GunshipDemocracy wrote:BTW how do you think Su-57 can start so short for it weight if not using of TV?
Su-57 can take off in very little space because, even fully loaded, will have a T/W ratio really close to one (that means, it could almost take off vertically like a rocket) and will be further helped by a ski jump. This considering izd. 30 engines will be in line with claimed thrust of course. It will accelerate horizontally and the rotation will be done with help of the ramp. Don't really think TVC + LEVCONS can create lift through deflection which is more useful than the pure acceleration of the engines in the horizontal plane.
Planes are designed to create lift when moving horizontally you know? And they are already very efficient at it, more than you seem to believe...
True. But how about this: PAK FA after after almost 20 years of development was rejected by one main cosponsors. Poor stealth,no new engines, not really better than other new fighters but very expensive. One of prototypes failed and burned because of engine malfunction. Thats why 20 years after start programme RuAF ordered 12 units.
LMFS wrote: Su-57 can take off in very little space because, even fully loaded, will have a T/W ratio really close to one (that means, it could almost take off vertically like a rocket) and will be further helped by a ski jump. This considering izd. 30 engines will be in line with claimed thrust of course. It will accelerate horizontally and the rotation will be done with help of the ramp. Don't really think TVC + LEVCONS can create lift through deflection which is more useful than the pure acceleration of the engines in the horizontal plane.
Planes are designed to create lift when moving horizontally you know? And they are already very efficient at it, more than you seem to believe...
You forgot to say that you need really high speed to get lift what is impossible to have in short take off without TV. Other solution is called a biplane. Su-57 will use ski jump on airfields?! why?
As for TV deflection Yak-141 could (with gear arresters) have STOL 70m full load and no skijump.
True. But how about this: PAK FA after after almost 20 years of development was rejected by one main cosponsors. Poor stealth,no new engines, not really better than other new fighters but very expensive. One of prototypes failed and burned because of engine malfunction. Thats why 20 years after start programme RuAF ordered 12 units.
You are truly a lost cause aren't you?
Why? it was same rhetoric GaryB is using against Yaks BTW tell me what is not true in above statements?
Russia's ship design bureau comes up with catamaran aircraft carrier concept
The manufacturer stated that the ship’s underwater part is the project's 'key distinguishing feature'
MOSCOW, October 2. /TASS/. The Krylov State Research Center has come up with a fundamentally new design concept of what may become Russia’s future semi-catamaran aircraft carrier, the center’s spokesman told TASS.
[/quote]
isnt it the same as on pictures before? 44ktons? or Krylov is churning new variations on Marvell scale?
]
"An average displacement ship is capable of carrying a full-scale air wing," the specialist said.
Parameters
The Krylov Center said the proposed aircraft carrier’s water displacement will be 44,000 tonnes, length - 304 meters, deck width - 78 meters, draught - 8.5 meters, full speed - 28 knots, and cruising range - 8,000 miles. The ship’s air wing will consist of 46 aircraft: 12-14 Sukhoi-33 fighters, 12-14 MiG-29K/KUB fighters, four early warning and command aircraft and 12-14 Ka-27 helicopters.
This would explain the big divergence between the size of a conventional flight deck and the one of the new light carrier proposal. Very good and deserving of credit to innovate in CV configuration after some many decades of rather unchanged designs [/quote]
True but 44ktons, not nuclear pp what in Russias case sucks with scarcity of bases and nuclear powered liders? Full size air wing? 24-28 fighters from which 12 light migs?
French de Gaulle : nuclear powered, up to 35 fighters + 2 AWACS + 3 choppers. Project from 90s.
George1 wrote:I see only Su-33 and MiG-29K, not even navalized PAK-FA
and it is in the same class as Kuznetsov
so far Su-57 was only in 3 plastic models on Shtorm (by Krylov BTW ). I just wonder how those Su-33 on ake off position is going to start without ski-jump neither with a catapult?!
GunshipDemocracy wrote:You forgot to say that you need really high speed to get lift what is impossible to have in short take off without TV. Other solution is called a biplane. Su-57 will use ski jump on airfields?! why?
It is better if you make some numbers, really. How fast do you think a Su-57 would travel after 100 m take-off run accelerating @ ca. 1g? It is not slow at all, in fact it is enough for naval planes to go well past stall speed, especially when using a ski jump. You can watch videos and check your numbers easily. A fighter like MiG-29K covers this distance in the K in little over 5 seconds IIRC, starting from standstill. That is, by the end of the ramp it is close to 180 km/h, plus the wind + ship speed. So it takes off easily... in less space than a F-35B does
Why? it was same rhetoric GaryB is using against Yaks BTW tell me what is not true in above statements?
Not really. You are using cheap propaganda arguments which make no sense at all. Garry was trying to point out fundamental conceptual flaws (ingestion of hot air) that motivated to change to a lifting fan in the F-35. He is openly critic of STOVL but that does not mean he is using empty arguments
isnt it the same as on pictures before? 44ktons? or Krylov is churning new variations on Marvell scale?
Do not know what this Marvell scale is. The article refers explicitly to the carrier presented at Army 2018, so it must be the one already discussed in the forum and which raised doubts about its feasibility due to the very big size of its flight deck. Now we know the explanation about it was its innovative hull shape
True but 44ktons, not nuclear pp what in Russias case sucks with scarcity of bases and nuclear powered liders? Full size air wing? 24-28 fighters from which 12 light migs? lol1 lol1 lol1
French de Gaulle : nuclear powered, up to 35 fighters + 2 AWACS + 3 choppers. Project from 90s.
What do you mean, that the de Gaulle is a good ship or that the light carrier from Krylov could be better if nuclear propelled? Both are most probably true. Nevertheless for the de Gaulle: - 42.500 tonnes full displacement against 44.000 of the Russian design. But the later has a WAY bigger flight deck. - Max 40 aircraft against 46. Remind, those Rafales are in fact lighter than the MiG-29K. 2 AWACS against 4. And 3 helos against 12-14.
so far Su-57 was only in 3 plastic models on Shtorm (by Krylov BTW lol1 lol1 lol1 ). I just wonder how those Su-33 on ake off position is going to start without ski-jump neither with a catapult?!
Don't know what is so funny. At the risk of disclosing a big secret, Krylov designs vessels, not planes. And besides, this is no official MoD project so the confirmation value the represented planes have is essentially zero.
Regarding the Su-33, what take off position are you referring? The ones I see are equipped with a pretty big ski jump
George1 wrote:and it is in the same class as Kuznetsov
Yes, in regards of flight deck and amount of planes. But K is 50% heavier. This is the great advance caused by the semi-catamaran design, allowing a wider hull for bigger internal space and huge flight deck with smaller displacement
Yes. I even pointed out pics showing the catamaran stern & even earlier highlighted that the specs given are wider than a Nimitz.
Problem I have is that semi-catamaran style has been tried unsuccessfully in reality several times & were very much failures
I see only Su-33 and MiG-29K, not even navalized PAK-FA
The Su planes on that model are not Su-33s, they're actually Su-30 style two-seaters which is why I've been talking up a navalised Su-30.
Entirely possible they just couldn't get hold of Su-33 kits of course But seems it'd be a fairly cheap/quick way of getting newer more capable airframes.
“Technology of stealth does not make sense. No one will look for you with the help of radar - except for those who are sitting on the ground. And so they will cope with stealth. There is no stealth for large ground radars,”..
Experience in real war over the last few decades show that large ground radars are the first systems taken down in an attack/invasion.
The fact that a big ground based radar can detect your stealth aircraft does not mean your interceptors you send up can find them... communications will likely be jammed and the source of your commands from your main radars to your pilots will also be noted.
The first things your cruise missiles destroy will be those comms centres, HQs, airfields of course, and major Radar installations and of course known SAM sites.
Once they have been degraded then control of the air becomes much easier.
For an enemy to detect you they must use their radar which creates data for you to add to your targets database.
Obviously with an enemy with no C4IR and no IADS then you take it down piece by piece... instead of white playing black it is white playing individual black pieces all operating on their own in the dark because their comms are jammed.
With Russian carriers having stealthy Su-57s is useful because in addition to being stealthy they will also be very very capable fighters.
Having a real AWACS platform instead of an AEW like a Ka-31 means the AWACS platform in the air will probably be detected, though with modern AESA radar it could still operate in a low emission mode that makes it hard to find.
The point is that it will be relatively easy to spot, but it will also see you coming from a long way away and so it can send commands to aircraft in the air and ships on the surface... this will again betray its position, but the aircraft and ships don't generally need to reply so you don't know where they are or how many there are... your rush to attack and shoot down that AWACS you detected 1,500km off your coast might lead you to fly over a cruiser with more firepower than 20 S-400 batteries plus 2 S-500 batteries, and of course the equivalent of 30 S-350 batteries and a dozen Pantsir and TOR batteries... OOPS.
And being a C4IR system they wont need to turn on anything.... just use data from the AWACS to get their ARH S-400s within a few kms of your planes and their ARH seekers will do the rest...
1) to fully test Su-57 phase II 2) to wait until fighter is fully tested, with full spectrum of weapons and there is a really need (so far Su-35 is enough for all threats) 3) thus save resources now by postponing full production for other projects
They already have Su-35 and MiG-35s ready to enter service and from what I have read they are rather cheap in comparison to stealthy aircraft and would likely have lower maintenance and operational costs too... what is the rush to get the Su-57 into service?
With new technologies stealth might turn out to be not the game changer the supporters keep saying it is... I mean why is Israel so afraid of the S-300 system first developed from the late 1960s... the F-35 is supposed to be able to penetrate S-400 systems and win...
Well as for mini and limo good example. Do you know why limo is expensive? because is available to few. Most people drive Hyundai or Honda to have reliable and affordable car.
The problem is that in this example the mini is spruced up to be like the limo, which makes it no longer affordable.
Lets be honest.... when the Harrier first came out it was going to be the best plane ever because it could still take off and land when all the airfields were destroyed... it meant you could have very small... practically helicopter carriers and save a lot of money.
The problem was that it was all a lie.
Harrier cannot take off from any old strip of open ground... it just can't... and those little helicopter carriers can only use helicopter based AEW... which is certainly better than nothing of course... but a real carrier with real AWACS platforms and real fighters would have been vastly more use to them in the Falklands Islands war.
I didnt find much about it, would be appreciate to learn more about it. Then what and when was changed comparing to 80s ?MiG-29M frame?
The MiG-29M which didn't ever enter service from the mid 1980s was based on 1980s technology but even it was different from standard MiG-29s.
The MiG-29M used wielded construction so internal spaces could be sealed and plumbed and used as fuel tanks. The skin of the aircraft became part of the structure.
The Indian order reopened production but production of the new aircraft design with all new materials including composites. The design was revised to be more stealthy and used up to date components and systems. There was still a delay between production for the aircraft for India and the aircraft for Russia because pretty much all the foreign components in the Indian version were replaced with new Russian equipment.
The new design is a two seat configuration and when used as a single seater extra fuel is located in the place where the second seat would be... something they didn't do with the MiG-29 and MiG-29UB which were different.
Would you answer my already couple of times asked question: why all countries prefer to build new fighters if upgrading old is so fine idea?
Name one aircraft in service right now that is not an upgrade?
Even F-35s entering service are not block 1 models they have been improved or modified... and it is the same for all other aircraft in Air Force service everywhere... they are up to block 70 updates for the F-16s flying around the place... in fact it looks like the full entry into mass produced service for the Su-57 might be waiting for the new engines and some other technologies to mature and become available...
VSTOL is more complex but not "fragile" that's your phobia not reality. 6g fighter is same level of complexity complexity and "fragility" . Yet both Russia & US are developing them.
We don't even know what constitutes a 6th gen fighter, but we can be sure it will have backup systems and redundancies so that in the case of a failure that it can limp home. A VSTOL with a failed engine or even a blocked nozzle is screwed.... even shrapnel damage could render the aircraft unable to hover... which means it needs a backup alternative... hook and cable system... so it might as well get rid of the V and just use STOBAR instead and become a much simpler and cheaper aircraft with better performance.
To argue STOVL can be cheap and effective is like trying to argue the Ka-52K could replace STOBAR fighter planes in a much smaller and cheaper airframe...
Some solid rocket boosters could extend the range of standard AAMs and its AESA radar array could be enormous... look at the size of the aircrafts nose...
3 times I've already asked - 0 links with source provided by you. So we stop this ad nauseam mantra here.
Asked what?
stop repeating ad nauseam same mantra, will ya? nobody is going to do continuous VTOL on unprepared locations. VTOL is required by navy mostly. Space on ships is scarce.
Who said anything about continuous.... it can't even take off once vertically without heat resistant matts protecting the ground...
BTW how do you think Su-57 can start so short for it weight if not using of TV?
Large wing area for its weight and the ski jump directing the aircraft into the air at launch at which point the engine nozzles would be deflected at a downwards angle to contribute both forward thrust and lift to unload the wing and increase their capacity to generate lift.
1987 was approved plan for low rate initial production in Saratov plant 292.
There were only two flying prototypes and after one crashed the program was cut.
The reason for the crash was obvious exhaust thrust hot air ingestion in the main air intake... solution would need a complete redesign to stop the hot gas from the lifting engines moving forward near the main engine intakes.... a much better solution would be some sort of engine driven lift fan but it would still seriously compromise the design because you have this enormous bulky lift fan that is not that heavy but of no use in normal forward flight and take up an enormous internal volume of space that can't really be used for anything else like fuel or electronics.
It is this enormous internal volume that makes the F-35 a bit of a dog... if it didn't have that design requirement it could be a stealthy F-16 which is what it was originally intended to be...
MiG-29k appeared only because of Indians not because it was so great fighter.
Even if the Yak-41 design had been available they would have picked the MiG... it simply has better performance, is simpler and cheaper to buy and to operate and has a lot of commonality with a plane they also operate in their air force. Normally not an issue but sometimes you can share spares pools in critical situations. The Yak-41 would still be a technology demonstrator with flaws and bugs that wont come cheap to fix.
PAK FA after after almost 20 years of development was rejected by one main cosponsors. Poor stealth,no new engines, not really better than other new fighters but very expensive. One of prototypes failed and burned because of engine malfunction. Thats why 20 years after start programme RuAF ordered 12 units.
Yeah... you actually have to contribute funds to something to be called a cosponsor, but poor stealth compared to what... does India have an alternative choice of their own? Its current engines are more powerful than the engines on the Su-35 and it is smaller and lighter than that aircraft... and the Russian AF says the Su-35 is good enough to make the Su-57 not so urgent that it has to be rushed into production and service. Of course it is more expensive... it is not called next generation for nothing.
If India thinks it is crap why isn't it ordering F-35s?
Why has it actually said it would wait for the aircraft to get into service and then look at it again.
Would they have said the same things about the Su-30M before they bought it and put it in production?
and same guy said that MiG-41 will be produced as from 2025th, didnt he?
Have heard MiG guys and AF guys say the MIG-31 will need replacing by 2028, so if they don't have something ready to replace it by 2025 their might be issues.
Navalized fighter weights 500-700 more. Then did he tell potential customers that this is already navalized and heavier fighter or he was just bullshiting potential customers? like they have no experts on their own.
Having a stronger aircraft is not a bad thing... naval models of the MiG-29 also had more powerful engines and larger wing areas than the land based models too...
yeah in 70s-80s data transmission was suspicious indeed. Not in 2030s tho. You see AEW&C can be realized in many ways, IMHO chopper is worse than drone. Both ceiling and duration fo flight makes drone a better option.
Yeah actually I don't know... the Kamov is a very heavy helo, but a real fundamental change from the ground up to make it an AEW platform could probably make a real difference in terms of weight and size... I mean even putting the new more powerful engines Klimov have developed should add to performance in terms of operating height and a serious upgrade in terms of electronics could also transform its performance... but even assuming it remains in the 10-12 ton class... what sort of UAV do you have in mind in that weight class than can carry a 6 metre wide antenna array and also spin it in flight.
I mean it is all nice a fixed wing UAV able to fly faster and higher than a AEW helo, but if it can't deploy a radar antenna as big and can't maintain height with such an antenna deployed then you gotta say how is this thing going to operate... it will need serious engine power to get airborne from the Kuznetsov... whereas the Ka-31 could operate from a frigate and jump from frigate to frigate or destroyer even without a carrier present... it could even operate from a supply ship that is supporting the surface group... most of them have helicopter pads...
They actually do. UAV Fregat already has working proof of concept. VDV requested own tiltrotor (perhaps will be competing with high speed helo). Long before any CV is gonna be launched tilltrotor can be reality.
Ahhh dude... if a small model that takes off conventionally constitutes proof they have a tiltrotor, then can I refer you to various plastic models and fan art to prove they have 70K ton carriers too?
This would explain the big divergence between the size of a conventional flight deck and the one of the new light carrier proposal. Very good and deserving of credit to innovate in CV configuration after some many decades of rather unchanged designs
Very clever and very promising... thinking outside the square... but odd designs will be a hard sell to the Russian Navy... they are quite conservative.
Lets face it one of the reasons they went for the Mistral was that the design was proven and could in theory (and in fact) be built rather quickly and put into service rather fast too... well except for the fact that the French are .
Su-57 can take off in very little space because, even fully loaded, will have a T/W ratio really close to one (that means, it could almost take off vertically like a rocket) and will be further helped by a ski jump. This considering izd. 30 engines will be in line with claimed thrust of course. It will accelerate horizontally and the rotation will be done with help of the ramp. Don't really think TVC + LEVCONS can create lift through deflection which is more useful than the pure acceleration of the engines in the horizontal plane.
Everything takes off easier with forward motion.... VSTOL, Helos, and normal aircraft...
You forgot to say that you need really high speed to get lift what is impossible to have in short take off without TV.
Rubbish... all you need is an increased angle of attack... provided by a skijump for an Su-57, but it also has TVC so it can control its wings angle of attack anyway.
An AN-2 can't fly at really high speed, but would be able to take off from the Kuz...
True but 44ktons, not nuclear pp what in Russias case sucks with scarcity of bases and nuclear powered liders? Full size air wing? 24-28 fighters from which 12 light migs?
Scale it up to slightly bigger than Kuznestov and give it nuclear propulsion and EMALS and a ski jump ramp and they might have something there... very clever... offers some advantages of a catamaran design without the excessive width issues...
Shallow draft might be an issue in terms of internal space but then an all nuclear electric drive where nuclear power generation can be placed as ballast to generate electricity with electric pods at the front and back like on their new icebreakers so it wont even need tug support in dock...
I see only Su-33 and MiG-29K, not even navalized PAK-FA
Not their job to speculate on what aircraft might be used... using current aircraft suggests it could go into service now without the extra cost of developing new aircraft for it...
I just wonder how those Su-33 on ake off position is going to start without ski-jump neither with a catapult?!
It has a ski jump...
Not really. You are using cheap propaganda arguments which make no sense at all. Garry was trying to point out fundamental conceptual flaws (ingestion of hot air) that motivated to change to a lifting fan in the F-35. He is openly critic of STOVL but that does not mean he is using empty arguments
I remember the 1980s when Harriers were the thing... especially after their performance in the Falklands War.... but as information trickled out it turns out that it was more pilots skill and new missiles that made a difference... not to mention all the promises about operating from open clearings in fields or supermarket carparks was all rubbish.
Before it was revealed that they were using new missiles there was even a suggestion they used vectored thrust to outmanouver the Argentine pilots... in fact they had a name for it... VIFFing... vectoring in forward flight... of course a load of rubbish...
https://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p400-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#235923 With link to http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/september-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6509-russia-s-krylov-light-aircraft-carrier-project-features-semi-catamaran-hull-design.html that quotes Krylov guy saying its semi-catamaran
I'm not entirely sure why it hasn't worked out in practice The yacht above had a bunch of tank testing done before they committed to building but went back in the shed fairly soon after launch & had the gap filled in to make it an ungainly monohull
Was reading about one of the other implementations (a powerboat) & it had an engine that should have been good for 15kt but couldn't get past 8, suggestion was the smooth curve upwards from monohull to tunnel causes huge suction/effectively much shorter waterline
Again your words far of the real information, because do not resist the contrast with.
The ship presented in the Forum Army 2018 is to export. And logically is presented with conventional propulsion.
Logically Russia does not export nuclear reactors for military purposes.
Taking into account that the Russian Navy rejected projects under 70000 tons, not sure if we will see the variant with nuclear propulsion.
LMFS wrote:
GunshipDemocracy wrote:True. But how about this: PAK FA after after almost 20 years of development was rejected by one main cosponsors. Poor stealth,no new engines, not really better than other new fighters but very expensive. One of prototypes failed and burned because of engine malfunction. Thats why 20 years after start programme RuAF ordered 12 units.
You are truly a lost cause aren't you?
Fairly lost, you will see like he repeats and repeats the same, despite to know the reality.
hoom wrote:https://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p400-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#235923 With link to http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/september-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6509-russia-s-krylov-light-aircraft-carrier-project-features-semi-catamaran-hull-design.html that quotes Krylov guy saying its semi-catamaran
I'm not entirely sure why it hasn't worked out in practice The yacht above had a bunch of tank testing done before they committed to building but went back in the shed fairly soon after launch & had the gap filled in to make it an ungainly monohull
Was reading about one of the other implementations (a powerboat) & it had an engine that should have been good for 15kt but couldn't get past 8, suggestion was the smooth curve upwards from monohull to tunnel causes huge suction/effectively much shorter waterline
I assume this idea was intensively tested (at TsAGI probably?) before they disclosed it... I think this is a great approach, this size of deck for 44 kT is really surprising. Nuclear propulsion and little bigger (for bigger endurance and hopefully one fighter squadron more) and they would reach practical parity with USN carriers. Counting on Su-57K maybe even this size would work
LMFS wrote:I assume this idea was intensively tested (at TsAGI probably?) before they disclosed it... I think this is a great approach, this size of deck for 44 kT is really surprising. Nuclear propulsion and little bigger (for bigger endurance and hopefully one fighter squadron more) and they would reach practical parity with USN carriers. Counting on Su-57K maybe even this size would work
I'm sure that Shtomrm was also intensively tested tha same way This concept IMHO is just kind of CGI only in plastic. That's the problem. Surely 12 Su-57 oh well 18 would make it equal to 90 fighter US Ford especially with FA-XX
LMFS wrote: It is better if you make some numbers, really. How fast do you think a Su-57 would travel after 100 m take-off run accelerating @ ca. 1g? It is not slow at all,
on those were numbers . Assuming constant a=9,8m/s2 I assumed take off speed 180km/h = 50 m/s it would be t= (V(takeoff) - V(initial))/a ~ 5,1s
s= 0,5 (at2) = 0,5(9,8xsqr(5,1)) ~ 130 m
in fact it is enough for naval planes to go well past stall speed, especially when using a ski jump. You can watch videos and check your numbers easily. A fighter like MiG-29K covers this distance in the K in little over 5 seconds IIRC, starting from standstill. That is, by the end of the ramp it is close to 180 km/h, plus the wind + ship speed. So it takes off easily...
Then VSTOL needs even less. Yak-141 w/o skijump (with deck arreststers to get full trust) 70-80m. OF course 80m of ship is for free. Soruce Yefim Gordon Russian Yakovlev Yak-38 & Yak 41-M: The Soviet Jump Jets )
Why? it was same rhetoric GaryB is using against Yaks BTW tell me what is not true in above statements?
Not really. You are using cheap propaganda arguments which make no sense at all. Garry was trying to point out fundamental conceptual flaws (ingestion of hot air) that motivated to change to a lifting fan in the F-35. He is openly critic of STOVL but that does not mean he is using empty arguments
if my arguments are cheap then mantra about deck Yak-38 in desert and Harrier from 60s to V gen fighter are really bringing discussion on factual level
True that VSTOL are more complicated but offer other qualities. Especially needed for Navy. Ingesting of hot air like PAK-FA which fell and burned means design needs to be reworked or fighter is to be dropped? Garry has full right to express his opinion what doesnet change the fact that VSTOL program was officially started.
x
Nevertheless for the de Gaulle: - 42.500 tonnes full displacement against 44.000 of the Russian design. But the later has a WAY bigger flight deck. - Max 40 aircraft against 46. Remind, those Rafales are in fact lighter than the MiG-29K. 2 AWACS against 4. And 3 helos against 12-14.
OK so you admit that smaller fighters and small displacement count.
As for Krylov vision:
1) We should alwasy compare 30years old design with new one to increase feel good factor 1) hull was extensively tested ? ekhm any proof of that? I'very much doubt on this 3) AEW? they didnt mention AWACS in brochure. And of course platform which no programme was even vaguely announced? ? 4) narrow hull large deck high deck. I'm sure this helps with buoyancy
5) 24-28 fighters doesnt sound like numbers you wanted to see...
Don't know what is so funny. At the risk of disclosing a big secret, Krylov + value the represented planes have is essentially zero.
The secret ingredient?
Regarding the Su-33, what take off position are you referring? The ones I see are equipped with a pretty big ski jump
then look again and it those shall use skijump then needs to turn sharp righ to start
Well as for mini and limo good example. Do you know why limo is expensive? because is available to few. Most people drive Hyundai or Honda to have reliable and affordable car.
The problem is that in this example the mini is spruced up to be like the limo, which makes it no longer affordable.
it was your example you just love expansive toys, unlike Russian Navy which probably prefer Honda (on of least trouble prone cars) and still affordable.
Lets be honest.... but a real carrier with real AWACS platforms and real fighters would have been vastly more use to them in the Falklands Islands war.
and which one from "proper" British carriers would you use then? BTW Again mantra about 80s?!
The Indian order reopened production but production of the new aircraft design with all new materials including composites. The design was revised to be more stealthy and used up to date components and systems +++ and it is the same for all other aircraft in Air Force service everywhere... they are up to block 70 updates for the F-16s flying around the place...
. ok so basically frame form 80s was redesigned on early 2000s and should fly well in times when 6gn is supposed to fly? Is that what you suggest for Russian Navy? and In US F-16 or F-18?
VSTOL is more complex but not "fragile" that's your phobia not reality. 6g fighter is same level of complexity complexity and "fragility" . Yet both Russia & US are developing them.
We don't even know what constitutes a 6th gen fighter, but we can be sure it will have backup systems and redundancies so that in the case of a failure that it can limp home. A VSTOL with a failed engine or even a blocked nozzle is screwed.... even shrapnel damage could render the aircraft unable to hover... which means it needs a backup alternative... hook and cable system... so it might as well get rid of the V and just use STOBAR instead and become a much simpler and cheaper aircraft with better performance.
1) if there are damaged nozzles in Su-57 or Su-35 both fly normally. Only VSTOL has problems. 2) Russians spending money on VSTOL project without considering cost benefit
Let's agree to disagree. VSTOL is no less "fragile as any other fighter. Complexity is balanced by smaller and cheaper ship to carry or more of fighters on deck. And no Russians are no idiots.
Who said anything about continuous.... it can't even take off once vertically without heat resistant matts protecting the ground...
and making full airbase with 2km concrete runways is faster, easier and cheaper then truckload of such matts?
BTW how do you think Su-57 can start so short for it weight if not using of TV?
Large wing area for its weight and the ski jump directing the aircraft into the air at launch at which point the engine nozzles would be deflected at a downwards angle to contribute both forward thrust and lift to unload the wing and increase their capacity to generate lift. [/quote]
Well TVC was actually developed for STOL or V/STOL. F-15 TVC was designed to be STOL fighter. To have shorter runway . Sameas Russian fighters. So as long as I seriously doubt that TVC is not used during STOL. Of course wing surface helps. But who says VSTOL cannot have large wing surfaces, canrds or LREX?
1987 was approved plan for low rate initial production in Saratov plant 292.
There were only two flying prototypes and after one crashed the program was cut. [/quote]
Actually there were 4 41 and in Saratov ordered 8 prototypes of Yak 41M (improved avionics + LREX)
The reason for the crash was obvious exhaust thrust hot air ingestion in the main air intake... solution would need a complete redesign to stop the hot gas from the lifting engines moving forward near the main engine intakes....
I agree but 1) improvement agains existing VTOLs was a quantum leap 2) Yak was continuously improving design thats why 8 pieces was already 41M
It is this enormous internal volume that makes the F-35 a bit of a dog... if it didn't have that design requirement it could be a stealthy F-16 which is what it was originally intended to be...
My idea about Russian VSTOL, less weight on stealth or bomb payload, more on being a maneuverable fighter with efficient engine.
Even if the Yak-41 design had been available they would have picked the MiG...
that we dont konw.
Yeah... you actually have to contribute funds to something to be called a cosponsor, If India thinks it is crap why isn't it ordering F-35s?
because they didnt sponsor that and seriously I added this paragraph to show absurdity of accusations that Yak was shit. You can cut press releasees and try to prove similar thing to very capable fighter.
Have heard MiG guys and AF guys say the MIG-31 will need replacing by 2028, so if they don't have something ready to replace it by 2025 their might be issues.
Then they need to find workaround. Quick.
yeah in 70s-80s data transmission was suspicious indeed. Not in 2030s tho. You see AEW&C can be realized in many ways, IMHO chopper is worse than drone. Both ceiling and duration fo flight makes drone a better option.
Yeah actually I don't know... the Kamov is a very heavy helo, but a real fundamental change from the ground up to make it an AEW platform could probably make a real difference in terms of weight and size... I mean even putting the new more powerful engines Klimov have developed should add to performance in terms of operating height and a serious upgrade in terms of electronics could also transform its performance... but even assuming it remains in the 10-12 ton class... what sort of UAV do you have in mind in that weight class than can carry a 6 metre wide antenna array and also spin it in flight.
I mean it is all nice a fixed wing UAV able to fly faster and higher than a AEW helo, but if it can't deploy a radar antenna as big and can't maintain height with such an antenna deployed then you gotta say how is this thing going to operate... it will need serious engine power to get airborne from the Kuznetsov... whereas the Ka-31 could operate from a frigate and jump from frigate to frigate or destroyer even without a carrier present... it could even operate from a supply ship that is supporting the surface group... most of them have helicopter pads..
Still radar horizon depends on ceiling... with 3km you dont have more than 250km for surface targets. Ka-60 in turn has 6km...but only 2500kg payload.
.
They actually do. UAV Fregat already has working proof of concept. VDV requested own tiltrotor (perhaps will be competing with high speed helo). Long before any CV is gonna be launched tilltrotor can be reality.
Ahhh dude... if a small model that takes off conventionally constitutes proof they have a tiltrotor, then can I refer you to various plastic models and fan art to prove they have 70K ton carriers too?
Fregat has proven it can fly unlike Krylov plastic model that cannot sail that's the difference but probably could win prize on modeler fairs
Scale it up to slightly bigger than Kuznestov and give it nuclear propulsion and EMALS and a ski jump ramp and they might have something there... very clever... offers some advantages of a catamaran design without the excessive width issues...
why to stop on Kuz size? if you have unlimited budget scale at will. If not below 40ktons.
I just wonder how those Su-33 on ake off position is going to start without ski-jump neither with a catapult?!
It has a ski jump...
but not on left runway looking from front. But ok that Su-33 is so good that can sharply turn right before start and use ski jump
You keep stretching data and arguments so much I don't know what to say.
From the data shown you see simple STOBAR fighters take off with more load in less space that STOVL ones... and besides that they have more useful capacity since they don't need additional lift-generating HW and are cheaper and simpler.
Therefore, only clear theoretical advantage of STOVL is in landing, but arresting gear has been used for decades and also STOVL end up performing rolling landings so in the praxis they are only sensible in very small and basic LHDs. If you have CVs, logic indicates to put a ski jump on it, arresting gear and a catapult in the angled deck.
STOVL program has been apparently started, we will see what the result is in terms of both aircraft and carrying vessels. By now the only reality in RuN is the K with its Su-33 and MiG-29K, and it will continue to be so for a good while
LMFS wrote:@Gunship: You keep stretching data and arguments so much I don't know what to say.
perhaps you can say that Krylov thoroughly tested each design, Su-57k is real?
STOVL program has been apparently started, we will see what the result is in terms of both aircraft and carrying vessels. By now the only reality in RuN is the K with its Su-33 and MiG-29K, and it will continue to be so for a good while
Of course! this was precisely what they said. Both fighters will fly ~10 years and when they already obsolete technically and morally are gonna be retired. BTW if apparently here - is defined as an official announcement of deputy PM for MiC mentioning direct Supreme Commander order then yes.
From the data shown you see simple STOBAR fighters take off with more load in less space that STOVL ones...
from which data? can you provide hose? Less space?! precisely which one vs which one like Su-33 vs F-35?
As for payload is only in your fantasy. Check numbers please before you say something like that again please. Numbers say:
Su-33....................6,500 kg (in air superiority variant 3,300kg) Mig-29K.................4,500 kg F-35......................6,803 kg
MiG-29k -4,500kg only Indian variants izd (9-41 and 9-47) -5,500kg) Боевая нагрузка: 4500 кг (у варианта для Индии - "изделия 9-41 и 9-47" - 5500 кг[10])
and besides that they have more useful capacity since they don't need additional lift-generating HW and are cheaper and simpler.
So you are serious? deck fighters are much more complicated and heavy than land based. Gear, frame must stronger, hooks, anti corrosion not to mention. Only 2 richest fleets in the world : US and China are manufacturing and designing those. This is the best proof that they are both simple and cheap. Now compare navy doctrines and budget of USN and ChN with RuN.
ah yeas France too! Rafale is cheaper than VSTOL. Needs catapult and programme cost is 45blns€ . That's why is cheap!
Therefore, only clear theoretical advantage of STOVL
If this would be correct (what is not IMHO) than is good enough since besides USN and Chinese Navy all other navies with deck fighters either have or design/plan to develop ones. But this is only in your theory so far.
is in landing, but arresting gear has been used for decades and also STOVL end up performing rolling landings so in the praxis they are only sensible in very small and basic LHDs. If you have CVs, logic indicates to put a ski jump on it, arresting gear and a catapult in the angled deck.
Very small like 70ktons QE2? As for size. do you live in the world of endless military budgets. Lucky you, RuN does not. TVC and skijump were designed for deck fighters and applied for VSTOL first. I see no problem with using VSTOL with both but this is no argument against . Just VSTOL use those facilities more efficient.
BTW Project Yak-43 was to be STOL only. Land based. Its takeoff strip was to be 130m without ski jump. Vs MiG-29k 240m. Payload: 4000kg vs 4500kg. Of course navalized is better [/quote]
GunshipDemocracy wrote:perhaps you can say that Krylov thoroughly tested each design, Su-57k is real?
There you go again. I have NEVER said that > I supposed Krylov made calculations and simulation and/or tests regarding the new layout... excuse me for implying they are a professional design bureau. But have never stated that they have done them, only have given my personal opinion, since based on my experience in development making a proposal without a technical backing is simply ridiculous and would have no more value than any fan art on the internet. Design bureaus do not engage in such reputation-destroying activities normally. > I have hoped for Su-57K and also given my personal opinion, based on objective design features and Flanker precedent, that the plane has the potential to be modified for naval operation. Have also highlighted the reasons for which I think it is a unique opportunity for RuN to reach deterrence capacity against USN in remote areas for a fraction of their budget.
Of course! this was precisely what they said. Both fighters will fly ~10 years and when they already obsolete technically and morally are gonna be retired. BTW if apparently here - is defined as an official announcement of deputy PM for MiC mentioning direct Supreme Commander order then yes.
Good that we agree on something. I consider it firm when contracts are disclosed, until then I take it as an intention to develop or work on something. Only being cautious, not denying anything.
from which data? can you provide hose? Less space?! precisely which one vs which one like Su-33 vs F-35?
I (and others like hoom) have shown the Su-33 and MiG-29 can take off almost 100% load from the short positions on the K which are 95 m. In sharp contrast, the F-35B needs 600 feet to take off full load, which is almost DOUBLE the space. And that considering the neglected Su-33 and MiG-29K with 4G engines, while the F-35B has the BY FAR highest T/W ratio and most modern fighter engine in the world and is a brand new 5G design. To talk about fair comparisons...
As for payload is only in your fantasy. Check numbers please before you say something like that again please. Numbers say:
Su-33....................6,500 kg (in air superiority variant 3,300kg) Mig-29K.................4,500 kg F-35......................6,803 kg
Have you considered fuel? And maybe cannon which F-35B does not even carry? I dived deep in these data and brought them to you on a silver plate, but you manage to ignore them one way or another. Short T/O performance of F-35B sucks compared to a high T/W ratio STOBAR fighter. It is that simple.
So you are serious?
100%. You just have to compare the F-35A and B to see prime example of capacity impairment due to STOVL. And it is huge.
deck fighters are much more complicated and heavy than land based. Gear, frame must stronger, hooks, anti corrosion not to mention.
I a not talking about naval vs land based but STOBAR vs STOVL. STOVL for naval use must meet almost all the requirements that you mention above plus huge amount of HW for generating and controlling twenty tones of vertical lift, which in our universe translates invariably into weight + space + cost + complexity. Given the scarcity of space and weight restrictions of a fighter, it is a huge design compromise.
Only 2 richest fleets in the world : US and China are manufacturing and designing those. This is the best proof that they are both simple and cheap. Now compare navy doctrines and budget of USN and ChN with RuN.
Manufacturing what? STOBAR? CATOBAR? Naval fighters in general? RuN does operate naval fighters in STOBAR configuration so they probably match their doctrine
ah yeas France too! Rafale is cheaper than VSTOL. Needs catapult and programme cost is 45blns€ . That's why is cheap!
What 45 billion? They use steam catapults licensed from US, but nevertheless I don't understand what you try to proof.
Very small like 70ktons QE2? As for size. do you live in the world of endless military budgets. Lucky you, RuN does not. TVC and skijump were designed for deck fighters and applied for VSTOL first. I see no problem with using VSTOL with both but this is no argument against . Just VSTOL use those facilities more efficient.
Look, Russia has STOBAR CV and fighters, don't tell me they can't afford them.
Krylov institute presented a concept of semi-catamaran carrier: https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5625190
The authors claim, that despite of being light(44k tonnes), it would be able to carry the same amount of aircraft units as a medium weight carrier, thanks to it's semi-catamaran desing. So, what do you guys think?
Ives wrote:Krylov institute presented a concept of semi-catamaran carrier: https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5625190
The authors claim, that despite of being light(44k tonnes), it would be able to carry the same amount of aircraft units as a medium weight carrier, thanks to it's semi-catamaran desing. So, what do you guys think?
we have discussed it in russian aircraft carriers thread..
Ives wrote:Krylov institute presented a concept of semi-catamaran carrier: https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5625190
The authors claim, that despite of being light(44k tonnes), it would be able to carry the same amount of aircraft units as a medium weight carrier, thanks to it's semi-catamaran desing. So, what do you guys think?
we have discussed it in russian aircraft carriers thread..
LMFS wrote:> I supposed Krylov made calculations and simulation and/or tests regarding the new layout... excuse me for implying they are a professional design bureau... Design bureaus do not engage in such reputation-destroying activities normally
OK and for me it is like car manufacturers dont first design car then will never ever be on streets just to see what people say? You can suppose whatever you want but as we both know there is no proof Krylov did anything like that. And unlikely as this requires both time and money.
> I have hoped for Su-57K and also given my personal opinion, based on objective design features and Flanker precedent, that the plane has the potential to be modified for naval operation. Have also highlighted the reasons for which I think it is a unique opportunity for RuN to reach deterrence capacity against USN in remote areas for a fraction of their budget.
OK fair enough. We both exchanging here personal opinions. . As for Su-57 there is no such thing as deterrence with 20-24 fighters against couple of US CSGs with 150-180 and large escort groupings. Any blockade of Russia is a declaration of war. Price? 100mlns $ is a piece (source wiki) so mildly estimating navaized is 150mlns$ .
large CVN 14 bln $, if you have 40 Su-57 there +6billions = 20blns + escord group (numners based on similar ships build in the west) Small CVN (lets say 2,4-3) + 3,6$ blns for 24 fighters so you got 6blns +escort group
If is unlikely to be cheap and disputable qualities of deterrence. And in country which builds 22800 instead of frigates. because you got small ship 200mlns cheaper.
As for other tasks Syria type war we know no PAK-FA was ever needed. Since 2015.
I consider it firm when contracts are disclosed, until then I take it as an intention to develop or work on something. Only being cautious, not denying anything.
You can consider as you like, sir. The fact is: deputy PM for MiC Borisov said it is included in new SAP 2027 and Putin personally asked to start it. I am sure this is not firm. Cool calculating Putin just loves expensive new toys. . Unlikely any contract is going to be sighed until fighter is ready.
BTW What precisely contracts were signed since 2000 till 2018 for PAK-FA? none. in 2018 12 pieces? and MiG-35 - first flight 2007 - 2018 none. In 2018 whooping 6 pieces ordered.
You can consider it firm. 12+6
I (and others like hoom) have shown the Su-33 and MiG-29 can take off almost 100% load from the short positions on the K which are 95 m.
and what is "almost" 100% with what fuel/range then? In AA profile Su-33 takes 3300kg . Dunno why.
In sharp contrast, the F-35B needs 600 feet to take off full load, which is almost DOUBLE the space.
and? how does it relate to new Russian fighters? what does it prove? absolutely nothing. We dont know what will be specifications of Russian fighter.
ha ha If you almost double form 4 to 7 tons MiG payload then perhaps we can make any. BTW Obsolete Yak-41 could start 120m. Without skijump. With could perhaps 40-50m.
Short T/O performance of F-35B sucks compared to a high T/W ratio STOBAR fighter. It is that simple.
you never compared Su/MiG starting without Ski-jump, why? F-35 starts 2/3 at worst this distance and there is nothing preventing it using ski jump. Nothing.
So you are serious?
100%. You just have to compare the F-35A and B to see prime example of capacity impairment due to STOVL. And it is huge.[/quote]
Huge in precisely what? in range? 300km? in payload? (6,8 vs 8tons)? what here is huge? Combat radius of F-35 is still better then MiG-29K (935 vs 850km)
BTW: F-35A is land based F-35B is naval VSTOL
STOVL for naval use must meet almost all the requirements that you mention above plus huge amount of HW for generating and controlling twenty tones of vertical lift, which in our universe translates invariably into weight + space + cost + complexity. Given the scarcity of space and weight restrictions of a fighter, it is a huge design compromise.
Building a jet fighter is already compromise since turboprop has better range and fuel economy. Once you decide to sacrifice economy for speed, simple canards make a fighter structurally unstable and without advanced computer algorithm cannot fly Is it not a compromise? navalized fighter is again compromise. Weight, range and payload vs short take off is already a compromise.
That's why you got technology for.
Manufacturing what? STOBAR? CATOBAR? Naval fighters in general? RuN does operate naval fighters in STOBAR configuration so they probably match their doctrine
and now started VSTOL as it suits much better BTW what contradiction do you see between CATOBAR and VSTOL?
ah yeas France too! Rafale is cheaper than VSTOL. Needs catapult and programme cost is 45blns€ . That's why is cheap!
What 45 billion? They use steam catapults licensed from US, but nevertheless I don't understand what you try to proof.
No not steam catapults but Rafale. After wiki: Rafale Program cost €45.9 billion (as of FY2013)[9] (US$62.7 billion)
Very small like 70ktons QE2? As for size. do you live in the world of endless military budgets. Lucky you, RuN does not. TVC and skijump were designed for deck fighters and applied for VSTOL first. I see no problem with using VSTOL with both but this is no argument against . Just VSTOL use those facilities more efficient.
Look, Russia has STOBAR CV and fighters, don't tell me they can't afford them.[/quote]
Tell it to Russians. They have decided to build VSTOL instead going down your route. In ~10 years they will have no STOBAR anymore. As soon as VSTOL is in series.
LMFS wrote:> I supposed Krylov made calculations and simulation and/or tests regarding the new layout... excuse me for implying they are a professional design bureau... Design bureaus do not engage in such reputation-destroying activities normally
OK and for me it is like car manufacturers dont first design car then will never ever be on streets just to see what people say? You can suppose whatever you want but as we both know there is no proof Krylov did anything like that. And unlikely as this requires both time and money.
> I have hoped for Su-57K and also given my personal opinion, based on objective design features and Flanker precedent, that the plane has the potential to be modified for naval operation. Have also highlighted the reasons for which I think it is a unique opportunity for RuN to reach deterrence capacity against USN in remote areas for a fraction of their budget.
OK fair enough. We both exchanging here personal opinions. . As for Su-57 there is no such thing as deterrence with 20-24 fighters against couple of US CSGs with 150-180 and large escort groupings. Any blockade of Russia is a declaration of war. Price? 100mlns $ is a piece (source wiki) so mildly estimating navaized is 150mlns$ .
large CVN 14 bln $, if you have 40 Su-57 there +6billions = 20blns + escord group (numners based on similar ships build in the west) Small CVN (lets say 2,4-3) + 3,6$ blns for 24 fighters so you got 6blns +escort group
If is unlikely to be cheap and disputable qualities of deterrence. And in country which builds 22800 instead of frigates. because you got small ship 200mlns cheaper.
As for other tasks Syria type war we know no PAK-FA was ever needed. Since 2015.
I consider it firm when contracts are disclosed, until then I take it as an intention to develop or work on something. Only being cautious, not denying anything.
You can consider as you like, sir. The fact is: deputy PM for MiC Borisov said it is included in new SAP 2027 and Putin personally asked to start it. I am sure this is not firm. Cool calculating Putin just loves expensive new toys. . Unlikely any contract is going to be sighed until fighter is ready.
BTW What precisely contracts were signed since 2000 till 2018 for PAK-FA? none. in 2018 12 pieces? and MiG-35 - first flight 2007 - 2018 none. In 2018 whooping 6 pieces ordered.
You can consider it firm. 12+6
I (and others like hoom) have shown the Su-33 and MiG-29 can take off almost 100% load from the short positions on the K which are 95 m.
and what is "almost" 100% with what fuel/range then? In AA profile Su-33 takes 3300kg . Dunno why.
In sharp contrast, the F-35B needs 600 feet to take off full load, which is almost DOUBLE the space.
and? how does it relate to new Russian fighters? what does it prove? absolutely nothing. We dont know what will be specifications of Russian fighter.
ha ha If you almost double form 4 to 7 tons MiG payload then perhaps we can make any. BTW Obsolete Yak-41 could start 120m. Without skijump. With could perhaps 40-50m.
Short T/O performance of F-35B sucks compared to a high T/W ratio STOBAR fighter. It is that simple.
you never compared Su/MiG starting without Ski-jump, why? F-35 starts 2/3 at worst this distance and there is nothing preventing it using ski jump. Nothing.
So you are serious?
100%. You just have to compare the F-35A and B to see prime example of capacity impairment due to STOVL. And it is huge.
Huge in precisely what? in range? 300km? in payload? (6,8 vs 8tons)? what here is huge? Combat radius of F-35 is still better then MiG-29K (935 vs 850km)
BTW: F-35A is land based F-35B is naval VSTOL
STOVL for naval use must meet almost all the requirements that you mention above plus huge amount of HW for generating and controlling twenty tones of vertical lift, which in our universe translates invariably into weight + space + cost + complexity. Given the scarcity of space and weight restrictions of a fighter, it is a huge design compromise.
Building a jet fighter is already compromise since turboprop has better range and fuel economy. Once you decide to sacrifice economy for speed, simple canards make a fighter structurally unstable and without advanced computer algorithm cannot fly Is it not a compromise? navalized fighter is again compromise. Weight, range and payload vs short take off is already a compromise.
That's why you got technology for.
Manufacturing what? STOBAR? CATOBAR? Naval fighters in general? RuN does operate naval fighters in STOBAR configuration so they probably match their doctrine
and now started VSTOL as it suits much better BTW what contradiction do you see between CATOBAR and VSTOL?
ah yeas France too! Rafale is cheaper than VSTOL. Needs catapult and programme cost is 45blns€ . That's why is cheap!
What 45 billion? They use steam catapults licensed from US, but nevertheless I don't understand what you try to proof.
No not steam catapults but Rafale. After wiki: Rafale Program cost €45.9 billion (as of FY2013)[9] (US$62.7 billion)
Very small like 70ktons QE2? As for size. do you live in the world of endless military budgets. Lucky you, RuN does not. TVC and skijump were designed for deck fighters and applied for VSTOL first. I see no problem with using VSTOL with both but this is no argument against . Just VSTOL use those facilities more efficient.
Look, Russia has STOBAR CV and fighters, don't tell me they can't afford them.[/quote]
Tell it to Russians. They have decided to build VSTOL instead going down your route. In ~10 years they will have no STOBAR anymore. As soon as VSTOL is in series.[/quote]
@gunship democracy & al. I am very suspicious that STOVL fighter is a priority for Russian army/ Navy. There are too many programs underway to finance one more, completely new highly capable aircraft. BTW, I think that STOVL cannot ever achieve such characteristics as normal STOBAR/CATOBAR fighter. There are too many technical limitations. Also, you mention 13Bn$ price for new big carrier. Have in mind that russian military industry is free of paying VAT for equipment produced for russian military, and that industry prices and salaries cannot even be compared to western ones. So, Russians can make comparable weapons & equipment much, much cheaper. Current production price of SU-57 for russian AF is somewhere like 60M$, so 40 planes make some 2,5Bn$, not 6Bn$.
I think this is a great approach, this size of deck for 44 kT is really surprising. Nuclear propulsion and little bigger (for bigger endurance and hopefully one fighter squadron more) and they would reach practical parity with USN carriers. Counting on Su-57K maybe even this size would work
I agree... the Russian Navy said they wanted a carrier bigger than 70K tons, but what they actually meant is that they wanted one that was bigger and with better capacity than the Kuznetsov... this new design scaled up to the same weight as the Kuznetsov could carry rather more aircraft, and with nuclear propulsion could be a rather impressive carrier.
Without weighing too much, yet not having a small carrier performance.
Surely 12 Su-57 oh well 18 would make it equal to 90 fighter US Ford Suspect Suspect Suspect especially with FA-XX
Actually as Syria has shown... the US wont fly FA-XX aircraft into airspace controlled by S-400, so why would their navy fly FA-XX into airspace controlled by S-400 and S-500 and Su-57s?
By then the surface ships will have Zircon and related hypersonic anti ship missiles so the Su-57s would not need to go anywhere near the US ships...
Then VSTOL needs even less. Yak-141 w/o skijump (with deck arreststers to get full trust) 70-80m. OF course 80m of ship is for free. Soruce Yefim Gordon Russian Yakovlev Yak-38 & Yak 41-M: The Soviet Jump Jets )
By that logic a Ka-52K is already ready for service and can take off vertically too...
Ingesting of hot air like PAK-FA which fell and burned means design needs to be reworked or fighter is to be dropped?
Are you trying to equate one engine fire in one PAK FA prototype with the total inability of a Yak-41 to actually do what it was fundamentally designed to do... that is land vertically on a carrier deck... please.
5) 24-28 fighters doesnt sound like numbers you wanted to see...
It carries a similar number of fighters to the Kuznetsov... so obviously a scaled up version with more would be what the Russian navy would be looking at... of course with nuclear power.
it was your example you just love expansive toys, unlike Russian Navy which probably prefer Honda (on of least trouble prone cars) and still affordable.
If I loved gold plated toys I would be demanding a 120K ton carrier to prove Russian superiority at sea... Russia needs nothing of the kind, and such a vessel would be a liability.... just like US carriers are becoming... their wonderful free income from being the international currency is coming to an end... and their actions are making it come faster...
and which one from "proper" British carriers would you use then? BTW Again mantra about 80s?!
Even the Ark Royal with Phantoms and Buccaneers and AWACS platforms would have been much better... Phantoms had BVR missiles and would have devastated the Argentine air force without even needing to get close... AWACS would have told them where they were and warned of attacks on ships so rather fewer ship losses would have occurred, and Buccaneers could have hammered Argentine ground forces much more effectively than the SHARs...
Instead they had to mount a long range risky attack on airfields with Vulcan bombers...
I harp on about the Falklands war because it is about the only case where a cheap budget carrier has been used in real combat...
I agree that without the carrier nothing would have happened and the Malvinas Islands would still be in Argentine hands, but it would have saved a lot of British ships if they had a real carrier...
. ok so basically frame form 80s was redesigned on early 2000s and should fly well in times when 6gn is supposed to fly?
Well it is supposed to be 5th gen fighter time now, yet 90% of the world does not have them operational yet...
6th gen are supposed to be largely unmanned, so I rather suspect what will happen in Russia is that 5th gen fighters will enter service in some numbers, but there will still be a lot of 4++ gen fighters too because they are cheap and can carry rather more missiles and bombs than a 5th gen aircraft can on a much less expensive platform. When 6th gen arrives I suspect they will replace the 5th gen aircraft and with 6th gen avionics being fitted to 4+++++++ gen fighters they will do the job good enough most of the time at a reasonable price too.
Not set in stone.... if things change then new plans can be made... the point is that as long as a 4++++ gen fighter can operate from the carrier then a 5th or 6th gen should be able to too, because it will have even better power to weight ratios anyway.
1) if there are damaged nozzles in Su-57 or Su-35 both fly normally. Only VSTOL has problems.
Su-57 and Su-35 can have half their wings shot off but they land conventionally... a VSTOL aircraft gets a damaged wing or tail that damages the puffer jet nozzles then it can't land vertically and must land conventionally... or crash.
2) Russians spending money on VSTOL project without considering cost benefit
There is nothing wrong with funding a few prototypes to explore technology options... the huge irony is that if the platform is subsonic then the huge internal volume the lift fan take up is not a problem.... it is only with supersonic aircraft that it ruins performance... if the F-35 was supposed to be subsonic then it would be fine... the subsonic model could be the VSTOL model and a slimmer supersonic model could be reshaped for optimal performance and would be much more like a stealthy F-16... but they ruined the flavour of the soup by trying to add too many strong flavours that didn't match.
The AWACS platform could be equipped with a large front fan behind the cockpit and two high bypass turbofans at the rear that can be vectored down for landing and taking off with a large fixed triangular structure above the back of the aircraft with a phased array radar antenna fixed there contoured to be a lifting surface so it is basically a biplane, but with lift engines for short takeoffs and landings... being subsonic you can make it as fat as you like and high bypass engines that are really powerful because they are high bypass turbofans move a lot of air but it is cold air... not hot air... even load it up with long range AAMs like R-37M and perhaps even air launched models of the S-400, but really having more fuel for longer operational time and the extra lift of the radar antenna will compensate for the bulk of the aircraft... and because it is subsonic it doesn't matter...
But then I still think an airship would be the most elegant solution all round...
Let's agree to disagree. VSTOL is no less "fragile as any other fighter.
I am sorry, I can't agree there... they are terribly vulnerable to combat damage...
[qutoe]and making full airbase with 2km concrete runways is faster, easier and cheaper then truckload of such matts?[/quote]
There are 500m strips of straight motorway all over the planet, but those trucks of matts can't follow those aircraft everywhere and deploy those matts every time that VSTOL fighter wants to touch down for a bit.
Well TVC was actually developed for STOL or V/STOL. F-15 TVC was designed to be STOL fighter. To have shorter runway . Sameas Russian fighters. So as long as I seriously doubt that TVC is not used during STOL. Of course wing surface helps. But who says VSTOL cannot have large wing surfaces, canrds or LREX?
Thrust vectoring on the F-15 and MiG and Flanker angled the engine nozzle down maybe 15 degrees or 20 degrees... for VSTOL takeoff AND landing the engine is operating in full AB thrust directly down at the runway surface... now any aircraft taking off will rotate and the engine exhaust might flash the ground for a half a second but at that point it is generally moving at 150+km/h so the surface would get heated but it would be strip dozens of metres long for a fraction of a second... not one area full thrust 20+ tons of thrust and 1,600 degrees C for 10 seconds or more....
Actually there were 4 41 and in Saratov ordered 8 prototypes of Yak 41M (improved avionics + LREX)
Where are they then... I know of one in a museum in Russia and the other was destroyed in the enormous fire after it crash landed and ruptured its belly fuel tank on the deck of a carrier.
1) improvement agains existing VTOLs was a quantum leap
Yak-41 was no a quantum leap ahead of the Yak-38M... the Yak-38M could take off and land on a carrier.
2) Yak was continuously improving design thats why 8 pieces was already 41M
Despite all promises made there was no evidence that the final product was even going to match the performance of the MiG-33, let alone be useful.
The ski jump on the Kuznetsov was largely for VSTOL fighters... they tested MiGs and Su-33s on a land based Ski Jump setup before they tried it at sea and found it improved their performance too so they kept the design despite cancelling the Yak.
They even had a cable arrest system they could set up on a road so aircraft with tail hooks could operate from motorways... the cable reduction gear was mounted in trucks to slow down the planes...
My idea about Russian VSTOL, less weight on stealth or bomb payload, more on being a maneuverable fighter with efficient engine.
Not trying to be a contrary bastard, but if you dump the requirement to be supersonic then you could make it a really fat plane... which would create lots of internal volume for lots of fuel but also lots of internal weapons... it would not be fast but it could be rather more stealthy than other aircraft with external weapons...
Once you dump the need to be supersonic then you get lots of options regarding engine arrangement... and with full vectored thrust engines inflight manouver performance should not be an issue... being able to point your nose and gun and radar anywhere you like without the risk of stalling would make you one hell of a dogfighter... launching missiles directly at a target instead of making it pull a hard turn on launch means it can turn to match any manouver the target makes with better manouverability than if it was already turning really hard to get around to face the target... it also means all its fuel burn accelerates it towards the target instead of initially heading away and then losing energy turning hard to face the target...
that we dont konw.
They operated Harriers... they know.
Then they need to find workaround. Quick.
They are working on it... it is called MiG-41.
Still radar horizon depends on ceiling... with 3km you dont have more than 250km for surface targets. Ka-60 in turn has 6km...but only 2500kg payload.
Ka-31 has a operational ceiling of 3,500m... but I suspect the new Klimov engines they have been developing should improve that a little... but I doubt the radar range for small anti ship missiles wont be more than 150km anyway... especially heading towards the antenna.
Fregat has proven it can fly unlike Krylov plastic model that cannot sail that's the difference lol1 lol1 lol1 but probably could win prize on modeler fairs
But the model didn't take off vertically so it actually proves nothing at all...
why to stop on Kuz size? if you have unlimited budget scale at will. If not below 40ktons.
The Russian Navy said they wanted slightly more capacity than the Kuz can manage... this vessel design can almost match the Kuznetsovs performance in a much lighter vessel design so scaling it up to allow for nuke propulsion and the fitting of EMALS just makes sense from their perspective... from your perspective you probably want them to shrink it down to 30K ton and put 6th gen VSTOL pixies on it...
but not on left runway looking from front. But ok that Su-33 is so good that can sharply turn right before start and use ski jump
Are you talking about the image at the top of this page? (Page 20 and post number 476?)
It has the same front as the kuznetsov... it just has a wider deck because of the new hull design...
The angled deck used for landing aircraft is flat from front to back, while the nose launch position has a ski jump...
Both fighters will fly ~10 years and when they already obsolete technically and morally are gonna be retired.
The SU-35 is perfectly adequate for fighting F-35s, and the Su-33 could easily be upgraded to that standard... and in 10 years time the Su-35 and the Su-33 can both be further upgraded to whatever level necessary. The MiG-29KR is like a MiG-35, which is very much a slightly smaller Su-35... a Su-35 that doesn't need to fly as far...
As for payload is only in your fantasy. Check numbers please before you say something like that again please. Numbers say:
Su-33....................6,500 kg (in air superiority variant 3,300kg) Mig-29K.................4,500 kg F-35......................6,803 kg
So please tell us what this 6.8 ton payload this F-35 will be carrying and how far exactly would it be carrying it?
The Su-33 and MiG-29KR would both be carrying less than 3 tons in an air to air role... normal load would be 6 R-77s and 4 R-73s and Sorbitsa jamming pods on the Su-33, and probably 2 fuel tanks and 4 R-77s and 2 R-73s for the MiG-29KR... so that would be 175kgs for each of the R-77s and 105kgs for each of the R-73s... so 1050 and 420 for the Su-33... so pretty much 1.5 tons plus jamming pods and 700kg plus 210kgs and the fuel tanks... I would be surprised if either was carrying more than 2 tons.
But what sort of ordinance would the F-35 be carrying... I would be interested...
Only 2 richest fleets in the world : US and China are manufacturing and designing those.
Which carrier aircraft is China designing?
The Russians designed the Su-33 and MiG-33, and redesigned the MiG-29KR and Su-33KUB, not to mention the Su-28, and of course the Yak-41.
Look, Russia has STOBAR CV and fighters, don't tell me they can't afford them.
He seems to think that saving a few billion to get a small and cheaper but not cheap carrier is the best option... and that would be fine if you never actually use them.
If you find yourself in a spot and actually need the carrier then you will wish you spent a little more and got a better one.
You can consider as you like, sir. The fact is: deputy PM for MiC Borisov said it is included in new SAP 2027 and Putin personally asked to start it. I am sure this is not firm. Cool calculating Putin just loves expensive new toys. . Unlikely any contract is going to be sighed until fighter is ready.
Replacing their entire armoured fleet is not cheap either, but they decided the crew protection levels were not good enough... of course tactics were the real problem... driving tanks into cities full of ammo against people trained in the use of them with all your best anti tank weapons was always going to end badly... performance of armour in the second chechen conflict and indeed Syria showed they are not totally obsolete when handled properly... and of course new systems like new ERA and APS systems and they would probably be fine, but the new replacement systems are going to be much better... but certainly not cheap.
ha ha If you almost double form 4 to 7 tons MiG payload then perhaps we can make any. BTW Obsolete Yak-41 could start 120m. Without skijump. With could perhaps 40-50m.
Hahahahaahahaha.... come on GD... when they give figures for max payload and figures for take off performance they don't mean takeoff at max fuel and max payload... they mean best take off performance which normally means quarter fuel and no payload.
No not steam catapults but Rafale. After wiki: Rafale Program cost €45.9 billion (as of FY2013)[9] (US$62.7 billion)
F-35 programme... 1.5 trillion... the most expensive combat system on the planet... a deathstar would be cheaper...
Tell it to Russians. They have decided to build VSTOL instead going down your route. In ~10 years they will have no STOBAR anymore. As soon as VSTOL is in series.
Well in there defence they have not demanded an all powerful design that replaces all current Russian fighters with a single unified piece of crap like the F-35... it doesn't have to be a money pit of useless...
kumbor wrote: @gunship democracy & al. I am very suspicious that STOVL fighter is a priority for Russian army/ Navy. There are too many programs underway to finance one more, completely new highly capable aircraft. BTW, I think that STOVL cannot ever achieve such characteristics as normal STOBAR/CATOBAR fighter. There are too many technical limitations.
you have full right not to believe that Putin personally ordered from MiC this project personally and money is allocated in SAP 2027. Then surely has low priority.
It is interesting thought about too many programmes. But which ones? Su-57 is actually on finish. There are only 2 so far. All other is just upgrades air-frames designed in Soviet times to keep them up and running.
MiG-41 and VSTOL and 6-gen (which can be MG-41 and VSTOL thus we end up 2.. ;-)
As for characteristics can you elaborate a bit please? weight? speed? payload? takeoff? which ones are important?
Also, you mention 13Bn$ price for new big carrier. Have in mind that russian military industry is free of paying VAT for equipment produced for russian military, and that industry prices and salaries cannot even be compared to western ones. So, Russians can make comparable weapons & equipment much, much cheaper. Current production price of SU-57 for russian AF is somewhere like 60M$, so 40 planes make some 2,5Bn$, not 6Bn$.
and proportions too. For one new big you have 4 small. And if Su-57 is 60 then new light can be 30-40. In every case you save money and have new more capable stuff to do task.[/quote]
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
[/quote]
.
