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


+49
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
53 posters

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Backman
    Backman

    Posts : 853
    Points : 863
    Join date : 2020-11-11

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Backman Wed Apr 07, 2021 1:34 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:I wouldn't hold my breath on the LMFS:
    https://eurasiantimes.com/why-russias-newest-fighter-jet-with-both-manned-unmanned-variant-is-a-great-idea-that-is-likely-to-fail/

    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38114/no-russia-really-doesnt-need-a-new-single-engine-fighter

    IMO, it would be a lot easier & less risky to navalize the multi-role Su-34 which has commonality with the Su-33, stronger airframe, is better armed, & its pilots will need minimum time to retrain, instead of the Su-57.
    If need be, its tail sting could be shortened/removed to make the length=to Su-57's length. If a large deck CV/N is ever built, there will be plenty of room for it.
    The VKS & export customers will need a lot Su-57s, so it would be a waste of money & time to navalize & produce them for the NAF.


    -manned-unmanned-variant-is-a-great-idea-that-is-likely-to-fail

    Evolutionary designs. The su 57 is fail proof because its an evolutionary design. If the s 70 can fly, so can an unmanned su 57. If fact it will be easier than the s 70. Flying wings are less stable.

    less risky to navalize the multi-role [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34#Specifications_(Su-34)]Su-34

    That is just bunk. The su 57 is smaller and lighter. The su 34 gross weight is 39,000 kg. The su 57's is 25,000 kg. Every pound of weight on a carrier counts. The su 57 is 15 foot 7 inches in height.(identical to Mig 29) The su 34 is 20 feet. Every foot of space counts on a carrier too.

    Plus the short take-offs and landings lengths which are both classified but Sukhoi says that they are best in the business.




    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3824
    Points : 3826
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:01 am

    A random BS generator would make more sense than this guy, it is truly astounding
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5656
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:29 am

    The su 34 gross weight is 39,000 kg. The su 57's is 25,000 kg. Every pound of weight on a carrier counts. The su 57 is 15 foot 7 inches in height.(identical to Mig 29) The su 34 is 20 feet. Every foot of space counts on a carrier too.
    they may have single & 2 seat variants, so some planes will be lighter; in any case, with better engines & catapults, it won't be a problem.
    The Su-34K would be more capable than the Su-33 (its GW: 29,940 kg, H: 20 ft); there will be enough hangar space for extra 4'3" of height.
    They could even make the tailfins canted like on the F-18C/D/E/Fs for better handling.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29920
    Points : 30446
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:46 am

    I wouldn't hold my breath on the LMFS

    From the information released they have managed to make the MiG-35 both capable and affordable to buy and to operate.

    Why do you think they can't make a stealthy equivalent?

    I could understand you suggesting the Americans can't make cheap affordable fighter aircraft, but...

    IMO, it would be a lot easier & less risky to navalize the multi-role Su-34 which has commonality with the Su-33, stronger airframe, is better armed, & its pilots will need minimum time to retrain, instead of the Su-57 .

    The Su-34 is a strike aircraft, which is not what they want. The Su-57 is a fighter first and foremost but can perform a range of other missions too.

    The Su-57 is smaller and lighter and with more powerful engines and with internal weapons much lower drag.

    The VKS & export customers will need a lot Su-57s, so it would be a waste of money & time to navalize & produce them for the NAF.

    It remains to be seen how many will actually be made, domestically or for export... but it was almost certainly designed from the outset with naval carrier based versions in mind... the structural strengthening was probably related to allowing ski ramp takeoffs and operations from short strips which would be useful for land and ship based versions.

    All it really needs is a tailhook and folding main wings... which would be trivial if the rest was already designed with carrier operations in mind.

    Evolutionary designs. The su 57 is fail proof because its an evolutionary design. If the s 70 can fly, so can an unmanned su 57. If fact it will be easier than the s 70. Flying wings are less stable.

    There is a long tradition in the Soviet Union for using obsolete aircraft as drones for exercises including testing air defences.

    The M-23 is a drone version of a MiG-23 whose operational performance can be improved simply because it becomes expendable and no longer needs to follow strict speed and g limits.

    Unnecessary items like cockpit displays and radar are removed and the autopilot is modified to enable the aircraft to be "telecontrolled".

    Which essentially means it is manually controlled for takeoff and then switches to autopilot to fly an attack profile for training.

    they may have single & 2 seat variants, so some planes will be lighter; in any case, with better engines & catapults, it won't be a problem.
    The Su-34K would be more capable than the Su-33 (its GW: 29,940 kg, H: 20 ft ); there will be enough hangar space for extra 4'3" of height.
    They could even make the tailfins canted like on the F-18C/D/E/Fs for better handling.

    A naval Su-35 would make more sense, but why waste time navalising the Su-35 when the Su-57 is more capable and more modern and would be more useful.

    The Su-33KUB is essentially a naval Su-34 and it was rejected as too heavy... photos of it doing fly pasts over the deck is just that... flypasts.

    AFAIK no landings were attempted or achieved.

    It was most likely disinformation.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3824
    Points : 3826
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Wed Apr 07, 2021 1:09 pm

    GarryB wrote:A triple hulled cat might allow even better performance in terms of numbers of aircraft carried per K ton of ship weight.

    The semicatamaran hull is actually similar to a trimaran in that it has both good sea keeping and extended width, but far simpler. It is the only serious design I have seen going in this direction, so while multihull carriers seem logical or advantageous, there is not so much real substance as designed from professional bureaus to prove their case.

    Basing them on an already existing and in use design means spare parts and engines etc can be shared and you could actually build extra...

    If you think about the restrictions on board a carrier, duplicating the amount of part numbers, processes, specialists and tools for your maintenance is the last thing you want to do. Unless you reach very big commonality between a light and heavy fighter, it goes contrary to your logistic interests.

    Your proposal was more about replacing steam cats and EMALS cats than anything else from my memory.

    We did not discuss much about it (early dismissal of the concept), but there where two side hulls that would circle the airframes from and to the flight deck mounted on skids like in a production line and foreseeing special stations where planes could stay long term and also bypassing to change the use of the decks / direction of the flow in the line. The movement from one station to the other would be done by the automated skids moving to pre-planed positions to make the handling of the planes much easier and faster and independent of the direction where the plane's landing gear is oriented. I think such approach would reduce crew and increase sortie generation rate substantially.

    The drones I would take in numbers are the fighter support drones like S-70, or attack and suicide drones that are smaller and shorter ranged and hang around the ships rather than perform deep strike missions into enemy territory.

    That sort of defeats the purpose of establishing a wide perimeter around your fleet, for which long ranged aircraft are needed. You will not have a big number of Okhotnik on board, they are huge.

    If you want deep strike then launch a Kh-101.

    Rather Kalibr or Kalibr-M but yeah I understand.

    I would suggest that launching aircraft with the cat would still prioritise the AWACS and tanker aircraft with a quick topup on the way via the tankers... or a top up on the way back.

    The more tankers and refuelling operations, the smaller the sortie rate, useful air wing and effectiveness of your operations. So it should be preferred to use the fighters with their internal fuel only, as much as possible.

    True but Kh-101s are pretty damn good too.

    Subsonic CMs are not a proper tool against enemy fleet. In terms of land attack, which is a potential mission even when marginal in terms of priority, CMs are quite ok and normally should be enough. But still strike aircraft are more flexible and cheaper in case operations need to be sustained.

    You mean pimp my ride with the ride height raised on one side to lift one wing up and lowered on the other to lower the other wing down so instead of folding they overlap in the hangar... you could calculate the perfect fit and then build wheel ramps to make the angle even more exaggerated for better clearance when parked...

    I was not thinking about raising only one side but about rising or lowering some of the planes, but your idea may work in some layouts too. This approach makes no sense with current fighters because the wing stations are needed 99% of the time, but with weapon bays that is not the case anymore, so you can place the wings of two planes one above the other without practical interference. The Rafale-M has no folding wing and they manage to put a reasonable amount of them in the CdG, so this would deserve being studied. Sukhoi already did a lot of research for their S-56 project, they apparently considered both a lowering landing gear and double folding wings for minuscule footprint on board.
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 S-56-l10

    What F-35 or smaller aircraft can reach targets 4,500km away like a Kh-101?

    Apart from Kh-101 not being a naval CM, the issue is in the type of deployment an UDK would make sense on their own, like COIN, you would not have many targets that would justify the use of CMs. I talk simply from what I see in Syria, Kalibr were simply tested and not used as the weapons of choice, by a huge margin. They are so much more expensive than SVP-24 launched dumb bombs, that there is not even a discussion to be made. Russia uses their hard earned money to increase their amounts of CMs, mainly for a high intensity conflict vs the West where they need to give really serious size to their salvos, and not to blow up Toyotas in the desert.

    You are ignoring the obvious... the MiG-35 is a navalised fighter... fit it with the folding wings and tailhook and it is ready to go.

    Fit a folding wing to the Su-57 and a tailhook and it is probably also already to go too.

    The LMFS will likely already be a unified design that just has folding enlarged wings with extra lifting surfaces as an option along with a tailhook.

    I am talking about new planes, what would be the point with MiG-35, when there is already a -29K which is virtually the same plane? Any navalisation is a far more complex design, manufacturing and testing effort than putting a hook. Even if the original plane is almost "ready to go" as the Su-57 apparently is. That is also a reason why I think avoiding wing fold would be very interesting. If you look at the numbers, it is some dozens planes t be built, at best. That number is actually even lower for STOBAR/CATOBAR planes than for STOVL ones, which every regional power is willing to use on board of LHDs.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5656
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:16 pm

    I wouldn't hold my breath on the LMFS
    From the information released they have managed to make the MiG-35 both capable and affordable to buy and to operate.
    Why do you think they can't make a stealthy equivalent?
    I doubt a single engine deck fighter is a good idea, esp. for the areas around Russia; time will tell if they make a twin engine variant that would be better than the MiG-29K.
    IMO, it would be a lot easier & less risky to navalize the multi-role Su-34 which has commonality with the Su-33, stronger airframe, is better armed, & its pilots will need minimum time to retrain, instead of the Su-57.
    The Su-34 is a strike aircraft, which is not what they want. The Su-57 is a fighter first and foremost but can perform a range of other missions too.
    recently Su-34s practiced doing intercepts; having ground/naval strike capability would add more flexibility- there may be situations when friendly naval/ground forces need air support. According to experts, the plane’s design incorporates features from the Su-27, the Su-30MKI, Su-33 [failure], and the Su-35, making it a highly capable air combat fighter along with tactical bombing roles. In Syria, it was reported that Su-34s had intercepted Israeli F-16s, forcing them to abandon their mission and turn back.
    https://eurasiantimes.com/russian-sukhoi-su-34-fighter-jets-makes-its-first-flight-into-stratosphere/

    Single seat Su-34Ks could escort/refuel dual seat Su-34Ks, just like F-18Es with F-18Fs on strike missions.
    The Su-33KUB is essentially a naval Su-34 and it was rejected as too heavy...
    it was too heavy for the Adm K., but future CVNs should be able to handle them. If they r going to be CATOBAR, they might as well use a mix of light & heavy fighters on them too.[/quote]
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29920
    Points : 30446
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:36 pm

    The semicatamaran hull is actually similar to a trimaran in that it has both good sea keeping and extended width, but far simpler. It is the only serious design I have seen going in this direction, so while multihull carriers seem logical or advantageous, there is not so much real substance as designed from professional bureaus to prove their case.

    We are really only seeing the tip of the iceberg... but be aware... in the late 1980s it was the Mi-28A that was revealed to the public first and was seen at western airshows first because it had already lost the competition with the Ka-50 to be the new attack helicopter to replace the Mi-24 Hind.

    Often designs that have been rejected are revealed, not to show what they will be getting, but to give the designer/manufacturer a chance to get foreign customers interested in producing it too.

    Later on the Ka-50 was revealed as the winner of the competition... the early 1990s... ironically after Desert Storm where the use of Apaches at night showed how much more capable and safe an helicopter can be when operating in the dark. Operating in the dark is of course a full time job so the single seat Ka-50s design was reconsidered and the Mi-28N was back in the race and eventually won the job to replace the Hind, with the Ka-52 winning the role of recon helicopter... a sort of non stealthy Commanche...

    If you think about the restrictions on board a carrier, duplicating the amount of part numbers, processes, specialists and tools for your maintenance is the last thing you want to do. Unless you reach very big commonality between a light and heavy fighter, it goes contrary to your logistic interests.

    There can be very little commonality with drones and helicopters with fixed wing aircraft. The heavy and light fighters and AWACS aircraft don't need to share spare parts... any carrier would need to be supplied with food and water and weapons and fuel, so delivering spares as they are used up should not be a huge issue... modern 5th gen engines should not need lots of overhauls at sea, and they should have enough engines to ensure that when they set sail they wont need major engine overhauls with the engines they take during the trip...

    I mean 150 hours is about 5.5 hours every day for a month, so a three month trip you are looking at 450 hours life time on an engine.... and I rather doubt any of the aircraft will be used at that sort of rate, but even if they did they should be fine.

    but there where two side hulls that would circle the airframes from and to the flight deck mounted on skids like in a production line and foreseeing special stations where planes could stay long term and also bypassing to change the use of the decks / direction of the flow in the line.

    Production line like structures would be limiting... even with side tracks to allow aircraft to be held back or to skip a plane ahead... whereever they stopped to be loaded with fuel and weapons would fix them, so if the front four aircraft are loaded with the wrong weapons you would have to launch them to get the aircraft with suitable weapons airborne.

    There is potential for changing the things done now on aircraft carriers but I think this idea would need thrashing out to make it useful.

    As a replacement for an EMALS cats, I think there would be the obvious easy solution... an EMALS based cat system.... it just makes sense once it is working of course.

    The fact that they are talking about a mobile cat system for testing on the Kuznetsov suggests they have made progress and might develop something that could be used on land for launching aircraft from damaged runways or short strips of motorway.

    Perhaps you could start a new thread and we could discuss it better?

    Still your idea so you get naming rights, but I am happy to brain storm it and tell you what I think is wrong... (constructive, no destructive).

    That sort of defeats the purpose of establishing a wide perimeter around your fleet, for which long ranged aircraft are needed.

    I don't agree.

    Long ranged aircraft wont spend a lot of time at long range... they have satellites and they have all sorts of extreme long range radar, and they have ships all over the place including military and civilian ships and subs... having a long range fighter means detecting an attack allows you to send aircraft out beyond the 400km and 600km range limit of your SAMs, to get a closer look at the threat and to start picking off targets that may rely on swarm methods of attacks. Being able to fly out 800km with Su-57s and engage C-130 transports before they launch their 500km range swarm drones could be critical in defeating an attack before it becomes overwhelming... they might fly with those transports as they close on the group because it is peace time and this is their opening move attack, but once drones start leaving those C-130s and start heading towards your carrier group the Su-57s can start destroying C-130s and drones and any fighters that might be nearby... plus the carrier group gets very early warning it is under attack, which would give them time to prepare air defence systems and jammers and launch drones.

    The missiles the US use might have a home on jam mode, in which case a drone that can pull 30 g and is fitted with a jammer could become a missile sponge, and it could start out amongst the ships but gradually fly further and further away leading many of the incoming enemy missiles with it... if it has radio and laser sensors on it and a DIRCM system it might be able to defeat missiles by setting off laser and radio proximity fuses from distances where the drone can survive and defeat other enemy missiles in the same way.

    They don't need enormous range for that, but endurance would be useful.

    You will not have a big number of Okhotnik on board, they are huge.

    They don't have an enormous area like a flying wing. In many ways they are more like a glider... big sure, but thin fuselage and thin wing... you could stack them in a relatively small area if you modify the design to allow that... especially if you stack them.

    A Russian carrier with Kamov type helicopters will need a tall hangar so stacking drones makes sense to use that available space efficiently... especially with drones...

    Rather Kalibr or Kalibr-M but yeah I understand.

    Kalibr M is supposed to be Kh-101... there is already enough room in the UKSK launcher for Kh-101 sized missiles... 7.4m long and 650mm wide.

    The more tankers and refuelling operations, the smaller the sortie rate, useful air wing and effectiveness of your operations. So it should be preferred to use the fighters with their internal fuel only, as much as possible.

    I don't agree. The fighters with reduced fuel can get airborne quickly and easily without cat assistance, while the tanker would take time to get airborne and would need cat assistance, it can also refuel the AWACS platform and reduce its need to operate the cat and long takeoff position.

    By allowing the fighters to refuel inflight they can get airborne quicker and easier and could potentially take fuel from the AWACS aircraft too if needed.

    The tanker aircraft could operate as a SAR platform, or could carry missiles of its own for close in defence... that could allow it to fly out with fighters towards and intercept... it could hold back from the actual bogey and then refuel the fighters on their way back to the ship...

    The first fighters could refuel from the already airborne AWACS platform, with a tanker then launched to refuel the AWACS and then head out in the direction the fighters went to allow them to top up on their way back.

    With normal operations fighters will operate over the ships in the carrier group and would probably operate on quarter tanks anyway.

    I would expect the Su-57 to be able to take off with full fuel tanks and a full AAM internal weapon load from the ski jump ramp and without cat assistance just fine.

    Its role might be to sneak out and fly around an incoming threat and then passively monitor it from behind as it approaches with an LMFS sent out to meet the target when it is 400km or so away... if the target turns out to be hostile it can be attacked from either group of aircraft... or even a ship launched missile.

    I would think a medium range AAM would be cheaper than an S-400.

    Subsonic CMs are not a proper tool against enemy fleet. In terms of land attack, which is a potential mission even when marginal in terms of priority, CMs are quite ok and normally should be enough. But still strike aircraft are more flexible and cheaper in case operations need to be sustained.

    Nothing says censored off like a Yasen launched Zircon.

    The question is... do you want to sink the entire fleet or get it to move on or just warn it to keep its distance and not interfere...

    I would think a low flying subsonic long range missile says that pretty clearly... especially a next generation version with a scramjet motor instead of a mach 3 rocket booster... perhaps fly 2,000km to the location where the enemy ships are and then accelerate to mach 3-4 and then drop down to wave height and see how fast you can get to before impact.

    I was not thinking about raising only one side but about rising or lowering some of the planes, but your idea may work in some layouts too. This approach makes no sense with current fighters because the wing stations are needed 99% of the time, but with weapon bays that is not the case anymore, so you can place the wings of two planes one above the other without practical interference.

    I am talking about in the hangar... there will be no aircraft with ordinance fitted in the hangar... they only get weapons loaded on them on deck... it is a safety thing.

    Apart from Kh-101 not being a naval CM, the issue is in the type of deployment an UDK would make sense on their own, like COIN, you would not have many targets that would justify the use of CMs. I talk simply from what I see in Syria, Kalibr were simply tested and not used as the weapons of choice, by a huge margin.

    They used a lot of them. And the scaling up applied to the Kh-101 is being applied to the Calibr to better fit the UKSK tubes.
    Sending one cruise missile is much cheaper and easier than sending a dozen aircraft including strike aircraft and fighter escort aircraft and jammer aircraft as well as some recon aircraft to check results and determine if a follow up attack is needed.

    The 152mm guns of their new cruisers will likely be tasked with shore bombardment with drones spotting targets and checking effect of attacks.

    The current ones could reach 70km with guided shells but they are working on 180km rounds too...

    They are so much more expensive than SVP-24 launched dumb bombs, that there is not even a discussion to be made.

    We are talking about countries where Russia will likely not have ground bases to launch attacks from so a carrier launched strike would need a couple of strike aircraft, plus fighter escort, and perhaps inflight refuelling aircraft and probably an AWACS aircraft to spot threats and command the mission... pretty soon we are talking about a dozen aircraft or more being involved... the 400kg HE payload of the Cruise missile is rather cheap too, but delivery can be expensive... once a cruise missile is made it might as well be useful.

    Russia uses their hard earned money to increase their amounts of CMs, mainly for a high intensity conflict vs the West where they need to give really serious size to their salvos, and not to blow up Toyotas in the desert.

    I rather doubt Russia will be fighting anywhere on their own without special forces on the ground at the very least but those Toyotas might be the core problem and therefore the solution is not SVP-24 or Calibr... it might be Orion with suitable mini bombs and missiles and an offshore base and launch pad it can operate from that is perhaps five minutes from the operational area that does not have any enemy aircraft as such... the S-350s and S-400s and S-500s of the ships could keep any no fly zone clear of enemy aircraft easily enough...

    It might be based on a new 40K ton helicopter carrier with Ka-52s and drones...


    I am talking about new planes, what would be the point with MiG-35, when there is already a -29K which is virtually the same plane? Any navalisation is a far more complex design, manufacturing and testing effort than putting a hook.

    The Airframe of the MiG-29M and MiG-29KR and MiG-35 are the SAME... they will have the fittings for the tail hook present, and I doubt they have different undercarriage on the different aircraft.

    As I said the MiG-29KR has a folding wing with larger area and larger area flaps for lower speed landings... the other differences would be software.

    Fit the MiG-29KR wing and tailhook to the MiG-35 and you have a carrier based MiG-35.

    Like I said, the revised design was intended to incorporate their three main products... the original MiG-29M, MiG-29SMT, and the Naval MiG-33... which equate to the MiG-35, the MiG-29M, and the MiG-29KR.
    The top product with the best of everything they can manage, the cheaper affordable product with budget components that are capable but not as expensive and bleeding edge, and a carrier capable version.

    They all share the same airframe and are interchangeable.

    Even if the original plane is almost "ready to go" as the Su-57 apparently is. That is also a reason why I think avoiding wing fold would be very interesting. If you look at the numbers, it is some dozens planes t be built, at best. That number is actually even lower for STOBAR/CATOBAR planes than for STOVL ones, which every regional power is willing to use on board of LHDs.

    The wings come off... you can unbolt them and remove them. Having a different set with larger area and bigger flaps and high lift devices to allow better handling at lower speeds is not a bad thing.... they could make a couple of dozen and fit them easily enough.

    If they designed them from the outset to also be carrier compatible it should not be that hard.

    You do know the US even managed with the F- 4 Phantom to have an aircraft that operated on aircraft carriers and on land in their navy and their air force... it is not impossible if you plan for it.

    It is not like the Russians have a navy fighter design bureau.... Kamov certainly dominates their naval helicopters, but the Mi-14 is a good design too from Mil.

    MiG and Sukhoi make land and sea based aircraft... it would make sense for them to unify the designs... especially with 5th gen aircraft.

    I doubt a single engine deck fighter is a good idea, esp. for the areas around Russia; time will tell if they make a twin engine variant that would be better than the MiG-29K.

    I totally agree... a twin jet fighter in the form of the MiG-35 shows it can be affordable to buy and to operate, or so they claim, so there is no real value in making a single engined version except in reducing its performance.

    According to experts, the plane’s design incorporates features from the Su-27, the Su-30MKI, Su-33 [failure ], and the Su-35, making it a highly capable air combat fighter along with tactical bombing roles.

    Interesting it is called a failure when the Su-33 is still in use.

    The Su-57 is lighter with more engine power than the Su-33. The Su-34 is significantly heavier than the Su-33 and uses the same engines.

    The Su-57 is a generation ahead of the Su-33 and Su-34.

    It is both capable and affordable and would meet F-35s on more than equal terms.

    In Syria, it was reported that Su-34s had intercepted Israeli F-16s, forcing them to abandon their mission and turn back.

    Not saying the Su-34 is useless, saying it is too heavy.

    It would need cat assistance for any takeoff including with no armament and minimum fuel.

    Single seat Su-34Ks could escort/refuel dual seat Su-34Ks, just like F-18Es with F-18Fs on strike missions.

    The shape of the forward fuselage of the Su-34 was designed for two seat side by side strike missions... converting it to a single seat does not make sense... would be simpler and cheaper to just use Su-33 which is already a single seater.

    it was too heavy for the Adm K., but future CVNs should be able to handle them. If they r going to be CATOBAR, they might as well use a mix of light & heavy fighters on them too.

    The Su-57K could probably be used with a tail hook and folding wing as is on the K and any future larger carrier they might make.

    The Su-57K would be faster and better in almost every way than the Su-34 as a fighter and interceptor.

    The Su-34 makes sense for land based strike missions, but would cost a fortune to navalise.

    The Su-33KUB was essentially a two seat side by side seating Su-33.... it essentially looked the same as the Su-34 except its nose radome was round like the Su-33, instead of wider and flatter on the Su-34, but the Su-33KUB (sometimes called Su-27KUB) is just an Su-33 with two side by side seats so is much lighter than the Su-34.

    AFAIK it was rejected as being too heavy and too expensive for the performance so they bought MiG-29KRs when production was started for an order from India.

    Nice looking aircraft, but not practical...

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 1_su-310

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 15255410

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Su-27k10

    The real thing... a significant number of tons heavier too:

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Bombar10
    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 959
    Points : 1066
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  jhelb Thu Apr 08, 2021 3:02 pm

    GarryB wrote: Su-57s and engage C-130 transports before they launch their 500km range swarm drones could be critical in defeating an attack before it becomes overwhelming...
    When did the U.S ever develop a 500km range swarm drone? No country in the world has swarm drones with such a massive range.

    kvs likes this post

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5656
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Apr 08, 2021 11:08 pm

    the fighters ..could potentially take fuel from the AWACS aircraft too if needed.
    it's a bad idea to combine those 2 missions & risk losing such a valuable asset & crews to refueling accidents. The CODs or planes based on their airframes could be adopted as tankers, just like the land based KC-135/10s & IL-478 cargo/tanker planes.

    Interesting it is called a failure when the Su-33 is still in use.
    the F-35 is also an expensive failure in USAF/N while being used; the VMF has no other navalized birds with longer range than the MiG-29Ks.

    The Su-57 is lighter with more engine power than the Su-33. The Su-34 is significantly heavier than the Su-33 and uses the same engines.
    there r betteroff the shelf engines with more thrust that can replace their current powerplants. The izdeliye 30 (in development) for Su-57  is supposed to have 176.6 kN (39,700 lbf) thrust with afterburner, & it could be fitted on Su-34s.

    Not saying the Su-34 is useless, saying it is too heavy.
    It would need cat assistance for any takeoff including with no armament and minimum fuel.
    if their future catapults r up to the task, why not use them if they r more capable than their Su-33s & MiG-29K/35s?

    The shape of the forward fuselage of the Su-34 was designed for two seat side by side strike missions... converting it to a single seat does not make sense... would be simpler and cheaper to just use Su-33 which is already a single seater.
    if need be, new navalized single seat variants could be built, & the Su-33s will soon need replacements anyway.

    The Su-34 makes sense for land based strike missions, but would cost a fortune to navalise.
    not much more, if at all, than they spent navalizing the Su-27; it already has some features of the Su-33.
    Navalizing the Su-57 may not be as easy, & its performance may suffer as a result. What if they will need to be armed with heavier ordinance? If left unused, how much of it they'll be able to bring back instead of jettisoning? Besides, they'll likely need many 2 seaters that will be heavier.
    Time will tell if it'll become another F-4, good enough for both VKS & VMF!


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:06 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add text, link)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29920
    Points : 30446
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:12 am

    When did the U.S ever develop a 500km range swarm drone? No country in the world has swarm drones with such a massive range.

    They haven't... I am being super generous.

    But without a fixed wing aircraft carrier most Russian ships SAMs will reach about 400km so without carrier support the US would be looking to attack from a standoff distance of about 500km to assure their launch platforms are safe from S-400 missiles... I am just being logical.

    it's a bad idea to combine those 2 missions & risk losing such a valuable asset & crews to refueling accidents.

    They could have multiple AWACS aircraft up and one might be operating much closer to where the threats to be dealt with are so flying there immediately might make that AWACS aircraft safer, but once they get there it might take too long for a tanker to fly there too so while they are waiting they could take some fuel from the AWACS aircraft and when the tanker arrives it could refuel the AWACS aircraft first and then they could all head back closer to the ships.

    The CODs or planes based on their airframes could be adopted as tankers, just like the land based KC-135/10s & IL-78 cargo/tanker planes.

    I am assuming that any COD and tanker and AWACS platform could share airframe and general design.... all would benefit from good fuel fractions, and all need to be cat launch capable so structural strength would be important for all of them. Sharing a design base just makes sense to me.

    the F-35 is also an expensive failure in USAF/N while being used; the VMF has no other navalized birds with longer range than the MiG-29Ks.

    They have had the Su-33 for the last 30 years... is the F-18 a failure because its replacement is a failure yet they keep buying them?

    The Su-33 was never meant to be anything except a naval Su-27, which is exactly what it is.

    there r betteroff the shelf engines with more thrust that can replace their current powerplants . The izdeliye 30 (in development) for Su-57 is supposed to have 176.6 kN (39,700 lbf) thrust with afterburner , & it could be fitted on Su-34s.

    Look at the pictures I posted in my post above... the Su-27KUB was rejected as too heavy... count the number of main wheels on its under carriage... one on each strut... now count the wheels on the Su-34... two wheels... because the Su-34 is a LOT heavier... rather more than a few extra tons of thrust will effect.

    The chance of a naval Su-34 is like the chance of a naval F-111... which was tried and rejected as too heavy. It eventually turned into an F-14, which was several tons lighter.

    Look up the F-111B.

    There simply would be no need for an Su-34... its flight range would be shorter than the Su-57K with an AAM loadout anyway...

    Russian carriers are no strike carriers like US carriers.

    Russian carriers are air defence carriers first with minor secondary strike capacity.

    if their future catapults r up to the task, why not use them if they r more capable than their Su-33s & MiG-29K/35s?

    In the air to air role the Su-34 would not be better than the Su-57.

    They would not be better enough to warrant the cost of replacing the MiGs and the Su-33s with Su-34s... it would be impractical because of their enormous weight... the best solution would be to operate it with light weapon loads and light fuel loads, but that would just make them worse in performance than the Siu-33.

    The Su-57 has stealth features, and most Russian enemy countries are not well equipped to deal with stealthy targets even though it is not super stealthy, and its fighter performance is rather better than the Su-34 as well as range and speed and ability to supercruise even with current engines.

    if need be, new navalized single seat variants could be built, & the Su-33s will soon need replacements anyway.

    Their Su-33s have not been excessively used, and the MiG-29KR is a good replacement... much better range of new weapons and equipment, only minor reduction in flight range options, and fewer weapon pylons, but otherwise likely cheaper to operate, and certainly capable enough... and brand new of course.

    An Su-57 will be a much more suitable replacement in the longer term as will be any LMFS they come up with.

    not much more, if at all, than they spent navalizing the Su-27; it already has some features of the Su-33.

    The Su-33 is an Su-27 with folding wings and tail hook and strengthened design and canards. Su-34 is not, it is a much heavier aircraft with a rather more significant redesign.

    It is also primarily a strike aircraft and what they want is a fighter interceptor.

    Navalizing the Su-57 may not be as easy, & its performance may suffer as a result.

    Even if it does have reduced performance it is still head and shoulders better than any option for any other navy around the world today or for the next ten years at least.

    What if they will need to be armed with heavier ordinance?

    The smaller lighter more powerful Su-57 would be better able to carry large external anti ship missiles like Zircon than the already at its limits Su-34 which would struggle to launch at empty weight with no ordinance and reduced fuel weight.

    If left unused, how much of it they'll be able to bring back instead of jettisoning? Besides, they'll likely need many 2 seat variants that will be heavier.

    I don't think they will bother with a two seat Su-57. A two seat MiG- LMFS might be useful in the sense that a two seat MiG-35 is useful too.

    Their ships and subs carry heavy hypersonic long range anti ship missiles and long range land attack cruise missiles... there is little to no benefit to putting them on a plane, but a COD variant of the AWACS aircraft could be designed to carry heavier ordinance if needed with a decent bring back capacity...

    I personally think the Intruder was the best US carrier based strike aircraft... and I rather liked the British Buccaneer too... both good solid capable aircraft, but as I keep saying... the Russian Air Force does not rule the Russian Navy and for most strike roles they would prefer to use ships and subs, or long range heavy strike aircraft like the Tu-22M3M. The purpose of a CV or CVN in the Russian Navy is to provide an air component to their IADS that keeps their ships safe.

    Time will tell if it'll become another F-4, good enough for both VKS & VMF!

    It would become an F-111B that was too heavy to operate from ships even with the use of catapults, which led to the much lighter F-14A being developed using F-111B based avionics and engines and radar and missiles.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5656
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:16 am

    They could have multiple AWACS aircraft up..
    the USN CV/Ns carried 4 of them in my time, with only max 2 ready or flying at any given time. I doubt there will be room for more than 4 fixed wing AWACSs on VMF CVNs.
    They have had the Su-33 for the last 30 years... is the F-18 a failure because its replacement is a failure yet they keep buying them?
    The F-18E/F is a lot more capable than legacy C/D model, so it's not a failure. Both models were/r also good enough for many AFs- don't tell me the Swiss & Malaysians were forced to buy them too. The Su-33 is out of production in favor of MiG-29K/35, so as the video says, it's a failure; its Chinese J-15 copy was also a failure, until they made the improved J-16, or so they claim- we will see if it holds true.
    The Su-27 is the F-15 counterpart; if the US tried to navalize the earlier F-15 instead of navalizing the F-16 to make the F-18, it too would be a failure. A good land based fighter never made it to be a good deck fighter, unless it was designed from the start with navalization in mind like the MiG-29 & Rafales were. It's worth noting that the F-4 started as a deck fighter before the USAF fell in love with it & many of them were used by other AFs.
    The article I posted before showed that the F-111B was rejected for political/business reasons; towards the end of carrier trials it was improved & was at least no worse than the F-14. The Su-34 could also be improved for CVN use to be on a par with the Su-33 as an interceptor, w/o losing any of its strike specs. Who knows if the VMF won't need to do more power projection ashore in 10-15-20 years than it's being projected now?
    Time will tell if it'll become another F-4, good enough for both VKS & VMF!
    It would become an F-111B..
    I meant the Su-57, not the Su-34.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3824
    Points : 3826
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:03 pm

    GarryB wrote:We are really only seeing the tip of the iceberg...

    Sure, the fact that the medium carrier was not shown makes me think that is the real deal.

    There can be very little commonality with drones and helicopters with fixed wing aircraft. The heavy and light fighters and AWACS aircraft don't need to share spare parts... any carrier would need to be supplied with food and water and weapons and fuel, so delivering spares as they are used up should not be a huge issue... modern 5th gen engines should not need lots of overhauls at sea, and they should have enough engines to ensure that when they set sail they wont need major engine overhauls with the engines they take during the trip...

    Yes, to me that reads like you are forced to a certain level of complexity, and increasing it without a solid reason makes no sense.

    Production line like structures would be limiting...

    I did not talk about fixed structures standing in the middle, but a "production line-like" flow. Planes need to be fuelled, landing gear needs nitrogen, mission data needs to be loaded, the same than incoming planes need to be checked and maintained. The essence of this is hardly going to change so it makes sense to take this serial approach.

    even with side tracks to allow aircraft to be held back or to skip a plane ahead...

    The preparation cycle of a take off is ca. 2 hours. It is no problem to use 1 minute with an automated skid to jump one plane in the queue if at some point of the preparation it is realized that the plane needs corrective actions. The design I proposed had the workshop in the middle (center hull) while the plane reception would be on one side hull and the preparation for TO on the other. So planes can always be taken from any point of the line to the workshop for repair

    whereever they stopped to be loaded with fuel and weapons would fix them, so if the front four aircraft are loaded with the wrong weapons you would have to launch them to get the aircraft with suitable weapons airborne.

    As said, the cycle of preparations for a TO takes two hours normally, so at that time you already need to know what weapons are needed and take them from the magazine, fuze them, carry them to the plane, prepare the crew to load them, depending on the size also machinery is needed, a specialist needs to prepare the weapons systems accordingly etc. It cannot be improvised. And in any case it does not mean you don't have some space at the deck for already prepared planes or to arm them, if you consider it better to do it at an open space.

    There is potential for changing the things done now on aircraft carriers but I think this idea would need thrashing out to make it useful.

    Sure it would need, this is quite complex and critical of course. But having the right tooling at the right place and leaving automation take care of most jobs (like moving planes) would allow to increase, possibly very substantially, the sortie rate of the carrier while reducing massively the crewing needs, with great savings in all the accommodation and life support installations on board (water purification, waste treatment, maintenance, kitchen, medical facilities, ventilation, heating and what not) with again great impact on cost, displacement and manning.

    As a replacement for an EMALS cats, I think there would be the obvious easy solution... an EMALS based cat system.... it just makes sense once it is working of course.

    The substitute for EMALS is EMALS? Not getting it.

    For the Krylov carriers, the proposal was an electromechanical catapult. Not everything in this life needs an Elon Musk type of solution you know...

    The fact that they are talking about a mobile cat system for testing on the Kuznetsov suggests they have made progress and might develop something that could be used on land for launching aircraft from damaged runways or short strips of motorway.

    The mentions to this were quite marginal, I am not sure there was anything real to it to be honest.

    Perhaps you could start a new thread and we could discuss it better?
    Still your idea so you get naming rights, but I am happy to brain storm it and tell you what I think is wrong... (constructive, no destructive).

    Ok I would think it fits here, if you see it differently it can be taken somewhere else. There is not much more to it that the basic idea regardless...

    Long ranged aircraft wont spend a lot of time at long range...

    What is long range to you? An E-2 can stay four hours at ca. 300-400 km of the carrier, while an Helios-RLD could stay 1 day at 1000 km and cover 500 km of airspace and sea surface en every direction with its radar. Considering the range of new anti-ship weapons, the size of the bubble around the fleet expands massively and big UAV with very long endurance are needed. Small UAV have low flight altitude an low flight range and contribute nothing useful once you have HALE and powerful fighters onboard. You are not hunting Toyotas on the cheap here but trying to avoid being hit by long range hypersonic AShM from peer rivals

    beyond the 400km and 600km range limit of your SAMs,

    Practical range of SAMs is a fraction of that, actually

    Being able to fly out 800km with Su-57s and engage C-130 transports before they launch their 500km range swarm drones could be critical in defeating an attack before it becomes overwhelming... they might fly with those transports as they close on the group because it is peace time and this is their opening move attack, but once drones start leaving those C-130s and start heading towards your carrier group the Su-57s can start destroying C-130s and drones and any fighters that might be nearby... plus the carrier group gets very early warning it is under attack, which would give them time to prepare air defence systems and jammers and launch drones.

    With that "I don't agree" I was expecting you to counter my point instead of reinforcing it, but ok...


    The missiles the US use might have a home on jam mode, in which case a drone that can pull 30 g and is fitted with a jammer could become a missile sponge, and it could start out amongst the ships but gradually fly further and further away leading many of the incoming enemy missiles with it... if it has radio and laser sensors on it and a DIRCM system it might be able to defeat missiles by setting off laser and radio proximity fuses from distances where the drone can survive and defeat other enemy missiles in the same way.

    They don't need enormous range for that, but endurance would be useful.

    OK I see. That is what I would consider EW and AD means, no need for the UAV tag on that but ok. You expect the flying jammer to fool AShM that are looking for a huge, slow floating target that is being seen by satellite already?  unshaven

    They don't have an enormous area like a flying wing.

    19 x 14 m plane is not big you say? You would need a hangar with 17 - 20 m height to store them in vertical Garry... talk about the 5 m tall Kamovs

    Kalibr M is supposed to be Kh-101...

    Who says that? Why would they waste the VLS space with a triangular shaped missile? That shape is intelligent in the six-missile revolver of the Tu-160, in a VLS it makes no sense. Besides the air launched range of the Kh.101 has nothing to do with the corresponding range when launched from the surface.

    By allowing the fighters to refuel inflight they can get airborne quicker and easier and could potentially take fuel from the AWACS aircraft too if needed.

    Who says the fighter cannot take off with full fuel on its own?

    Plus refuelling means easily 10-15 minutes lost, if there is no queue and if the refuelled amount is like 5 t, a time that of course the tanker and the plane needs to be flying too. Hardly this saves resources compared to fighters that can fulfil their mission without refuelling. The more you need refuelling, the more you need to use the tanker and the more time you lose and more planes you have in the air, because you attack in salvos, so all the planes composing the air wing need to be attended and detract all the time for queueing at the tanker from their useful flight time.

    I would expect the Su-57 to be able to take off with full fuel tanks and a full AAM internal weapon load from the ski jump ramp and without cat assistance just fine.

    Me too, the Su-33 is close enough already being bigger and with worse aero and engines.

    Its role might be to sneak out and fly around an incoming threat and then passively monitor it from behind as it approaches with an LMFS sent out to meet the target when it is 400km or so away... if the target turns out to be hostile it can be attacked from either group of aircraft... or even a ship launched missile.

    By its design and performance, the Su-57 can take on the intruder directly by launching first from long range while still not in range for being attacked itself. This would likely work even vs F-22, vs, F-18 or F-35 it would be overkill.

    I would think a medium range AAM would be cheaper than an S-400.

    Of course. You cannot waste such expensive and (on board) scarce missiles on far fetched shots at 300-400 km, they will be defeated trivially by a fighter.

    The question is... do you want to sink the entire fleet or get it to move on or just warn it to keep its distance and not interfere...

    The presence of the surface fleet deters enough. If missiles are shot then the deterrence has failed and you better kill the bastard fast and effectively, warning shots with AShM is not what you are going to receive in return.

    I am talking about in the hangar... there will be no aircraft with ordinance fitted in the hangar... they only get weapons loaded on them on deck... it is a safety thing.

    On the deck you need to save space too, the more planes ready for launching there, the faster you are. As said, without weapons hanging from the wings you have a change at overlapping them, maybe. And even with this idea you would not be more compact than a Su-33, so to increase numbers on board you would keep more planes on the deck normally.

    They used a lot of them.

    Like 0.01% of the time, or even less?

    Sending one cruise missile is much cheaper and easier than sending a dozen aircraft including strike aircraft and fighter escort aircraft and jammer aircraft as well as some recon aircraft to check results and determine if a follow up attack is needed.

    Now you are stretching it. I am talking about regular attacks vs land targets in absence of AD or air force, like in Syria.

    We are talking about countries where Russia will likely not have ground bases to launch attacks from so a carrier launched strike would need a couple of strike aircraft, plus fighter escort, and perhaps inflight refuelling aircraft and probably an AWACS aircraft to spot threats and command the mission... pretty soon we are talking about a dozen aircraft or more being involved... the 400kg HE payload of the Cruise missile is rather cheap too, but delivery can be expensive... once a cruise missile is made it might as well be useful.

    No, that is pure USN doctrinal rot, not what VMF should or seem keen to do.

    I rather doubt Russia will be fighting anywhere on their own without special forces on the ground at the very least but those Toyotas might be the core problem and therefore the solution is not SVP-24 or Calibr... it might be Orion with suitable mini bombs and missiles and an offshore base and launch pad it can operate from that is perhaps five minutes from the operational area that does not have any enemy aircraft as such... the S-350s and S-400s and S-500s of the ships could keep any no fly zone clear of enemy aircraft easily enough...

    Of course, that is substituting an expensive jet strike plane (which is cheaper in turn than a CM) with an even cheaper UCAV. The total opposite of doing your bombing with CM...
    Backman
    Backman

    Posts : 853
    Points : 863
    Join date : 2020-11-11

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Backman Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:35 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    the fighters ..could potentially take fuel from the AWACS aircraft too if needed.
    it's a bad idea to combine those 2 missions & risk losing such a valuable asset & crews to refueling accidents. The CODs or planes based on their airframes could be adopted as tankers, just like the land based KC-135/10s & IL-478 cargo/tanker planes.

    Interesting it is called a failure when the Su-33 is still in use.
    the F-35 is also an expensive failure in USAF/N while being used; the VMF has no other navalized birds with longer range than the MiG-29Ks.

    The Su-57 is lighter with more engine power than the Su-33. The Su-34 is significantly heavier than the Su-33 and uses the same engines.
    there r betteroff the shelf engines with more thrust that can replace their current powerplants. The izdeliye 30 (in development) for Su-57  is supposed to have 176.6 kN (39,700 lbf) thrust with afterburner, & it could be fitted on Su-34s.

    Not saying the Su-34 is useless, saying it is too heavy.
    It would need cat assistance for any takeoff including with no armament and minimum fuel.
    if their future catapults r up to the task, why not use them if they r more capable than their Su-33s & MiG-29K/35s?

    The shape of the forward fuselage of the Su-34 was designed for two seat side by side strike missions... converting it to a single seat does not make sense... would be simpler and cheaper to just use Su-33 which is already a single seater.
    if need be, new navalized single seat variants could be built, & the Su-33s will soon need replacements anyway.

    The Su-34 makes sense for land based strike missions, but would cost a fortune to navalise.
    not much more, if at all, than they spent navalizing the Su-27; it already has some features of the Su-33.
    Navalizing the Su-57 may not be as easy, & its performance may suffer as a result. What if they will need to be armed with heavier ordinance? If left unused, how much of it they'll be able to bring back instead of jettisoning? Besides, they'll likely need many 2 seaters that will be heavier.
    Time will tell if it'll become another F-4, good enough for both VKS & VMF!

    You just don't want to see the su 57 on a Russian carrier because it would be like the F-22 on a US carrier. Which is never going to happen. Advantage Russia.

    The su 57 on a carrier would be a nightmare for everyone else. It would be by far the most capable jet on any carrier in the world.

    LMFS likes this post

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5656
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Apr 10, 2021 7:18 pm

    ..any carrier would need to be supplied with food and water..
    they make their own potable water from the sea water.
    You just don't want to see the su 57 on a Russian carrier because it would be like the F-22 on a US carrier. Which is never going to happen. Advantage Russia.
    I don't care if they navalize Su-57s or not. The USN could get 6th gen. fighters at the same time or shortly after the USAF gets them.
    lancelot
    lancelot

    Posts : 460
    Points : 462
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  lancelot Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:58 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:I don't care if they navalize Su-57s or not. The USN could get 6th gen. fighters at the same time or shortly after the USAF gets them.

    The updated version of the Su-57, let's call it Su-57M, is going to have enough features you can call it a 6th generation.
    Backman
    Backman

    Posts : 853
    Points : 863
    Join date : 2020-11-11

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Backman Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:42 am

    lancelot wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:I don't care if they navalize Su-57s or not. The USN could get 6th gen. fighters at the same time or shortly after the USAF gets them.

    The updated version of the Su-57, let's call it Su-57M, is going to have enough features you can call it a 6th generation.

    Yes. 6th gen is basically just marketing nonsense for the complex anyway. From 4th to 5th gen , there was some real breakthroughs in design and capabilities. But that's not the case with 6th gen. They are trying to invent what a 6th gen is going to be.
    lancelot
    lancelot

    Posts : 460
    Points : 462
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  lancelot Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:07 am

    I can sort of guess what it will be.
    AI assistance to the pilot, optionally manned aircraft, variable cycle engine, electric mechanical actuators, fly-by-light i.e. fiber optics connections.
    GaN AESA radar perhaps.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7326
    Points : 7475
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:52 am

    lancelot wrote:I can sort of guess what it will be.
    AI assistance to the pilot, optionally manned aircraft, variable cycle engine, electric mechanical actuators, fly-by-light i.e. fiber optics connections.
    GaN AESA radar perhaps.
    None of that is 6th gen, almost all that could be implemented within the next 10-15 years.
    lancelot
    lancelot

    Posts : 460
    Points : 462
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  lancelot Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:00 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:None of that is 6th gen, almost all that could be implemented within the next 10-15 years.

    When do you expect the 6th generation prototypes to come out? The F-22 flew first in 1997. The F-15 flew first in 1972. That's 25 years.
    So the 6th generation prototype should be flying around 2022.

    Russia and the Soviet Union seemed to be out of sync by like a decade to the US. Which makes sense from a competition perspective I think.
    The result it that both the Su-27 and the Su-57 are more advanced than the respective US counterparts of the same generation.

    Backman likes this post

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7326
    Points : 7475
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:08 am

    lancelot wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:None of that is 6th gen, almost all that could be implemented within the next 10-15 years.

    When do you expect the 6th generation prototypes to come out? The F-22 flew first in 1997. The F-15 flew first in 1972. That's 25 years.
    So the 6th generation prototype should be flying around 2022.

    Russia and the Soviet Union seemed to be out of sync by like a decade to the US. Which makes sense from a competition perspective I think.
    The result it that both the Su-27 and the Su-57 are more advanced than the respective US counterparts of the same generation.

    Wait 2-3 decades, the 5th generation was stillborn with the likes of the F-22 being out of production and the F-35 program failing miserably. For the most part the West hasn't figured out how to build a non-problematic long standing 5th gen airplane with a resilient RAM coating. The Su-57 will have to show them how to last like the Rock of Gibraltar.

    Backman likes this post

    Backman
    Backman

    Posts : 853
    Points : 863
    Join date : 2020-11-11

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Backman Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:09 am

    lancelot wrote:I can sort of guess what it will be.
    AI assistance to the pilot, optionally manned aircraft, variable cycle engine, electric mechanical actuators, fly-by-light i.e. fiber optics connections.
    GaN AESA radar perhaps.

    None of that would require a new airframe like stealth did compared to 4th gens.

    The newest thing to do is the all-moving verticals like the su 57 and J-20 already have. But the F-22 is showing its age and doesnt have it. when the US builds something with it they will call it a 6th gen
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7326
    Points : 7475
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:43 am

    Backman wrote:
    lancelot wrote:I can sort of guess what it will be.
    AI assistance to the pilot, optionally manned aircraft, variable cycle engine, electric mechanical actuators, fly-by-light i.e. fiber optics connections.
    GaN AESA radar perhaps.

    None of that would require a new airframe like stealth did compared to 4th gens.

    The newest thing to do is the all-moving verticals like the su 57 and J-20 already have. But the F-22 is showing its age and doesnt have it. when the US builds something with it they will call it a 6th gen

    The EUpeons are attempting to develop 6th gen without even developing 5th gen lol! lol1 clown The whole generation fetishism is nothing more than asinine claptrap. A country like Russia with vast aerospace industrial experience, and pioneering stealth implementation (Petr Ufmitsev) is constantly attacked while countries with largely inferior aerospace industrial engineering capability in comparison (Japan, South Korea, Turkey) are either praised or never questioned. It's nothing more than politicized bullshit lacking substance such as empirical scientific merit.

    miketheterrible and Backman like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29920
    Points : 30446
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:36 am

    the USN CV/Ns carried 4 of them in my time, with only max 2 ready or flying at any given time. I doubt there will be room for more than 4 fixed wing AWACSs on VMF CVNs.

    With their new generation radars being mms thick and skin surface designs, they could put fixed arrays on the wing of a flying wing aircraft that could just be a flying fuel tank... the inflight refuelling planes and the AWACS aircraft could be the same aircraft... so four AWACS and four Tankers means 8 tankers and 8 AWACS aircraft... being the same aircraft... Transport planes are not so important to normal operations as AWACS and tanker aircraft so I wouldn't bother with a transport version.

    They can be very creative going forward if they want...

    The F-18E/F is a lot more capable than legacy C/D model, so it's not a failure. Both models were/r also good enough for many AFs- don't tell me the Swiss & Malaysians were forced to buy them too.

    The Aussies bought them too, but then the Malaysians had a choice (unlike the Aussies or Swiss) and bought Hornets to replace their MiG-29s to keep favour with the US... having Su-30s and MiG-35s was never going to happen... even India didn't go for Su-30MKI and MiG-35s for purely political reasons.

    The Su-33 is out of production in favor of MiG-29K/35, so as the video says, it's a failure

    F-14 and F-22 are out of production... failures too?

    its Chinese J-15 copy was also a failure, until they made the improved J-16, or so they claim- we will see if it holds true.

    The fact that they tried to produce a copy suggests it isn't a failure... when you copy you don't just copy anything... you copy something that already works.

    The Su-27 is the F-15 counterpart; if the US tried to navalize the earlier F-15 instead of navalizing the F-16 to make the F-18, it too would be a failure

    If the Americans had navalised the F-15 there would not have been an F-14. The F-16 has nothing at all to do with the F-18, they are not even made by the same company...

    They had to put the F-15 back into production because the F-35 is too expensive so that means both the F-15 and the F-35 are failures doesn't it?

    A good land based fighter never made it to be a good deck fighter, unless it was designed from the start with navalization in mind like the MiG-29 & Rafales were. It's worth noting that the F-4 started as a deck fighter before the USAF fell in love with it & many of them were used by other AFs.

    Naval versions of the MiG-29 are made... the original MiG-29K which lost to the Su-33, and the current MiG-29M and MiG-29KR and MiG-35s, but the original MiG-29 was never intended for operations on ships.

    The F-4 shows fighters can be land and ship based easily enough.

    The article I posted before showed that the F-111B was rejected for political/business reasons; towards the end of carrier trials it was improved & was at least no worse than the F-14.

    The F-15 could have been improved and modified to make it carrier capable too... but like with the F-111B it just did not make sense to do so.

    The Su-34 could also be improved for CVN use to be on a par with the Su-33 as an interceptor, w/o losing any of its strike specs.

    No it can't. That is a stupid thing to say. You might as well say an A-4 Skyhawk could be upgraded to F-35 level but much much cheaper so stop making F-15s and just make A-4s and upgrade them... dumb.

    Russia does not have a CVN, and wont have one for quite some time... there is plenty of time and the Su-57 would need less modifications to do the job.

    Who knows if the VMF won't need to do more power projection ashore in 10-15-20 years than it's being projected now?

    They are coming out with all sorts of new air launched land attack missiles and weapons, but equally they could make ship and sub launched versions easily enough and now the INF treaty is gone they can save a lot of money by combining land attack naval missiles launched from ships with land attack missiles launched from trucks or trains from the land with ranges of Intermediate range weapons.

    A 3,000km range Iskander would be awesome on the back of a truck or a train carriage... or a ship or sub launched model.

    Sure, the fact that the medium carrier was not shown makes me think that is the real deal.

    The Soviet and Russian Navy have been down the road of light and medium aircraft carriers... essentially they have a medium aircraft carrier now and they want something able to carry more planes and heavier planes (ie AWACS via cats).


    Yes, to me that reads like you are forced to a certain level of complexity, and increasing it without a solid reason makes no sense.

    Size makes that easier to deal with... if you have a helicopter carrier based CV with 6 VSTOL fighters you don't want two types of them with different engines and parts.

    A big ship with a 90 aircraft capacity that normally operates with 36 aircraft can carry the spares and support equipment for 90 aircraft.... and also the fuel and ammo for 90 aircraft so it could get away with two types of fighters plus various different drone types... support ships with extra parts and extra complete engines could follow it around if needed...

    The essence of this is hardly going to change so it makes sense to take this serial approach.

    Do you not think such a thing is already in place?

    Or do you think the do things as they remember.... oops... that plane that just launched... we forgot to take the safety pins out of the ordinance...

    The preparation cycle of a take off is ca. 2 hours.

    Article posted on a Ukrainian thread talked about Ukrainian Flankers and their pilots... and one of the pilots who flew an F-15 in the US said the check list before takeoff with the F-15 took an enormous amount of time... 40 minutes or more... with the Flanker you jump in and start her up and go he said...

    There will be aircraft prepared and ready for immediate use in case of surprise attack...

    The design I proposed had the workshop in the middle (center hull) while the plane reception would be on one side hull and the preparation for TO on the other. So planes can always be taken from any point of the line to the workshop for repair

    I would think most routine maintenance could be done where ever the aircraft happens to be while in the hangar... more serious work might require moving to a workshop, but that would be because of damage or faulty parts or whatever... they wouldn't perform overhauls...

    As said, the cycle of preparations for a TO takes two hours normally

    Is this Russian numbers or American.... they are quite different.

    Certainly in the case of surprise attack a few steps in the preparations can be skipped or reduced.

    so at that time you already need to know what weapons are needed and take them from the magazine, fuze them, carry them to the plane, prepare the crew to load them, depending on the size also machinery is needed, a specialist needs to prepare the weapons systems accordingly etc.

    During peace time only the bare minimum weapons would likely be carried, and on a Russian carrier most of the time it will be four R-73s, a couple of R-27Es and a couple of R-77s most of the time for a normal mission.

    It cannot be improvised. And in any case it does not mean you don't have some space at the deck for already prepared planes or to arm them, if you consider it better to do it at an open space.

    Aircraft never get armed below deck... it is a safety thing. Most planes don't sit in the hangar until needed.... most aircraft sit on the deck and go to the hangar for maintenance if needed.

    The substitute for EMALS is EMALS? Not getting it.

    Your suggestion was to be a substitute for EMALS. I am saying the best substitute for EMALS catapults would be actual EMALS cats and not some rocket powered sled substitute.

    For the Krylov carriers, the proposal was an electromechanical catapult. Not everything in this life needs an Elon Musk type of solution you know...

    EMALS has more potential and would be the most useful... on carriers and in other areas when the technology is working.

    The mentions to this were quite marginal, I am not sure there was anything real to it to be honest.

    So you think they were making shit up?

    Lying?

    So a portable system to assist aircraft takeoff is impossible and there are no alternatives to what the US is currently pursuing?

    Ok I would think it fits here, if you see it differently it can be taken somewhere else. There is not much more to it that the basic idea regardless...

    My understanding of your previous explanation is that it is a sled based system that aircraft sit on and are accelerated to flight speed, but it was unclear where the energy comes from and why a sled is used and reused when they are already fitted with wheels to move around already.

    The main reason I suggest you use a separate thread is because this is your idea and unless you have submitted it to the Russian Navy as a prospect it may not be relevant on a thread about the future of Russian aircraft carriers and deck aviation.

    What is long range to you? An E-2 can stay four hours at ca. 300-400 km of the carrier, while an Helios-RLD could stay 1 day at 1000 km and cover 500 km of airspace and sea surface en every direction with its radar.

    The new Russian AWACS platforms are looking for threats to the carries... not hunting for fresh meat.

    Equally if plans regarding new radar types their range of vision should be double existing types at least so how far do they need to operate away from the ships they are supposed to be providing protection for?

    In a Falklands type engagement the British were afraid of the vulnerability of their small carriers so the carriers sat back... delaying the arrival of air support if ships near the islands were attacked. A Russian carrier would operate with those ships and its purpose would be defending the ships... no long range missions to strike land targets would be common... except perhaps an initial attack to destroy any airfields on the islands.

    You might operate a few fighters in the direction of Argentina looking for threats coming from there, but your AWACS and most of your planes will be defending your fleet and your landing forces.

    If your AWACS is operating 400km away from you ships what happens if an enemy detects your AWACS aircraft by its radar emissions... should be visible from thousands of kms... and flys around it to avoid being detected and comes across your ships... will a Hawkeye detect an Su-57 flying at low altitude from 400km?

    If that Su-57 launches a Zircon missile 500km away from the ships, the Hawkeye wont see it... it is supposed to be managing the air defence... it is not just airborne warning... AW... it is all about control... otherwise it might as well be a much smaller and lighter and cheaper AEW platform like a Ka-31...

    Considering the range of new anti-ship weapons, the size of the bubble around the fleet expands massively and big UAV with very long endurance are needed.

    So a huge aircraft carrier will be needed if you want more than one AWACS aircraft up at once providing 360 degree protection for your group of ships...

    Small UAV have low flight altitude an low flight range and contribute nothing useful once you have HALE and powerful fighters onboard

    What?

    So what you are saying is that Russia should stop wasting its time with small short range SAMs because they contribute nothing useful... just have S-500s... long range powerful missiles.

    A jammer or decoy is rather more use than you seem to give it credit for and putting it on a big heavy long range platform is stupid... what enemy is going to be fooled by a decoy or jammer 500km away from your ships?

    The jammer signal will attract their attention but when they look and just see one platform they will likely ignore it... when they do locate your ships however and all your big fighters and drones are 400km away they are going to be useless and meaningless to the missiles he is going to launch at your ships.

    Short range small drones with jammers near your ships might help to keep a few afloat.

    British experience in the Falklands was that jammers and decoys often worked well when properly deployed... the problem was civilian ships for transport that didn't have jammers or decoys or other protections that would be hit by missiles decoyed away from their armed warships.

    Having some small drones to distract those missiles would have saved some ships and some lives...

    You are not hunting Toyotas on the cheap here but trying to avoid being hit by long range hypersonic AShM from peer rivals

    That is the point... against ISIS short range jammer and decoy drones would be pointless, but against a peer enemy who will spot your ships via satellite you need something that operates near your ships that confuses the guidance of incoming weapons.

    Big heavy long range drones 400km away are of little use in such situations.

    Practical range of SAMs is a fraction of that, actually

    It is the range where engagement of some targets becomes an option.

    With that "I don't agree" I was expecting you to counter my point instead of reinforcing it, but ok...

    If a large enemy force of large aircraft appear on radar with AWACs aircraft and long range fighters a carrier group can send platforms to investigate, but during normal operations how many AWACS platforms do you think one carrier will be carrying... and how many do you think it can keep in the air at one time?

    Lets be generous and say at a time of high tensions they might have two AWACS aircraft airborne... if they are operating over the ships they are protecting they can see sea skimming threats out to what... 3-400km... so if that AWACS aircraft ROUTINELY operates 500km away from the ships it is supposed to be protecting it can't see small sea skimming targets approaching the ships it is supposed to be protecting.

    The US could easily attack from any direction... sending your eyes and ears down to sea level away to look for a potential attack force is stupid... an AWACS platform wont be fast enough to rush out to 500km away to monitor an air operation and then zip back and protect the ships.

    A Russian AWACS platform will operate within 200km of the ships it is protecting to ensure it can protect them... remember the naval S-400s can be directed by AWACS so it is not super vulnerable... a group of ten aircraft attacking an AWACS plane are detected 400km away and closing... the AWACS could simply get a ship 200km away to launch 10 x 400km range SAMs... they likely wont all hit, but some will and they move damn fast so follow up shots should be pretty quick too.

    The point is that a threat is detected 800km from the ships... 600km from the AWACS platform a flight of 6 x C-130s are approaching... a flight of four Su-57 are sent to investigate... they wont take the AWACS with it... they have the sensors and speed to look after themselves...

    The focus is protecting the ships and carrier... not invade new countries, or hunt down the USAF.

    OK I see. That is what I would consider EW and AD means, no need for the UAV tag on that but ok.

    They are unmanned flying vehicles... what should I call them?

    You expect the flying jammer to fool AShM that are looking for a huge, slow floating target that is being seen by satellite already?

    You saying new Russian ships don't come with EW equipment because obviously computers and missiles are too smart?

    It might be fitted with a jammer which could attract a missile with backup home on jam capability... a few corner reflectors and even a small target can look enormous.

    19 x 14 m plane is not big you say? You would need a hangar with 17 - 20 m height to store them in vertical Garry... talk about the 5 m tall Kamovs

    What are you talking about? what is the wingspan of a Kh-101... theres no way you could fit 6 in the weapon bay of Blackjack because it is not wide enough for the wingspans of 6 Kh-101...

    Folding. And obviously store vertically drones that are not long and thin like a HALE or MALE DUH!

    A long narrow body with long narrow wings suggests rotating the wings 90 degrees back like helicopter blades to lie along the fuselage... it is still long but relatively compact and could be placed side by side rather easily... more so if they were designed from the outset to do so.

    Such a redesign could allow four to be carried in a standard shipping crate for land, sea, and air transport.

    Who says that? Why would they waste the VLS space with a triangular shaped missile?

    Stealth?

    That shape is intelligent in the six-missile revolver of the Tu-160, in a VLS it makes no sense.

    Already designed and ready to go.

    But if you are right and the new missile has nothing to do with Kh-101 then why do they describe its range as 4,500km.

    If they can make it round they could also make it rather longer than 7.4m because the tubes are closer to 10m... so making it round and longer they should manage 6-7k kms range.

    Besides the air launched range of the Kh.101 has nothing to do with the corresponding range when launched from the surface.

    Have you seen a ship launched cruise missile?

    The rocket motor launches them from the tube and climbs to a decent launch altitude and significant speed... it might be slightly slower and lower than the launch speed from a Blackjack or Bear... but not significant at all.


    Who says the fighter cannot take off with full fuel on its own?

    They probably can with an air to air loadout... most normal Flanker operations are performed with half tanks or less fuel on board...

    Plus refuelling means easily 10-15 minutes lost, if there is no queue and if the refuelled amount is like 5 t, a time that of course the tanker and the plane needs to be flying too. Hardly this saves resources compared to fighters that can fulfil their mission without refuelling. The more you need refuelling, the more you need to use the tanker and the more time you lose and more planes you have in the air, because you attack in salvos, so all the planes composing the air wing need to be attended and detract all the time for queueing at the tanker from their useful flight time.

    All valid points but fighters being able to take fuel from an AWACS platform means they can be near the AWACs to help protect it... the AWACS aircraft will occasionally need refuelling too anyway, and most of the time when a fighter needs more fuel it might also need more weapons... being flexible is a good thing.

    Once a fighter is in the air its sensors add to the picture of the airspace around the fleet even if they launch with no weapons they could target threats which can then be fired upon using ship based missiles out of line of sight of the threats.

    By its design and performance, the Su-57 can take on the intruder directly by launching first from long range while still not in range for being attacked itself. This would likely work even vs F-22, vs, F-18 or F-35 it would be overkill.

    I agree, but in the 10-15 years to get it on ships I rather suspect the USN will have upped their game... but that is OK... you can plan but nothing is set in stone.


    On the deck you need to save space too, the more planes ready for launching there, the faster you are. As said, without weapons hanging from the wings you have a change at overlapping them, maybe. And even with this idea you would not be more compact than a Su-33, so to increase numbers on board you would keep more planes on the deck normally.

    Well that is an important consideration being a clever bugger raising or lowering aircraft so wings can overlap in a hangar... with loaded weapon pylons you wont be able to overlap them so you suddenly get a log jam on deck.

    With folded wings you can keep them folded to reduce areas needed when they are not lined up ready for takeoff:

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 000-ya11


    Now you are stretching it. I am talking about regular attacks vs land targets in absence of AD or air force, like in Syria.

    SO AM I.

    Russian carriers are air defence carriers, their anti ship and land attack strike capability are based on ship and sub based missiles.

    They have added some strike capacity for Syrian type action, but if they wanted strike capacity during WWIII then they would not have Su-33s and MiG-29KRs, they would have Su-57s and LMFS aircraft only, so such a thing is not going to be an option for quite some time.

    No, that is pure USN doctrinal rot, not what VMF should or seem keen to do.

    That is what I am saying to you... Russia does not do and has no interest in regime change desert storm type land invasions.

    If there is a target inside a country they need to destroy it will be a cruise missile attack and not a manned mission, unless like Syria they already have air bases in operation... Russian carriers are for the Russian Navy to protect Russian ships...


    Of course, that is substituting an expensive jet strike plane (which is cheaper in turn than a CM) with an even cheaper UCAV. The total opposite of doing your bombing with CM...

    A cruise missile might not be free, but UCAVs are generally more than a few million dollars each and operational costs over the years would not be free.

    A Russian cruise missile might be a million dollars in US... more likely a quarter of that because they don't gouge and can make things affordably... so it sits in its container for free after it is made and is used once... if it is never used then it is always available... you can put it on a truck or train or fixed land position and use it in the future... it is amazing value for money.

    In many situations a UCAV makes sense too but it wont be as fast or low flying or difficult a target as a cruise missile, but will be cheaper in situations where there is no enemy air defence.

    You just don't want to see the su 57 on a Russian carrier because it would be like the F-22 on a US carrier. Which is never going to happen. Advantage Russia.

    The su 57 on a carrier would be a nightmare for everyone else. It would be by far the most capable jet on any carrier in the world.

    Which is why it makes sense. The result will likely be the US spending an enormous amount of money for a naval equivalent and they might get it right or might waste another trillion.

    Wont matter to Russia, they will have the best carrier plane they can have.

    I can sort of guess what it will be.
    AI assistance to the pilot, optionally manned aircraft, variable cycle engine, electric mechanical actuators, fly-by-light i.e. fiber optics connections.
    GaN AESA radar perhaps.

    Or even a new type of radar....

    The Su-57M probably will already have those...
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3824
    Points : 3826
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:19 pm

    GarryB wrote:The Soviet and Russian Navy have been down the road of light and medium aircraft carriers... essentially they have a medium aircraft carrier now and they want something able to carry more planes and heavier planes (ie AWACS via cats).

    The medium carrier I mean would be 60 kT, but have the air wing of a US CVN. That is why it is the real deal.

    Do you not think such a thing is already in place?

    Sure they are, but if you have the equipment in place and your teams specialise more, you get better. The same way the guys at a F1 pit stop do the same that you could do in any normal workshop, only the later would take hours and the first need only seconds. For instance skids that move automatically to prefixed positions and also anchor themselves to the floor. No aircraft engine needing to be started up, no additional pushers and crew for them, no maneouvering of the planes, just tell the skid the final position. That is a lot of work. They would also allow to raise or lower the planes as suggested, without modifying the landing gear.

    Article posted on a Ukrainian thread talked about Ukrainian Flankers and their pilots... and one of the pilots who flew an F-15 in the US said the check list before takeoff with the F-15 took an enormous amount of time... 40 minutes or more... with the Flanker you jump in and start her up and go he said...

    I still don't have good data about the turnaround time at a Russian carrier.

    There will be aircraft prepared and ready for immediate use in case of surprise attack...

    Yes of course, that is why I said that you need planes on the deck.

    I would think most routine maintenance could be done where ever the aircraft happens to be while in the hangar... more serious work might require moving to a workshop, but that would be because of damage or faulty parts or whatever... they wouldn't perform overhauls...

    The normal cycle (receiving the plane, removing unused weapons, fuel and then preparing for the new launch yes, the checks and repairs where no fixed time need can be determined with big accuracy would demand to take the plane out of the line.

    Most planes don't sit in the hangar until needed.... most aircraft sit on the deck and go to the hangar for maintenance if needed.

    Even in a supercarrier, more than 20-30 planes at the deck and it starts getting congested and burdensome to organize operations, losing exponentially more time the more congested it gets. So you need a regular flow of planes to and from the hangar.

    I am saying the best substitute for EMALS catapults would be actual EMALS cats and not some rocket powered sled substitute.

    Maybe, that was just an idea in case EMALS was really that expensive. I have no references outside of US and we know how they work.

    EMALS has more potential and would be the most useful... on carriers and in other areas when the technology is working.

    No way of knowing what solution is better for a carrier, without having any level of detail don't you think?

    So you think they were making shit up?

    Journos have a tendency to exaggerate or mix up unrelated things indeed.

    My understanding of your previous explanation is that it is a sled based system that aircraft sit on and are accelerated to flight speed, but it was unclear where the energy comes from and why a sled is used and reused when they are already fitted with wheels to move around already.

    As said above, just an idea in case cats are indeed a problem. High TWR carrying sled may help and be attachable to the plane handling skid I mentioned too. But no need for big further discussion, it is just an idea.

    Equally if plans regarding new radar types their range of vision should be double existing types at least so how far do they need to operate away from the ships they are supposed to be providing protection for?

    Not sure I get your point here. The better, longer ranged and faster the AShM, the further you need to look for their carriers, be it surface ships, subs or planes. You need longer ranged, probably unmanned AEW planes and in relatively big numbers. At ca. 1000 km from the carrier (actually less), you would need at least 6 UAV like the Helios flying 10 km high with 500 radius radar coverage to create a surveillance bubble without gaps. If you know the direction threats may come from you an reduce these numbers but at your own risk.

    will a Hawkeye detect an Su-57 flying at low altitude from 400km?

    If you don't detect the enemy you are screwed regardless of what you do.

    So a huge aircraft carrier will be needed if you want more than one AWACS aircraft up at once providing 360 degree protection for your group of ships...

    Yes see above. UAVS have way higher range and persistence, with current AWACS it will be impossible, because of the amount of planes needed to cover rotations.

    but during normal operations how many AWACS platforms do you think one carrier will be carrying... and how many do you think it can keep in the air at one time?

    It depends mainly on the persistence of the platform. Helios is 5 times better than E-2 so it would allow to reduce numbers on board correspondingly. Not a small thing.

    so if that AWACS aircraft ROUTINELY operates 500km away from the ships it is supposed to be protecting it can't see small sea skimming targets approaching the ships it is supposed to be protecting.

    Why not?

    A Russian AWACS platform will operate within 200km of the ships it is protecting to ensure it can protect them...

    It depends on the situation and type of threat of course.

    The focus is protecting the ships and carrier... not invade new countries, or hunt down the USAF.

    You cannot defend the fleet if you do not detect carriers of AShM in time

    They are unmanned flying vehicles... what should I call them?

    Decoys, like the rest of the world does?

    You saying new Russian ships don't come with EW equipment because obviously computers and missiles are too smart?

    I just say that has nothing to do with the UCAV discussion.

    Folding. And obviously store vertically drones that are not long and thin like a HALE or MALE DUH!

    You were talking about vertical storage of Okhotnik. It is 14 m long so it would take that space plus hanging mechanisms to be stored. If you mean it differently you can make a sketch or something.

    A long narrow body with long narrow wings suggests rotating the wings 90 degrees back like helicopter blades to lie along the fuselage...

    Yes, in fact I had a nice idea to store a Helios-like UAV on board in a compact space. It is complex to explain, would need some drawing myself too...

    Such a redesign could allow four to be carried in a standard shipping crate for land, sea, and air transport.

    In the long term you would need indeed quite a few of them onboard to cover the fleet properly, so better to make them very compact.

    Stealth?

    Side aspect is rather irrelevant. Look Kalibr or new Tomahawk

    But if you are right and the new missile has nothing to do with Kh-101 then why do they describe its range as 4,500km.

    Because it can have that range, independently of what Kh-101 achieves

    If they can make it round they could also make it rather longer than 7.4m because the tubes are closer to 10m... so making it round and longer they should manage 6-7k kms range.

    Current figures suggest you are exaggerating "a bit"...

    The rocket motor launches them from the tube and climbs to a decent launch altitude and significant speed... it might be slightly slower and lower than the launch speed from a Blackjack or Bear... but not significant at all.

    Yes, and it takes some (substantial) additional length and weight.

    most normal Flanker operations are performed with half tanks or less fuel on board...

    Standard load is 60%

    I agree, but in the 10-15 years to get it on ships I rather suspect the USN will have upped their game... but that is OK... you can plan but nothing is set in stone.

    Well we will see... they don't seem to have a clear picture, then the budget starts making problems, hey make statements about new 4.5G fighters, but in the other hand they claim they are flying 6G demonstrators already. I don't believe them anymore. But substituting the current carrier air wings is going to take ages.

    Well that is an important consideration being a clever bugger raising or lowering aircraft so wings can overlap in a hangar... with loaded weapon pylons you wont be able to overlap them so you suddenly get a log jam on deck.

    No, that is the idea. 5G planes normally don't use wing carried stores so this is not an issue anymore.

    SO AM I.

    Yeah I now  Laughing

    Russian carriers are air defence carriers, their anti ship and land attack strike capability are based on ship and sub based missiles.

    I think you are mixing things here. Russian FLEET is not a land attack fleet. Means, they are not going to bomb a country to smithereens. It does not mean that they don't carry CMs or that their naval fighters cannot drop bombs, whatever is more convenient in every occasion. As you say, being flexible is good.

    A cruise missile might not be free, but UCAVs are generally more than a few million dollars each and operational costs over the years would not be free.

    Then you are using a 1 million CM instead of paying say 20k for the flight time of your UCAV and a couple dumb bombs which are dirt cheap (and strike twice as many targets in the same go BTW). No planer in this world is going to give a second thought to going the first way if the second is available.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29920
    Points : 30446
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:10 am

    The medium carrier I mean would be 60 kT, but have the air wing of a US CVN. That is why it is the real deal.

    Not really... I would argue a couple of squadrons of Su-57s supported by S-70 drones and LMFS types would be rather superior to any US carrier group air wing for some time potentially.

    For instance skids that move automatically to prefixed positions and also anchor themselves to the floor.

    These skids have to work for 2 ton drones, 10 ton helicopters, 20-25 ton fighters, and probably 30 ton AWACS and Tanker aircraft... they need to move almost anywhere on the deck, but they also need to hold such weights in place anywhere they happen to be at that time... what advantage are we talking about over a small electric towing vehicle that moves things around the deck?

    These skids need to accelerate things from 2 tons to 30 tons to a flight speed of over 150km/h to reliably get them airborne... some more... helicopters obviously less...

    Helicopters would need something to move them around the deck even if they don't need assisted takeoff, so they would need these skids anyway.

    No aircraft engine needing to be started up, no additional pushers and crew for them, no maneouvering of the planes, just tell the skid the final position. That is a lot of work. They would also allow to raise or lower the planes as suggested, without modifying the landing gear.

    So these skids are like flatbed electric cars that the various aircraft sit on and are delivered around the place.

    You call them skids, so they slide like skis on ice... but what actually makes them move?

    And why skids instead of wheels?

    Or are they like Musk hovertrains and they start out with anti grav levitation and end up using... wheels.

    But what powers them... what makes them move and how do they manouver without tracks everywhere.

    And that power supply would need to be amazing to accelerate a 30 plus ton AWACS aircraft to flight speed in the space available.

    The friction of the skids on the deck would do damage and the wear and tear would be enormous... how to you make a deck surface that is slippery enough to allow deck skids to operate, but not slippery so men loading and fuelling aircraft or just traversing the deck don't fall over and the skids don't just slide off the edge of the deck into the water?

    Yes of course, that is why I said that you need planes on the deck.

    Operationally most planes spend most of their time on the deck, but a percentage will be fuelled and armed in case they are urgently needed... the rest can be armed and fully fuelled in the time the other aircraft are launching...


    Even in a supercarrier, more than 20-30 planes at the deck and it starts getting congested and burdensome to organize operations, losing exponentially more time the more congested it gets. So you need a regular flow of planes to and from the hangar.

    During peace time, but an operational carrier in a war zone has a crowded deck... there is plenty of deck space out of the way of landing and taking off operations for aircraft to be parked and tied down... fully fuelled and ready to arm...

    Maybe, that was just an idea in case EMALS was really that expensive. I have no references outside of US and we know how they work.

    The purpose of a measuring stick is for estimation... but when you know your existing measuring stick is biased... like costs for American military gear... then you can adapt and compensate to get a more realistic idea of costs.

    Russia is very good at theoretical physics and seems to be becoming independent of materials technology too with high temperatures metals, and long range artillery with microwaved propellent and plasma expertise.

    The Russians have the enormous advantage that not every single fixed wing aircraft needs to use their cats... just AWACS and Tankers based on that AWACS design most of the time, so it likely wont get an enormous amount of use all the time.

    More importantly it is worth investing in because the technology and materials can be used in a range of other areas to improve performance... superconducting magnets and more efficient capacitors and electric systems able to divert and control enormous amounts of electrical current would all be useful in a range of areas...

    No way of knowing what solution is better for a carrier, without having any level of detail don't you think?

    Currently the only actually competing options would be liquid or solid rocket boosters, steam cats, and EMALS.

    I would say over use the rocket boosters will be expensive and dangerous, and create far too much smoke on the deck for normal operations let alone high tempo operations.

    Steam is obsolete and inferior to the potential of EMALS which they have been working on for some time now... for all we know they might have something ready soon for full scale testing.

    Journos have a tendency to exaggerate or mix up unrelated things indeed.

    Exaggeration or making up would be the K will be tested with fully operational EMALS system to launch aircraft.

    As said above, just an idea in case cats are indeed a problem. High TWR carrying sled may help and be attachable to the plane handling skid I mentioned too. But no need for big further discussion, it is just an idea.

    Can I suggest I am not against thinking outside the box, but in this case I think a sled replacement would be even more complex and risky and expensive than an EMALS cat system for heavy aircraft.

    Not sure I get your point here. The better, longer ranged and faster the AShM, the further you need to look for their carriers, be it surface ships, subs or planes. You need longer ranged, probably unmanned AEW planes and in relatively big numbers.

    A quantum or photonic or whatever radar that allows a fighter to see targets to 500km should allow the much bigger antenna on an AWACS see 1,000km or more...

    The AWACS and Fighters on Russian carriers are to detect threats to Russian ships including the carrier... enemy carriers and ships will be hunted by Yasens and MiG-31Ks... the purpose of the naval AWACS and Russian carrier fighters is to hang around the carrier and ships and protect them from air attack.

    They might mount a mission 3,000km away to launch a 1,500km range attack on an enemy carrier but that might be an inflight refuelling aircraft or two flying 1,500km from the Russian carrier... and four Su-57s with Zircon missiles the 1,500km to the inflight refuelling aircraft and topping up and flying another 1,500km to detect and launch its Zircon a further 1,500kms to hit the enemy carrier, and then fly back topping up at maybe 1,200km where they meet the tankers who are also returning to their carrier... the aircraft can then all return to the carrier together...

    But most of the time the carrier will be defending the ships it operates with rather than hunting enemy carriers.

    At ca. 1000 km from the carrier (actually less), you would need at least 6 UAV like the Helios flying 10 km high with 500 radius radar coverage to create a surveillance bubble without gaps. If you know the direction threats may come from you an reduce these numbers but at your own risk.

    Any radar operating will indicate to the enemy where you are looking so in skirting around them may stumble on the ships you are supposed to be protecting if you have your radar emitting aircraft deployed forward in the suspected direction of attack.

    Using drones for that is fine, but keep your actual AWACS and air defence fighters over your ships where they can actually help fend of an attack.

    If you don't detect the enemy you are screwed regardless of what you do.

    Very true, but new types of radar will render many types of stealth useless and in a duel an Su-57 launching their new long range AAMs might be able to attack a Hawkeye without being detected at all... remaining 400km away at all times and being able to track the location of the Hawkeye because of its radar scans.

    Yes see above. UAVS have way higher range and persistence, with current AWACS it will be impossible, because of the amount of planes needed to cover rotations.

    Unless you use one AWACS for over your ships and UAV long range drones with radar but operating in active or passive modes and circling the group of ships at a radius of 2-3,000km... who knows which direction an attack will come from... passive and active give you the best chance of detecting... along with satellite and civilian fishing fleet.

    In the long term you would need indeed quite a few of them onboard to cover the fleet properly, so better to make them very compact.

    Fitting them into standard shipping crates you could load them onto container ships equipped with cranes that could transfer a few extra crates at sea if they lose a few.

    Side aspect is rather irrelevant. Look Kalibr or new Tomahawk

    Both round to fully fill the torpedo tubes they are launched from and very old designs that originally relied on flying low to evade radar and were not stealthy at all... in the modern sense.

    Because it can have that range, independently of what Kh-101 achieves

    Given the increase in length and diameter/volume it should manage rather better performance.

    Current figures suggest you are exaggerating "a bit"...

    The 4,500km is for a strategic flight across Canada and into the US, which means half the flight will be at low altitude.

    If fired from offshore and only requiring a much shorter period at low altitude and evading radar its range is probably already 6,000km with an all medium to high altitude flight with a terminal dive and explosion on target.

    Some sources even mentioned a 10,000km flight range if lower throttle settings were used and it did not fly at low altitude and top speed to penetrate defences.

    I don't think the numbers I am giving are exaggerated at all.

    Yes, and it takes some (substantial) additional length and weight.

    Extra weight is irrelevant... a 1.4 metre increase in length and a 20cm increase in calibre almost doubled the range... making it fully circular would not effect drag very much at all but would massively increase volume...


    Standard load is 60%

    Which would include a reserve so it lands with fuel left in the tanks after a normal mission...

    Well we will see... they don't seem to have a clear picture, then the budget starts making problems, hey make statements about new 4.5G fighters, but in the other hand they claim they are flying 6G demonstrators already. I don't believe them anymore. But substituting the current carrier air wings is going to take ages.

    Look at Russia... you can replace an idiot with someone who knows what they are doing who can completely turn things around... obviously the people actually in power in the US (neither democrat or republican) are going to have to be convinced and for a long time they will likely fight him so with only two terms they are not going to get much of a chance to make a real difference... and what are the odds of getting two Putins in proximity of each other...

    I am not saying it is likely but I don't think Russia should lower its bar just because the US is incompetent... the EU might man up and start being a threat too... France might manage a decent replacement for the Rafale...

    No, that is the idea. 5G planes normally don't use wing carried stores so this is not an issue anymore.

    But there will be times where payload is more valuable than stealth and with overlapping wing storage it is removed as an option... which might be OK for a big plane like the Su-57, but the LMFS might normally carry a lot of external stores with AAMs being the internal weapon bay loaded weapons under and above the wing and body structure. The ability to perhaps carry bundles of 20 to 30 MANPADS sized missiles in pod bundles under the wing stations for swarm attack defence could be compromised if aircraft with underwing stores can't be used... I would say that would be more of an issue than the cost of folding wings.

    I think you are mixing things here. Russian FLEET is not a land attack fleet. Means, they are not going to bomb a country to smithereens. It does not mean that they don't carry CMs or that their naval fighters cannot drop bombs, whatever is more convenient in every occasion. As you say, being flexible is good.

    The carriers they are looking at are not 100K ton ships dedicated to strike roles, strike missions on occasion could be performed... out of the packaging an Su-57 is more capable as a strike platform than most western strike aircraft, the new weapon options it will have will be amazing and pretty comprehensive... but 95% of the time they will be fighter and interceptor and combat air patrol aircraft... high speed AWACS and recon aircraft to spot targets and mark targets for surface attack missiles and surface to air missiles.

    Then you are using a 1 million CM instead of paying say 20k for the flight time of your UCAV and a couple dumb bombs which are dirt cheap (and strike twice as many targets in the same go BTW). No planer in this world is going to give a second thought to going the first way if the second is available.

    The Cruise missile relies on sneaking and would catch the enemy air defences unaware. UCAVs generally rely on flying over ground based fire and having air control to avoid enemy air interference... if you are not sending dozens of fighters and EW aircraft to support that UCAV then the enemy might launch a super Tucano (spelling) armed with MANPADS and shoot it down before it bombs anything.

    Fighter, UCAVs, and Cruise missiles are all very different things that offer different performance with different advantages and different features.

    A CM about to have its certified time in storage expire that has to be used will have to be used whether it hits a target or not.

    You might need to launch CMs before it is safe to send UCAVs... the ship based missile you fire might not be a Kalibr... it might be Zircon to penetrate enemy air space and hit their biggest SAM site including major radar stations... it might degrade the defences to allow manned aircraft to go in and shoot down their airforce, or it might be OK to send UCAVs.

    The point is that UCAVs and cruise missiles will be navy stuff the navy prefers to use.


    Sponsored content

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Aug 02, 2021 2:49 am