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


+56
Firebird
Lennox
thegopnik
ALAMO
Broski
Russian_Patriot_
Lurk83
Kiko
jhelb
AlexDineley
11E
owais.usmani
flamming_python
arbataach
limb
walle83
RTN
JohninMK
dino00
lyle6
magnumcromagnon
TMA1
Backman
lancelot
Isos
SeigSoloyvov
PhSt
Tai Hai Chen
LMFS
Tsavo Lion
Arrow
kvs
The-thing-next-door
william.boutros
George1
ultimatewarrior
kumbor
mnztr
Regular
PapaDragon
miketheterrible
medo
Gazputin
andalusia
x_54_u43
Big_Gazza
GarryB
ATLASCUB
GunshipDemocracy
Swede55
wilhelm
Hole
marcellogo
hoom
Rodion_Romanovic
AlfaT8
60 posters

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 1335
    Points : 1379
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  mnztr Thu Nov 26, 2020 12:01 am

    GarryB wrote:

    But that raises the obvious question... why bother with subsonic drones to carry hypersonic missiles... why not just have multistage missiles... the first stage powered by hypersonic scramjet motor for very high speed penetration of enemy air defences and kinetic kill capacity, but the launch stage being a huge fuel tank with turbojet sustainer for subsonic flight around the place to extended range at medium or low altitude for great distances...

    Mounting them on a drone seems a little redundant... unless it is the PAK DA that carries hypersonic missiles internally with some level of stealth over strategic distances, but the weapons use hypersonic speed to penetrate defences...

    But honestly... why do you think a drone carrying two hypersonic ASMs is any different from an Su-33 carrying three or five Brahmos-M missiles?


    Well the answer is really quite simple, cost/range and recoverability. Hypersonic missiles will have a consumable airframe to deal with heat. I.e the hottest parts will slowly erode. Its a one use item.

    A drone will be smaller and lighter as you do not have to provision for a human or for survivability. That will be provided for by stealth. The drone is just a truck with some sensors to take the missiles within range of the target. If the drone has 2000 km range and missile 1000KM you now have a 3000 km range missile in emergencies (much better then sending your guys on a suicide mission) Also a drone will be FAR cheaper as it will just be a big wing and engine. It can also act as an AWACs platform if you put the antennas on the surface. The drone will have a smaller radar cross section as well. Loiter time with refulling drones? Unlimited!!! You can probably have a 10 T drone carry 2 missiles quite easily vs a 50T fighter.
    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 1335
    Points : 1379
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  mnztr Thu Nov 26, 2020 12:04 am

    Isos wrote:
    Even better. They will fire nuks above their heads and frize their own electronics from the EM pulse.

    Then russian subs will fire 5 or 6 650mm torpedoes with 500kt nuks at the carrier group.

    Russia will never use Nuclear weapons against the USA, the doomsday weapon they do have is the ability to collapse the entire US financial system with cyber warfare. Of course this has massive negative implications for Russia as well, which is why its a doomsday weapon.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 32146
    Points : 32674
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Nov 26, 2020 9:49 am

    Even better. They will fire nuks above their heads and frize their own electronics from the EM pulse.

    EMPs can be generated by nuclear explosions but they have to be outside the atmosphere to do it properly.

    Are you suggesting a group of US ships led by the biggest and most powerful aircraft carrier in the world together with a dozen AEGIS class cruisers are going to just ignore a Zircon missile zipping towards them at 3.2 km per second at say 70 km altitude just a minute or two after launch... just silently sit there as it comes in and watch it obliterate any ship of that group that it chooses?

    Standard SM-2 missiles include weapons armed with nuclear warheads... it is not an accident and it is not for sinking enemy ships... it is to obliterate a group of enemy bombers detected in a group at enormous distances with one missile... it is command guided and flys to a coordinate and then detonates... It would be their only chance and as I have said not a great one... they wont have thousands of them and even if it works after the fourth missile or  sixth missile that is probably all they have because as you suggest the ionisation of the high atmosphere is likely going to make that region of air opaque to radar returns for quite a few hours... after the first few they would then be best launching a couple up above their current position and turn and head out of dodge as fast as they can because they will rn out of nuclear armed SAMs faster than Russia will run out of Zircons... even Onyx is still dangerous, not to mention Kh-32, and a range of other anti ship weapons at their disposal...

    Then russian subs will fire 5 or 6 650mm torpedoes with 500kt nuks at the carrier group.

    The fact of the matter is that a US carrier group approaching Russian territory doesn't know there isn't a Yasen class SSN behind them on their way home at a time of obviously heightened tensions that could easily be launching the low flying supersonic anti ship Club missile from behind just to spice things up along with a variety of other goodies to surprise them with.

    More importantly the problem with the low flying supersonic club is that the rocket is only mach 2,9 for about 30-40km range... it would not take that much to replace the rocket section with a scramjet powered stage... as it would be scooping up air it would not need oxidiser... just fuel, so by weight it could be quarter the weight, or more precisely it could use a solid rocket booster half the weight and then a scramjet sustainer to allow it to fly 60-100km at very low altitude at mach 2.9 which would actually make it formidable and sneaky because low and slow for the first 1,500km and then the last 100km at mach 2.9 or so at very low altitude would be hard to spot and very hard to stop.

    If it was directly below an F-35 when it launched its supersonic terminal stage that F-35 could not do very much about it it could not catch it and none of its missiles (Sidewinder or AMRAAM) can fly at mach 3 at sea level for any useful distance...

    So to say, they can be contained but not asphyxiated. Many people still do not understand that such position is the main reason of Russia's extreme relevance in geopolitics and why the West needs them gone.

    Its enormous size also means resources largely untapped waiting for someone to find and exploit... that is how the 1% got rich... owning mines and paying people minimum wage to work for them to make them disgustingly wealthy... far beyond anything you really need... so you separate yourself from the majority and look down upon them with disdain... despite the fact that they made you your wealth... how stupid of them to let you do that to them...

    If this is true then the yanks would have done this already against both Russia and China, they don't need to wait for an incident to use as an excuse since they are good at inventing excuses anyways.

    What makes you think they don't already do this? Venezuela is in trouble because they have an oil based economy and the value of oil is low because they are trying to get the Russians by devaluing something they earn money from.... Venezuela looks to China and Russia for help instead of the US and there is a threat that those enormous potential oil reserves might go to Russia or China and there is suddenly a question about whether Maduro is leader of Venezuela... despite no international protests at the time of the election where he seemed to win fair and square...

    If there had been an invasion a few carrier groups would be critical to prevent Russia from interfering... they have sent a Kirov class ship there previously and even that would upset their plans a little despite how actually vulnerable it would be.

    China, soon with aircraft carriers and destroyers to accompany them might get to the place where they can send naval support when even Russia would struggle.

    To be clear if it was WWIII and Russia needed to sink a US carrier then sending a Yasen class sub with 32 Zircons would get the job done much faster and more efficiently than anything on the surface they could send, but as you can imagine the options for such a sub are limited... launch and start WWIII or don't launch and remain invisible.

    A Russian carrier group could go without firing a shot and cause a change in tactics from the US by simply being there or entering Venezuelan waters for a Naval exercise... they planned it all last year if you must know....

    We will see. How many times had they violated Russian borders in the last years?

    They test, but withdraw when challenged or rammed.

    Well the answer is really quite simple, cost/range and recoverability. Hypersonic missiles will have a consumable airframe to deal with heat. I.e the hottest parts will slowly erode. Its a one use item.

    Not really... the SR-71 is a plane essentially made of titanium and is enormously expensive to buy and make, and it burns large volumes of fuel every time it flys... but it was taken out of retirement several times because the information it provides is worth it... they call the CIA planes so they probably get paid for out of drug money profits the CIA generates anyway.

    The point is that at one stage when they were talking about retiring them again to save money in some budget they wanted to spend on something else they asked for an evaluation on their condition hoping they will be worn out and can be scrapped so the money used on them can be diverted to other things... perhaps satellites or perhaps drones... but when inspected it seems the heating up and cooling down of normal operational has actually tempered the metal and the most worn ones were in better condition than the less frequently used ones...

    Of course for a single use item they are still made of expensive heat resistant materials, but then using them only once means their life time costs are low.

    A drone will be smaller and lighter as you do not have to provision for a human or for survivability. That will be provided for by stealth. The drone is just a truck with some sensors to take the missiles within range of the target. If the drone has 2000 km range and missile 1000KM you now have a 3000 km range missile in emergencies (much better then sending your guys on a suicide mission) Also a drone will be FAR cheaper as it will just be a big wing and engine. It can also act as an AWACs platform if you put the antennas on the surface. The drone will have a smaller radar cross section as well. Loiter time with refulling drones? Unlimited!!! You can probably have a 10 T drone carry 2 missiles quite easily vs a 50T fighter.

    A drone is dumb and there are communication issues... a PAK DA bomber can carry far more missiles being a much bigger platform, but could also carry missiles to defend itself, and it is a multi use platform that can perform a variety of missions in peace time and in war.

    RCS has nothing to do with physical size.

    Russia will never use Nuclear weapons against the USA,

    Impressed by your confidence, but it kinda sounds like the sort of logic and belief that the next sanction will do it... and make Russia comply with our demands and conform to our way of thinking.

    The only thing stopping Russia using nukes against the west is the knowledge they will respond in kind and everyone dies.

    The west on the other hand thinks Russia is broken and dying and kicking in the front door and watch the whole building collapse is a possibility... just one more sanction, or just get rid of Putin is all they need.

    Of course if the guy that replaces Putin is not Yeltsin, but Stalin, then the old saying... careful what you wish for...
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4126
    Points : 4128
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Thu Nov 26, 2020 3:50 pm

    GarryB wrote:Its enormous size also means resources largely untapped waiting for someone to find and exploit... that is how the 1% got rich... owning mines and paying people minimum wage to work for them to make them disgustingly wealthy... far beyond anything you really need... so you separate yourself from the majority and look down upon them with disdain... despite the fact that they made you your wealth... how stupid of them to let you do that to them...

    They, as the Nazis and the Brits before them consider Russia to be unfairly rich. That they got so much land and in such a critical position is certainly a mistake of god and they, self appointed deities, are more than ready to correct him:

    "Russia has too much wealth for one country" - the Czech press compared the words of Albright and Goebbels

    https://en.topwar.ru/177485-v-rossii-slishkom-mnogo-bogatstv-dlja-odnoj-strany-v-cheshskoj-presse-sravnili-slova-olbrajt-i-gebbelsa.html

    A Russian carrier group could go without firing a shot and cause a change in tactics from the US by simply being there or entering Venezuelan waters for a Naval exercise... they planned it all last year if you must know....

    A fleet not only deters and shows presence, they also allow long term surveillance of the area, can perform many activities on the coastal area, escort commercial vessels, conduct anti-sabotage and ASW operations, control air space, deploy EW, work as a command center, hospital, resupply of land bases etc. Suggesting to do all this from Russia, from space or with subs / bombers is simply absurd.

    They test, but withdraw when challenged or rammed.

    We all know to what outcome the international situation is going.

    GarryB likes this post

    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 1335
    Points : 1379
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  mnztr Thu Nov 26, 2020 5:40 pm

    SR-71 was not REMOTELY hypersonic and titanum cannot deal with hypersonic speeds, it will vaporize. And yes even the mere mach 3 SR-71 was insanely expensive that even the USA could not deploy it as a weapons delivery platform. It was only cheaper then space launches...at the time. Remember mach 2 - relatively conventional materials but already getting hot. Mach 3 - crazy hot - specialized steel or titanium all kinds of heating issues and special jet fuel - Add 2-5 mach numbers and the resistance increases with the square so we are talking 4 to 25x the energy and heat to deal with. With current tech the surfaces will need to be replaceable like space shuttle. Also a hypersonic airframe will be extremely difficult to operate on any sort of carrier. All you really need is a nice drone with a decent cruise speed, good payload and range.

    Of course RCS has something to do withh physical size. You CAN reduce RCS but the same shape/material will have a smaller RCS when you scale it down.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 32146
    Points : 32674
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Fri Nov 27, 2020 2:46 am

    Czech press compared the words of Albright and Goebbels

    Goebbels and Albright... the two nazi propaganda specialists that always spring to my mind first.... Cool

    SR-71 was not REMOTELY hypersonic and titanum cannot deal with hypersonic speeds, it will vaporize.

    Of course the SR-71 was not hypersonic, but if titanium can't cope with high temperatures then what possibly could?

    The only two materials that can safely be used without risk of heat related failures at mach 2-3 are Titanium and steel... the US went for Titanium because it is light, while the Soviets went for stainless steel for the MiG-25 because it did the job and was cheap and easy to work with.

    The US are used to spending money so the cost was not an issue... ironically the titanium used to build the SR-71s was from the Soviet Union...

    And yes even the mere mach 3 SR-71 was insanely expensive that even the USA could not deploy it as a weapons delivery platform.

    Hahaha.... we are talking the US... it was nothing like the most expensive aircraft they operated then or now.

    The soviets made entire submarines out of Titanium.

    With current tech the surfaces will need to be replaceable like space shuttle.

    Current tech in the US or in Russia?

    At mach ten for 1,000km of flight I would think the materials they make Zircon out of would be suitable...

    Also a hypersonic airframe will be extremely difficult to operate on any sort of carrier.

    An An-2 type aircraft could easily operate from a carrier with hypersonic missiles under its wings...

    To be hypersonic it is either solid or liquid fuelled rocket or scramjet powered... which normally means solid rocket booster to get it moving.

    You could launch it from anything including a submerged submarine.

    All you really need is a nice drone with a decent cruise speed, good payload and range.

    Why.

    Name one drone that has completed more than 5,000 hours of flight operations... they are too disposable to be useful for some roles.

    Of course RCS has something to do withh physical size. You CAN reduce RCS but the same shape/material will have a smaller RCS when you scale it down.

    Actually the opposite of what you think. The B-2 is probably the most stealthy aircraft around... short wave radars struggle to spot it... because of its size you need much longer wavelength radars to track it than you need for something like an F-35 or F-22 or F-117.
    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 1335
    Points : 1379
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  mnztr Fri Nov 27, 2020 5:43 am

    You said why bother with drones and make a hypersonic plane. My point is exactly that you need a nice slowish drone to deliver these. Yes the material will last as long as the missile needs it to, that is the point. It will probably be some sort of ceramic composite. Yeah the golden fish I know all about it. But the construction cost of the SR-71 was just the tip of the iceberg. The fuel and maint cost was also absurd even by USAF standards. Titanium cannot cope with hypersonic temps. CMCs will probably used and even those will probably erode but will last log enough for the flight.
    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 650
    Points : 652
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  lancelot Sat Dec 05, 2020 7:49 am

    GarryB wrote:
    SR-71 was not REMOTELY hypersonic and titanum cannot deal with hypersonic speeds, it will vaporize.

    Of course the SR-71 was not hypersonic, but if titanium can't cope with high temperatures then what possibly could?

    The only two materials that can safely be used without risk of heat related failures at mach 2-3 are Titanium and steel... the US went for Titanium because it is light, while the Soviets went for stainless steel for the MiG-25 because it did the job and was cheap and easy to work with.
    ...
    At mach ten for 1,000km of flight I would think the materials they make Zircon out of would be suitable...
    ...

    Maybe not. The Zircon is a single use vehicle. You can use ablative materials in such cases. Materials like phenolic composites. But you can't use those in an aircraft.

    Titanium was used in the SR-71 because it can handle higher temperatures than aluminium alloys. Aluminium melts at really low temperature. However Titanium has one major flaw. Once it reaches a certain temperature, much below melting point, it loses rigidity and basically wobbles like a pudding and then it becomes inelastic and loses shape. At those temperatures you are better off with some sort of steel and nickel alloy. Another thing you can use is silicon carbide. Or carbon composites. Nuclear warheads travel at speeds over Mach 20 and often have a heat shield made of hafnium diboride.

    You can also use active cooling on an aircraft like that. In practice no one has been able to make this work. Yet. But it is a possibility. It is used to cool the walls of rocket engines. i.e. you pump fuel in channels inside the walls of the rocket engine bell and either dump that overboard or even use the heated fuel and dump it into the combustion chamber. This is called a regeneratively cooled engine. It was invented by Eugen Sänger and Irene Bredt for the Silbervogel antipodal bomber back in Nazi Germany in WW2. It is used in nearly all modern rocket engines.
    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 1335
    Points : 1379
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  mnztr Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:59 pm

    Yes this is why SR-71 had corrugated wings. I suspect any hypersonic missile will use its fuel to cool the nose, you can put the fuel tank right there and burn the boil off, you can use 2 tanks, The initial launch fuel can be a propane tank surrounded by kerosene. As the missile climbs out the propanes use refrigerates the kerosene,when it runs out the kerosene is left nice and cold and can cool the nose, the boil off can be used to fuel the missile. It only has to last about 10-12 mins.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 32146
    Points : 32674
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Dec 06, 2020 7:32 am

    You said why bother with drones and make a hypersonic plane.

    No... if the missiles being carried are hypersonic and long ranged then the aircraft or the drone that carries them can be cheaper and subsonic.

    A supersonic drone or a supersonic bomber costs money to fly but you need to fly it to train... hypersonic missiles cost more to operate over the distances they operate over but they are only ever used once so over time they don't become too expensive to keep in use operationally.

    If you are going to spend money making missiles very fast to penetrate air defences or very stealthy to penetrate air defences then make them both very long range so your launch platform does not need to penetrate air defences with speed or stealth.

    A flying wing like a PAK DA is fundamentally stealthy in shape, so a few tweeks and tucks and the correct materials and design and you can create a very stealthy design without making it expensive to buy or use.

    Being subsonic it should not be that expensive to fly around.

    My point is exactly that you need a nice slowish drone to deliver these. Yes the material will last as long as the missile needs it to, that is the point. It will probably be some sort of ceramic composite. Yeah the golden fish I know all about it. But the construction cost of the SR-71 was just the tip of the iceberg. The fuel and maint cost was also absurd even by USAF standards. Titanium cannot cope with hypersonic temps. CMCs will probably used and even those will probably erode but will last log enough for the flight.

    What hypersonic planes are you talking about?

    The only plane that would come close is the Mach 4.2 MiG-41, and I would suggest that the speed is dictated directly by materials and engine performance potential... it is both achievable and affordable.

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 11740
    Points : 11891
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  kvs Sun Dec 06, 2020 8:09 am

    EMP emissions from nuclear blasts do not depend on their detonation altitude. If there is a reason for detonating above 80 km then it is
    to disrupt the ionosphere and communications and detection systems that use the ionosphere to bounce EM waves over the horizon.
    Sure, blasts in thicker layers have more attenuation but that applies to high altitude blasts if you care about lower altitudes. You have
    to deliver the nuke to where it is needed in all cases.

    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 1335
    Points : 1379
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  mnztr Sun Dec 06, 2020 7:32 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    You said why bother with drones and make a hypersonic plane.

    No... if the missiles being carried are hypersonic and long ranged then the aircraft or the drone that carries them can be cheaper and subsonic.

    A supersonic drone or a supersonic bomber costs money to fly but you need to fly it to train... hypersonic missiles cost more to operate over the distances they operate over but they are only ever used once so over time they don't become too expensive to keep in use operationally.

    If you are going to spend money making missiles very fast to penetrate air defences or very stealthy to penetrate air defences then make them both very long range so your launch platform does not need to penetrate air defences with speed or stealth.

    A flying wing like a PAK DA is fundamentally stealthy in shape, so a few tweeks and tucks and the correct materials and design and you can create a very stealthy design without making it expensive to buy or use.

    Being subsonic it should not be that expensive to fly around.

    My point is exactly that you need a nice slowish drone to deliver these. Yes the material will last as long as the missile needs it to, that is the point. It will probably be some sort of ceramic composite. Yeah the golden fish I know all about it. But the construction cost of the SR-71 was just the tip of the iceberg. The fuel and maint cost was also absurd even by USAF standards. Titanium cannot cope with hypersonic temps. CMCs will probably used and even those will probably erode but will last log enough for the flight.

    What hypersonic planes are you talking about?

    The only plane that would come close is the Mach 4.2 MiG-41, and I would suggest that the speed is dictated directly by materials and engine performance potential... it is both achievable and affordable.


    You were saying why not use hypersonic drones.Now you are making the exact same points I was making
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 32146
    Points : 32674
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Dec 07, 2020 5:33 am

    You were saying why not use hypersonic drones.Now you are making the exact same points I was making

    When?

    Hypersonic drones would need to be recovered and reused... a hypersonic missile just needs a launch tube on a ship or submarine.

    The Russian navy has land attack, and anti ship missiles... subsonic, supersonic, and soon hypersonic.

    A hypersonic bomber or hypersonic drone would be redundant and very expensive to reuse over and over.

    They have the Blackjack supersonic bomber, they don't need the PAK DA to be supersonic too... they have always gone for a mix of options... long range AAMs with IR and radar guidance... rocket and gun artillery... supersonic and subsonic cruise missile carriers... subsonic and supersonic and now hypersonic missiles...

    A hypersonic bomber has never made sense... certain members have suggested it repeatedly and I have always been against the idea... I think even the Blackjack should have engines redesigned to allow super cruise at say mach 1.5 to 1.6 which would make it practically un-interceptable by subsonic fighters and the F-35.

    The US Hustler bomber was a failure because of the enormous cost of operating high speed bombers... the Blackjack can be used as a subsonic cruise missile carrier with excellent range or it can use a dash speed to approach and leave its target while taking a serious hit on flight radius... Speed is useful to evade enemy aircraft, but will not save you from S-400 and S-500 level SAMS... unless you are talking about really fast speeds that can only be achieved by hypersonic missiles.

    The operational costs of hypersonic missiles are affordable because you don't have to fly them around all the time burning fuel getting experience and training done.
    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 1335
    Points : 1379
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  mnztr Mon Dec 07, 2020 5:55 am

    GarryB wrote:


    But that raises the obvious question... why bother with subsonic drones to carry hypersonic missiles... why not just have multistage missiles... the first stage powered by hypersonic scramjet motor for very high speed penetration of enemy air defences and kinetic kill capacity, but the launch stage being a huge fuel tank with turbojet sustainer for subsonic flight around the place to extended range at medium or low altitude for great distances...

    Mounting them on a drone seems a little redundant... unless it is the PAK DA that carries hypersonic missiles internally with some level of stealth over strategic distances, but the weapons use hypersonic speed to penetrate defences...

    But honestly... why do you think a drone carrying two hypersonic ASMs is any different from an Su-33 carrying three or five Brahmos-M missiles?
    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 1187
    Points : 1185
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Arrow Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:53 am

    And where is the Russian design of the new CVN? even France is well ahead in building such ships.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 32146
    Points : 32674
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Dec 10, 2020 3:21 am

    But that raises the obvious question... why bother with subsonic drones to carry hypersonic missiles... why not just have multistage missiles... the first stage powered by hypersonic scramjet motor for very high speed penetration of enemy air defences and kinetic kill capacity, but the launch stage being a huge fuel tank with turbojet sustainer for subsonic flight around the place to extended range at medium or low altitude for great distances...

    I am not suggesting subsonic drones carrying hypersonic weapons...

    The main problem with multistage missiles can be answered by the question what is the purpose for the different stages.

    If it is to add range to the weapon then a manned aircraft makes more sense because they can monitor the situation and when optimal they can launch their hypersonic weapons and leave. For a subsonic stage of a missile that means for every hypersonic missile you have to add a subsonic engine and subsonic fuel and subsonic aerodynamics for efficient flight... which is going to make these missiles enormous... probably fighter sized aircraft if you want near strategic range of more than 5,000km.

    Probably the best compromise would be a scramjet missile with subsonic wings and external fuel tanks with lower energy fuel to fly a few thousand kms using the ramjet as simple jet propulsion to slowly climb and accelerate over time... when the external fuel tanks are empty you can drop them... the first ones can be relatively high drag but used to gain altitude... once they are dropped you can fly a bit faster so part of the wing could be jettisoned  to reduce weight and drag and then it could fly at low supersonic speed like supercruising for which a scramjet engine would be ideal... no slowing air through the engine... large airflow, high speed air... climb further and accelerate more...

    Eventually 2,000km from target you dump the wings and the conformal fuel tanks, light up the scramjet and accelerate and climb...

    Dozens of corner reflectors in the nose make it look 200m across and hides the four other missiles tucked in flying behind it...

    Remember with the older missiles like Granit... one flew high and looked for targets while the rest stayed low... scramjet propulsion means all will fly high...

    Mounting them on a drone seems a little redundant... unless it is the PAK DA that carries hypersonic missiles internally with some level of stealth over strategic distances, but the weapons use hypersonic speed to penetrate defences...

    Why create a new drone to carry strategic missiles to penetrate enemy air defences whey they already have Bears and Blackjacks and soon will have PAK DAs...

    But honestly... why do you think a drone carrying two hypersonic ASMs is any different from an Su-33 carrying three or five Brahmos-M missiles?

    If you have read anything I have posted on this forum you will know I don't think Su-33s or Su-57s should be carrying anti ship missiles.... it is just too slow.

    I understand the maths... plane with flight radius of 1,000km means 800km range anti ship missile gets 1,800km range... but that ignores the other maths... flying planes around with three big heavy anti ship missiles just on the off chance you might need them is stupid... it reduces their performance as a fighter and interceptor and air munitions can't be carried around for unlimited hours on an aircraft... after a period of time on an aircraft they need to be stripped down and checked that water and vibration and stresses haven't damaged anything... so realistically the actual situation is that if an enemy ship is detected 2,000km away.... rather than loading anti ship missiles on a plane and then waiting an hour or two for that plane to fly 1,000km at subsonic speeds with its 1.5 ton missiles and then launch those missiles at the targets... it makes rather more sense to launch a mach 9 Zircon from a ship or sub closest to the target that will fly those 2,000kms in just under 11 minutes....

    Carrier aircraft are supposed to be air defence protecting the ships from air attack... missiles or planes... they can be eyes and ears... in peace time you can send them out to see what some dot on a radar screen is, or you can warn aircraft to change flight paths because they are getting closer than you want to your ships... without carrier aircraft a ship can either allow the aircraft to fly straight over or it can shoot them down... hero if it was an attack trying to crash their plane into you and villain if it is 300 odd civilians in a plane that had no idea you were there... flying a fighter up there you will quickly work out if it is the former... so you can shoot them down with a clear conscience, while the latter of course will not be engaged and shot down by the ships captain.

    In war time send a drone if you think it is too dangerous for your fighters to approach a large group of contacts... if they have Su-57s on their carriers then S-70s would make sense too... send one out to a group of contacts with a flight of four Su-57s holding back... if the contacts shoot down the drone those four Su-57s can launch long range AAM attacks and then withdraw... if the contacts are part of an attack then power up all the air defence systems on the ships... but don't turn on the radars in active scan mode to give away their position... the sensors on the Su-57s should provide information and long range over the horizon radar on the biggest ships should give the information they need to engage targets as they get in range... 24 odd fighters armed with AAMs can then be launched towards the threat and perhaps another AWACS aircraft launched to cover other potential directions of attack... when the four initial fighters are met by the 24 they can return to carrier to reload and refuel and the 24 can start whittling down the numbers of the enemy force or aircraft and or missiles.

    With airburst 30mm cannon and radar able to precisely track the target and outgoing rounds shooting down missiles might only need 2-3 rounds per target with a laser detonating the rounds at the optimum range to bring them down...

    More evidence of the extinction of carriers: program for a new 75 kt CVN for France announced

    75K tons, EMALS, fixed wing fighters that don't take off or land vertically.... I like it.

    And where is the Russian design of the new CVN? even France is well ahead in building such ships.

    Arrow... the French leader has announced future plans... openly stating what you plan to do is not well ahead in building anything except an attempt to build confidence and get re-elected perhaps...

    France has already built the Charles De Gaulle... the certainly know what they are doing and are certainly not behind Russia in many respects, but they are buying an EMALs system from the US rather than developing it themselves like the Russians are.

    The technology the Russians will have to develop to make EMALs work will be enormous valuable in a wide range of other areas that involve electric propulsion and power management and distribution and storage and generation...
    Backman
    Backman


    Posts : 910
    Points : 918
    Join date : 2020-11-11

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Backman Thu Dec 10, 2020 4:25 am

    Arrow wrote:And where is the Russian design of the new CVN? even France is well ahead in building such ships.

    What gave you the idea that France is  3rd rate ?

    France has been operating a nuclear aircraft carrier for 20 years. And has been doing catapult ops since 1963.

    But I do agree that Russia should build a carrier. And put naval su 57's on it.  They aren't made for real war. They are a status symbol. The only problem with Russia's aircraft carrier program is priorities. If Russia spent as much time and effort on its carrier program as they do the submarine program, Russia would have a carrier at the same level as Frances.

    Thats the problem with spending so much on subs. Nobody can see them.
    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 650
    Points : 652
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  lancelot Fri Dec 11, 2020 6:42 am

    Backman wrote:...
    What gave you the idea that France is  3rd rate ?

    France has been operating a nuclear aircraft carrier for 20 years. And has been doing catapult ops since 1963.

    But I do agree that Russia should build a carrier. And put naval su 57's on it.  They aren't made for real war. They are a status symbol. The only problem with Russia's aircraft carrier program is priorities. If Russia spent as much time and effort on its carrier program as they do the submarine program, Russia would have a carrier at the same level as Frances.

    Thats the problem with spending so much on subs. Nobody can see them.

    France is going to design a K22 nuclear reactor at 200MWt to power their carrier. The Yasen-M submarine has a 200MWt reactor already.
    Russia has developed the 175MWt RITM-200 naval nuclear reactor for surface ships. Is in the process of developing the scaled up 315MWt RITM-400 naval nuclear reactor for Project 10510 icebreaker.
    France arguably has more advanced GaN radar technology at this moment. The Franco-German stealth fighter is still a paper program.
    They plan to use the same EMALS supplier as in the Ford carrier - General Atomics. Oh dear.

    I would say Russia is ahead on this one. If it wasn't for the lack of suitable drydock on the Western side of Russia.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4126
    Points : 4128
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:29 pm

    USC expects to build a new aircraft carrier at Sevmash

    General Director of the corporation Alexey Rakhmanov stressed that Russia now has all the competencies for this.

    MOSCOW, December 22. / TASS /. The United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) expects to build a promising aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy at Sevmash. This was announced on Tuesday by the general director of the USC Alexei Rakhmanov in an interview with the Russia-24 TV channel .

    "As soon as the Ministry of Defense makes a decision, we are ready to immediately start designing and building it. Building an aircraft carrier for India indicates that we have experience. This experience is concentrated at the Sevmash plant, and this is where we expect to build an aircraft carrier, if it is will be ordered by the military department, "he said.

    Rakhmanov stressed that Russia now has all the competencies for this.

    As for the cost of building a new aircraft carrier, he explained that it will be several times lower than the cost of building aircraft carriers of the naval forces of other countries. "The cost of manufacturing in comparison with foreign ships and vessels is significantly lower. I am absolutely convinced that we will cope with the aircraft carrier. We have found an opportunity to build cooperation in such a way as to effectively fulfill the state defense order," the head of the USC explained.

    According to Rakhmanov, domestic ships outperform foreign ones in terms of cost. "Do you remember how the president spoke quite recently at a press conference about the ratio of the size of the military budgets of the Russian Federation and the United States? Keep in mind a certain proportion, which can approximately illustrate the difference in the cost of ours and that of the Americans," he said.

    https://tass.ru/ekonomika/10327911

    kvs, x_54_u43 and Backman like this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 11740
    Points : 11891
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  kvs Wed Dec 23, 2020 2:53 am

    Based on impressions from this forum I thought that Russia did not have the shipyards to build carriers after the breakup of
    the USSR. Interesting that Sevmash has had this ability. Or are they going to upgrade their facilities?

    Backman
    Backman


    Posts : 910
    Points : 918
    Join date : 2020-11-11

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Backman Wed Dec 23, 2020 7:14 am

    LMFS wrote:USC expects to build a new aircraft carrier at Sevmash



    As for the cost of building a new aircraft carrier, he explained that it will be several times lower than the cost of building aircraft carriers of the naval forces of other countries. I am absolutely convinced that we will cope with the aircraft carrier.
    According to Rakhmanov, domestic ships outperform foreign ones in terms of cost.

    https://tass.ru/ekonomika/10327911

    Cost shouldn't be a big deal. Just treat it like its one more submarine. As if those are cheap and easy to build.

    x_54_u43
    x_54_u43


    Posts : 334
    Points : 348
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  x_54_u43 Wed Dec 23, 2020 8:12 am

    kvs wrote:Based on impressions from this forum I thought that Russia did not have the shipyards to build carriers after the breakup of
    the USSR.   Interesting that Sevmash has had this ability.   Or are they going to upgrade their facilities?


    They could be, but the issue here is the enclosed construction yard itself. Those two buildings are fucking MASSIVE, as well as all of it's supporting workshops that bring in the constructed pieces to be assembled in the final product(submarine). The yard themselves are huge and could theoretically build a ship 400m in length, but the floating drydock that the submarines are transferred into from the yard itself, and then pulled outside of the enclosed bay. It would not be able to take a aircraft carrier. Not to mention that Sevmash is literally bloated from submarine orders, they are at near full capacity in terms of what could be build with the current yards.

    BUT, what is likely the construction method envisioned here is following the Queen Elizabeth British carrier system, where you build huge floating 6k ton modules and assemble them together, Sevmash could easily build these blocks very easily and very quickly, without delaying the construction times of the submarines that have to be built entirely inside the yards. These blocks can then be transferred to the floating drydock, then the floating drydock would lower the module into the water, and the module would then be towed into the drydock bay where the Indian carrier and Nakhimov were refurbished and welded together there. Then once all the modules have been welded together, simply tow the ship outside the enclosed bay and transfer it to the outfitting quay, where all the finishing touches can be put onto it, tower, antenna's, interior fittings, etc.

    Here are some pictures and videos that give an idea of what I am talking about.



    These modules can also be constructed at other yards, in order to increase the pace of construction. This is important as this construction method blocks off the smaller construction yard, maybe you are right and they will do some remodeling in order to make this area into a proper drydock area instead of near bare ground. I actually think they have done some work since Nakhimov was put in.

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Sevmas10

    LMFS likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 32146
    Points : 32674
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Wed Dec 23, 2020 2:24 pm

    The Zvezda shipyard in the far east was built specifically for making large ships up to 350K ton... if there was an order for a carrier they could build it.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 11866
    Points : 11932
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  PapaDragon Tue Dec 29, 2020 11:50 pm

    Tai Hai Chen wrote:
    dino00 wrote:....

    These two ships would take China about 1 year to build. While it's true Russian shipyards aren't as modern as Chinese shipyards, it should take Russia about 2 to 4 years to build.

    Weren't you warned that you are one strike away from getting permabanned should you try pulling this shit again?


    https://www.russiadefence.net/t7768p350-s-70-okhotnik-ucav#306447

    George1 wrote:
    Tai Hai Chen wrote:...2024 is a very ambitious goal.

    next time you will troll think about it twice because it will be your last one

    magnumcromagnon, LMFS, ALAMO_1 and TMA1 like this post

    TMA1
    TMA1


    Posts : 369
    Points : 371
    Join date : 2020-11-30

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  TMA1 Wed Dec 30, 2020 7:44 am

    Tai Hai Chen wrote:
    dino00 wrote:MOSCOW, December 30 - RIA Novosti. The displacement of the universal amphibious assault ships - helicopter carriers, being built in Kerch , will amount to 40 thousand tons, twice as much as previously reported, said Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko .

    "Under the leadership of the President of the Russian Federation, two universal amphibious assault ships of a new project with a displacement of 40 thousand tons each were laid down," he said in an interview with the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper
    .


    https://ria.ru/20201230/vertoletonostsy-1591490559.html

    Shocked Shocked

    These two ships would take China about 1 year to build. While it's true Russian shipyards aren't as modern as Chinese shipyards, it should take Russia about 2 to 4 years to build.

    the way you talk id figure Chinese are faithless friends and allies. id say that your behavior is a one off but sadly there is a track record.

    Sponsored content


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:30 pm