Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

The longer runs through the ski jump, I am not sure they would add that much.

Its about getting the launch point clear of the landing strip.

I would always prefer strips that do not cross each other, that is why I propose to make them straight. But if this is not possible and the use is restricted to some planes then your idea could work. What I don't see quite ok is if you plan to launch many fighters from that position, since you cannot park and prepare many planes in the same area (or maybe I am wrong, how many are you calculating to be parked in that area?), I think this would make the TO tempo slow (if only one plane can be lifted and then armed and prepared for launch each time) or would add interference to the landings (if the planes are armed somewhere else and then cross the landing strip). The space left port of the landing strip is narrow and angled, so it cannot be used very well. If you make a big space for parking and preparing the planes port of the landing strip, wouldn't it be better to move the landing strip altogether and avoid crossings?

How many planes can V prepare currently while having planes waiting to land?
There's only so much you can do on a carrier as small as V so 1 or 2 on that stern area is a vast capability increase over the current 0.

A bit of a wild card. Would it be better to build smaller aircraft carriers say 2-3 along the same lines of what Italians and Spanish or even that chakri nareuebat. 12-30 fixed wing or attack helicopters  (not inc transport and asw etc heli) there's a few advantages such as being able to deploy aircraft carrier capabilities in multiple areas, cheaper per unit, export potential and avoid the old saying eggs all in one basket if there was a loss or breakdown for whatever reason the impact would be less also if one was in getting repair you would still retain the capability. Also more locations to service the ships due to smaller size. So instead of one highly expensive and juicy target you have 2-3 smaller less expensive carriers. With a the basic standard hull design size you could offer aircraft carrier or helicopter carrier for sale. And as for export potential a smaller cheaper unit and price tag will be more within other countries needs and budget. Ok only real downside is the image of not having massive impressive looking monster but bigger isn't always better.

Would it be better to build smaller aircraft carriers say 2-3 along the same lines of what Italians and Spanish or even that chakri nareuebat.

Well that was pretty much the plan with the Mistrals.
This is the proposed concept for the domestic replacement


I'm not opposed to the idea of these small VTOL carriers but it does require an appropriate aircraft to operate from it. (which Russia currently lacks but may be coming)

US studies have consistently decided the capability loss is bigger than the cost saving (huge vested interest in that outcome though), I say capability of 2 or 3 of those is a lot better than 0 carriers capability.

d_taddei2 wrote:So instead of one highly expensive and juicy target you have 2-3 smaller less expensive carriers. With a the basic standard hull design size you could offer aircraft carrier or helicopter carrier for sale. And as for export potential a smaller cheaper unit and price tag will be more within other countries needs and budget. Ok only real downside is the image of not having massive impressive looking monster but bigger isn't always better.

Agreed 100%. Its my understanding why Russian MoD made decision build a VSTOL fighter instead of investing in mega CVNs. This can make ship choice easier (+ new tech breakthrough).  
Can be 20ktons can be 40 or can be 70ktons

hoom wrote:I'm not opposed to the idea of these small VTOL carriers but it does require an appropriate aircraft to operate from it. (which Russia currently lacks but may be coming)

US studies have consistently decided the capability loss is bigger than the cost saving (huge vested interest in that outcome though), I say capability of 2 or 3 of those is a lot better than 0 carriers capability.

(1) Russian project for VSTOL was already started.

(2) Great to see that we can agree.

LMFS. Do not blame me of what only you have been doing. Here are the quotes with your personal attacks answering the quotes from me that you selected.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p550-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#238782

LMFS wrote:

Nothing assures that more than one take-off assistance system and or landing assistance system fails at same time. A proposal with two short landing options that uses necessarily landing assistence, can see both landing options dissabled if both landing assistance systems fail at same time.

Well, that is actually the opposite of how you think in terms if risk mitigation. If your arresting gear "A" has a 1% probability of being disabled and it operates equally and independently of system "B", then the probability of both being out of operation at the same time is 0.01%, which is two orders of magnitude less in this particular case. Obviously this makes quite a lot in terms of ensuring your planes will be able to land instead of crashing in the sea.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p575-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#238807

LMFS wrote:

eehnie wrote:I said nothing about probability. Your "opposite of how you think" mention is fairly audatious and baseless. Why do you expect the people reading do not know that you are using the definition of independent events and the definition of conditional probability to do the calculus of the probability of the intersection? In fact your calculus is quite basic, of secondery education level in my native country (and likely in most), previous to a engineering degree in the university.

Bravo. That is where you (after having done the same with n forum members before) get personal and start saying BS before I cut this for good. The underlying error, improper not of an engineer but of any person with common sense, is you essentially denying the principle of redundancy by saying it does not help having two systems since they could both fail at the same time... I engaged in basic reasoning not because I am an idiot but out of good will and frankly patience, because you were not  understanding such a trivial issue. But you behaving like a dick changes things a bit so there you have the cold truth served, I don't care if you are hypersensitive and don't like being shown or corrected, if you got hurt by my basic calculations man up.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p575-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#238863

LMFS wrote:

eehnie wrote:The first and alone personal reference was from you. To assume that I do not know the definitions of independent event and of conditional probability, and that I think the opposite, was quite audatious and unfriendly.

Was not being unfriendly, at all. The construction you point out as hostile could be also written "this is not how things are done in risk mitigation", has nothing to do with "you" personally and is quite frequent in English. I was not thinking for a second you would ignore basic probability or trying to give a master class to anyone for God's sake, but if you discuss obvious things I will have to go to obvious reasoning.

eehnie wrote:Unlike you, I did not personal attacks.

Yes you did, FYI. Rather rude ones.

eehnie wrote:And no, in my previous words there is not a denial of the principle of redundance.

If you want to traslate properly my words to probabilities, I was saying that the probability of both landing trajectories being disabled at same time is not 0. The landing assistence systems of both can fail at same time, and sooner or later this problem will appear under a proposal that forces dependence of landing assistance. Instead, in a design with enough size, that allows landing and take-off without assistance, keeping free of obstacles the main axis of the aircraft carrier, there is not this problem.

Yes, any system destined to stop the plane can fail, be it on board of the carrier or on board of the plane. And you cannot land in 300 m without assistance, sorry. Take a look at actual data.

With this kind of comment you can only expect rude answers. Instead you will not find in my words personal attacks. Not in the quotes you selected to answer and neither in the rest of the messages.

About your last comment about the 300m, we have very positive and interesting news from Yuri Slyusar, the highest level official in the Russian aviation insdustry:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p575-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#238839
https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=3051169&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

Yuri Slyusar, the head of the United Aircraft Corporation, spoke about this with our reporter Nailya Askerzade.

The Su-57 jet fighter is in the sky over Zhukovsky. Fast, maneuverable, and completely invisible to foreign radar systems. A 300-meter-long runway is enough for it in order to take off.

Do not forget it.

We should get a clue fairly soon to what the Russian Govt/Navy are planning in terms of future carriers if the sunken PD-50 floating dock can't be salvaged.

If they're planning for a 100Kton beast then an even bigger floating dock will be ordered.
If they're planning for relatively small then replacement can be smaller than PD-50.

(2) Great to see that we can agree.

I think I'm well enough on record supporting more numerous small carriers, I just think STOBAR (with existing knowledge & experience) is a more practical way to go vs developing an all new VSTOL capability.
Worst comes to worst a carrier designed for STOBAR can operate VSTOL aircraft but not vice versa.

I just though about something. Ulyanovsk was already started in the 90s in USSR. So they finished the dev work for almost everything for the carrier which was supposed to have catapult. Can we deduce that russia alredy has a finished prohect for catapults ? Would they need lot of work, time and money to develop new ones or upgrade the one developed in ussr ?

Is it hard/costly to develop them ? Only country that has them is USA. France if I'm not wrong buys them to US. India wants to buy also them to US so if they don't try to have an indian made could mean they can't produce them.

eehnie wrote:About your last comment about the 300m, we have very positive and interesting news from Yuri Slyusar, the highest level official in the Russian aviation insdustry:

Sorry to disappoint you but this news was already 2 years or so in wiki. In both cases (wiki, Slyusar)  no word about takeoff mass though        



https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%83-57

hoom wrote:We should get a clue fairly soon to what the Russian Govt/Nav.

That's definitely one way to estimate it. Another is that in early 2019 3 reworked concepts of CVs are to be evaluated and one to be chosen for further implementation.  (Borisov said some time ago)

hoom wrote:

(2) Great to see that we can agree.

I think I'm well enough on record supporting more numerous small carriers, I just think STOBAR (with existing knowledge & experience) is a more practical way to go vs developing an all new VSTOL capability.
Worst comes to worst a carrier designed for STOBAR can operate VSTOL aircraft but not vice versa.

skijump and TVC were actually invented for VSTOL fighters. There is no contradiction with VSTOL. Just about arresters. VSTOL can also land on short strip. Su-57 according to wiki in 100m...flaps, and TVC definitely help.

Isos wrote: Can we deduce that russia alredy has a finished prohect for catapults ? Would they need lot of work, time and money to develop new ones or upgrade the one developed in ussr ?

unlikely, those catapults were working,besides steam catapult makes no sense in arctic winter. This was one of reasons why Soviets were not so enthusiastic about catapults. You need EMALS for this.

Isos wrote: Is it hard/costly to develop them ? Only country that has them is USA. France if I'm not wrong buys them to US. India wants to buy also them to US so if they don't try to have an indian made could mean they can't produce them.

True it is complex and expensive project. When you run 1-2 CVs it makes little economical sense doing as it can cost you 20-25% price off the whole CV!


BTW France decided not to invest in one project with UK , I wonder why? The most revolutions idea is that they would plan joint project with ... Germany. France and Germany have economy ~$7,000B    ~40% of US one.  Both could build nice CV fleet.

The data of the new I posted is clear

August 20, 2018

More data about:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/pak-fa.htm

The T-50 takeoff and landing distance is shortened, only about 330 meters to complete the landing runway, their weapons can all be mounted inside the fuselage bomb bay to meet stealth requirements. Reportedly, T-50 can carry eight R-77 air to air missiles.

330m is just the aprroximate data of lenght given for the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carrier.

Why disappointment if we are reading what we want to read?

The Su-57 is perfectly capable of operating from an aircraft carrier. Their landing and take-off runway needs still are not totally fixed publicly, but very likely will allow the aircrafts to operate from the future Russian aircraft carriers with and without take-off and landing assistence, adding safety to the operations of both aircrafts and aircraft carriers. And it refered to the main variant of the aircraft.

Perfect work of the Russian engineers. We can assume that the future Russian aircraft carriers will allow a comfortable and safe use of the Su-57.

In reality the plan is to build a 100 knots carrier from which CTOL planes can take of and land on the spot. So we will be all right and happy

Please lets be serious. Planes land normally in 600-700 m minimum. And that, only with the assistance of the chute:
Su-35: 750 m with drag chute (Rosoboronexport)
MiG-29: 600 m with drag chute (GlobalSecurity.org)

Reason for this limitation is very simple, due to the relative size of the landing gear, the plane and its speed, and has not changed in Su-57. Besides, you cannot leave the plane land on a ship without making sure to stop it. Imagine the breaks fail and the plane needs to abort landing, with a chute on its tail... that would be interesting to see. Or simply if the chute does not deploy, with the aircraft not having the cables to stop it, it cannot keep the engines at full power to be in conditions to abort the landing.

So unless we get >1 km-long ships I don't expect convectional planes landing without assistance on a carrier. The 25 m difference between the Shtorm and the light carrier have no effect in this regard.

I do not consider serious to put a emoticon of a clown to the words of Yuri Slyusar, President of the Russian United Aircraft Corporation (owner of Yakovlev, MiG, Ilyushin, Sukhoi, Tupolev,...).

I do not consider serious to use data about the MiG-29 from globalsecurity to deny data about the Su-57 from globalsecurity. Just the same source.

eehnie wrote:I do not consider serious to put a emoticon of a clown to the words of Yuri Slyusar, President of the Russian United Aircraft Corporation (owner of Yakovlev, MiG, Ilyushin, Sukhoi, Tupolev,...).

Have not done that, so don't make up things

I do not consider serious to use data about the MiG-29 from globalsecurity to deny data about the Su-57 from globalsecurity. Just the same source

Only source you provided is that it can take off in 300 m, I am not contradicting it and it was not Global Security, what on earth are you complaining about? And lesser planes can already TO from 100 m without active assistance (ski jump is simply a curved deck and was also present at the Shtorm, as well as catapults) so I don't see the big deal. BTW, why do you keep talking about TO when the discussion is about landing? Is it in order to take us for fools or is it some understanding problem of yours?

LMFS wrote:Only source you provided is that it can take off in 300 m, I am not contradicting it and it was not Global Security

I posted two sources, one of them global security.


https://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p575-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#238839
https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=3051169&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

Yuri Slyusar, the head of the United Aircraft Corporation, spoke about this with our reporter Nailya Askerzade.

The Su-57 jet fighter is in the sky over Zhukovsky. Fast, maneuverable, and completely invisible to foreign radar systems. A 300-meter-long runway is enough for it in order to take off.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p575-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#239057
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/pak-fa.htm

The T-50 takeoff and landing distance is shortened, only about 330 meters to complete the landing runway, their weapons can all be mounted inside the fuselage bomb bay to meet stealth requirements. Reportedly, T-50 can carry eight R-77 air to air missiles.

330m is just the approximate data of lenght given for the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carrier.

eehnie wrote:.............
330m is just the approximate data of lenght given for the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carrier.

Which will never be built but hey, you used colored font

OK... and where am I disputing the 300 m TO in all of the above?

And more important even... why on earth do you insist on the same, when I said over and over that the problem for implementing your proposal is not TO but landing?? Apart from many other issues already mentioned like storage of planes, reinforcement of airframes, corrosion, but I am not going to repeat eternally, if you prefer ignoring then better not to discuss at all.

eehnie wrote:.............
330m is just the approximate data of lenght given for the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carrier.

Are you aware that take off lenght depends on the load of the plane ? If your data is real it is for empty su-57, with full afterburners.

330m is the lenght of the shtorm carrier not lenght of the runway. Moreover accelerating on 300m and using the skyjump full loaded will destroy the aircraft.

PapaDragon wrote:

eehnie wrote:.............
330m is just the approximate data of lenght given for the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carrier.

Which will never be built but hey, you used colored font  

capital ship=capital letters

LMFS wrote:

OK... and where am I disputing the 300 m TO in all of the above?

And more important even... why on earth do you insist on the same, when I said over and over that the problem for implementing your proposal is not TO but landing?? Apart from many other issues already mentioned like storage of planes, reinforcement of airframes, corrosion, but I am not going to repeat eternally, if you prefer ignoring then better not to discuss at all.

The problem is that you are not reading what you have in front of you...

eehnie wrote:https://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p575-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#239057
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/pak-fa.htm

globalsecurity wrote:The T-50 takeoff and landing distance is shortened, only about 330 meters to complete the landing runway, their weapons can all be mounted inside the fuselage bomb bay to meet stealth requirements. Reportedly, T-50 can carry eight R-77 air to air missiles.

330m is just the approximate data of lenght given for the Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carrier.

and you used globalsecurity data about the MiG-29 to deny globalsecurity data about the Su-57.

LMFS wrote:In reality the plan is to build a 100 knots carrier from which CTOL planes can take of and land on the spot. So we will be all right and happy

Please lets be serious. Planes land normally in 600-700 m minimum. And that, only with the assistance of the chute:
Su-35: 750 m with drag chute (Rosoboronexport)
MiG-29: 600 m with drag chute (GlobalSecurity.org)

Reason for this limitation is very simple, due to the relative size of the landing gear, the plane and its speed, and has not changed in Su-57. Besides, you cannot leave the plane land on a ship without making sure to stop it. Imagine the breaks fail and the plane needs to abort landing, with a chute on its tail... that would be interesting to see. Or simply if the chute does not deploy, with the aircraft not having the cables to stop it, it cannot keep the engines at full power to be in conditions to abort the landing.

So unless we get >1 km-long ships I don't expect convectional planes landing without assistance on a carrier. The 25 m difference between the Shtorm and the light carrier have no effect in this regard.

It seems that something changed in the Su-57.
What changed?
Which is the purpose of the change?
These are questions for Slyusar, Shoigu,...

eehnie wrote:The problem is that you are not reading what you have in front of you...

You are right, fair enough. I lost that in the repeated and unnecessary quotes about TO and your colourful text salad so I apologize for that one.

and you used globalsecurity data about the MiG-29 to deny globalsecurity data about the Su-57.

The difference is I am using coherent and official data from Rosoboronexport to back my claim that while you are getting unreferenced, outlandish data from Global Security against all available industry data as proof of an improbable layout against anything seen in CV design, basic physics and existing evidence from PAK-FA. Then comes the very design of Shtorm, with catapults, ski jump, 200 m landing strip and 100 TO run, with all provisions of conventional carriers. But despite you take the size (only 25 meters more than K) as a hint in favour of your hunch about carriers without assistance for TO and landing. That is what you call a scientific approach.

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". Heard that before?

It seems that something changed in the Su-57.
What changed?
Which is the purpose of the change?
These are questions for Slyusar, Shoigu,...

Tell me, what changed? When did you see the PAK-FA landing in such short distance or any evidence of those changes? Size of the braking system? Tires? Air brakes? Engine reverser? Chute? Yes, "something" special and secret for sure.
Because of some odd quote found solely in Global Security and your obsession with that issue the world is going suddenly upside down?

What is more probable, an inaccurate statement in the PAK-FA article (found several gross errors reading it superficially) or that Russians are going to make a revolutionary (and completely illogical) carrier with TO and landing strips taking the whole length of the deck for CTOL planes, with no assistance or safety measures?

We will see, this is for sure

LMFS wrote: that Russians are going to make a revolutionary (and completely illogical) carrier with TO and landing strips taking the whole length of the deck for CTOL planes, with no assistance or safety measures

We will see, this is for sure

remove CTOL from equation and you can enjoy SVRL on 30-40m et voila!

LMFS, first you missed the entire globalsecurity quote, then you missed the landing word. Every repetition has been necessary, even using multiple colors and the maximum letter size.

Rosoboronexport data are fine, but you also used goblasecurity data.

Still it is good to remember that United Aircraft Corporation is the company that developed and is producing the Su-57. The words of his President Yuri Slyusar are not especulation, And if other sources, are offering data in line with the said by the President of United Aircraft Corporation, there is not something to avoid.

It would be interesting to use the data of the Su-33 and the MiG-29K. Both CTOL.

Looking at them, very likely we can have a good idea of some of the modifications introduced in the Su-57 in order to reduce its take-off and landing runway needs.

The question about the purpose of the reduction of the runway needs of the Su-57 until the length of the Project 23000 aircraft carrier is also very interesting.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:remove CTOL from equation and you can enjoy SVRL on 30-40m  et voila!

...and then, Gunship joins the party with his own mantra.

You can imagine how much I care for that SVRL, now I found the proof Su-57 can be modified for naval operation!

eehnie wrote:The question about the purpose of the reduction of the runway needs of the Su-57 until the length of the Project 23000 aircraft carrier is also very interesting.

Only Shtorm has a conventional angled deck not what you propose. Look where the arresting cables are put on a carrier and where the contact of the plane happens and you will see how relevant is that. Do you suggest the plane is going to make contact with a mathematic precision at the beginning of the deck (even in rough seas) and brake (by itself!) by the exact end without one meter tolerance, despite rain, landing weight, wind over the deck etc?? Really?

Look BTW quotes from UAC chief designer talking about possible creation of naval version of Su-57 and the need to address lots of issues for carrier operation:

"If needed, we will do it, undoubtedly,"

"If we work only on the aerial components and do not work on the ship components, then things won't match up. A whole host of problems involving takeoff, landing, operation, electromagnetic compatibility and so on — it must be done together," he said.

"If a new carrier is being built, it must have modern features, such as electromagnetic catapults,"

Now you see I can rectify, interested to see if you can too

LMFS wrote:You can imagine how much I care for that SVRL, now I found the proof Su-57 can be modified for naval operation!

proof on level of krylov's plastic fantastic

10 years of MiG-35
5 years of Shtorm and
now of Su-57k


congrats, your proofs are undisputed and keep piling up! each one 5 years, can we guess what will be next one in 2023?

LMFS wrote:

eehnie wrote:The question about the purpose of the reduction of the runway needs of the Su-57 until the length of the Project 23000 aircraft carrier is also very interesting.

Only Shtorm has a conventional angled deck not what you propose. Look where the arresting cables are put on a carrier and where the contact of the plane happens and you will see how relevant is that. Do you suggest the plane is going to make contact with a mathematic precision at the beginning of the deck (even in rough seas) and brake (by itself!) by the exact end without one meter tolerance, despite rain, landing weight, wind over the deck etc?? Really?

Look BTW quotes from UAC chief designer talking about possible creation of naval version of Su-57 and the need to address lots of issues for carrier operation:

"If needed, we will do it, undoubtedly,"

"If we work only on the aerial components and do not work on the ship components, then things won't match up. A whole host of problems involving takeoff, landing, operation, electromagnetic compatibility and so on — it must be done together," he said.

"If a new carrier is being built, it must have modern features, such as electromagnetic catapults,"

Now you see I can rectify, interested to see if you can too

I have nothing to rectify. Because I never said that the future Russian aircraft carriers must not have take-off and landing assistance systems. I simply said that that it is good to have free of obstacles the main axis of the aircraft carrier, in order to be able to operate without take-off and landing assistance when the systems fail or when they want.

Are you asking for new quotes with bolding?

I totally support the quote that you posted. It confirms how the designs of the Su-57 and the Project 23000 Shtorm received strong mutual feedback from the other in the last decade. The presense of the Su-57 in the presentation of the Project 23000 Shtorm export variant reflects a lot of work together, not only plastic of Krylov like GunshipDemocracy said. This is something that I have been defending here before.

The Project 23000 Shtorm is the alone public project that qualifies for the Russian Navy requirement of ships over 70000 tons, and there are less than 2 months to go.

The Shtorm-KM recently presented of which you proposed a variant does not qualify.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

LMFS wrote:You can imagine how much I care for that SVRL, now I found the proof Su-57 can be modified for naval operation!

proof on level of krylov's plastic fantastic        

10 years of MiG-35
5 years of Shtorm and
now of Su-57k

congrats, your proofs are undisputed and keep piling up! each one 5 years, can we guess what will be next one in 2023?

Chief UAC designer saying Su-57 can "undoubtedly" be turned into naval fighter is no evidence for you that it can be turned naval fighter, what will a clueless guy like him know about Su-57 right??
You have nerve man, could make a good spokesman for State Department or US mission at the UN    

eehnie wrote:I have nothing to rectify.

Ok no more questions then