Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

Actually , it's not an embarked AEW aircraft that would be a game changer on land based operations and international markets.

Having a look into E-2, it is fairly clear why it hadn't a real appeal to Army or foreign customers.

Because specifically designed around a cramped airframe, not only it had three consolles only, it was tricky and expensive to expand into a more comprehensive suite even if embarked in a larger land based airframe.

The key to domestic and export success, I think it would be designing a modular system, able to be expanded to have far more consolles than the amount squeezeable within an embarked aircraft, and able to interface and integrate with additional ESM, ECM and SATCOM equipment.

Start with a base configuration for a ship based aircraft, put in the pipeline a far more capable version in a conventional aircraft like Il-114 or even a SSJ-100 or Tu-204 and you could have an affordable AWACS for both domestic and export customers.

If the whole system would stick within the limits dictated by a naval based airframe, I doubt it could have a real appeal to export customers even if mounted in different aircrafts.

Because specifically designed around a cramped airframe, not only it had three consolles only, it was tricky and expensive to expand into a more comprehensive suite even if embarked in a larger land based airframe.

Which is where the Ka-31 experience can be used.

The Ka-31 does not fully process the data it collects.... there are no consoles on board... it transmits the data to nearby ships which process the data... there is no reason why a new aircraft could not do the same.

The point of the aircraft is the location of the radar up in the air and its mobility.

With new electronics and new antenna arrays it should be significantly more effective and capable in the AWACS role.

They could easily have different airframes for carrier based and land based versions.... the Il-114 would be a useful basis for a land based aircraft while a smaller lighter airframe with folding wings used for the carrier based model.

They could even be a bit innovative with a fixed rotor disc holding the electronically scanned elements for the antenna arrays while the centre area could store extra fuel that could be used to cool the antennas during their operation and then used for the flight back to base and emergency reserve.

The Hawkeye was never designed for anything but carrier operations so it is no surprise it is not suited for something it was never designed for.

The Russian Army have tested and introduced into service the Ka-31 so it must have some use for them, while the AF and VKO would also benefit from radar eyes in the sky too that are not as expensive and can operate from smaller airfields than the A-100.

They don't need to be A-100 level performance.

Start with a base configuration for a ship based aircraft, put in the pipeline a far more capable version in a conventional aircraft like Il-114 or even a SSJ-100 or Tu-204 and you could have an affordable AWACS for both domestic and export customers.

If you make it too big it stops being cheaper... if it is a large fraction of the price of an A-100 it would make more sense just to build more A-100s.

Of course airships would also be an option too... both static tethered models and free flying.

GarryB wrote:I am sure the sailors on the USS Liberty would have liked more than two 50 cal HMGs...

Uhm, the Liberty only had one 50 cal(x3), the other one was 38 cal(x5).

Is the Kirov a helicopter carrier then... it can carry 3 helos...

The Moskva was designed to carry helos and that is all it carried.

The Kievs were specifically designed to carry Yak based VSTOL fighter jets... it also carried helos, but its design was for jump jets.

A capacity of 3 isn't what anyone would call a carrier.

Alright, after seeing the Yaks short take-off i get it.

The Kievs in their Soviet built state could not launch any fixed wing aircraft other than VSTOL aircraft, which lacked range and payload and speed to be very much use. A Ka-52K with a modern AESA radar fitted with R-37 missiles would be 100 times more potent than a Yak-38M... it could climb to 5K metres and launch missiles and hit targets at over 100km and more importantly detect targets at more than 100km... something the Yaks were never able to do.

Modify them to the Gorshkov shape with a proper runway and angled landing deck and you could operate real aircraft like MiG-29s with an order of magnitude better performance.

The Yaks did have the advantage of speed and flight ceiling, but the simplicity/price of a chopper and almost the same Max take-off weight means the Ka could handle the job, against ships and other Helos, but not against fighters or even VSTOLs, since they'll be too fast.

With nuke propulsion that would include a lot of aviation fuel and weapons but the more the better I suppose.

That go's without saying.

Any evidence of that?

Follow the wiki link to that comment and it goes to a pro american naval website I wouldn't trust very far.

The Gorshkov's conversion alone would indicate this.

The Yaks used rolling takeoffs to improve lift off weight, and usually had rolling landings to minimise the amount of time they needed to operate at full throttle.

I've seen rolling take-offs, but not landings.

And the fact that the Russian Navy did not just say lets have this Kiev class carrier converted to operate like the Kuznetsov as it will be just as capable but also smaller and cheaper, suggests they think the K is the better option for them.

The Gorshkov was the only option for India and they took it.

They couldn't, because they had neither the money nor the will.

Considering how old there Centaur-class was, no doubt.

The projected 165 meter-long Lavina will displace 14,000 metric tons. Its contingent of attack and ASW helicopters can include up to a dozen choppers in total.

From:  https://sputniknews.com/military/201706041054305747-lavina-class-amphibious-assault-ship/

Lot of conflicting info about this one, The Russian ministry stated that the Priboy was the Lavina, but the designs are completely different.
I could only assume that these 2 designs were competing to be the Lavina, and looking at the models, i could only assume that the larger more capable design won out.
But we need conformation.

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/russia-develops-priboy-lhd-for-export-customers/

UPDATE: According to GS, there were 3 designs submitted by Krylov, the Priboy, The Lavina and an even larger ship The Kashalot.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/bdk-newcon-lavina.htm

Russia has been spending money on only a few types of aircraft and one of them is the upgraded A-50U and another is the A-100.

The Russian Army has bought Ka-31 AEW aircraft for monitoring the battlefield... why do you think they would not jump at the chance to get a lighter cheaper AWACS aircraft that can operate with small groups of fighters over territory well away from the populated areas of Russia?

The far north is another area where AWACS support would be useful too.

They could buy dozens of these aircraft for the RKO as well as the Army and Navy.

For a small country like Iran or even Australia or Canada if they weren't so pro US.

Any airforce would be greatly enhanced with AWACS support but only the richest NATO countries can afford Sentrys.

Having a cheaper smaller model would sell well to countries not blinded by politics.

And would fill a lot of gaps in the Russian air defence network.

Airborne radar have a much better view of low flying threats... link them in to the IADS and you are much better protected from cruise missile attack just as one example. Turkey would buy some to make their S-400s even more effective.

I get it, but the fact that Russia hasn't brought it back already nor has there really been any talk of using a non-carrier variant, indicates that they're probly more focused on UAVs rather than small AWACSes.
Despite the export benefits.

Uhm, the Liberty only had one 50 cal(x3), the other one was 38 cal(x5).

Hahaha.. did you get that from Wiki... congrats...

Click on the links for those calibres... that 3 times 50 cal is not a machine gun... it is a 3 inch (76.2mm) calibre gun whose barrel is 50 calibres long and that 38 calibre  long 5 inch gun is wrong too.

The 8 x 20mm guns were not present either when the ship was converted into a spy ship all they had were two 12.7mm HMGs One of which was damaged early on... its ammo exploding leading some crew to think they were returning fire...

A capacity of 3 isn't what anyone would call a carrier.

It carries helicopters and can carry no other types of aircraft....

Is a Nimitz class supercarrier also a helicopter carrier as all its fixed wing aircraft could be removed and it could only carry helos...

The Yaks did have the advantage of speed and flight ceiling, but the simplicity/price of a chopper and almost the same Max take-off weight means the Ka could handle the job, against ships and other Helos, but not against fighters or even VSTOLs, since they'll be too fast.

The Yak was faster than a helo but not faster than most of the aircraft it would be up against... The Yak-38m had no radar and was limited to short range IR guided missiles in the air to air role... the Ka-52K will carry R-77s meaning superior air to air performance over a Sea Harrier from the Falklands war...

The Helo does not need to be fast it is defending ships which are very slow.... just being airborne above the ships means it can detect low flying enemy aircraft and missiles and that information can be passed on to the ships to use their missiles to shoot them down.

The Gorshkov's conversion alone would indicate this.

Rubbish.

The Kirov could be converted to be a flat top too does that make it a modified Kiev class vessel as well?

I've seen rolling take-offs, but not landings.

So they have to stop the ship so the Yaks can land?

They couldn't, because they had neither the money nor the will.

Of they didn't because they had the K which was superior in every way already.

Lot of conflicting info about this one, The Russian ministry stated that the Priboy was the Lavina, but the designs are completely different.
I could only assume that these 2 designs were competing to be the Lavina, and looking at the models, i could only assume that the larger more capable design won out.
But we need conformation.

You hypocrite.... in absence of evidence either way you assume the heavier model has been selected.... is that because heavier models are superior?

If that is the case why the hell would they choose either a 14K ton or even a 24K ton model for a fixed wing carrier basis... or does your heavier is better mantra only apply when it suits your argument?

I get it, but the fact that Russia hasn't brought it back already nor has there really been any talk of using a non-carrier variant, indicates that they're probly more focused on UAVs rather than small AWACSes.
Despite the export benefits.

It is not an option until they get operational cats on board their carrier... once they have carrier based AEW or AWACS fixed wing aircraft it would only be natural to build a land based version.... the same logic got them land based fighters modified for carrier landings (Su-25, MiG-29K, MiG-27LL, Su-33).

They also tested their VSTOL Yaks for land based use in the CAS role but it failed miserably....

And the KA-31 AEW naval aircraft was adopted by the Russian Army too...

When we talk about soviet carriers, we have to know, that they all were build in Nikolaev in Ukraine. Carriers are no allowed to sail through Bosporus, that is why they made missile cruisers capable to carry planes and helicopters. Kiev class was typical missile cruiser with limited space for small number of Yak-38 and helicopters. Yak-38 didn't have big range, but this was not a problem, as it fly only inside the range of Kiev carrier radar.

Today Russia will not build carriers in Black sea, so they will build true carriers without problems and limitationsm for Northern and Pacific fleets. Problem is Black Sea fleet, which could not have true carriers, but only cruisers and destroyers capable to carry planes and helicopters. The best option is an Izumo class like destroyer with planes and helicopters. They could not have ski jump or catapult and are too small for CTOL planes, but modern VTOL are excellent option for them and Ru NAVY already talked about reviving VTOL projects. Why to create something new, when they already have Yak-141? They could modernize it inside like MiG-29 to MiG-35 and Su-27 to Su-35 with new structure and engines and new electronics and armament and got a decent plane for NAVY needs.

AlfaT8 wrote:

The Yaks used rolling takeoffs to improve lift off weight, and usually had rolling landings to minimise the amount of time they needed to operate at full throttle.

I've seen rolling take-offs, but not landings.

See 0:48 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXonrsMMR8

GarryB wrote:Hahaha.. did you get that from Wiki... congrats...

Click on the links for those calibres... that 3 times 50 cal is not a machine gun... it is a 3 inch (76.2mm) calibre gun whose barrel is 50 calibres long and that 38 calibre  long 5 inch gun is wrong too.

The 8 x 20mm guns were not present either when the ship was converted into a spy ship all they had were two 12.7mm HMGs One of which was damaged early on... its ammo exploding leading some crew to think they were returning fire...

What a sadly armed ship.

It carries helicopters and can carry no other types of aircraft....

Is a Nimitz class supercarrier also a helicopter carrier as all its fixed wing aircraft could be removed and it could only carry helos...

Yea i get it, its an AC, the Kiev i mean, not the Kirov.

The Yak was faster than a helo but not faster than most of the aircraft it would be up against... The Yak-38m had no radar and was limited to short range IR guided missiles in the air to air role... the Ka-52K will carry R-77s meaning superior air to air performance over a Sea Harrier from the Falklands war...

The Helo does not need to be fast it is defending ships which are very slow.... just being airborne above the ships means it can detect low flying enemy aircraft and missiles and that information can be passed on to the ships to use their missiles to shoot them down.

No even radar, the hell, what was it's purpose than, a bomb truck that can't carry enough bombs??
It doesn't sound like something that can fulfill the CAP role at all.

Let's hope they implement the R-77 capability.

Rubbish.

The Kirov could be converted to be a flat top too does that make it a modified Kiev class vessel as well?

And yet, it was not the Kirov that was converted.

So they have to stop the ship so the Yaks can land?

Ok, now i have seen it.

Of they didn't because they had the K which was superior in every way already.

Why not another one, because they had no money or interest for another carrier at the time.

You hypocrite.... in absence of evidence either way you assume the heavier model has been selected.... is that because heavier models are superior?

If that is the case why the hell would they choose either a 14K ton or even a 24K ton model for a fixed wing carrier basis... or does your heavier is better mantra only apply when it suits your argument?

Hypocrite???.... How
When did i say that the Kuz wasn't superior, when???

Because they're cheap and seem to have a Phobia for large fixed-wing CATOBAR/STOBAR Carriers.
Well there is such a thing as too heavy, and again, when did i say the Kuz wasn't better.

It is not an option until they get operational cats on board their carrier... once they have carrier based AEW or AWACS fixed wing aircraft it would only be natural to build a land based version.... the same logic got them land based fighters modified for carrier landings (Su-25, MiG-29K, MiG-27LL, Su-33).

They also tested their VSTOL Yaks for land based use in the CAS role but it failed miserably....

And the KA-31 AEW naval aircraft was adopted by the Russian Army too...

I get it, but it's still odd that they hadn't further developed a land based variant.

That thing, for CAS, were they insane.

How odd, i'd always thought they'd use modified Mi-8s for that.

When we talk about soviet carriers, we have to know, that they all were build in Nikolaev in Ukraine. Carriers are no allowed to sail through Bosporus, that is why they made missile cruisers capable to carry planes and helicopters.

They could have build a large shipyard for building large ships anywhere in the Soviet Union.... the Montroe agreement is not new... if they wanted to build pure carriers they could have spent the money to develop carrier building facilities in the far east or the far north.

Kiev class was typical missile cruiser with limited space for small number of Yak-38 and helicopters. Yak-38 didn't have big range, but this was not a problem, as it fly only inside the range of Kiev carrier radar.

Their Kiev class carriers were designed to support sub operations and to defend against enemy sub attack... their so called fighter jets were intended to defend against small ships and maritime patrol aircraft that were hunting Soviet subs. The ships had their own anti carrier missiles... there was no need for the Yaks to carry more.

Why to create something new, when they already have Yak-141?

Because tiny aircraft carrying ships are useless. Having ships much bigger able to carry a decent number of much better performing aircraft makes rather more sense all round.

They need helicopter carriers to support naval infantry landing operations, what they don't need is tiny aircraft carriers the same size that would be cheaper but useless in the CAP role for a sea going group of ships.  If you want cheap then nothing is much much cheaper and only slightly less effective.

They could modernize it inside like MiG-29 to MiG-35 and Su-27 to Su-35 with new structure and engines and new electronics and armament and got a decent plane for NAVY needs.

The aircraft would still be inferior than doing the same with an Su-33 or MiG-29K.... the Yak-41M can only fly at mach 1.4 and not for very long.... and the space and dead weight from the engine arrangement means it will never have comparable performance to either in service naval aircraft.

Let me put it this way... each 4.1 ton thrust engine mounted near the nose has similar performance to each engine in the Su-25 so you have the two engines of the Su-25 in the nose of the Yak-41M just to allow it to take off... during normal flight they are just dead weight.

What a sadly armed ship.

It was kept in international waters, it should have had an escort.

the Israelis destroyed it on purpose because it would have detected that they were going to break agreements and steal the Golan heights from Syria... but that their concentration of forces to do so would leave them vulnerable to attack from different directions... when the US captured and processed that information the Israelis knew that the Soviet would intercept that information and pass it on to the Egyptians... so they murdered 34 American sailors and injured about 175 more and then when accused of a war crime they just lied and pretended it was a mistake.

then they handed over lots of intel on Arab used Soviet equipment and the Americans forgot about it all... well the American government did anyway.

Yea i get it, its an AC, the Kiev i mean, not the Kirov.

A helicopter carrier suggests it is for landing operations, but the Kiev was always for anti sub use and also anti ship use with missiles.

No even radar, the hell, what was it's purpose than, a bomb truck that can't carry enough bombs??
It doesn't sound like something that can fulfill the CAP role at all.

the Forger was there to shoot down Orions and Nimrods and Atlantiques... and to destroy small enemy vessels with guided air to surface missiles or rockets and bombs. For use against carriers the heavy anti ship missiles the kievs carried a dozen or so.

The Forger was a test aircraft mainly... the Yak-41M was for CAP ops, and was intended to only carry AAMs.

Let's hope they implement the R-77 capability.

It would be handy for a Ka-52K operating from a helo carrier like Mistral to defend the attack against light enemy aircraft defenders, but against a serious enemy they would be much better off with the MiG-29K with R-77s and R-73s to engage enemy aircraft including helos.

And yet, it was not the Kirov that was converted.

During that period it was intended to upgrade their Kirov class ships for use as heavy cruisers... they were not intended for export.

The Kiev on the other hand was of little use to Russia but has potential for India with modifications.

Why not another one, because they had no money or interest for another carrier at the time.

Many people fixate on the cost of a carrier, yet ignore the cost of all the ships that operate in support of that carrier... and for that matter the cost of the operational deployment of that carrier group.

As I have said many times it would be of no value for the Russians to have 4 fully operational carriers right now because they don't have the funds to operate four carrier groups and no use for them either.

Perhaps in a few years time when the K is back in service and a Kirov class vessel is able to accompany her on a long trip they might send them around the world to visit some places that don't normally think about Russia.

Places like central and south america or africa or even the islands of the pacific.

It is expensive but it creates interest and business opportunities and promotes new military ties as well

I have said it before and will say it again... most of the great military powers that became global powers didn't do so without a powerful fleet... they created a powerful fleet and that gave them global reach and influence.... no one wants a friend on the other side of the planet that can't reach over and tap the nose of your neighbours for you every once in a while.

Once Russia has a global reach and a global presence then she will start to get more of a say and more influence on various international agreements and then she can start to turn things in her favour instead of accepting western hegemony and western rules and standards.

Hypocrite???.... How
When did i say that the Kuz wasn't superior, when???

You are suggesting that a replacement for the K should be built on the basis of a Russianised Mistral helicopter carrier.

Why is smaller better for a fixed wing carrier, but bigger is better for a helicopter carrier?

Because they're cheap and seem to have a Phobia for large fixed-wing CATOBAR/STOBAR Carriers.

Nothing to do with any phobia... the carriers coming after the K in the 1990s went up to 75K ton and included catapults.

the end of the soviet union and lack of money for anything let alone the navy is what killed those programmes as well as the fact that they were based in foreign countries now.

If they were cheap they would have scrapped the Tu-160 and just used Tu-95s. If they were cheap they would not bother with the armata family of vehicles.

If they were cheap they would be pumping out corvettes and frigates and destroyers by the hundreds... but they would be old crap like they made in the 1980s...

Well there is such a thing as too heavy, and again, when did i say the Kuz wasn't better.

I agree there is such a thing as too heavy, but your suggestion that a modified helicopter carrier could replace the K is what I am picking on.

Choosing a heavy helicopter carrier so you can use its design as a fixed wing carrier is short sighted and will end up making the fixed wing carrier too small and the helicopter carriers too big and therefore wont save any money at all. And will also negatively effect the performance of both.

I get it, but it's still odd that they hadn't further developed a land based variant.

The Ka-31 was already developed... AEW and AWACS aircraft are expensive... I doubt the Army budget is huge for such things.

I could see the VKO getting together with the Navy to develop a new lighter AWACS aircraft the same way the Army and Navy got together to develop Coalition 152mm guns.

There have been a lot of aerostats reportedly designed and sold to countries like China for use in mountainous regions to monitor low flying objects and for communications relay... I don't doubt the Russians use some themselves for the same purpose.

That thing, for CAS, were they insane.

Easy to think that now, but at the time the UK also used Harriers in ground attack roles within their army too... the US marines use the AV-8 in the same role to this day and the F-35 will take that role soon too.

Obviously the Harrier is better armed and equipped for the role, but still very vulnerable to damage.

How odd, i'd always thought they'd use modified Mi-8s for that.

They would have had to develop it from scratch.... the Ka-31 already had retractable undercarriage to allow the 2.5m radar antenna folded under the belly of the aircraft full 360 degree scan angles in the horizontal...

I see they have upgraded it with a new radar and electronics and called it Ka-35...

GarryB wrote:It was kept in international waters, it should have had an escort.

the Israelis destroyed it on purpose because it would have detected that they were going to break agreements and steal the Golan heights from Syria... but that their concentration of forces to do so would leave them vulnerable to attack from different directions... when the US captured and processed that information the Israelis knew that the Soviet would intercept that information and pass it on to the Egyptians... so they murdered 34 American sailors and injured about 175 more and then when accused of a war crime they just lied and pretended it was a mistake.

then they handed over lots of intel on Arab used Soviet equipment and the Americans forgot about it all... well the American government did anyway.

Talk about crazy.

the Forger was there to shoot down Orions and Nimrods and ... and to destroy small enemy vessels with guided air to surface missiles or rockets and bombs. For use against carriers the heavy anti ship missiles the kievs carried a dozen or so.

The Forger was a test aircraft mainly... the Yak-41M was for CAP ops, and was intended to only carry AAMs.

How strange, it has no stand off weapons, so the only way to engage those AEWs was to get in close, wouldn't there escort chew the Yaks up.

Also odd, that the 41 wasn't multi-role.

It would be handy for a Ka-52K operating from a helo carrier like Mistral to defend the attack against light enemy aircraft defenders, but against a serious enemy they would be much better off with the MiG-29K with R-77s and R-73s to engage enemy aircraft including helos.

Obviously.

During that period it was intended to upgrade their Kirov class ships for use as heavy cruisers... they were not intended for export.

The Kiev on the other hand was of little use to Russia but has potential for India with modifications.

Even so the Kiev was still the one that got converted.

Many people fixate on the cost of a carrier, yet ignore the cost of all the ships that operate in support of that carrier... and for that matter the cost of the operational deployment of that carrier group.

As I have said many times it would be of no value for the Russians to have 4 fully operational carriers right now because they don't have the funds to operate four carrier groups and no use for them either.

Perhaps in a few years time when the K is back in service and a Kirov class vessel is able to accompany her on a long trip they might send them around the world to visit some places that don't normally think about Russia.

Places like central and south america or africa or even the islands of the pacific.

It is expensive but it creates interest and business opportunities and promotes new military ties as well

I have said it before and will say it again... most of the great military powers that became global powers didn't do so without a powerful fleet... they created a powerful fleet and that gave them global reach and influence.... no one wants a friend on the other side of the planet that can't reach over and tap the nose of your neighbours for you every once in a while.

Once Russia has a global reach and a global presence then she will start to get more of a say and more influence on various international agreements and then she can start to turn things in her favour instead of accepting western hegemony and western rules and standards.

Ok, we're moving on.
Another great advantage of a Kuz-like design, is that it will not require as many escort vessels as a small carrier, hopefully the navy will use this fact to counter the high cost argument that constantly gets used.

Nothing to do with any phobia... the carriers coming after the K in the 1990s went up to 75K ton and included catapults.

the end of the soviet union and lack of money for anything let alone the navy is what killed those programmes as well as the fact that they were based in foreign countries now.

If they were cheap they would have scrapped the Tu-160 and just used Tu-95s. If they were cheap they would not bother with the armata family of vehicles.

If they were cheap they would be pumping out corvettes and frigates and destroyers by the hundreds... but they would be old crap like they made in the 1980s...

The fact that carriers of such capabilities got approval in the late 80s, instead of the expansion years of Admiral Gorshkov, indicates that there were serious issues within the Soviet navy with respects to building such carriers.
And right now, reading the words of the Deputy Minister of Defence himself talking about VSTOLs, would indicate that these old issues have re-emerged.

No, they would keep both and just upgrade them, there's more than one way to be cheap.
The armata is meant to be cheap down the line, and there upgrades to the T-72 indicates that they are cheap.
Or lots of new Corvettes and not so many of the Frigates and Destroyers.

I agree there is such a thing as too heavy, but your suggestion that a modified helicopter carrier could replace the K is what I am picking on.

Choosing a heavy helicopter carrier so you can use its design as a fixed wing carrier is short sighted and will end up making the fixed wing carrier too small and the helicopter carriers too big and therefore wont save any money at all. And will also negatively effect the performance of both.

That depends on the MoD, just trying to see what sorta compromised solution they'd take, because VSTOL isn't an option.

There are other Helo-carriers of that size.
Btw the AC variant will be a heavily modded variant and not the same as the dedicated Helo-carrier, it sounds like you believe there both one and the same.

The Ka-31 was already developed... AEW and AWACS aircraft are expensive... I doubt the Army budget is huge for such things.

I could see the VKO getting together with the Navy to develop a new lighter AWACS aircraft the same way the Army and Navy got together to develop Coalition 152mm guns.

There have been a lot of aerostats reportedly designed and sold to countries like China for use in mountainous regions to monitor low flying objects and for communications relay... I don't doubt the Russians use some themselves for the same purpose.

That explains it.

Easy to think that now, but at the time the UK also used Harriers in ground attack roles within their army too... the US marines use the AV-8 in the same role to this day and the F-35 will take that role soon too.

Obviously the Harrier is better armed and equipped for the role, but still very vulnerable to damage.

At least they realized and switch to Su-25s, i doubt the F-35 will take that role, if so it'll most likely rely and stand-of-smart munitions, and fail miserably at CAS.

They would have had to develop it from scratch.... the Ka-31 already had retractable undercarriage to allow the 2.5m radar antenna folded under the belly of the aircraft full 360 degree scan angles in the horizontal...

I see they have upgraded it with a new radar and electronics and called it Ka-35...

Well at least now they should have an Mi-8 variant for the job.

At least they realized and switch to Su-25s, i doubt the F-35 will take that role, if so it'll most likely rely and stand-of-smart munitions, and fail miserably at CAS.

The Marine AV-8s are going to be replaced by a VSTOL version of the F-35... that has been the plan all along...

Well at least now they should have an Mi-8 variant for the job.

The Mi-8 would have rather more potential space, but I would look forward and think about a radar version of the Mi-38.

Its fully retractable undercarriage would avoid the main gear blocking the horizontal scan of an under belly radar antenna...

An antenna that could be made rather larger than that fitted to the Ka-35.

GarryB wrote:

Because specifically designed around a cramped airframe, not only it had three consolles only, it was tricky and expensive to expand into a more comprehensive suite even if embarked in a larger land based airframe.

Which is where the Ka-31 experience can be used.

The Ka-31 does not fully process the data it collects.... there are no consoles on board... it transmits the data to nearby ships which process the data... there is no reason why a new aircraft could not do the same.

The point of the aircraft is the location of the radar up in the air and its mobility.

With new electronics and new antenna arrays it should be significantly more effective and capable in the AWACS role.

They could easily have different airframes for carrier based and land based versions.... the Il-114 would be a useful basis for a land based aircraft while a smaller lighter airframe with folding wings used for the carrier based model.

They could even be a bit innovative with a fixed rotor disc holding the electronically scanned elements for the antenna arrays while the centre area could store extra fuel that could be used to cool the antennas during their operation and then used for the flight back to base and emergency reserve.

The Hawkeye was never designed for anything but carrier operations so it is no surprise it is not suited for something it was never designed for.

The Russian Army have tested and introduced into service the Ka-31 so it must have some use for them, while the AF and VKO would also benefit from radar eyes in the sky too that are not as expensive and can operate from smaller airfields than the A-100.

They don't need to be A-100 level performance.

Start with a base configuration for a ship based aircraft, put in the pipeline a far more capable version in a conventional aircraft like Il-114 or even a SSJ-100 or Tu-204 and you could have an affordable AWACS for both domestic and export customers.

If you make it too big it stops being cheaper... if it is a large fraction of the price of an A-100 it would make more sense just to build more A-100s.

Of course airships would also be an option too... both static tethered models and free flying.

First, no AEW or AWACS comes cheap.

If somebody would go serious enough with air warfare, then has to realize a large portion of the budget has to be allocated on support and C4I assets.

Anyway, the reference to modular or scalable design is precisely aimed to provide a tailored package to any domestic or export customer.

The most prominent advantage granted by software defined solutions is the ability to scale up or down quite easily, compared to old school hardware based suites.

In other terms, around a core system formed by a radar and related dedicated hardware, today is possible to build an analysis' and management suite that run on pure software and is able to merge several data sources to form a comprehensive tactical picture without the cons of strictly interdependent hardware.

So you could build a system integrating more or less, or just different data sources, depending on platform and end user's requirements.

Obviously, the more comprehensive the configuration will equal to more expensive the system.

About the Ka-31s adopted by Red Army, isn't it possible they are being used as tactical level ISR assets, like Tu-214R, instead as AEW platforms?

I cannot see a rationale for the Red Army to have an AEW, particularly on a rotating wing platform, but I could easily find a point in having an all-weather tactical platform able to track and identify land targets.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Ok, we're moving on.
Another great advantage of a Kuz-like design, is that it will not require as many escort vessels as a small carrier, hopefully the navy will use this fact to counter the high cost argument that constantly gets used.

That is simply false.

Whatever ASW or AShW weapons and systems an aircraft carrier could have, to grant it the highest protection you should enable it to sail as much silent as it can be.

That translate in delegating AAW destroyers or cruisers to scan air space, delegating ASW frigates or destroyers to scan the underwater space, and again frigates and destroyers to scan the sea surface.

All of these with surface vessels sailing far away from the carrier itself, and more vessels sailing alongside the carrier itself to provide short range cover, up to provide an alternative target to incoming enemy weapons.

The amount of ASW assets, AShW and LRAAW missiles an aircraft carrier embark is irrelevant, it has one and one mission only: launch fixed wing aircrafts, guide them and in the end recover them.

Any other function should be delegated to escorts, up to the EM realm.

So even if your aircraft carrier would cost a dozen billions and have S-400, S-350, Redut, Kalibr and so on, it should never turn up any active sensor, unless in a desperate or in turn a 100% safe tactical situation, and it should always be surrounded by so many escorts far exceeding its own costs.

Put together at least one SSN, two or three dedicated AAW vessels, five or more ASW and AShW vessels, and your aircraft carrier' building and operating costs will start to seem quite cheap when took alone.

GarryB wrote:The Marine AV-8s are going to be replaced by a VSTOL version of the F-35... that has been the plan all along...

Yes, a CAS that only uses PGMs.

The Mi-8 would have rather more potential space, but I would look forward and think about a radar version of the Mi-38.

Its fully retractable undercarriage would avoid the main gear blocking the horizontal scan of an under belly radar antenna...

An antenna that could be made rather larger than that fitted to the Ka-35.

I wonder how many are in service.

Peŕrier wrote:That is simply false.

Whatever ASW or AShW weapons and systems an aircraft carrier could have, to grant it the highest protection you should enable it to sail as much silent as it can be.

That translate in delegating AAW destroyers or cruisers to scan air space, delegating ASW frigates or destroyers to scan the underwater space, and again frigates and destroyers to scan the sea surface.

All of these with surface vessels sailing far away from the carrier itself, and more vessels sailing alongside the carrier itself to provide short range cover, up to provide an alternative target to incoming enemy weapons.

The amount of ASW assets, AShW and LRAAW missiles an aircraft carrier embark is irrelevant, it has one and one mission only: launch fixed wing aircrafts, guide them and in the end recover them.

Any other function should be delegated to escorts, up to the EM realm.

So even if your aircraft carrier would cost a dozen billions and have S-400, S-350, Redut, Kalibr and so on, it should never turn up any active sensor, unless in a desperate or in turn a 100% safe tactical situation, and it should always be surrounded by so many escorts far exceeding its own costs.

Put together at least one SSN, two or three dedicated AAW vessels, five or more ASW and AShW vessels, and your aircraft carrier' building and operating costs will start to seem quite cheap when took alone.

Even if the carrier runs "silent" it can still coordinate with other active ships and possible aircrafts/AEWs to launch it's arsenal, that said, would the opponent really have that much trouble targeting the carrier?

Peŕrier wrote:

That is simply false.

Whatever ASW or AShW weapons and systems an aircraft carrier could have, to grant it the highest protection you should enable it to sail as much silent as it can be.

That translate in delegating AAW destroyers or cruisers to scan air space, delegating ASW frigates or destroyers to scan the underwater space, and again frigates and destroyers to scan the sea surface.

All of these with surface vessels sailing far away from the carrier itself, and more vessels sailing alongside the carrier itself to provide short range cover, up to provide an alternative target to incoming enemy weapons.

The amount of ASW assets, AShW and LRAAW missiles an aircraft carrier embark is irrelevant, it has one and one mission only: launch fixed wing aircrafts, guide them and in the end recover them.

Any other function should be delegated to escorts, up to the EM realm.

So even if your aircraft carrier would cost a dozen billions and have S-400, S-350, Redut, Kalibr and so on, it should never turn up any active sensor, unless in a desperate or in turn a 100% safe tactical situation, and it should always be surrounded by so many escorts far exceeding its own costs.

Put together at least one SSN, two or three dedicated AAW vessels, five or more ASW and AShW vessels, and your aircraft carrier' building and operating costs will start to seem quite cheap when took alone.

This is a bit more complicated.


One Nimitz type carrier + aircrafts + escort cost as much as three Kuz + escort submarines.


Means that if you want to use the carrier to move high amount of bombs/weapons to same distant place then the nimitz is athe best.

If the target is to cover the biggest possible area with minimum amount of aircrafts then the kuz design is the best.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Even if the carrier runs "silent" it can still coordinate with other active ships and possible aircrafts/AEWs to launch it's arsenal, that said, would the opponent really have that much trouble targeting the carrier?

Of course it has to coordinate with the escorts, a task group is not a bunch of ships, it's a coherent system composed of several platforms tightly interconnected.

And yes, the opponent would have troubles, because it's not chasing an oiler or a RoRo, it's going against a comprehensive suite of weapons, sensors and decision making' capabilities.

It's a game of see and not being seen, to be able to engage the opponent when you are better suited, where it's more convenient and meeting as few opposition as possible.

There is nothing heroic in naval warfare, it ends always with one side butchering an helpless opponents.

The trick is becoming the butcher instead of the butchered.

So nobody will throw assets forward just hoping to get the upper hand, and until positive about enemy's order of battle, tactical situation and alternative courses of conduct, it will keep lurking being very careful to not be caught off guards.

Singular_Transform wrote:

This is a bit more complicated.


One Nimitz type carrier + aircrafts + escort cost as much as three Kuz + escort submarines.


Means that if you want to use the carrier to move high amount of bombs/weapons to same distant place then the nimitz is athe best.

If the target is to cover the biggest possible area with minimum amount of aircrafts then the kuz design is the best.

Nonsense.

It doesn't matter neither the specific capital ship, nor the kind of capital ship, be it a CGN or an aircraft carrier.

A capital ship by definition is the core recipient of a task group capabilities, and as such should be heavily defended by the rest of the task group.

No more capital ship because sunk or damaged, no longer a reason to be for the task group itself.

It's the existence of the capital ship with its peculiar capabilities that represent a threat and a source of resources' attrition for its opponent.

So whatever the mission and the kind of capital ship, the escorts needed to ensure the maximum level of protection and tactical freedom will end costing as much as the capital ship itself, if not more.

Big_Gazza wrote:

JohninMK wrote:Just look how the Royal Navy is cannibalising almost all of its surface fleet, including some very useful assets, just to get a single carrier taskforce operational. How are the mighty fallen!

The UK has the same disease as Australia does - a fervent desire to be a nation that really matters, but which simply lacks the potential.  In the case of the UK, they are tormented by what was, and what is.  They still haven't really accepted the loss of Empire and their actual status as "just-another-small-country".

I totally agree. Even their nuclear forces depends on US. The only way to exist for them is to be behind US on every thing and they really think they are decisive on internationnal question while everyone talk with US and not with them. Thats becoming pathetic ...

The most funny thing is that they think they are a counterpart to russia while russia negociates with us france and germany on big issues.

Yes, a CAS that only uses PGMs.

In other words an F-16 that does not get anywhere near its targets or the troops it is supporting... or should I say a very very expensive F-16...

They tried replacing the A-10 with an A-16 but it did not work.... too soft, too vulnerable to ground fire... wonder how much better VSTOL aircraft would be...

I wonder how many are in service.

Don't know for certain, but would suspect very few would actually be needed.

I would need more information about what they are actually using it for specifically.... is it a data communication thing, or recon/intel, or something else...

The UK has the same disease as Australia does - a fervent desire to be a nation that really matters, but which simply lacks the potential. In the case of the UK, they are tormented by what was, and what is. They still haven't really accepted the loss of Empire and their actual status as "just-another-small-country".

The loss of booty that could be skimmed of all those colonies was enough to make the UK rich... now us damn colonials actually expect value for the trade relationship... we are not just here to feed mother England.

The UK hasn't fallen, everyone else has caught up or surpassed them because they did not burn up all their natural resources and then need to start looking elsewhere.

Peŕrier wrote:

Nonsense.

It doesn't matter neither the specific capital ship, nor the kind of capital ship, be it a CGN or an aircraft carrier.

A capital ship by definition is the core recipient of a task group capabilities, and as such should be heavily defended by the rest of the task group.

No more capital ship because sunk or damaged, no longer a reason to be for the task group itself.

It's the existence of the capital ship with its peculiar capabilities that represent a threat and a source of resources' attrition for its opponent.

So whatever the mission and the kind of capital ship, the escorts needed to ensure the maximum level of protection and tactical freedom will end costing as much as the capital ship itself, if not more.

Inverse chain of logic - wrong.

Capital ships representing the 60-70 percent of the fixed / manpower investment of the navy , but representing only the 10-15% of the number of ships.

Means that the military invested so much money into them they need to organise every move/action around them.

But even the US in wartime used the carriers in groups, so two-three carrier was in the same area, not scattered around.


so to use three smaller carrier instead of one in certain situations make sense.

so to use three smaller carrier instead of one in certain situations make sense.

On paper, yes. In theory it is harder to sink three carriers than it is to sink one.

But smaller carriers are less capable and less useful and also less safe.

Bigger carriers with more aircraft and better defences are harder to take out.

To use the Falklands analogy, if the Argentines had aircraft like the MiG-23 or MiG-29 with BVR missiles, then the British Harriers would have been in much more serious trouble.

Three carriers carrying 60 Harriers would have struggled.

One large carrier with Phantoms and Buccaneers would have been much more use, and more likely to survive.

Big_Gazza wrote:

JohninMK wrote:Just look how the Royal Navy is cannibalising almost all of its surface fleet, including some very useful assets, just to get a single carrier taskforce operational. How are the mighty fallen!

The UK has the same disease as Australia does - a fervent desire to be a nation that really matters, but which simply lacks the potential.  In the case of the UK, they are tormented by what was, and what is.  They still haven't really accepted the loss of Empire and their actual status as "just-another-small-country".

Really? I'd argue that the UK is almost half-assing it's military procurement.
Spending 1.9% of GDP on military doesn't really scream try-hard.

Tingsay wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

JohninMK wrote:Just look how the Royal Navy is cannibalising almost all of its surface fleet, including some very useful assets, just to get a single carrier taskforce operational. How are the mighty fallen!

The UK has the same disease as Australia does - a fervent desire to be a nation that really matters, but which simply lacks the potential.  In the case of the UK, they are tormented by what was, and what is
.  They still haven't really accepted the loss of Empire and their actual status as "just-another-small-country".

Really? I'd argue that the UK is almost half-assing it's military procurement.
Spending 1.9% of GDP on military doesn't really scream try-hard.

I won't say, that Australia is sorta showing off how tough they are.

Sent from Topic'it App