The navy isn't a priority for them and won't put money for naval su-57.
Su-75 on the other hand can be cheap enough for buying it and can even be bought for chinese and indians carriers.
Isos wrote:Highly unlikely. 76 Su-57 were ordered for the air force until 2028.
The navy isn't a priority for them and won't put money for naval su-57.
Su-75 on the other hand can be cheap enough for buying it and can even be bought for chinese and indians carriers.
GarryB and LMFS like this post
GarryB wrote:The Yak-141 being ahead of the Harrier is a stretch... some models of Harrier had better payloads, the sea harrier had an excellent radar.
GarryB wrote:Ironically if you remove the supersonic speed requirement the Ka-52K is a good substitute for the Yak-141.
Vertical takeoff, AESA radar, 6 weapon pylons, plus 30mm cannon with probably 3 to 4 times more ammo ready to fire... already in service in a different version for land forces... can take off quickly and safely and spin in place to scan the airspace around a ship out to decent distances.
GunshipDemocracy and owais.usmani like this post
GunshipDemocracy, 4channer, owais.usmani and Backman like this post
Mir likes this post
GarryB wrote:As for hello carriers - of course drones will be added on every ship now.
To be clear a helicopter landing ship has very specific roles, it is to support a landing force and carries naval infantry and their armour plus landing ships to get the armour ashore faster and also a variety of helicopters including attack helicopters and transport helicopters to support the landing.
They might have a few drones but any extra drones or VSTOL fighters would be stupid because it detracts from its performance as a helicopter carrier.
GB wrote:
They talked about launching systems for drones that catapult drones into the air that are not built in to the deck... perhaps a crane like arm that can be pointed into the wind or angled up or down as needed that uses some propulsion method... EM or compressed air or some such thing... would be very interesting to test too... especially if it could be placed on the deck of a ship and used to launch all sorts of different drones.
GarryB wrote:
Perhaps VSTOL too
VSTOL drones make sense... VSTOL fighters make no sense at all.
GB wrote:
Suitably vague name.Maritime aircraft carrying complex
GB wrote:
what had never happened with Yak-141 in reality. We can always argue but we cannot "aggregate" the facts. Please stick to them. The only accident with flames was Yak 141's descend speed was too high as result of pilot's action or human error as it is called.
The Yak-141s crash was filmed and they know exactly what happened... as it came in to land hot gas from the engine exhaust went in to the main front air intakes and caused a surge and a stall leading to the aircraft dropping on to the deck where the main undercarriage ruptured a belly fuel tank (internal fuel tank, not an external tank which can't be carried on the aircraft because of the heat the main engine generates during landing). The fuel ignited and started a spectacular fire which killed the programme.
GB wrote:
1) how many crashes had F-35b by landing? oh right, none.
2) could space rockets land vertically on the sea platform in 80s?
Anything can be made to land vertically... but why waste a billion dollars to achieve that when the final design is less capable than a more conventional solution?
GB wrote:
Why turn an Mi-24 Hind into a light fighter plane when the MiG-21 already does a much better job than a Mi-24 could ever possibly be able to achieve?
GB wrote:
CVN 100kton costs 5 (Shtorm optimistically calculated) -13 billions $ (Ford Class) .
We don't know what a Russian 100K ton CVN would cost because they haven't built one, but you can bet your ass it would not cost as much as an American made one.
The price of Russian and US military equipment is not comparable and not related.
GB wrote:
Thus Russian imho would go to build 2-4 smaller nuclear powered carriers/universal carriers for Su-75. Hopefully in VSTOL version. I'd bet on 20 mad 30 fighters + AWACS/drones. 35-50ktons.
Your numbers are wrong. A small nuclear powered carrier will not be a quarter of the price of a real carrier and operationally it will not be much cheaper to operate either, which means four mini carriers would cost more to operate and use than two decent sized effective carriers... France has experience with all sorts of carriers and their next carrier is going to be a 75K ton nuclear powered carrier with EMALS cats.
Cats are not for fighters... they are for AWACS aircraft which would make or break an aircraft carrier.
GB wrote:
So one big, easier do sink, what worse can be only in one place in time.
Saying that does not make it true. How many 100K US carriers have been sunk?
GB wrote:
In your logic bigger ship is less expensive then smaller one
No. In my logic carriers are expensive, but big carriers are worth every penny and small shit carriers are worse than nothing because nothing would be free.
GB wrote:Yak-141 was to be the real fighter to defend the fleet grouping. Similar characteristics to MiG-29 , same avionics/radar.
[]
different avionics and different radar... and pathetic armament... four wing pylons for weapons and a single 30mm cannon. Zero capacity to store any weapons on the belly of the aircraft because of the airflow issues.
GB wrote:
AFAIK Soviet military wanted to change modus of operandi to very short take off - like 60-120m with full load. This was one of reasons for delay of Yak-141 programme.
All planes that were vertical take off benefited from a rolling takeoff, but a rolling takeoff and then a problem means you have to dump all that ordinance and most of your fuel if you want to land vertically safely.
Well, this might be a hint that new Russian carriers might also carry Zircons. As for Yak - it could carry Kh-35...GB wrote:
Ulyanovsk was classified also as aircraft carrying carrier otherwise couldn't pass through Bosphorus :d and she had 12 VLS for Granits and also Yak-141 were foreseen as a fighter besides Su-33. Who knows if adding Zircons to Russian carriers will continue?
They could have put a bank of Redut vertical launch tubes for SAMs and called it an air defence cruiser... the terms of the agreement define an aircraft carrier as a ships whose sole operational purpose is to carry and operate aircraft. At the time the Granits were there to sink enemy ships because the Su-33s were air defence fighters and interceptors only with no anti surface weapons except dumb bombs and Kh-31 short range anti radiation and anti ship missiles.
680 kg were those for Yak 141 almost 50 years ago. I guess now there can be more sophisticated tech. Speed not necessarily you have either stealth or fast jet. Maneuvering maybe - or maybe not. Depending if vertical engines can be run in mnouvers or when vertical engines are instead of the pilot's cockpit. Payload is critical but take off strips are not. Interesting. I guess we all have to wait till Russians say something about their new naval fighter.GB wrote:
Su-75 with izdelye 30 can and 2x45kN vertical thrust can have mtow ~24t and still lift vertically.
The internal volume and weight those two vertical lift engines will take up, plus the piping for high pressure gas thrusters to the tip of the nose and the tail and the wing tips will all add weight and points of failure to the design... but will make manouvering and speed and range all worse for the ability to be able to take off and land from smaller and much less capable ships. The vertical engines are exceptional in terms of their power to weight ratio but for most operations they are dead weight and wasted space which is critical for a 5th gen fighter that has internal fuel and internal weapons.
GB wrote:so much negativity Smile if it wasn't possible then space rockets would never land vertically. But they do. Technology really advanced over last 50 years!
America... throwing money and problems that are not problems.
The only place a space rocket would benefit from a powered landing would be on the moon because it has no atmosphere and parachutes and wings don't work there... even on earth it is stupid... carry lots of extra fuel to land because parachutes are so old news... what a bunch of .
GB wrote:
But you could not land such a big airship on the deck it had to be hauled lon a really long cable..
Why would you land it on a deck? Give it a water tight gondola and have it land and operate on the water itself... if it is light enough to fly you can bet your ass it is light enough to float.
Mir wrote:Isos wrote:
Frankly yak-141 already exists and if I'm not wrong they were already working on its stealthy replacement.
The Yak-41 was about to be developed into a much stealthier version - the Yak-41M. They also had a STOL version planned - the Yak-43.
The next step was an even more advanced version known in some circles as the Yak-200. An apparent model of it made an appearance on the Varan carrier concept.
Frankly yak-141 already exists and if I'm not wrong they were already working on its stealthy replacement.
If they use its blueprints and modify the airframe to make it a more stealthy fighter it will be a very good poabe to use on their heli carriers for a low cost.
That like mig-29 --> mig-35 work. Nothing close to creating an all new plane.
For the Kuznetsov they can just use mig-35 which is already navalized from the begining.
I'am totally for building a smaller carrier like the semi-catamaran one to gain experience and then build a bigger one. It would be ready at the same time as su-75 if they start it now.
The Yak-41 was about to be developed into a much stealthier version - the Yak-41M. They also had a STOL version planned - the Yak-43.
The more realistic approach would be the Su-57K which is not much bigger than the Mig-35 and far superior.
The navy isn't a priority for them and won't put money for naval su-57.
Su-75 on the other hand can be cheap enough for buying it and can even be bought for chinese and indians carriers.
The Su-75K can surely be an option as well, but single engine aircraft are not always preferred for carrier operations.
Of the 12 records two were the following: climb rate and maximum combat load for this type of the aircraft. Another record was a vertical take off for 12 kilometers! Anyway The Yak-41 exceeded all known parameters of the Harrier II by a country mile!
The Sea Harrier FA2 had the excellent Blue Vixen radar which is better than the APG-65 that was fitted in the AV-8B Plus variant. These together with the Sea Harrier FRS1 were the only radar equipped versions of the Harrier. All the GR variants as well as the AV8A and all other AV-8B's had no radar.
The Yak-41's were slated for the Phazotron S-41M Zhuk radar which was eventually fitted to the Mig-29SMT variant for example, which is very similar in performance to the Blue Vixen multi-mode radar. However as an example the Kh-31 missile is much faster than the British Sea Eagle and has longer legs as well. It is also a known fact that domestic radars are somewhat better performers than export versions.
I think I have mentioned it before but the Ka-52K has only 4 weapon pylons?
Also I think it would be better to equip your spinning Ka-52KP interceptor with a mast mounted radar >>
The moment I will start to take seriously those models will be when the program of an on board AWACS plane will be taken out of nowhere.
Almost there
Yup, just needs a little scaling&detailing
if you take a look at Juan Carlos - it can embark troops in LHD role or only air wing in aircraft carrier role. I.e. anti sub helos/awacs and VSTOL. No contradictions here. It is called a universal ship. My bet is on something like that in the Russian case. Not of exact size or solutions but similar in a way of usage.
Su-70 or alike would rather use a deck and catapult. as for other types - let's see how it goes
For you, yes, for many admirals and navies they do have sense. Looks like they have no idea about their trade.
Russian ship naming convention is not a pizza not everyone has to like it
The cause was exceeding admissible vertical speed by landing, crash was effect not other way around.
However, on 3rd October 1989 test pilot Yakimov flying Yak-141 '77 White' exceeded the admissible descent speed during a vertical landing on the Admiral Gorshkov, which resulted in a crash. On impact the mainwheel struts punched through the fuel tanks and a massive fire ensued; the pilot ejected to safety but the aircraft was seriously damaged, never to fly again. "
If crash killed the programme and not money supply then Yak-44 / LFMS/LMFI were also crashing constantly.
In your eyes but not in Russian admiralty and airforce. It has no worse characteristics but requires cheaper ships to be based on. Much cheaper.
If it's worse than it wouldn't be considered in the first place. Here you have comparison characteristics of the MiG-29 original one with the Yak-141. They are pretty close. Range is better for Yak BTW Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil . Same radar and avionics.
funny Su-33 is being phased out,
MiG-21 is dead for years and F-35 is on more and more ships instead and doing a much better job.
Not prices but proportions are similar. Russians estimated the Shtorm unit cost 5 billions USD. Then small A/C shall be by rule of thumb 1/3
I provided numbers for proportions of price to build in the west
One big which is easier to eliminate than a couple of smaller ones.
Even regular maintenance leaves you without aviation cover...
What's worse, big AC cannot be in the Far East and Atlantic and Indian oceans at the same time to keep fleets safe from, say pirates or support local wars.
So basically close to useless for far sea support actions. So basically a big expensive toy just for showing off.
How many small ones were sunk in this millenium?
then tell me please in how many places can there be only one big ship in the Russian navy at the same time? Or the Russian merchant fleet is going to sail only in one place?
And if there's a global conflict how can one Russian Ac fight with 3-4 US ones? only to heroically die as Japs fleet in IIWW ?
The system is built around the Zhuk multi-mode airborne radar with a slotted antenna array (modification M002). This radar station is similar to the radar of the MiG-29M fighter , but has smaller overall dimensions
That's avionics now armament
That's avionics now armament - AAM R-77/ R-27 and R-73 same as MiG-29+ 5th node under belly for fuel tank
Payload Yak -2600kg
That's why IMHO Russians started working on V/STOL fighters for the sake of rolling starts. Has the landing been vertical ? not really , like has Su-57 always gone up almost vertically? I have found info about testing external weapons during vertical landing but never find anything that was unsuccessful. Did you find anything like that in real sources?
ok you might be like an Amish against technology progress. Your right but not necessarily it is a must follow for the Russian military.
Yak-201
Big_Gazza likes this post
GarryB wrote:And the MiG-25 was faster than the F-15... does that make it superior overall... or only in some roles?
GarryB wrote:But that is the point... any radar or missiles the Yak-41 might have come to use could be fitted to the MiG-29 too and it is cheaper and faster and already developed. Why spend money and time and effort recreating a slightly inferior aircraft to do something you can already do.
Mir wrote: I think I have mentioned it before but the Ka-52K has only 4 weapon pylons?
GarryB wrote: So the same number as the Yak...
\"Mir wrote:Also I think it would be better to equip your spinning Ka-52KP interceptor with a mast mounted radar >>
GarryB wrote:It might, but as the Yak does not have 360 degree radar is it such a problem if their helicopters don't?
They should be able to hover at least up to 3-4km altitude so a pedal turn can cover any angle if needed.
GarryB wrote:So if they are jet powered and not turboprop powered which engine power range would they be needing... PD-14, PD-18... PD-35 with no cats Twisted Evil
GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Yak-201
Mir wrote:
Yes the Mig-25P/D was superiour to the F-15 in its intended role - as an interceptor.
The F-15 is an air superiority fighter and the Mig-25P/D is an all out interceptor - there is a big difference.
Although the US initially thought the Mig-25 was an air superiority fighter, Viktor Belenko's defection changed all that.
Hole and Mir like this post
Big_Gazza, LMFS, Hole and Broski like this post
lancelot likes this post
LMFS likes this post
Isos wrote:It's a bit more complicated to order and build a carrier. Writing a docupebt isn't enough.
The boss of the navy said there are no plans for now to buy one. Even if they order one today it would need at least 15 years to have it. Then another 2 or 3 years of testing.
The projects showed were just fantasy design made by the design bureaus. First step is the navy that makes a list of its wishes for the ship then they start designing various designs then they order it officially then they build it , then they receieve it then they test it abd rework what's wrong...
It takes a huge time. The bigger it is the more time it will take.
Hole and Broski like this post
ALAMO, LMFS, Mir and Belisarius like this post
In all likelihood they will expand Zveda to an even larger monster wrote:
Arrow wrote:
There is no information about the plan to build a new shipyard or expand Zviezda? It would be interesting especially that Zviezda builds civilian units and has a lot of orders, so he probably won't switch to military production.
Arrow likes this post
It will include representatives of the Ministry of Defense and the Main Staff of the Navy
MOSCOW, 21 September. /TASS/. A special commission of representatives of the Ministry of Defense and the Main Staff of the Navy (Navy) of the Russian Federation in the near future should submit recommendations on the test site for an electromagnetic catapult for promising aircraft carriers. This was reported to TASS by a source close to the military department.
"It is expected that in the near future the commission of the Ministry of Defense and the Main Command of the Navy will make a choice on which of Russia's two ground-based test training aviation complexes (NITKA) in Saki and Yeysk will test an electromagnetic catapult for promising Russian aircraft carriers," he said.
According to the interlocutor of the agency, the decision to form the commission was made after the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral Nikolai Evmenov, recently visited the NITKA complexes in Yeysk and Saki.
It is known that the NITKA complex in Saki is fully operational, carrier-based fighters of two air regiments of the Northern Fleet regularly performed landings with hooks on it. About the NITKA complex in Yeysk, TASS does not have information on this subject.
On September 2, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, in a speech at a conference call in the department, said that development work was underway in Russia to create a new ground-based test training complex for naval aviation. "This test site is intended for testing shipborne aircraft, shipborne aviation equipment, arresters and advanced electromagnetic catapults. In addition, it will be used for practical retraining of the flight and engineering staff of naval aviation for new aviation equipment," he said.
Yes the Mig-25P/D was superiour to the F-15 in its intended role - as an interceptor.
Although the US initially thought the Mig-25 was an air superiority fighter, Viktor Belenko's defection changed all that.
The Russian Navy will likely take another peak at a Yak VTOL simply because it can take off and land on a Pr.23900 Ivan Rogov carrier - the Mig-29 can't. Simple as that.
It is known that Yak is currently working on a new VTOL - so who knows?
In the end they might just opt for UAV's or both? Fact is the Mig-29 won't be an option.
Actually the Yak-41 has 5 >>>
As I've mentioned somewhere before I would simply use a dedicated AWACS and let the Yak-41 and the Ka-52 do its intended job.
The Yak-41 as a multi-role fighter and the Ka-52 as an attack helicopter.
Not quite sure what you're trying to say here but the screenshot of those AWACS are from the Storm carrier model which is supposed to have EMALS. They are quite small as well compared to the old Yak-44 if you can go by the Su-57K models on the ship >>
While battling the designed threats, that would be a very effective combination, but as time goes by, Muricans changed their whole tactics.
Instead of going higher and faster, they went low&slow to make themselves covered.
So the Soviets redesigned the whole system, changing the radar suite for Saphir-25 and adding a IRST, and modernizing R-40 plus making a IR guided version. It was again highly effective combination, as it could work down to 50 m and even higher than Smerch. R-40T was extremely useful for hitting high flying targets.
Your problem GarryB is that you compare a 90kt carrier ith 60 su-57K to a small heli carrier with 6 yak 141.
Yes the carrier is better but it doesn't exists and russians have no intention of building one soon. The admiral in chief already said that. On the opposite helicopter carriers are being built.
The Kuznetsov last time it was used, carried 4 mig-29k and some ka-52 and since then it is in shipyard. I wouldn't count on that ship and they have just one.
Having 4-8 helicopter carriers with each 6-10 Vtol yak gives you a big advantage over any enemy in that you have supersonic jets with good radar that can spot ships 300km away and launch future hypersoniv small missiles. It can also be used to do SEAD and protect your airspace.
Being able to attack first is way better than relying on air defence systems on a ship moving 20km/h.
We also know that Sevmash is capable of constructing large aircraft carriers if they want to. Maybe in a year or two the Nikolayev shipyard might be up and running as well? Now if you throw the Varan concept and the Ivan Rogov's into the mix you will have an excellent Blue Water Navy - pretty soon.
This "high capacity shipyard" is Zvezda.
In the meaning of a whole cluster that includes ex-navy repair facility that is a part of it.
Nobody will build a new shipyard there I guess, as the existing one is a monster.
The boss of the navy said there are no plans for now to buy one.
Even if they order one today it would need at least 15 years to have it. Then another 2 or 3 years of testing.
The projects showed were just fantasy design made by the design bureaus. First step is the navy that makes a list of its wishes for the ship then they start designing various designs then they order it officially then they build it , then they receieve it then they test it abd rework what's wrong...
If you look closely at the Lamantin carrier it is basically a modernized Ulyanovsk - which means they obviously have the blue prints - saving a lot of time and money - not to mention pain again.
There is no information about the plan to build a new shipyard or expand Zviezda? It would be interesting especially that Zviezda builds civilian units and has a lot of orders, so he probably won't switch to military production.
look at that VSTOL fighter and EM catapult
Broski likes this post
|
|