I think yakovlev started working on a carrier based AWACS called the yak-22but it was cancelled because the Ulyanovsk carrier stopped being constructed.
That would be the Yak-44, and it is fairly logical to stop funding and development for an aircraft that required catapult launch from an aircraft carrier when the only carrier they were planning to have a catapult launch system was cancelled.
Now, however, if they are planning to fit catapults to the Kuznetsov then it is equally logical to look at aircraft that could use that catapult launch system to add effective AWACS capabilities.
It is possible they might revisit the Yak-44, or perhaps they might look at more exotic solutions like an Aerostat, or airship, or perhaps even a UAV based system.
Here are some pics of the Yak-44 BTW:
Of course new design solutions are possible and likely... current aircraft design of 5th gen fighters seems to include the integration of radar antenna arrays within the structure of the aircraft, with fixed antennas covering 360 degrees using electronic scanning rather than moving antennas. By having the antennas as part of the air craft structure it removes the need for an external antenna with all the drag and extra weight that incurs. A low drag design should allow higher flight operations for longer periods.
Regarding UKSK launchers in carriers... they have space for them, but most of the vessels they will be operating with will also have them too, so I rather doubt there will be any shortage.
In my personal opinion I would say yes, but don't over do it... one 8 cell UKSK launcher per carrier so that no matter what they will always have the capacity to deal with enemy subs (using the ASW Klub) or enemy ships (using Klub or Onyx) or land targets (Kalibre). They were talking about 160 missiles in the SAM system tubes to be fitted to the Mistral, so I would expect 6 Pantsir-S1s, which would be 196 missiles in Pantsir-S1 alone and the 160 vertical launch tubes being the vertical launch Redut systems... lets say 14 tube Redut, which means 10-11 launchers and 140-154 actual tubes.
A lot of missiles, plus 12 30mm gatling guns... though I would also expect Duet turrets as well, but this is a large vessel, and British experience in the Falklands was that vessels with defences tended to defend themselves, whereas undefended targets were sitting ducks. Missile attacks on Frigates that were successfully jammed or decoyed often acquired targets like ex civilian transports that were very vulnerable to hits.
Having air defence systems on all military vessels is important, though you don't want it to reduce performance or change the role of the ship.
It is of course possible that what they actually meant was 160 missile tubes for the smaller Vityaz missiles, which will be like the smaller S-400 missiles, which means instead of 10-11 Redut launchers that sort of number could be accommodated in 3 Redut launchers with 4 missiles in each of the 14 launch tubes, which would mean 168 missiles of the 40km and 120km flight range. In fact you would probably use a couple of tubes for the larger missiles, perhaps 4 S-400 large missiles with a range of 250km to deal with enemy force multipliers like AWACS, or JSTARs, or even troop transports or tankers that might stray into your airspace.
Having 4 large missiles means the launcher they are in can fit only 40 small missiles, and the other two redut launchers with 56 small missiles each would result in a load of 56 + 56 + 40 small missiles, or 152 small missiles plus 4 big missiles or a total load of 156 missiles. Of course the Pantsir-S1 systems each have 32 more missiles each, so 6 systems would be 196 missiles more, plus 12 guns.
PS
I'm a bulgarian teenager and and unlike most people in my country I'm a supporter of russia and I'm very interested and respect russian weapons and dont view russian political policy as "evil" and "occupational". I also dont view NATO as the good guy. Unlike most people my age(and very often above my age) I dont go trolling and insulting anyone who points out an advantage in russian weapons and I get annoyed when I see someone do.
I am very much the same... except I am not Bulgarian of course. I had one Bulgarian lecturer at University, and quite enjoyed his lectures on artifical intelligence. Didn't hurt that his daughter was also doing the course and was stunning... if I was 10 years younger I would have asked her out.
I've always wanted to see the truth about russian military and weapons without western propaganda and russian advertisements getting in the way. I've wanted to have the most complete info about future plans and developments of the russian MIC and here some experts which are not available in other sites.
Often beliefs that Russia and Soviet equipment is rubbish is based on ignorance or misinformation. Other times the real problem is that it was being used for something it was never designed for in the first place. A good example would be the T-72. Fine for Iraq to invade Kuwaite with, or Iran. Not so good for taking on the US and most of the rest of the world on a flat open desert without air superiority.
Another example is the AK-47. Derided in the west as being inaccurate, yet it is effective enough in combat. In fact combat statistics seem to show that most soldiers can reliably hit targets out to about 75 metres most of the time and that at ranges beyond 200m the number of hits on target is actually rather low, yet the west demands sniper level accuracy out to 400m or more... ranges at which the 5.56mm round is not even effective.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
