Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5643
    Points : 5637
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:42 am

    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?
    they would be if there weren't any other modern/newer planes on CVNs & in AF squadrons. The USN/MC/AF has/will have F-18E/Fs, F-35s & F-15E/Xs.
    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.
    but there was no other plane they could get their hands on then & in the end it wasn't working as they expected.
    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.
    50-50. the F-14 didn't stop the F-18 development.
    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?
    yes, but the F-15X vs. F-15E = F-18E/F vs. F-18C/D- the legacy fighters r failures now & that's why they r being repaced by their deeply modernized successors. The F-35 didn't live up to expectations, so it's a failure. If, as u said, the Su-34 isn't suitable for navalization, & since it's related to Su-33 & has some of its features, then the Su-27's navalization into the Su-33 is also a failure; in fact, the VMF prefers the MiG-29Ks instead. China doesn't have that option.
    ..but the original MiG-29 was never intended for operations on ships.
    during its design phase, it was intended that it would be also suitable for operations on ships.
    The F-4 shows fighters can be land and ship based easily enough.
    it was designed as a naval deck fighter, but came out so good that the AF wanted & got it too.
    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.
    there is a lot less difference between Su-33 & Su-34 than between F-15 & A-4. Pl. kick the habit comparing apples & oranges!
    Russia does not have a CVN, and wont have one for quite some time...
    if at all; she may have a civil war &/ break up before a CVN could be built & fielded, repeating the Ulyanovsk CVN fiasco.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3436
    Points : 3438
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:41 pm

    GarryB wrote: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.

    I meant it has almost the same amount of aircraft

    These skids have to work for 2 ton drones, 10 ton helicopters, 20-25 ton fighters, and probably 30 ton AWACS and Tanker aircraft...

    Probably it only makes sense for big aircraft. To what extent they can be common to several types would need to be seen at the time of designing.

    what advantage are we talking about over a small electric towing vehicle that moves things around the deck?

    Much faster, automatized, automatic fixing of the plane, able to go in any direction (360 deg) and turn on the spot. Every plane would have one and they could coordinate their "traffic" to save a lot of time and labor by moving many planes in parallel without crew.

    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...

    The handling of the aircraft and the TO aid are not necessarily related.

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

    Yes pretty much. Sorry if the word skid was not properly chosen, I am not a native speaker. They have electric motors and wheels (yes wheels!) and Li-ion batteries, no big energy needs. They need to navigate, that is already a reality in many industrial facilities by means of beacons and other navigation aids.

    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...

    Sure, within the given limits. In wartime you want fast sortie generation, not a total chaos on the deck. All the activities at the magazine, hangar and deck are working full speed.

    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...

    Yeah I agree. Russians are already working very hard on superconducting technology.

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

    Electromechanical is the other option, I don't exactly know the details but it is meant in contrast to electromagnetic.

    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.

    That is quite possible indeed...

    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...

    Main limit of the radars at the ships and the reason for the existence of the AWACS is radar horizon. That is 500 km for a plane flying at ca. 10 km altitude, there is no way of going around that unless with ionospheric reflection for very long wavelength radars like Konteiner.

    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.

    MiGs play no role in a typical CBG engagement. The detection of the enemy carriers, ships, aircraft and subs depends on AWACS/AEW/ASW aircraft, otherwise the fleet is blind beyond radar horizon and extremely vulnerable to enemy air power or long range AShM.

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

    Defending in its practical, working interpretation means sinking the enemy before it attacks.

    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.

    Same happens in land, that is why a continuous barrier of radar detection is created, in which the needed overlapping is created so that no enemy can get through or launch before being detected.

    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.

    Fighters overflying the fleet cannot effectively fend off a massive salvo of hypersonic AShM. That is the type of future threat the VMF needs to prepare for.

    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.

    It would not be bad if the kinematics of AWACS and AEW were better than what they are, but the option of not having those planes is worse.

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

    No problem, we will see.

    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...

    Russia has a competent management now and they know every gap left by the West will be occupied by all sorts of new powers, global and regional. No chance for taking a nap now, this has been stated explicitly several times recently.

    But there will be times where payload is more valuable than stealth and with overlapping wing storage it is removed as an option...

    As said, that is not the normal configuration of Russia aircraft, rather land-bombing USN strike aircraft. In that case you cannot compact the deck as muhc, that is ok, France does it at the CdG with the Rafales and that is a very small carrier.

    I would say that would be more of an issue than the cost of folding wings.

    Having now a 5G plane with propulsion and aero capable of handling 9 g and more constantly and losing it because the navalization is quite inconvenient. Also the loss of fuel capacity, weight gain, additional test needed. Wing folding is a disadvantage without any further reason that the footprint on board, if it can avoided it would be great.

    but 95% of the time they will be fighter and interceptor and combat air patrol aircraft...

    The comment is that, as said above, the airwing allows to attack beyond the reach of your surface launched missiles and has a flexibility missiles do not have. Naval strike is therefore a crucial mission, not only A2A roles.

    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.

    No, UCAV will sneak in the same way, be it low level or not, as deemed best. The only thing that interests from the weapon in the end is the warhead, the rest (propulsion, airframe, electronics) is an enabler that you have no need to destroy in every attack.

    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.

    Of course, the first wave is high risk, against AD and to degrade military capabilities of high level vs highly protected targets. Missiles are fully justified in that case. Afterwards, cheaper approaches are used. And given that Russia is not thinking mainly in decapitating regimes abroad, the high end land strike weapons are even less necessary for the kind of missions a carrier group would engage in. Good to have, but to be used sparingly.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28920
    Points : 29448
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:46 am

    they would be if there weren't any other modern/newer planes on CVNs & in AF squadrons.

    The MiG-29KR is a newer and more modern aircraft... it is nothing like the MiG-33 (Mig-29K)... which was a single seat aircraft the same as the Su-33 .

    The F-14 remained in naval service long after the machinery and tools to make them was destroyed and served along its replacement the Hornet for quite some years... just like the Su-33 is served with its replacement MiG-29KR.

    I have seen no information suggesting when the K goes back to sea that they wont continue to use both aircraft.

    The introduction of the MiG-29KR which can be converted to two seat easily enough as needed also replaced the Su-28 carrier training aircraft.

    The USN/MC/AF has/will have F-18E/Fs, F-35s & F-15E/Xs.

    F-22s were supposed to replace the F-15 but turned out to be a failure so the F-35 was developed to replace them instead and it was too expensive and not actually good at anything so they put the F-15 back into production.

    The F-14 was replaced by the F-18 which was supposed to replace both the intruder and the F14 and it had to because all the tooling and production for the F-14 was destroyed, but then the F-35 was going to replace everything including the Hornet and Harrier and the it was going to be used together with the Hornet as a stealthy strike platform while the Hornet was the fighter... if the F-15 is replacing the F-35 on land then there is nothing to replace the F-35 at sea, but it is pretty clear that the F-35, and F-22 are failures at the very least...

    In fact the F-35 is the biggest failure, they are supposed to be making 3,500 of them and they are already making F-15s to replace them?

    The were originally going to make 1,500 F-22s, then it got cut in half to 750, then 189.

        but there was no other plane they could get their hands on then & in the end it wasn't working as they expected.

    Wouldn't be the first time a customer bought a product super cheap from a customer and had problems that the customer could not help them with and the maker had received no money for the purchase... why would they help?

    50-50. the F-14 didn't stop the F-18 development.

    The F-16 and F-18 are a generation after the F-16 and F-18 and were intended to be used together with their previous gen stablemates.

    That is why the F-16 and F-18 were specifically designed as multirole fighter bombers.

       
    yes, but the F-15X vs. F-15E = F-18E/F vs. F-18C/D- the legacy fighters r failures now & that's why they r being repaced by their deeply modernized successors. The F-35 didn't live up to expectations, so it's a failure.

    You are misunderstanding failure.

    A Failure is... lets make 1,500 F-22s and 3,500 F-35s, but not make anything like that of either aircraft and replace them.... they are failures... they need to be replaced.

    The Su-33 is not a failure... it was only ever intended as being a naval fighter... which is what it achieved.

    They didn't make a lot, but they didn't need a lot and never intended to make a lot.

    They made what they wanted and stopped.

    To replace something it has to be better... that does not imply that what is being replaced is a failure... it just means there is something better.

    If, as u said, the Su-34 isn't suitable for navalization, & since it's related to Su-33 & has some of its features,

    It is in no way related to the Su-33.

    The Su-33KUB was a potential upgrade that used side by seating as used in the Su-34, but it was not an Su-34 in any way or form... it was over ten tons lighter for a start and was actually a similar weight to the Su-33... hence the same undercarriage is used.

    then the Su-27's navalization into the Su-33 is also a failure;

    The navalisation of the Su-27 and use as the only fighter on the Admiral Kuznetsov for the last 30 odd years is a success... it was only in the last 5 years that a replacement has been introduced and used... in many ways the MiG-29KR is a multi role fighter bomber like the Hornet, and the Su-33 has been their F-14, but the Su-33 does not need the missile performance of a Phoenix, nor the radar capacity of the MiG-31 because the west has nothing like the Backfire or the Kh-22M missiles... Just Harpoon... which R-27s and R-73s are just fine.

    in fact, the VMF prefers the MiG-29Ks instead.

    What is not to like... smaller, lighter, cheaper, and shorter ranged, which means less likely to be out of range when needed.

    Cheaper to buy with India paying for production and tooling to be set up.

    during its design phase, it was intended that it would be also suitable for operations on ships.

    No it wasn't.... otherwise they would not have needed to develop the MiG-29K (MiG-33) for the job which was based on the MiG-29M of the time that were both fixed single seat aircraft of 1980s design and not related to the current MiG-29M and MiG-29KR which are completely new designs.

        it was designed as a naval deck fighter, but came out so good that the AF wanted & got it too.

    The naval versions of the MiG-29 and the Su-27 show the F-15 could probably have been navalised too... if they knew what they were doing.

    there is a lot less difference between Su-33 & Su-34 than between F-15 & A-4. Pl. kick the habit comparing apples & oranges!


    The idea that you can take an old design and just keep upgrading it with new stuff is stupid is what I was point out and the A-4 clarified that point best... it was a very good little naval strike aircraft... in many ways the naval equivalent of the F-16, but without the digital internal structure.

    if at all; she may have a civil war &/ break up before a CVN could be built & fielded, repeating the Ulyanovsk CVN fiasco.

    Or the pirates inc. company of the United States of America might have a civil war and break up and in destroying itself the rest of the world wont need armies and navies and air forces any more and the rest of the world can live in peace and harmony as brothers and sisters.

    Probably it only makes sense for big aircraft. To what extent they can be common to several types would need to be seen at the time of designing.

    Wheels already work well for all aircraft on Russian carriers, and also become useful if they have to land elsewhere on conventional runways that don't have skid based support systems.

    Much faster, automatized, automatic fixing of the plane, able to go in any direction (360 deg) and turn on the spot

    Much faster... must have enormous amounts of power to accelerate such large heavy objects on skids... the friction would be enormous in terms of turning in any direction...

    Every plane would have one and they could coordinate their "traffic" to save a lot of time and labor by moving many planes in parallel without crew.

    But they presumably stay with the ship when the aircraft gets airborne... what do they do... line up near the landing area for the plane to be lifted onto them after they land via cable arrest system?

    The handling of the aircraft and the TO aid are not necessarily related.

    You suggested the idea as a replacement for EMALS... wouldn't a couple of small electric towing vehicles and everything having a tow bar or shoe make more sense and be easier and cheaper and simpler?


    Yes pretty much. Sorry if the word skid was not properly chosen, I am not a native speaker. They have electric motors and wheels (yes wheels!) and Li-ion batteries, no big energy needs. They need to navigate, that is already a reality in many industrial facilities by means of beacons and other navigation aids.

    So what you are suggesting is just some unmanned versions of what they already use except you want one for every aircraft...

    Sure, within the given limits. In wartime you want fast sortie generation, not a total chaos on the deck.

    You do understand they have rules and ways of doing things that apply during peace time and in war.

    If they change the rules for a war type situation then things can become more confusing rather than less confusing...

    All the activities at the magazine, hangar and deck are working full speed.

    That is all they can hope for.

    Electromechanical is the other option, I don't exactly know the details but it is meant in contrast to electromagnetic.

    Possibly stored energy in a fly wheel type set up.

    Have seen such a system in a bus for inner city use.

    The biggest problem for a bus is that they are always accelerating and stopping all the time and it is very energy intensive, so what they do is they put a very very heavy flywheel in the vehicle together with an engine, so when they are accelerating they take energy from the fly wheel and the engine, but when they slow down they put energy into the fly wheel and use braking systems.

    It means they transfer energy to the fly wheel during braking that they can recover during acceleration taking the load of the engine... improving acceleration and reducing the strain on the engine.

    For an aircraft carrier a fly wheel could be accelerated by the propulsion system of the carrier, or just electrically and that could help drag and aircraft to get it airborne... you could take as little or as much energy as you need... the propulsion system of the ship can spin it up to full speed while the next aircraft is being attached.


    That is quite possible indeed...

    You need to really go through an idea before you can get an idea of whether it is a good idea or not... and ironically even bad ideas that don't work can often lead to solutions to totally different problems where their bad features don't matter and their advantages make a real difference... in fact make something that wouldn't work normally suddenly quite viable...

    Don't know until you try and fully flesh things out though.

    Up to you.

    Main limit of the radars at the ships and the reason for the existence of the AWACS is radar horizon. That is 500 km for a plane flying at ca. 10 km altitude, there is no way of going around that unless with ionospheric reflection for very long wavelength radars like Konteiner.

    But a new radar might be able to synthesise its frequency from a much broader band range... with the antenna built into the leading edge of a wing and the trailing edge of a flying wing it might be able to operate rather higher up than 10km.

    Besides super long range radar could be used to detect long range aircraft and missiles flying at medium altitude to extend their flight range, plus high flying hypersonic threats where early detection is important. Its primary use will remain detecting threats down to sea level near the carrier group and any threats to ships and carriers that are present.


    MiGs play no role in a typical CBG engagement. The detection of the enemy carriers, ships, aircraft and subs depends on AWACS/AEW/ASW aircraft, otherwise the fleet is blind beyond radar horizon and extremely vulnerable to enemy air power or long range AShM.

    Wasn't it you that once suggested that with the amazing new radars their ship based fighters have that there would be no need for AWACS platforms on their carriers in the future because they could see with their radar just as well as an AWACS aircraft could...

    A MiG-29KR has a good radar... soon to be perhaps replaced with the new AESA radar developed for the MiG-35, plus it has IRST and potentially a range of targeting pods, and unlike the AWACS the ability to dash out to 1,000km range from the carrier to inspect a blip on a radar if needed.

    It sensors can provide full target information to all the other friendly aircraft operating there along with all the ships and subs too, which might use that information to target threats too.

    Defending in its practical, working interpretation means sinking the enemy before it attacks.

    Given the opportunity, but if the surface group has a job and the carrier is spending all its time wandering off in different directions hunting carriers, it might end up failing at its primary job.

    Same happens in land, that is why a continuous barrier of radar detection is created, in which the needed overlapping is created so that no enemy can get through or launch before being detected.

    Those radar outliers at sea would be vulnerable to attack or just being bypassed, and don't add a huge amount to the defence... but would be a warning that an attack might be in progress... sending platforms to investigate might be a distraction to weaken your defence and the real attack might be coming from a different direction... essentially what I am saying is that long warning times are good but having your assets all projected forward towards the threat means a smart enemy can bypass you forces and attack from another direction while getting you to send away your fighters on a wild goose chase.

    Having shorter ranged fighter that hang around your carrier make sense... having some long range fighters makes sense too of course.

    Fighters overflying the fleet cannot effectively fend off a massive salvo of hypersonic AShM. That is the type of future threat the VMF needs to prepare for.

    Massive salvos of hypersonic threats will be deal with using S-400 and S-500 missiles and perhaps lasers and directed energy weapons.

    Fighters will deal with manned and unmanned enemy aircraft and standoff munitions as well as being airborne radars that can pass a remote air picture to ships who can add their missile resources to the battle via the eyes of the aircraft.

    It would not be bad if the kinematics of AWACS and AEW were better than what they are, but the option of not having those planes is worse.

    Even if the Russians are conservative and only have Hawkeye type aircraft themselves... the enemy being able to attack it from 400km range with new AAMs.... say Meteor-M that is not to say the incoming missile wont be detected and could be jammed, decoyed or simply shot down.

    Wing folding is a disadvantage without any further reason that the footprint on board, if it can avoided it would be great.

    The MiG-29KR is an 8.5g fighter... is half a g really a problem?

    Would think if there is a turning dogfight and naval carrier aircraft has made a mistake or the enemy is beating his missiles meaning a gunfight is going to happen...

    I would think making the wings too small so more aircraft can fit on a carrier could lead to worse consequences than a slight reduction in g resistance.


    The comment is that, as said above, the airwing allows to attack beyond the reach of your surface launched missiles and has a flexibility missiles do not have. Naval strike is therefore a crucial mission, not only A2A roles.

    CAP can be routine, but strike missions normally need a lot of planning and to provide a useful loadout of relevant weapons you need to know what you are hunting...

    No, UCAV will sneak in the same way, be it low level or not, as deemed best. The only thing that interests from the weapon in the end is the warhead, the rest (propulsion, airframe, electronics) is an enabler that you have no need to destroy in every attack.

    Tracking a UCAV will lead your enemy to your carrier... not something likely to have with a cruise missile.

    Of course, the first wave is high risk, against AD and to degrade military capabilities of high level vs highly protected targets. Missiles are fully justified in that case. Afterwards, cheaper approaches are used. And given that Russia is not thinking mainly in decapitating regimes abroad, the high end land strike weapons are even less necessary for the kind of missions a carrier group would engage in. Good to have, but to be used sparingly.

    Cruise missiles can carry cluster munitions too... cratering munitions for runways, anti armour and anti personnel... I would expect they could programme them to attack a few targets if needed... they have a cluster bomb with 10 x 50kg HE cluster munitions... a 400kg warhead with 8 x 50kg cluster munitions that can be launched upwards and come down by parachute could be used against multiple targets if needed.

    A cruise missile using optical guidance to fly straight down a runway at 800km/h at 4m height throwing up cratering munitions as it flys.... would have saved a Vulcan mission in the Falklands war.... even if you use 4 at once in two waves of two side by side down the runway... one starting at the start and the second starting half way down... to ensure good coverage.


    Last edited by GarryB on Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5643
    Points : 5637
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:58 am

    F-22s were supposed to replace the F-15 but turned out to be a failure so the F-35 was developed to replace them instead..
    ..if the F-15 is replacing the F-35 on land..
    not completely replacing; they'll be flying together on some missions & augmenting each other for years to come. The US is in a race with itself; by trial & error, they constantly develop & field many types of planes, just like the soviet VMF was with many classes of ships, subs & planes, some successful & some not.
    ..there is nothing to replace the F-35 at sea,..
    there r Block III F/A-18E/Fs, & besides the F-35Bs that can fill in for the F-35Cs on CVNs, if need be.
    The Su-33 is not a failure... it was only ever intended as being a naval fighter... which is what it achieved.
    it would be better utilized on bigger Ulyanovsk or Storm CATOBAR CVN; on the smaller STOBAR Adm. K, it can't realize its full potential due to its size & weight. That's why smaller & lighter MiG-29Ks r now given preference. To quote u: "What is not to like... smaller, lighter, cheaper, and shorter ranged, which means less likely to be out of range when needed."
    It is in no way related to the Su-33.
    it is, as both r derived from the Su-27.
    No it wasn't.... otherwise they would not have needed to develop the MiG-29K..
    wrong, it was mentioned in the documentary I saw; at that time, they were unhappy with TAKRs carrying only STOVLs & were planning to build the Adm K. class.
    Or the pirates inc. company of the United States of America might have a civil war and break up..
    don't worry about us, we r discussing Russia & her problems!
    even if the US breaks up, new states will divide up CVNs, LHAs & LHDs among themselves, with some going to reserve fleets.
    The USN fleets r not so widely separated like the VMF fleets; we have
    the Panama Canal & ice free Drake Strait, guarded by Chile & UK owned Falklands, to transfer ships between them. But Russian big ships must go via choke points or use the NSR at the cost of using the NP icebreaker fleet that merchant marine traffic needs.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3436
    Points : 3438
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:32 pm

    GarryB wrote:But they presumably stay with the ship when the aircraft gets airborne... what do they do... line up near the landing area for the plane to be lifted onto them after they land via cable arrest system?

    The sled for handling would detach prior to the TO sequence, after the landing the plane typically would get away of the landing strip on its own power and then a sled would pick it up.

    wouldn't a couple of small electric towing vehicles and everything having a tow bar or shoe make more sense and be easier and cheaper and simpler?

    The idea makes full sense when you have several positions in the hangar and a serial production line like way of handling planes.

    So what you are suggesting is just some unmanned versions of what they already use except you want one for every aircraft...

    Basically yes, with the advantages y explained.

    Possibly stored energy in a fly wheel type set up.

    Yes, that was my guess too, because of the high levels of power involved in accelerating the planes. The good part is that it could be loaded with the arresting gear and use up a good part of that energy for TO. Planes are heavy and the amount of energy involved is not small, you could even think this was an old idea to improve the arresting gear operation

    Besides super long range radar could be used to detect long range aircraft and missiles flying at medium altitude to extend their flight range, plus high flying hypersonic threats where early detection is important. Its primary use will remain detecting threats down to sea level near the carrier group and any threats to ships and carriers that are present.

    The ship borne radars take care of any high flying target much better than any AWACS, they have way more power and space for antennas and mission systems available. The value of the airborne means of radiolocation is to extend the radar horizon as much as possible beyond the fleet, therefore to remain close to the ship is not contemplated in any concept of operations for AWACS you can find out there. The current standard is ca. 200 nm and the trend is to push that way beyond as new unmanned platforms appear.

    Wasn't it you that once suggested that with the amazing new radars their ship based fighters have that there would be no need for AWACS platforms on their carriers in the future because they could see with their radar just as well as an AWACS aircraft could...

    You said MiG-31, which is a land based platform and not relevant to the oceanic deployments where the carriers would be central to the defence of the fleet.

    Having said that, yes, the plane I submitted here had side weapon bays where side looking AESA arrays of decent aperture could be placed, with ideally on board level of modifications, for the eventual use of fighter type of planes as AEW too. It makes sense in two ways: if the AWACS or similar planes are not developed / available, and in order to provide for self defended but still high performance means of detection, beyond the power aperture of an X band nose mounted fighter radar. As known, the AWACS and AEW are normally very easy targets, a fighter is far from being one. A small fighter has not very good radar performance and directional coverage, that can be addressed with the side arrays I mentioned. Of course ROFAR can change that substantially, but we need to see before when such devices can be considered, this is still unclear. The persistence of a fgighter type of plane of course is low, but as an add-on or additional asset I agree it is valuable. VMF is already doing this, networking all their assets including fighters, ships and so on.

    Given the opportunity, but if the surface group has a job and the carrier is spending all its time wandering off in different directions hunting carriers, it might end up failing at its primary job.

    What is the primary mission you want to take care of, when you are under attack from one or two USN CBG? You need to stay at distance and use your planes, ships and subs to hit the guys attacking you, or, in a more realistic approach focused in deterring capabilities, be in conditions of doing so.

    Those radar outliers at sea would be vulnerable to attack or just being bypassed, and don't add a huge amount to the defence... but would be a warning that an attack might be in progress... sending platforms to investigate might be a distraction to weaken your defence and the real attack might be coming from a different direction... essentially what I am saying is that long warning times are good but having your assets all projected forward towards the threat means a smart enemy can bypass you forces and attack from another direction while getting you to send away your fighters on a wild goose chase.

    Are you trying to propose "Airborne Late Warning" as a better version of AEW? I mean, it is not only against logic, it is also against all analysis and trends.

    Fighters will deal with manned and unmanned enemy aircraft and standoff munitions as well as being airborne radars that can pass a remote air picture to ships who can add their missile resources to the battle via the eyes of the aircraft.

    Better even if they can thin out the salvos far from the ships based on early warning and even better, if they can shoot down the carriers launching the missiles or sinking the ships from where they operate. Every step later you take action, your effort and the probability of leakers increases massively and therefore your risk / effectiveness of your enemy.

    Even if the Russians are conservative and only have Hawkeye type aircraft themselves... the enemy being able to attack it from 400km range with new AAMs.... say Meteor-M that is not to say the incoming missile wont be detected and could be jammed, decoyed or simply shot down.

    Of course active defence systems are a trend too.

    The MiG-29KR is an 8.5g fighter... is half a g really a problem?

    8g actually. Is it a problem for the French to have 11 g capable, non folding wing planes on board their carriers? The whole point of 5G is to make it clearly better than 4G, but putting a wing fold places a road block to that intent and, equally detrimental, reduces a lot the fuel in the wing and increases weight and complexity, probably it is not good for RCS either. If you have a huge deck because your semicat hull allows it and you get your planes stored equally efficiently in the hangars with the adjustable landing gear or the sleds I mentioned above than with wing fold, what is the problem? What is the sense of making planes like a Su-57, that rely on capacity overmatch to oppose USN, and make them mediocre because of the navalization? The exchange rates are modified disproportionately with the capability differences between the fighters, so you need to hold dearly to any gap you can find, to make your quality work vs. numbers. Or think of unmanned platforms capable of 12 g but saddled by the wing fold... it would an unambitious self defeating design decision.

    CAP can be routine, but strike missions normally need a lot of planning and to provide a useful loadout of relevant weapons you need to know what you are hunting...

    Of course, without targetting you cannot send an air wing or launch a missile.

    Tracking a UCAV will lead your enemy to your carrier... not something likely to have with a cruise missile.

    Is there anyone expecting to hide a fleet and less even a carrier in the surface of the sea?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28920
    Points : 29448
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:19 am

    not completely replacing;

    Original plan was for the F-22 to completely replace the F-15C.

    Just like the US Navy replaced all SSKs with SSNs... the 3,500 F-35s is supposed to replace all other non stealthy fighter aircraft in the US inventory and most of the HATO inventory.

    they'll be flying together on some missions & augmenting each other for years to come.

    No. It was get rid of the old unstealthy and in with the new stealthy stuff.

    Replacement.

    The US is in a race with itself; by trial & error, they constantly develop & field many types of planes,

    Not at all. There was no trial... they didn't decide to start off with 200 F-22s to see how they went and then decide from there. They were fully planning to build 1,500 of them till the cold war ended and they halved the number to 750, and then down to what had already been made.... 189.

    Of course they have had plenty of error.

    They used a method of making something cancel proof... it worked well on the C-17 but it made the programme and the aircraft horribly expensive.

    The F-35 was supposed to be affordable, but they used the cancel proof tactics that made the C-17 super expensive which... surprise surprise... made the F-35 super expensive.... who was expecting that?

    just like the soviet VMF was with many classes of ships, subs & planes, some successful & some not.

    A ship or a sub is a different matter... you make one and test it and if it does what you expect you build it serially with a few tweaks and improvements you worked out during development... Lada class SSK, Ivan Gren class landing ships are good examples of products that did not immediately live up to their potential promise and needed work, but are now ready for serial production ready to do what they were supposed to do.

    In comparison the F-35 and the LCS and the Zumwalt class... they started making them before they were working properly... 500 F-35s made with over 900 problems including a dozen serious life threatening ones, they made about 16 LCS ships and they are useless so they are buying a replacement vessel that is very much like an Italian Gorskov frigate, and they built three Zumwalts of the 30 odd they were planning to make before they realised most of the useful technologies didn't work and could not be made to work very easily...

    The US has adopted the Microsoft method... designing stuff is so hard we let our customers beta test our new products for problems and faults...

    It is not working.

    there r Block III F/A-18E/Fs , & besides the F-35Bs that can fill in for the F-35Cs on CVNs, if need be.

    The F-35 was supposed to replace the Hornets, if you want to use the Hornets going forward instead of the brand new replace everything super stealth 5th gen fighter then that makes the F-35 a failure.

    it would be better utilized on bigger Ulyanovsk or Storm CATOBAR CVN;

    It worked on the Kuznetsov... for a bigger carrier a Su-57 would make more sense.

    on the smaller STOBAR Adm. K, it can't realize its full potential due to its size & weight.

    Seems just fine on the K.

    That's why smaller & lighter MiG-29Ks r now given preference.

    They ordered MiG-29KRs because they were put into production for the Indian order. By tacking their order on the back of that they saved the costs of tooling up and starting production themselves, which saved a bit of money.

    The MiG-29KR would likely interact better with the Sigma-M naval communication and battle management system too.

    To quote u: "What is not to like... smaller, lighter, cheaper, and shorter ranged, which means less likely to be out of range when needed."

    Very true, but if you already have Su-33s it would make sense to carry some of each. The Su-33 is rather longer than the MiG-29, but its wings fold further in so its width when folded is smaller than a MiG-29 with its wings folded.

    it is, as both r derived from the Su-27.

    Not blood related... they both have Su-27 characteristics but that is all... all the things that make the Su-34 different from the Su-27 also make it different from the Su-33, so derived is not the correct word.

    If we are cousins and you have a big nose from your grand dad and I have a big nose from our shared grand dad and he had a big nose that would be one thing, but if you were a 2 metre tall 90kg fine specimen of an Olympic Sprinter, and I was also 2 metres tall but weighed 200kg and was a pie eating champion by profession... could we switch jobs?

    Would we be interchangeable because we both have grand dads big nose?

    It is about weight and about purpose... being able to run fast means very little in a pie eating competition because you sit at a table and the pies come to you, and being able to eat large amounts of pies at one sitting has never been useful at any Olympic track or field event... getting down into the start position would be a problem and getting up and actually running would be a bigger problem... by the time I collapse in a heap 10m from the start line my competitors will be crossing the finish line thinking they recognise the big nose but you have put on weight...


    The sled for handling would detach prior to the TO sequence,

    So it isn't a cat replacement?

    They already have small electric vehicles to tow aircraft around the deck... having a custom or adjustable sled design that fits every type of aircraft would be complex wouldn't it?

    I would think tow bars are easier.

    after the landing the plane typically would get away of the landing strip on its own power and then a sled would pick it up.

    Sounds like an unnecessary complication over what they do now... which seems to work already.

    The idea makes full sense when you have several positions in the hangar and a serial production line like way of handling planes.

    I would strongly suspect they already have a very standardised and regimented way of handling all aircraft... an every man for himself method would be chaotic and would not work even with small volumes of traffic.

    Basically yes, with the advantages y explained.

    Eventually they might make them unmanned, but I suspect they will need cameras and all sorts of sensors for autonomous vehicles could do that sort of thing on their own... I would think a human would be better most of the time.

    I mean I think a few mistakes could create a real log jam... but I would think AI based drivers would be less able to free up such a jam and would be just dumb enough to create such situations all the time.

    Despite the I in artifical intelligence... it is programming and training... there is no actual thought processes involved.... it can't come up with unique solutions on its own.

    Yes, that was my guess too, because of the high levels of power involved in accelerating the planes. The good part is that it could be loaded with the arresting gear and use up a good part of that energy for TO. Planes are heavy and the amount of energy involved is not small, you could even think this was an old idea to improve the arresting gear operation

    Combining it with the arrester gear might be a problem as they wont be located very close to each other, and while in theory takeoffs and landings can be done together due to the angled deck, it might be useful capturing and storing landing aircraft energy in a different way perhaps.

    Energy efficiency makes sense and they should not waste any chance at free energy...

    The ship borne radars take care of any high flying target much better than any AWACS, they have way more power and space for antennas and mission systems available. The value of the airborne means of radiolocation is to extend the radar horizon as much as possible beyond the fleet, therefore to remain close to the ship is not contemplated in any concept of operations for AWACS you can find out there. The current standard is ca. 200 nm and the trend is to push that way beyond as new unmanned platforms appear.

    The radars needed in the future for systems like the S-500 will need to detect targets at enormous range, and at high altitude including outside the atmosphere in space. Radar ranges for the S-500 radar might be 2-3 thousand kilometres.

    Current radar technology and systems for ground SAMs includes lots of different band antennas working together combining results with some computer processing to combine andvantages of the different radar types while minimising their weaknesses.

    The new ships will be operating with naval versions of these same radars so I would expect a variety of antenna to be used... lots of networking and that would likely include a ship based equivalent of Container et al...

    The Russians take air defence seriously.

    You said MiG-31, which is a land based platform and not relevant to the oceanic deployments where the carriers would be central to the defence of the fleet.

    Apart from speed do you think the Su-57 is going to be in any way inferior to the MiG-31 in terms of long range AAMs or anti ship hypersonic missiles?

    As known, the AWACS and AEW are normally very easy targets, a fighter is far from being one.

    Russia has said its PAK DA will be able to carry its entire range of AAMs... do you think a naval AWACS would be left defenceless?

    VMF is already doing this, networking all their assets including fighters, ships and so on.

    I mentioned the MiG-31 because it networks with other MiG-31s in the air and doesn't just share information but can actually link radars to create synthetic radar antenna that are huge.

    With the right processing power the performance of these radar with this link could be increased many times over... instead of just stitching the views from each radar together in a mosaic, it could extend and improve the view of all the radar working together including nearby ship or ground based radar information.

    What is the primary mission you want to take care of, when you are under attack from one or two USN CBG?

    Protect the ships you are operating with... the SSGNs with your group can sneak forward and sink those enemy carriers and then come back and look for SSNs...

    You need to stay at distance and use your planes, ships and subs to hit the guys attacking you, or, in a more realistic approach focused in deterring capabilities, be in conditions of doing so.

    If you are launching attacks on US carrier groups, what ever the Russian ships were doing is probably cancelled and its priority would probably to get to Russian waters and try to help protect Russian Air space from enemy attack.

    Are you trying to propose "Airborne Late Warning" as a better version of AEW? I mean, it is not only against logic, it is also against all analysis and trends.

    Detecting western missiles or ships within 250km of the Russian ships should provide more than adequate warning of an attack, with plenty of time to direct fighters and ships defence systems to deal with it.

    Hypersonic threats would need more warning but will be flying at high altitude and should be detected at much greater range with ship based radar.

    the S-400 and S-500 radars would be ideal as they would be the weapons of choice to deal with such a threat until directed energy weapons are perfected for the job.


    Better even if they can thin out the salvos far from the ships based on early warning and even better, if they can shoot down the carriers launching the missiles or sinking the ships from where they operate. Every step later you take action, your effort and the probability of leakers increases massively and therefore your risk / effectiveness of your enemy.

    Detection of enemy ships has to happen first... there is no way even with Su-57s that you are going to have CAP 1,000km away from your ships armed with anti ship missiles. Once the enemy ships have been detected and shown to be the source of any attack a strike mission can be launched to engage... either aircraft or SSGN based... or there might be another platform operating as part of a different Russian group of ships that might be able to attack them from behind.... communications and working together is important...

    Is it a problem for the French to have 11 g capable, non folding wing planes on board their carriers?

    R-73 can already deal with 12 g targets and so can R-77 so it is not a problem as far as I can see.

    The whole point of 5G is to make it clearly better than 4G, but putting a wing fold places a road block to that intent and, equally detrimental, reduces a lot the fuel in the wing and increases weight and complexity, probably it is not good for RCS either.

    The point of 5g is stealth. Neither the F-22 nor F-35 can pull 11 g either.

    AFAIK the Su-57 can't either... do you think that makes a difference?

    If you have a huge deck because your semicat hull allows it and you get your planes stored equally efficiently in the hangars with the adjustable landing gear or the sleds I mentioned above than with wing fold, what is the problem?

    Aircraft with wings that fold have been shooting down aircraft with wings that don't fold for a very long time... if you think the plane with the highest g tolerance always win then you have not been paying attention.

    Get your head out of the Rafale sales brochure.

    What is the sense of making planes like a Su-57, that rely on capacity overmatch to oppose USN, and make them mediocre because of the navalization?

    Of course... the only useful thing about the Su-57 is its ability to pull 9g...

    The exchange rates are modified disproportionately with the capability differences between the fighters, so you need to hold dearly to any gap you can find, to make your quality work vs. numbers.

    All fighters have advantages and disadvantages baked in to the design, the purpose of the pilot is to understand his own aircrafts strengths and weaknesses and to maximise the strengths and minimise the weaknesses, but to also know a bit about the enemy aircraft he is fighting and how he can make the strengths of his fighter maximise the weaknesses of the fighter he is fighting.

    Talking dogfighting in the 1990s when HATO was training against German MIG-29s... old model MiG-29Bs with centreline fuel tanks that limited g to 5g, they found the 62% of the time the F-16 managed to get on the tail of the MiG from a variety of starting positions and speeds etc etc... but 100% of the time the MiG had already launched an R-73 that was deemed to have been a good shot and therefore likely to have shot down the F-16 before it got into a firing position.

    I guess you are going to tell me that that is not possible because a 9g capable fighter vs a 5 g capable fighter with an external fuel tank adding drag and g limits would be totally one sided the other way right?

    Or think of unmanned platforms capable of 12 g but saddled by the wing fold... it would an unambitious self defeating design decision.

    If the focus was high g performance I would expect it would be fairly straight forward to design a wing fold where there are lots of heavy pins and structures along the depth of the wing fold that would make that wing very very strong.

    But it is like being able to fly at mach 2... it sounds much more useful than it actually is... a pilot pulling 11 gs is not a pilot... he is a non functioning entity probably unable to move his hands till he eases up on the turn and the gs drop... Russian planes have thrust vectoring missiles that can turn hard off the rail and chase targets much more efficiently than a fighter aircraft can... the design of the R-73 is to allow it to see targets out turning the launch platform and the ability to turn hard on launch to follow those targets and hit them as close as 300m away.


    Is there anyone expecting to hide a fleet and less even a carrier in the surface of the sea?

    Many Americans think it is possible... emission control they say... it seems the US carrier group is all seeing but also invisible to all.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5643
    Points : 5637
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:54 pm

    Regarding the F-15EX vs. F-22/35s: https://youtu.be/Vrn-PRCSBkA?t=502

    The F-18E/Fs would play the same role to the F-35C/Bs.
    The VMF's MiG-29K/35s r not F-35 counterparts, neither r the Su-33s=the F-15EXs.
    But the navalized Su-34 could become F-18E/F counterpart, possibly with even better specs.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28920
    Points : 29448
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:03 pm

    The F-18E/Fs would play the same role to the F-35C/Bs.

    But the F-35 was supposed to replace the F-18 in both strike and fighter interceptor missions, but it is a failure so they will have to rely on the Hornet for a bit longer.

    Not the end of the world, but certainly not what they planned to do...

    The VMF's MiG-29K/35s r not F-35 counterparts, neither r the Su-33s=the F-15EXs .

    Actually in many ways they are, they are fully integrated into the Russian Sigma system which is their equivalent of AEGIS, meaning targets the MiGs detect can b e passed on to ships and other aircraft to attack, or the MiG can guide SAMs launched from ships hundreds of kms away at targets they are tracking.

    The MiG is faster than the F-35 and neither are actually stealthy, but the MiG will carry its weapons externally of course... it probably has a better radius of action too.

    The point is that by 2030 the LMFS will be going to sea on new CVNs and eventually on the Kuznetsov too... will the F-35 still be around, or will it have been cancelled and replaced with legacy fighters put back into production and drones.

    But the navalized Su-34 could become F-18E/F counterpart, possibly with even better specs.

    The Su-34 is too heavy to operate from a carrier... to make it lighter would reduce its performance.

    The Su-33 is already the best compromise for weight and size and range and payload from a carrier. It will improve if launched with cat assistance, but the Su-57 will always have better performance than either an Su-33 that could be used but needs replacing anyway, or the Su-34 which is not an option anyway.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5643
    Points : 5637
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:06 pm

    But the F-35 was supposed to replace the F-18 in both strike and fighter interceptor missions, but it is a failure so they will have to rely on the Hornet for a bit longer.
    with so many F-35s ordered, they'll keep them on CVNs & LHAs, so not only F-18E/Fs will be relied on.

    The Su-34 is too heavy to operate from a carrier... to make it lighter would reduce its performance.
    with EMALS, it could be even heavier & still suitable for carrier flight ops.
    The lightly armed Su-33 is 9Ts (GW) & 12.1Ts (MTOW) lighter:
    Gross weight: 29,940 kg (66,006 lb)
    Max takeoff weight: 33,000 kg (72,753 lb)

    As is, the Su-34 is 16.6Ts (GW) & 17.8Ts (MTOW) heavier than the C-2A that the USN CV/Ns been carrying for years, with steam CATs:
    C-2A Gross weight: 49,394 lb (22,405 kg)
    Max takeoff weight: 60,000 lb (27,216 kg)


    Su-34 Gross weight: 39,000 kg (85,980 lb)
    Max takeoff weight: 45,100 kg (99,428 lb)


    The F-111B was too heavy for steam CATs:
    Gross weight: 79,000 lb (35,800 kg)
    Max takeoff weight: 88,000 lb (39,900 kg)


    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28920
    Points : 29448
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:28 am

    with so many F-35s ordered, they'll keep them on CVNs & LHAs, so not only F-18E/Fs will be relied on.

    The two naval versions are the most expensive to buy and to operate... if the USAF says the cheapest F-35 is not working and is too expensive, what is the Navy going to say... any reductions in orders for the naval models will ratchet up the price dramatically and will likely have a snowball effect because every country that cuts orders or just cuts numbers... and all of the ones with orders will cut numbers... that is just normal... order extra to get the price down but cut numbers when it turns out more expensive than anticipated so buying fewer for slightly less money means a tiny amount saved.

    Stupid as it is, that is normal in the west.

    with EMALS, it could be even heavier & still suitable for carrier flight ops.
    The lightly armed Su-33 is 9Ts (GW) & 12.1Ts (MTOW) lighter:
    Gross weight: 29,940 kg (66,006 lb)
    Max takeoff weight: 33,000 kg (72,753 lb)

    There is no advantage to the extra weight, it makes more sense to convert the Su-57 than the Su-34.


    As is, the Su-34 is 16.6Ts (GW) & 17.8Ts (MTOW) heavier than the C-2A that the USN CV/Ns been carrying for years, with steam CATs:
    C-2A Gross weight: 49,394 lb (22,405 kg)
    Max takeoff weight: 60,000 lb (27,216 kg)

    Russia wont be using C-2s on their carriers either.

    The F-111B was too heavy for steam CATs:
    Gross weight: 79,000 lb (35,800 kg)
    Max takeoff weight: 88,000 lb (39,900 kg)

    It had a starting weight of that... over time as features are added it would only have gotten heavier and it was already not safe for takeoff or landing.

    Using your numbers the Su-34s normal takeoff weight is about the same weight as the maximum weight of the F-111B an aircraft programme the US Navy cancelled because it was too heavy even with catapult launch assistance...

    That in itself tells you they wont even bother.

    The Su-57 makes vastly more sense, as its abilities as a fighter and interceptor make it ideal, and its stealth is far superior to the Su-34 already without spending hundreds of millions of dollars to make it stealthy... and it has strike capabilities and can carry all sorts of air to ground ordinance in the strike role... with inflight refuelling its range could be just as good as the Su-34 from a land based airfield, let alone a reduced weight half plane neutered for carrier ops.

    Backman likes this post

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5643
    Points : 5637
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:58 am

    There is no advantage to the extra weight, it makes more sense to convert the Su-57 than the Su-34.
    but there is advantage of multirole fighter-bomber that can perform better than the Su-33, & save many Su-57s for other missions & export.

    Russia wont be using C-2s on their carriers either.
    true, but they may be using similar COD, tanker & EW planes. The last 2 will be heavier; the Yak-44E was supposed to have MTOW of 40,000 kg (88,185 lb), 100kg more than the Su-34 & F-111B!
    If their EMALS or some other catapult system is successful, they could even navalize some of their MiG-31s:
    Gross weight: 41,000 kg (90,390 lb)
    Max takeoff weight: 46,200 kg (101,854 lb)


    Those planes could escort land based bombers, carry Kinzhals, conduct long range interceptions/interdictions, CAPs, recons/EW, & shoot down HS AshMs/LEO satellites.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:51 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3436
    Points : 3438
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:19 am

    GarryB wrote:Despite the I in artifical intelligence... it is programming and training... there is no actual thought processes involved.... it can't come up with unique solutions on its own.

    We can't do that either

    Combining it with the arrester gear might be a problem as they wont be located very close to each other, and while in theory takeoffs and landings can be done together due to the angled deck, it might be useful capturing and storing landing aircraft energy in a different way perhaps.

    As simple as using a properly sized cable linking the arrestor with the flywheel.

    The new ships will be operating with naval versions of these same radars so I would expect a variety of antenna to be used... lots of networking and that would likely include a ship based equivalent of Container et al...

    I read something about ship based OTH radars that could be very relevant, but I am not aware of any practical implementation as of now. As to the different radars in the new ships, have you seen the pagoda on top of the Lider proposal? You get the idea...

    Apart from speed do you think the Su-57 is going to be in any way inferior to the MiG-31 in terms of long range AAMs or anti ship hypersonic missiles?

    I think is going to be better in many regards.

    do you think a naval AWACS would be left defenceless?

    APS is indeed an option, we still need to see them implemented.

    If you are launching attacks on US carrier groups, what ever the Russian ships were doing is probably cancelled and its priority would probably to get to Russian waters and try to help protect Russian Air space from enemy attack.

    That is why I talk about deterring capability. It must be clear for enemy military that attacking you is:

    1) not profitable in the theater, since Russia can cause similar or worst damage to the US than the original attack was intended to cause them, and therefore,
    2) escalation would go nuclear where everyone loses

    That is how VMF can keep USN in a deadlock at a global scale and enable Russia to develop their relations with any country they please.

    Detecting western missiles or ships within 250km of the Russian ships should provide more than adequate warning of an attack, with plenty of time to direct fighters and ships defence systems to deal with it.

    A low flying Su-57 could approach to the fleet, climb and launch an hypersonic missile, giving ca 1.5 minutes for doing anything against it. Not enough time for sending any fighter.

    the S-400 and S-500 radars would be ideal as they would be the weapons of choice to deal with such a threat until directed energy weapons are perfected for the job.

    The more you play the leaker lottery, the more likely you are to win, since you don't test your AD with the weapons of the enemy but with targets according to your assumptions of what the enemy will do. That is freakin risky. You want to shoot down the carrier first and foremost, and even better, not allow it to take off by sinking the ship from where they operate.

    Detection of enemy ships has to happen first...

    That is why you have space based assets, passive OTH detectors and also why you need to send your AEW UAV as far as you can.

    R-73 can already deal with 12 g targets and so can R-77 so it is not a problem as far as I can see.

    Nothing to do with what I say

    The point of 5g is stealth.

    Suspect

    AFAIK the Su-57 can't either... do you think that makes a difference?

    Certainly the capability outmanouver your rivals is relevant. Also having as a strong airframe is very good for a naval fighter due to the sink rates resulting of no flare landing. We don't exactly know up to what altitude the Su-57 can create lift to use 9 g or more, so it is difficult to say how often in an engagement (could perfectly be at the BVR phase) the plane must turn as fast as possible to launch and disengage, for instance. You insist with dodging missiles and I have already explained that such event is only relevant when the missile is already very close to being defeated kinematically and flying at a speed close to that of its target. And of course a plane that can fly very high, very fast and still turn very brutally will be much more difficult to hit at that stage, in other words, it will significantly reduce the effective range of the missiles launched against it. Such considerations are crucial to the design of the PAK-FA as a tool of air superiority against the best the enemy can throw against Russia and apply exactly the same in naval combat.

    Get your head out of the Rafale sales brochure.

    Get your head out of Falklands and learn a bit of aerodynamics, it is much more useful.

    All fighters have advantages and disadvantages baked in to the design, the purpose of the pilot is to understand his own aircrafts strengths and weaknesses and to maximise the strengths and minimise the weaknesses, but to also know a bit about the enemy aircraft he is fighting and how he can make the strengths of his fighter maximise the weaknesses of the fighter he is fighting.

    BS. What I stated is a fact, the relation between performance difference and exchange rate is non linear and that is a crucial reality for any planer that, like Russia, will not have numbers on their side. As you said yourself, your naval fighter needs to be the best you have.

    If the focus was high g performance I would expect it would be fairly straight forward to design a wing fold where there are lots of heavy pins and structures along the depth of the wing fold that would make that wing very very strong.

    So lots of weight and no fuel in the wing, brilliant
    Backman
    Backman

    Posts : 659
    Points : 667
    Join date : 2020-11-11

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Backman Today at 5:05 pm

    https://twitter.com/5thSu/status/1390317984468537347?s=19

    Deadlines for delivery of new ground based test training complex - the second ground based aircraft carrier analogue - have been postponed to at least 2022 with start of operations in 2023.- TASS

    With a second training complex , this pretty much guarantees that Russia is going to put the refitted Kuznetsov into continuous operatios. And the new carrier will have a ski jump.

    Sponsored content

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 28 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu May 06, 2021 6:24 pm