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?
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
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?
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:
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...