnztr on Tue Sep 01, 2020 5:45 am

    marcellogo wrote:
    mnztr wrote:
    marcellogo wrote:Oooh, now that GarryB (and  hopefully also others) enter fully in a multi persons discussion probably it would become more interesting when compared with a 1vs1 match in which , for my experience both part remain in their same position.

    Said so, allow me a series of small, pedantic, exposition of my own positions.
    First and foremost: I'm not advocating any solution and above all I will  not i will not try to impose the one that my own country has adopted as an international standard.

    Just making present how such designs are actually, as they were very often post-WWII at the cutting hedge of naval design engineering between NATO countries.
    And that, differently of  the ones introduced by USN, with their infatuation with anything "hi-tech", those "first of" actually function and lead to further innovations instead of ending into technological deads ends or into straight and terribly costly, failures.

    French and British carriers? They are great ships, EXACTLY like the F-22s are great planes.
    All of them have heavily damaged a whole branch of a great power's armed forces all by themselves: only problem was that they were their own ones.

    About combined naval propulsion systems, I know them quite well, so just name it: COSAG, CODOG, CODAG, COGAG, CODAD,CONAS, COGOG and the most modern ones like CODLAG and our trademark one CODELAGOG (yes , Italian FrEMM and PPA and with all probably also Trieste use this peculiar variant).
    Let's say that there is a very big difference  between the "real" combined ones, that sports different model or even type of engines acting, together or separately to move the same shaft and spurious ones (CODAD, COGAG and so with identical ones adding one to another to reach the required power output).
    Needless to say, we are all for first type: our only COGAG were Garibaldi e Cavour, with Trieste we will be out if it hopefully.

    COGOG? Well, sorry, I know it was very popular in Soviet shipbuilding but I will put it into the "oddball" category, together with COSAG and CONAS.
    Not the most practical and convenient solution, once you have good naval diesel engines.

    Its great you know all the variations of propulsion, so why do you persist in saying gas turbines are less effficient when they have such broad adoption among naval vessels of all stripes?

    Becuse they are necessary for generate a great amount of power necessary to reach a determinate range of speed.
    Fact is that they are absolutely INEFFICIENT in doing that for what it come to fuel consumption, exactly like it happen with afterburners for what it come to fighter planes, great power output but even greater fuel consumption.
    Naval diesels are the right contrary:they are extremely fuel efficient but they have not a great power to weight ratio.

    Hence because generally CODAD is used for corvettes, avisos, OPV and above all landing ships , all being types of ships that doesn't require an high  top speed  and COGAG is instead used for big ships only: let's say from Burke and Ticonderoga upward as diesel would struggle with provide the sheer amount of power .
    The great majority of fighting ships however went on with CODOG or CODAG as it combine the best of two worlds: the fuel efficiency of naval diesels and the power output of TAGs.

    Still for the real big and bad ones, sorry but the only solution is the oldest  XIX century one: steam.

    Conventionally or Nuclear generated (or the oddball CONAS of Kirov class) for what it come to the top dogs( SSN, SSBN, CATOBAR or STOBAR, Battlecruiser, Great icebreakers...) there are not real viable alternatives to it...

    ... until now  i.e. Keep calm and wait for Trieste and Vikrant Twisted Evil .


    Sorry when it comes to gas turbine propulsion you have it all wrong. Gas turbines are actually most efficient at high load/high power settings. This is where they really excel. Afterburners operate OUTSIDE the turbine. This generates massive back pressure on the exhaust as well as a much smaller expansion coefficient then the initial combustion in the turbine. When you want to build a COGOG or COGAG ship the cruise turbines are always sized to run at high power during cruise. The large turbines only are fired up when you need to go fast. They can exceed diesel efficiency at high power settings. They are also a lot smaller for a given amount of power.

    Sponsored content

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 7 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Sep 26, 2020 3:25 am