Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

What does that have to do with Garry statement?

The F-15 never crosses into Mach 2 with any AAMs, on any combat or training mission. The Su-27 doesn't really either.
The MiG-31 is really the only fighter in the world that can go past Mach 2, with a weapons load, on a regular basis. And it actually has a useful range at that sort of speed. And unlike its lighter built "brothers" it doesn't sacrifice airframe life for 10 minutes @ Mach 2.3 + . There is a reason the MiG-31 is so damn good at being an interceptor- it is THE ONLY task it was created fr.

The only half baked thing is your brain apparently, since you accuse any info you don't like of being "Asian".

GarryB wrote:

Do you have data to back this? I find it crazy, probably simply impossible.
A high attitude launch is, lets say 15km. A low attitude, let us say, 1km. 14km of extra dynamic energy.

I live near a city called Dunedin. To the north about 300km away there is another city called Christchurch. When I fly to Christchurch the little 767 spends most of the first 15 minutes climbing to about 10,000m and then it descends.

Can you work out why a jet powered plane spends all that fuel climbing only to start descending again to land?

Very simply rocket and jet engines are much more efficient in the thin cold air at high altitude. There is less drag on the aircraft/missile, and that means it can fly faster for less fuel burned... not only that any fuel burned climbing to altitude can be recovered by gliding down again.

The difference is that with a missile launched at high speed and high altitude it means much higher flight speed and much longer flight range.

Look up the max range of an AAM and if the specs are honest they will say the ideal engagement is launched from high altitude high speed at a target that is head on and closing.

The Vietnam era Sidewinder had a range of about 15km at medium altitude against a target in full AB, but at low level in a monsoon you couldn't get a lock at 2km.

-I already explained to you why what you claim simply can't be possible due to physics. Of course a higher attitude means longer range but you not gonna get 4 or 5 or6 times your extra height, furthermore you not gonna make a decisive advantage if you make a plane with a 5% higher max altitude or 5% more speed.

-I think civilian planes are forced to gain attitude as much as possible due to security reasons, reach a certain altitude, retain the altitude during the flight and certainly not descending, and then ask for permition to lose altitude for the landing . All of this for security reasons. The ceiling altitude of 30000 ft or more is mostly selected, worldwide, for two reasons
a) to be outside most weather phenomena, fly higher than the clouds and strong winds etc b) fly higher than mountains and everything without having to make maneuvers during the flight and have enough altitude to change things if something nasty happen. So it is for security reasons. Of course in the process you also save something between 20-30% of your fuel which is an extra plus but nothing sort of 80% and this is for planes which have substantially more drag coefficient and much more lift compare to propulsion index than a missile/rocket.
Of course, as you can realize, for a long flight even this 20 or 30 % is more than enough to deserve the effort of climbing immediately after take off and maintain altitude than flying in mid altitude all the way, even from the consumption point of view.

-I will not comment on Sidewinders, I don't know what might have being wrong in this early days. With the first air to air missiles fly-ability was a pain.

the huge difference in flight range is due mostly to drag... kinda like a rocket that can barely achieve a km in the earth's atmosphere can keep on going for infinity when in the empty outer space.

The MIG 31 has never seen a battle whereas the F 15 has actively participated in all the NATO war campaigns ever since it was inducted by the USAF .

Technically the Mig-31, being an interceptor has been used operationally all its life during the cold war and beyond.

The fact that it has not been used directly in any hot conflict Russia has been involved in is hardly its fault.

The presence of Mig-31s has ensured Russian and Soviet airspace is respected, which is pretty impressive because the US was happy to kill a lot of its own men in worn out bombers repackaged as recon aircraft (RB) just to get information on Soviet air defences and their radio frequencies and operating procedures.

I suspect GarryB your source for information on MIG 31 must be some half baked literature mostly found in Asia and of late in Russia .

My information is from a range of sources including western sources. Perhaps if you don't trust me you might want to ask Sean... (SOC). He is an American who used to work for US intel and writes articles for Janes.

Your own military have described the Typhoon as a viable interceptor because of its climb rate and acceleration potential and claim thrust vector engines are overrated because the plane that climbs higher and flys faster at the time it launches its missile will have the edge in combat.

Of course what they wont mention is that flying high and fast greatly improves the performance of any AAM, but at the end of the day a RVV-BD with a flight range of 300km will have better kill performance than any model AMRAAM... current or proposed.

If two planes have the same missile then the plane that climbs and accelerates before launching their missile will hit first.

Russian missiles already enjoy a range and speed advantage so being launched from a higher faster aircraft will always be an advantage.

BTW a helicopter firing the RVV-BD from a hover at low altitude will not be able to hit targets 300km away... in fact it probably wont even be able to hit targets more than 50km away. The exact same missile fired at medium altitude by a Mig-31BM will hit targets after travelling 300km through the air.

The F-15 never crosses into Mach 2 with any AAMs, on any combat or training mission. The Su-27 doesn't really either.

Exactly... I am not dissing the mighty Eagle because it is American... the Su-27 will rarely fly at max speed too because top speed means flying very high and burning a lot of fuel which greatly reduces operational radius.

Both might zoom climb and accelerate to maybe mach 1.6 or slightly more to give their missiles a boost in a long range engagement but they are unlikely to take the time to get to top speed before launching as it would take up so much time and fuel they will end up rather closer to their target than they probably want to get.... the idea of BVR missiles is to reach out and touch... not to get into a dogfight.

There is a reason the MiG-31 is so damn good at being an interceptor- it is THE ONLY task it was created fr.

x2

This is the main reason the Mig-31 is receiving upgrades and has not been replaced by Su-35s so far.

No other plane in the world can take a full weapon load of some of the heaviest AAMs available at mach 2.4 and fly 750km to a target area... launch its missiles and return to base at mach 2.4 750km away and land... rearm and refuel and do it again and again.

furthermore you not gonna make a decisive advantage if you make a plane with a 5% higher max altitude or 5% more speed.

On an interception mission the Mig-31 will routinely fly at mach 2.4 with a full weapons load of 4 R-33 missiles on its belly and two more large missiles like R-40TDs on the wings.

An F-15 on a combat air patrol loses its manouverability at max speed... greatly reduces its operational radius at max speed... and takes a serious amount of time and fuel to get to top speed... with external fuel tanks it wont be going mach 2 or faster.

-I think civilian planes are forced to gain attitude as much as possible due to security reasons, reach a certain altitude, retain the altitude during the flight and certainly not descending, and then ask for permition to lose altitude for the landing . All of this for security reasons. The ceiling altitude of 30000 ft or more is mostly selected, worldwide, for two reasons

And you are free to continue thinking that, but perhaps you might want to ask yourself... if it was for security then would it not make sense to have a range of heights available as flight corridors so plane A flies in the first corridor from 2,000m above ground level to avoid hitting the ground to 3,000m and then plane B gets 3-4000m etc etc, instead of all of them operating at about 10,000m?

Aren't they less safe all flying at a similar altitude?

Effective AAM range is an issue discussed on many internet forums and it has been discussed on this one too... perhaps you might want to have a search through those before committing to a final decision?

how did you get to mig31 and interceptor talk since this is a topic on carriers?

that being said, like any interceptor, mig-31 has its niche role. it is primarely an interceptor of bombers, special mission and recce planes with secondary roles of cruise missile interception and helping the su-27/mig-29 in air supremacy.

And you are free to continue thinking that, but perhaps you might want to ask yourself... if it was for security then would it not make sense to have a range of heights available as flight corridors so plane A flies in the first corridor from 2,000m above ground level to avoid hitting the ground to 3,000m and then plane B gets 3-4000m etc etc, instead of all of them operating at about 10,000m?

Aren't they less safe all flying at a similar altitude?

Effective AAM range is an issue discussed on many internet forums and it has been discussed on this one too... perhaps you might want to have a search through those before committing to a final decision?

I said I think not for the consumption figures. For the security staff I am 100% sure. Actually if you see my arguments for this are overwhelming anyway. For what I am not sure is whether they have a 20-30% economy like I said or much more or much less. For this, honestly, I am not sure. By the way of course they take different heights and different routes which they announce and ask for permition and checked constantly by the ground control. All this is well known of course.

They do have an automatic procedure which increase safety, even for short distances even for good weather or clear skies. You never change the procedures. Automation and simplification is what makes safety rules save lifes. This any engineer knows from heart.

Saying that higher attitude gives lower consumption by definition is plane wrong. Lower drag is a plus but lower lift is a negative so is a net result here.
eg In maximum ceiling by definition you have maximum consumption... you spend all your engines power to create the maximum possible speed just to create enough lift....

I know that higher launching attitude gives a hefty additional range especially for air to ground missiles. Also launching from above gives better search and guide and tracking capabilities.
We discuss whether a certain missile eg R-33 can be said that it has a different range when launched from a mig29 compare to a mig31 and the answer is not!!
Believe me if there was any notable change we the engineers would have list it and the PR guys trying to sell mig31s would had made this well known to anybody.

NickM wrote:The MIG 31 has never seen a battle whereas the F 15 has actively participated in all the NATO war campaigns ever since it was inducted by the USAF .

Irrelevant. The MiG-31 is a strategic interceptor designed to hunt down and intercept bombers and ALCMs. If it had seen combat there's a good bet that none of us would be here.

NickM wrote:I suspect GarryB your source for information on MIG 31 must be some half baked literature mostly found in Asia and of late in Russia .

Feel free to find any credible information that counteracts any of Garry's statement. Books written by well-respected British authors will give you an idea of the MiG-31's operational employment; look at Paul Crickmore's gigantic Blackbird book where intercepts by MiG-31s are detailed.

TR1 wrote:The F-15 never crosses into Mach 2 with any AAMs, on any combat or training mission.

No, but I believe it can still technically cross Mach 2 with four AIM-120s carried on the intake corners.

TR1 wrote:The only half baked thing is your brain apparently, since you accuse any info you don't like of being "Asian".

The union of cruciate and saltire does not confer intelligence.

Hannibal Barca wrote: Lower drag is a plus but lower lift is a negative so is a net result here.

That would matter if lift was counteracting drag. Lift has to counteract weight, thrust is what counteracts drag. When we used to flight plan long-range sorties we'd use best range figures for long-range cruise portions, and that invariably involved higher altitudes and less than maximum speed. Plus, the numbers constantly change as you burn fuel and get lighter.

That would matter if lift was counteracting drag. Lift has to counteract weight, thrust is what counteracts drag. When we used to flight plan long-range sorties we'd use best range figures for long-range cruise portions, and that invariably involved higher altitudes and less than maximum speed. Plus, the numbers constantly change as you burn fuel and get lighter.

Of course lift counteracts drag. In order to create more lift in situations with much less air density aka in higher attitude you need more wing and more speed so you end up using all your power to generate enough lift to counter yyour weight. This is the maximum ceiling BY DEFINITION.
Despite having the least air resistance you end up with the highest consumption because you work full throttle.
With missiles is even worse because you don't have enough wing. You need as less drag as possible to maintain maximum speed and range. OK?
So if you launch one of this missiles with tiny wings from 60.000ft most probably it will fall like a stone until regain enough air.
Can you make a missile kill above 50000ft? I doubt.
Was there any kills recorded in high troposphere by typical air to air missiles? I am curious to know.
I bet a R33 for example can't fly above 50000ft and certainly not straight for long because needs it's propulsion to counter gravity.

Hannibal Barca wrote:Of course lift counteracts drag. In order to create more lift in situations with much less air density aka in higher attitude you need more wing and more speed so you end up using all your power to generate enough lift to counter yyour weight. This is the maximum ceiling BY DEFINITION.

You aren't using lift-to-drag ratio correctly, that only applies to the airfoil design and not the entire airframe. An airfoil with a high L-D ratio allows you to more efficiently generate lift, meaning you're adding less drag to the overall equation, therefore requiring less thrust to counteract said drag.

Despite having the least air resistance you end up with the highest consumption because you work full throttle.

Full throttle? Ever heard of Concorde? Concorde burned fuel at the highest rate...taxiing. And it didn't use afterburners (i.e. full throttle) at Mach 2.

So if you launch one of this missiles with tiny wings from 60.000ft most probably it will fall like a stone until regain enough air.

Lofted flight profiles take the missile above 80,000 feet during boost. This adds range, and on the downward end the missile can translate kinetic energy into maneuverability, as BVR AAMs are rarely powered over their entire flight profile.

Can you make a missile kill above 50000ft? I doubt.
Was there any kills recorded in high troposphere by typical air to air missiles? I am curious to know.
I bet a R33 for example can't fly above 50000ft and certainly not straight for long because needs it's propulsion to counter gravity.

I think some of the Iraqi and Syrian MiG-25s killed in the 80s were at high altitude.

You aren't using lift-to-drag ratio correctly, that only applies to the airfoil design and not the entire airframe. An airfoil with a high L-D ratio allows you to more efficiently generate lift, meaning you're adding less drag to the overall equation, therefore requiring less thrust to counteract said drag.

Full throttle? Ever heard of Concorde? Concorde burned fuel at the highest rate...taxiing. And it didn't use afterburners (i.e. full throttle) at Mach 2.

Are you sure you realize what I try to say? For starters do you know what kind of argument we have?

Concord burning less in mach 0.2 than in mach 2? Yeah boy, you just managed to create energy from nowhere. Nobel literate on the making   
Of course you need many times more energy to maintain a speed of mach 2 compare to 0.2 guess where this energy comes from   
What you say, because obviously don't realize what you are talking about is that during acceleration burned more fuel that during regular flight.
Yeah Einstein, this is what your car does everyday. Also jet engines like combustion engines has a certain window of maximum efficiency.
All well known and all totally irrelevant. If your car's top speed is 200km there you have the maximum RPMs of your maximum gear, you have the maximum consumption.
You have the maximum frictions/resistances so you need maximum power to counter those forces and maintain the speed.
Elementary physics.

Lofted flight profiles take the missile above 80,000 feet during boost. This adds range, and on the downward end the missile can translate kinetic energy into maneuverability, as BVR AAMs are rarely powered over their entire flight profile.

BVR is 10km away.
80,000ft is 25 km
Let's assume that two planes fly 10 km away to each other at an altitude of 5km each.
Their relative speed is 2 mach departing from each other in a straight line head-to-tail.
Your AAM has the normal terminal speed of mach 3
Now you tell us that your thing after launch gonna move straight up for 20km when your target is straight ahead at 10km and departing already with mach 2.
Yeah right.

BTW do you realize what is gonna happen to a small body like a AAM moving with mach +3 if it's stop getting bοust even temporarily?
Have yoy ever heard about high lateral deceleration in missiles? Do you know what happens next?

 

Hannibal Barca wrote:Of course you need many times more energy to maintain a speed of mach 2 compare to 0.2 guess where this energy comes from   

Might help if you referenced specific fuel consumption. At any rate if you're not in afterburner you're burning less fuel. Concorde at Mach 2 cruise is NOT (or WAS not) in afterburner. At higher altitude it wasn't required, allowing it to make it across the ocean.

Hannibal Barca wrote:What you say, because obviously don't realize what you are talking about is that during acceleration burned more fuel that during regular flight.

Make up your mind. Are you referring purely to acceleration, or to maintaining a given speed.

Hannibal Barca wrote:BVR is 10km away.
80,000ft is 25 km
Let's assume that two planes fly 10 km away to each other at an altitude of 5km each.
Their relative speed is 2 mach departing from each other in a straight line head-to-tail.
Your AAM has the normal terminal speed of mach 3
Now you tell us that your thing after launch gonna move straight up for 20km when your target is straight ahead at 10km and departing already with mach 2.
Yeah right.

If you're at 10 km range at launch the missile is obviously not going to use a lofted profile, those are designed specifically to boost the range available to engage targets at longer ranges. At 10 km and in a head-on, co-altitude engagement your missile may not even burn all of it's sustainer. Plus, a lofted profile doesn't involve shooting straight up, either. The profiles are tailored to a given range, using a given climb angle and a given max altitude to allow ballistics to draw the missile downwards where you need it to go. The point is that your example of a missile dropping like a rock from 60,000 feet is completely incorrect, unless of course the motor fails to ignite.

Hannibal Barca wrote:BTW do you realize what is gonna happen to a small body like a AAM moving with mach +3 if it's stop getting bοust even temporarily?

At that point gravity takes over. The missile does not happen to come to an abrupt stop and drop straight down.

And for some blatant self-promotion on something actually related to Russian aircraft carriers: http://www.janes360.com/article/34228/russian-naval-pilot-training-facility-nears-completion

SOC wrote:
And for some blatant self-promotion on something actually related to Russian aircraft carriers:  http://www.janes360.com/article/34228/russian-naval-pilot-training-facility-nears-completion

So this would mean that Russians are no longer have any need of the old naval pilot training center in Ukraine.

and given the new facility still use ski jump ramp.. i guess Kuznetsov would still have some decades to serve or future russian carrier would still use ski-jump method.

Another thing i'm curious about Russian aircraft carrier program is their aviation complement, so far i see Russians tended to field the MiG-29K's and not buying more Su-33's, i guess it's because the flanker took up spaces. However i wonder how's the progress of the MiG-33 KUB, the latest news i heard it become testbed for Zhuk radars and new TVC engine. I wonder the status of the program now..I see the KUB looks quite promising as maybe dedicated electronic aircraft like prowler or Growler or long range interceptors, filling the role similar to retired USN F-14's.

The KUB clearly have lot more space, fuel and lolhueg nose radome to fit the bill.

Stealthflanker wrote:So this would mean that Russians are no longer have any need of the old naval pilot training center in Ukraine.

Nobody needs it, which is why its amusing Ukraine is trying to get new leases from India and China...who have their own facilities built or in progress. China's NITKA equivalent actually features two ski-jumps and two arrested strips, and India's features one of each.

Stealthflanker wrote:and given the new facility still use ski jump ramp.. i guess Kuznetsov would still have some decades to serve or future russian carrier would still use ski-jump method.

Nothing wrong with STOBAR, and the arrested landing strip is what you really need for practice on shore anyway if you go CATOBAR. The USN doesn't really bother with arresting strips on land anymore, apart from the test complexes at Pax River and Lakehurst. For Russia and China it makes sense as they're comparatively far newer to the CV game and are getting by with much smaller airwing numbers, meaning the training program will be markedly different.

The Ukrainians are not trying anymore, NITKA scrapping has already started.

RIP!

Saying that higher attitude gives lower consumption by definition is plane wrong.

Flying at higher altitude greatly reduces drag and increases flight speed, which means you can fly on a lower power setting and yet also fly rather faster than you would lower down in the thicker air.

In fact the SR-71 can't fly at mach 3.5 at sea level even on full power... it would fly at perhaps 1,500km per hour or mach 1.2 assuming it isn't damaged. This alone means that at full throttle an SR-71 can fly at mach 1.2 at low level or mach 3.5 at the same throttle setting at high altitude over a period of an hour that means more than twice the distance travelled, but it is actually more than that because the lower drag means it could probably fly at mach 2.8-3.0 at a much lower power setting using much less fuel.

Lower drag is a plus but lower lift is a negative so is a net result here.

Lift is generated by the wings aerofoil section as it moves forward through the air.

You can have thick subsonic wings that generate a lot of lift but would create too much drag at any altitude to fly supersonically. A Mig-31 has a thin high speed wing profile designed to generate lift efficiently at high speed. That means it needs a long runway to take off and land from, but it also means it can fly efficiently at very high speed for very long periods... like the Mig-25 and the SR-71.

The F-15 is a fighter with a huge wing area and lots of lift. It can fly fast but requires a lot of energy to fly fast.

eg In maximum ceiling by definition you have maximum consumption... you spend all your engines power to create the maximum possible speed just to create enough lift....

Engine speed determines horizontal speed and is opposed by drag. going higher means more speed and less drag. Lift is determined by the air density and the shape of the aircraft... a brick has poor lift characteristics... in a very high drag environment like underwater wings are high drag items that reduce performance... subs use fins and internal ballast for control rather than wings and tails because the high density means very high drag.

A submarine also shows drag is not related to mass... in fact an inflated balloon is so light that you can't throw it any where near as far as say a golf ball because of its low density which makes it inefficient to move through the air.

We discuss whether a certain missile eg R-33 can be said that it has a different range when launched from a mig29 compare to a mig31 and the answer is not!!

Ignoring the fact that Mig-29s don't carry R-33s, if both Migs were carrying the same R-33 type missile and launched them at the same speed and the same altitude they would have the same kinematic range. Obviously only the one fired from the Mig-31 would have a chance of a kill as its radar can guide the missile to the target to 120km - 150km depending on the model R-33.

I am not suggesting the platform that launches the missile can bestow extra range by magic.

No, but I believe it can still technically cross Mach 2 with four AIM-120s carried on the intake corners.

Technically it probably could, but would it? It would take a while at full AB thrust... we are talking about 5-10 minutes to accelerate towards the target... getting closer and closer to the target all the time just to give your missiles extra reach.

I would suggest it would be more likely that it might accelerate to mach 1.4 or 1.5 and 12,000m or so and launch and then turn and reduce speed to stop closing on the target.

In real combat most fighter pilots rarely break the speed of sound except very briefly... the some times could be to launch a missile.

Of course lift counteracts drag.

Lift counteracts gravity.

In order to create more lift in situations with much less air density aka in higher attitude you need more wing and more speed so you end up using all your power to generate enough lift to counter yyour weight. This is the maximum ceiling BY DEFINITION.

Only in a zoom climb to reach max altitude.

Despite having the least air resistance you end up with the highest consumption because you work full throttle.

The lower air resistance means higher speeds, and you can reduce your throttle setting and reduce fuel consumption and greatly extend your range.

With missiles is even worse because you don't have enough wing. You need as less drag as possible to maintain maximum speed and range. OK?

With long range missiles there is usually no throttle setting capability... often just a two stage rocket fuel motor. First fuel burn is high energy to accelerate the missile off the rail to the missiles top speed which is greatly effected by altitude (ie drag) and launch speed. The faster the launch platform is moving at launch the more energy the missile receives and the higher it is launched the higher its top speed can be due to lower air resistance. the second stage fuel burns at a lower energy but for a much longer period and helps the missile retain speed overcoming drag which greatly improves long range performance and at higher altitudes means higher flight speed to target... so it gets there faster and the target has less time to move or react.

For a long range missile they use lofted trajectories because they can cruise faster and further at higher altitude and all the extra energy needed to climb to high altitude can be regained on the glide down to the target resulting in a high terminal speed.

This is one of the benefits of scramjet powered AAMs... they can adjust their fuel consumption to make efficient use of their fuel to maximise speed and range.

So if you launch one of this missiles with tiny wings from 60.000ft most probably it will fall like a stone until regain enough air.

A missile designed to operate at that height should be fine. Remember moving through the air at mach 6 even very thin air directed by a small fin will create a turning force on the missile and help it steer.

Concord burning less in mach 0.2 than in mach 2? Yeah boy, you just managed to create energy from nowhere. Nobel literate on the making

My car sitting on the side of the road out of gear with the engine running and my foot flat on the go pedal burns (7,000rpm) more fuel than my car zipping along the motorway at 100km/h in top gear at 2,000 rpm. Fuel consumption is not related to speed only.

In terms of energy the Concord is a big heavy aircraft and those big heavy engines it has use all their power to move it around on the ground and for take off. Once in the air and already moving the engines only have to overcome drag to increase the speed of the aircraft. The wing shape is generating lift which holds the aircraft up in the air.... the engines don't need to hold the aircraft up.... they just need to move it forward and it is drag that is stopping it from moving forward. Flying at low altitude means maximum drag... medium and high altitude means less drag and more speed per engine setting.

If your car's top speed is 200km there you have the maximum RPMs of your maximum gear, you have the maximum consumption.

\

Different engines are different and if you have ever driven a car you will know the car will accelerate best over a fairly specific RPM band. My car happens to cruise well at between 2,000 and 2,500rpm... no matter which gear I am in. If I am in the wrong gear it wont accelerate very well no matter what my engine revs are. On a motorway in first gear at 5,000 rpm and I still wont be going 100km/h. Fuel consumption is RPM. Fuel efficiency is fuel consumed divided by speed I am moving at.

Ideally for best fuel consumption I want highest speed and lowest RPM... in a plane you can't get that at low level because drag is at its highest you always need a higher throttle setting to maintain a particular speed... which means more fuel burned and lower top speed.

[quote]You have the maximum frictions/resistances so you need maximum power to counter those forces and maintain the speed.
Elementary physics.[quote]

Maximum resistance occurs at sea level and you do need maximum power.... for take off. Climbing also requires extra power but as you climb resistance is lowered and less power is needed to maintain horizontal speed... which means that when you get to your flight altitude and level out... not only are you travelling much faster than if you were travelling lower, but you can do so on a much lower power setting saving even more fuel and maximising range.

Let's assume that two planes fly 10 km away to each other at an altitude of 5km each.

If they are flying in opposite directions... how can either one fire a missile at the other?

Now you tell us that your thing after launch gonna move straight up for 20km when your target is straight ahead at 10km and departing already with mach 2.

Don't be silly.

What we are talking about is giving launch energy to our missiles.

two aircraft 200km apart flying towards each other, both at 5km altitude with a closing speed of 1,000km per hour with each aircraft flying at 500km/h. Both planes detect the other at the same time (say both get target data from an AWACS). Plane one gets a lock and fires their RVV-BD missile which accelerates and climbs under its own rocket power. Plane 2 however climbs to 12,000m and accelerates to mach 2.4 and then launches its R-37M.

Plane 2 takes 5 minutes to fire its missile so by the time the enemy missile arrives he has already turned and left the area very rapidly, but the missile he fires also arrives on his target at a similar time because his missile did not have to climb nearly so far so more of its energy was used accelerating the missile to a much higher average speed and when it got to its enemies position it had much more kinetic energy to manouver and kill the enemy plane.

this is what I am trying to say... it is an energy thing...

The USN doesn't really bother with arresting strips on land anymore, apart from the test complexes at Pax River and Lakehurst.

No real surprise as they have plenty of real carriers to practise on...

And for some blatant self-promotion on something actually related to Russian aircraft carriers:

Any side views showing details of the electronics used on the main tower?

OK GarryB I simply retire speaking technical stuff with you.

GarryB wrote:Any side views showing details of the electronics used on the main tower?

Not that I've seen yet, and the incidence angle was only a few degrees off center.

Speaking of altitude and speed, a picture is worth a thousand words (well, two).

OK GarryB I simply retire speaking technical stuff with you.

You might want to talk to an airline pilot or even play a flight simulator to find that flying at 10km up an airliner is not flying at full throttle just to stay airborne.

The lower drag doesn't mean less lift... it means you fly faster and by flying faster you actually get the same or even more lift as long as your wings were designed to fly that fast.

Flying higher and higher does not mean a 767 will ever fly supersonic, but it means it can fly faster than it can at low level with a lower throttle setting... which means a lot less fuel consumption.

Not only is the aircraft covering distance faster but the engines are burning less fuel because they are on a lower power setting so you get a double increase in performance.

It is probably for the best we stop discussing this here as this is a thread for discussing future Russian carriers.

GarryB wrote:

OK GarryB I simply retire speaking technical stuff with you.

You might want to talk to an airline pilot or even play a flight simulator to find that flying at 10km up an airliner is not flying at full throttle just to stay airborne.

The lower drag doesn't mean less lift... it means you fly faster and by flying faster you actually get the same or even more lift as long as your wings were designed to fly that fast.

Flying higher and higher does not mean a 767 will ever fly supersonic, but it means it can fly faster than it can at low level with a lower throttle setting... which means a lot less fuel consumption.

Not only is the aircraft covering distance faster but the engines are burning less fuel because they are on a lower power setting so you get a double increase in performance.

It is probably for the best we stop discussing this here as this is a thread for discussing future Russian carriers.

My friend I have spend 5 years taking a diploma in mechanical engineering and an extra 2 doing a master's before switching to pure science.
I never specialized in aeronautical engineering but I think I do know a few basics to not be completely unfounded.
I have done like a dozen working hypothesis speaking with you but I never managed to find a common ground.
I don't say that is your mistake, probably is mine but we have a problem in communication.

By the way I did ask a few questions.
You can double your range flying at 45000ft compare to sea level. This is the answer I got. It is good but nowhere close to 5 or 6 times your range. You burn about the same fuel per sec but you have about double the speed. Now this is for civilian jet planes of course, missiles may have completely different characteristics. I guess this doesn't leave a lot a ground for claiming a noticeable change in range if you launch from 50000ft compare to 60000ft or something like that but OK you may think otherwise

By the way

Don't be silly.

What we are talking about is giving launch energy to our missiles.

two aircraft 200km apart flying towards each other, both at 5km altitude with a closing speed of 1,000km per hour with each aircraft flying at 500km/h. Both planes detect the other at the same time (say both get target data from an AWACS). Plane one gets a lock and fires their RVV-BD missile which accelerates and climbs under its own rocket power. Plane 2 however climbs to 12,000m and accelerates to mach 2.4 and then launches its R-37M.

Plane 2 takes 5 minutes to fire its missile so by the time the enemy missile arrives he has already turned and left the area very rapidly, but the missile he fires also arrives on his target at a similar time because his missile did not have to climb nearly so far so more of its energy was used accelerating the missile to a much higher average speed and when it got to its enemies position it had much more kinetic energy to manouver and kill the enemy plane.

this is what I am trying to say... it is an energy thing...

Are you sure you want to climb and accelerate a mach 6 ramjet piece of machinery while you already have a mach +4 thing heading towards you?   
Even if you have the.....balls to do this, what makes you think that your plane can out accelerate and out climb your R-37M who is anyway well inside it's range?
Probably letting the hypersonic beast do it's own thing from the beginning sounds much better idea.

A bit , but is it possible to create a sufficiently stealthy ship without it being a flush deck design?

GarryB wrote:

Why should terms matter?

The terms conventionally refer to different characteristics of the signatures of physical objects. And these different characteristics manifest themselves differently when it comes, let’s say, to the detection of these objects by a sensor system and to the ways these characteristics are countered by the sensor system. Of course, the synergistic values of stealth combined with camouflage can be more significant than the values of each of these methods taken independently.

Stealth refers to a situation where the signature is of small magnitude, while camouflage refers to a situation where the signature is obfuscated, with the magnitude of signature not necessarily being small.

If you can reduce the RCS of an unstealthy aircraft like F-15C to a level comparable to the RCS of a MiG-21bis, that’s stealth. If you can change the signature of an F-15C to look like a mountain, that’s camouflage.

I know in your question, you were questioning the practical significance of these terms.

From a practical point of view, during a real war, if it breaks out today, the following two points would illustrate the matter reasonably well.

1- For a Russian AC to look like a container ship, and for the idea to have an impact, it would at least be required for the AC to look like a container ship in the visible spectrum (to eyeball Mark 1).

2- The probability of a container ship being attacked is much higher that a Russian AC.

GarryB wrote:
The RCS of US stealth aircraft are described as being like birds or small marbles... is that stealth or camouflage?

It's neither stealth nor camouflage nor a synergistic combination of the two characteristics; it's only the sheer cluelessness of those who give that kind of description of the "US" "stealth" aircraft.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

1- For a Russian AC to look like a container ship, and for the idea to have an impact, it would at least be required for the AC to look like a container ship in the visible spectrum (to eyeball Mark 1).

2- The probability of a container ship being attacked is much higher that a Russian AC.

Not to mention that container ships are obliged to stay on sea routes and submit travel plans. One check with civil authorities and you can check whos who and attack anyone without an id.
Regarding making it look like a container ship in the visible spectrum, I think its enough to make it look like one from great distances- and from satellites. Spies on rubber boats with binoculars and iphones would prolly be the smallest targets, tho I doubt if they can reach a carrier, a bigger boat with much effective sensors and endurance would prolly be detected early on.

It is good but nowhere close to 5 or 6 times your range.

As an engineer perhaps you will understand the difference in performance drag would have for an object propelled by a short burning rocket compared with a jet engine?

I was talking about missiles... with rocket motors of very limited burn times... at high altitude not only can that missile achieve a much higher speed while its motor operates, but there is also much less drag so as it basically glides to the target it retains speed much more efficiently too.

If a missile is using a lofted trajectory then there will be an enormous difference in performance launched from near the ground at low speed, and from altitude at high speed... I would think that would be obvious.

I guess this doesn't leave a lot a ground for claiming a noticeable change in range if you launch from 50000ft compare to 60000ft or something like that but OK you may think otherwise

I gave a clear example of what I was talking about in a previous post.

Modern fighter planes don't fly around routinely at mach 2 and 20,000m.... 700km/h and maybe 2,000m is rather more likely depending upon the mission.

Like I said and have been saying... if one plane accelerates and climbs before launching their missile they will get a significant advantage because their missile reach is extended considerably and also they have the energy to turn away and leave the area so that when the enemy planes missile finally does arrive your plane will not be there and because his missile was not launched from altitude or high speed it wont have the extra energy to hunt you down. Your missile on the other hand will likely arrive with plenty of height and speed to deal with your opponent.

Are you sure you want to climb and accelerate a mach 6 ramjet piece of machinery while you already have a mach +4 thing heading towards you?

Are you sure you want to remain subsonic and low with a mach 4+ thing coming towards you?

Even if you have the.....balls to do this, what makes you think that your plane can out accelerate and out climb your R-37M who is anyway well inside it's range?

I don't have to out climb or out accelerate it. It has a small radar and has been commanded to fly towards my position... the faster I am moving the bigger the interception box becomes... if I accelerate and climb then the enemy will have to recalculate my future new position when his missile will arrive and then transmit the new interception box coordinates to the missile... when I have launched my missile I can then turn away and his new interception point will be wrong so he will have to track me for a few seconds to determine a new intercept box and transmit that info to the missile he has launched... which will turn and manouver for the new interception point... the higher my speed the further ahead of my aircraft the interception point becomes... a simple 90 degree turn and he has to change again... are you begining to understand why long range missile shots (ie BVR) has been largely ignored during the 60s, 70s, and 80s?

It was the revelation of the high off boresight IR guided AAM and helmet mounted sight that makes BVR combat critical today... but it is still less than 50-50 against a target that doesn't know what is coming.

Probably letting the hypersonic beast do it's own thing from the beginning sounds much better idea.

Most of the time the target will not know what is happening so preparing for the shot by climbing and accelerating is just giving the missile a bit more energy on target.

Lets face it... both sides don't have R-37Ms anyway... so it is going to be a little one sided... the Europeans thought Meteor would give them that advantage and it has, which is why the Russians are deploying the R-37M rather more widely (ie Mig-35, Su-35, and PAK FA).

A bit , but is it possible to create a sufficiently stealthy ship without it being a flush deck design?

Probably much easier.

But like aircraft... it needs to all be done at the design stage. You need stealthy weapons and stealthy sensors and stealthy equipment as well as a stealthy air frame.

Of course, the synergistic values of stealth combined with camouflage can be more significant than the values of each of these methods taken independently.

But couldn't you say stealthy is a type of camouflage? Stealth is more than radar cross section... there are IR and even visible aspects to stealth too.

If you can reduce the RCS of an unstealthy aircraft like F-15C to a level comparable to the RCS of a MiG-21bis, that’s stealth. If you can change the signature of an F-15C to look like a mountain, that’s camouflage.

Now here we disagree... I would call custom designed stealth aircraft as being stealth, while aircraft modified to reduce their RCS as being low observable rather than actually stealthy.

1- For a Russian AC to look like a container ship, and for the idea to have an impact, it would at least be required for the AC to look like a container ship in the visible spectrum (to eyeball Mark 1).

In the dark on a rainy day it would.

the amount of time it would take to eyeball every large vessel on the open ocean would make it impractical for tracking enemy carriers.


More importantly if its radar cross section makes it look like a container ship then radar guided anti ship missiles will need to be reprogrammed to attack container ships... how will that effect a conflict in a busy shipping area?

2- The probability of a container ship being attacked is much higher that a Russian AC.

How do you determine the nationality of a container ship?

What if they are yours or an allies?

Not to mention that container ships are obliged to stay on sea routes and submit travel plans. One check with civil authorities and you can check whos who and attack anyone without an id.

Really? When was the last conflict when shipping in international waters was declared open season? What if a container ship is running late... and it is bringing supplies for your side?

I think its enough to make it look like one from great distances-

Like many types of camouflage it doesn't need to be perfect... if it introduces an element of doubt and delays a decision 5 minutes that might be all that is needed.

For Britain the Argentines didn't have access to real time satellite data and I suspect if Russia sends a carrier in anger its opponents wont have such access either. Or if they do a few nuclear weapons on board will surely render the carrier safe and untouchable.