Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:

Yes you need " 50% more industrial resources to make a 100k carrier than to make a yassen/akula/seawolf class submarine" but it will be without fighters so it's simple for you. As I tried to say it, but don't want to understand, is that this calcul is totaly stuppid because a carrier without fighters is just useless. If you build it you will obliged to build fighters for it. So the price when you talk about a carrier is is cost + the cost of fighters.

Why don't you accept that ?

the fighters universal, and Russia has a big pile of fighters.

Actually as a mater of facet they have enough carrier fighters for another Kuz.

However the carrier is attack platform ,so I presume the waiting for the T-50 with the new engine to use them with real full capability.

Isos wrote:

Su-33 are outdated they need a big modernization to be operational against F-35 and f-18 with aesa and LO.

Fighters are not universal. Even the mullti role rafale has a naval version. You can't ust put a air force fighter on a carrier. At the first landing it would be destroyed.

T-50 will be at least 100 million $ ... They are ordering more Su-30SM instead of Su-35 because it's cheaper. Money is a big issue when it comes to buy new fighters or military equipement in general.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:

Yes you need " 50% more industrial resources to make a 100k carrier than to make a yassen/akula/seawolf class submarine" but it will be without fighters so it's simple for you. As I tried to say it, but don't want to understand, is that this calcul is totaly stuppid because a carrier without fighters is just useless. If you build it you will obliged to build fighters for it. So the price when you talk about a carrier is is cost + the cost of fighters.

Why don't you accept that ?

the fighters universal, and Russia has a big pile of fighters.

Actually as a mater of facet they have enough carrier fighters for another Kuz.

However the carrier is attack platform ,so I presume the waiting for the T-50 with the new engine to use them with real full capability.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:

Su-33 are outdated they need a big modernization to be operational against F-35 and f-18 with aesa and LO.

Fighters are not universal. Even the mullti role rafale has a naval version. You can't ust put a air force fighter on a carrier. At the first landing it would be destroyed.

T-50 will be at least 100 million $ ... They are ordering more Su-30SM instead of Su-35 because it's cheaper. Money is a big issue when it comes to buy new fighters or military equipement in general.

So, you saying that :
Russia can't  make fighter aircrafts, due to that doesn't  make aircraft carriers.

What I try to say is either they have capacity to make aircraft, or they had option in the past to manufacture naval vereions of the aircrafts.

Again, the question is "Can Russia make aircraft carrier?"

Now you changed the question "Can Russia make naval fighters?"

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:

Yes you need " 50% more industrial resources to make a 100k carrier than to make a yassen/akula/seawolf class submarine" but it will be without fighters so it's simple for you. As I tried to say it, but don't want to understand, is that this calcul is totaly stuppid because a carrier without fighters is just useless. If you build it you will obliged to build fighters for it. So the price when you talk about a carrier is is cost + the cost of fighters.

Why don't you accept that ?

the fighters universal, and Russia has a big pile of fighters.

Actually as a mater of facet they have enough carrier fighters for another Kuz.

However the carrier is attack platform ,so I presume the waiting for the T-50 with the new engine to use them with real full capability.

Russia atm lacks even full fighter wing for Kuz.. fyi...

Isos wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:

Su-33 are outdated they need a big modernization to be operational against F-35 and f-18 with aesa and LO.

Fighters are not universal. Even the mullti role rafale has a naval version. You can't ust put a air force fighter on a carrier. At the first landing it would be destroyed.

T-50 will be at least 100 million $ ... They are ordering more Su-30SM instead of Su-35 because it's cheaper. Money is a big issue when it comes to buy new fighters or military equipement in general.

So, you saying that :
Russia can't  make fighter aircrafts, due to that doesn't  make aircraft carriers.

What I try to say is either they have capacity to make aircraft, or they had option in the past to manufacture naval vereions of the aircrafts.

Again, the question is "Can Russia make aircraft carrier?"

Now you changed the question "Can Russia make naval fighters?"

I never said they can't. I said it's expensive and your statement that 1 carrier is just 50% costly than a nuclear sub is wrong. I never asked if they can build naval fighters, I'm just answering to what you say. The one who is escaping these questions is you by making me say Something I didn't. Again you have 0 argument to defend your ideas.

But at this moment they can't build a carrier, they have 0 experience, 0 work on it. The shtorm is just a design for the public, they made 0 work on it. They couldn't even build heli carriers but bought it in france.

miketheterrible wrote:

Isos wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:

Su-33 are outdated they need a big modernization to be operational against F-35 and f-18 with aesa and LO.

Fighters are not universal. Even the mullti role rafale has a naval version. You can't ust put a air force fighter on a carrier. At the first landing it would be destroyed.

T-50 will be at least 100 million $ ... They are ordering more Su-30SM instead of Su-35 because it's cheaper. Money is a big issue when it comes to buy new fighters or military equipement in general.

So, you saying that :
Russia can't  make fighter aircrafts, due to that doesn't  make aircraft carriers.

What I try to say is either they have capacity to make aircraft, or they had option in the past to manufacture naval vereions of the aircrafts.

Again, the question is "Can Russia make aircraft carrier?"

Now you changed the question "Can Russia make naval fighters?"

I never said they can't. I said it's expensive and your statement that 1 carrier is just 50% costly than a nuclear sub is wrong. I never asked if they can build naval fighters, I'm just answering to what you say. The one who is escaping these questions is you by making me say Something I didn't. Again you have 0 argument to defend your ideas.

But at this moment they can't build a carrier, they have 0 experience, 0 work on it. The shtorm is just a design for the public, they made 0 work on it. They couldn't even build heli carriers but bought it in france.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya

0 experience eh? Don't equate your IQ to a number towards someone's experience.

As well, your comment about the fighters is laughable. Modern MiG-29K share same tech as MiG-29M2 and that of MiG-35 for most basics.  Upgrades can be applied.  If you think AESA radar is a magical tech, then your knowledge on it is sad.  Learn more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya

0 experience eh? Don't equate your IQ to a number towards someone's experience.

As well, your comment about the fighters is laughable. Modern MiG-29K share same tech as MiG-29M2 and that of MiG-35 for most basics. Upgrades can be applied. If you think AESA radar is a magical tech, then your knowledge on it is sad. Learn more.

kvs wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:Any new carrier will be using naval version of 5th gen fighter that will be produced for UAE

The moment thy announced that project all other platforms for future carrier took a back seat

Sounds like PAK FA was produce for India.   Russia will not be making anything for a collection of Wahhabis.
It might sell them some variant of something it makes for itself, though.

First you need to learn the difference between marketing and capabilities. PESA radar is a concentration of energy into one spot while AESA is multiple elements operating separately. In the end, energy input is what matters and you will end up with same performance. Issue with AESA and all those elements is that they end up having an average failure rate at around 10% or greater during operation so you are not getting full potential at all times. There are AESA advantages but not worth it.

You are also reading up on old N001 radar. Medo would correct you. If operating n001 vep it would have a detection range of roughly 300km for fighter aircraft. As well, F-18 sh isn't 1m^2

Right now a MiG-29K2 and Su-33 would be superior to 90% of the worlds air forces, with the support of a cruiser and a few destroyers.

UAE will get exactly the product that is defined in the contract

However, derivative of that same product that Russia will develop and build for itself will be something else entirely

Something like early Su-30MKI versus latest Su-30SM only even more different

In many respects an AESA is a fighter radar designer's dream device, since it not only vastly improves performance and functional capabilities, but does so with improved reliability and complete digital control of antenna/transmitter functions. Over the life of an AESA radar, progressive refinements in many aspects of antenna behaviour can be incorporated through incremental software upgrades. Software programmable AESAs at this time largely implement digital equivalents of established antenna beam shapes, scan patterns and sidelobe behaviours. Over time with proper intellectual effort, further improvements are possible.

Isos wrote:
I did look for the difference and (even if I didn't look in details) AESA is better, have better range, more resistant to ECM, can do more things, low probability of intercept.

Even sputnik released a comparison between Su-35 radar and F-15 radar and said the F-15 radar is better.

I'm not saying it's magic.

http://www.ausairpower.net/aesa-intro.html

In many respects an AESA is a fighter radar designer's dream device, since it not only vastly improves performance and functional capabilities, but does so with improved reliability and complete digital control of antenna/transmitter functions. Over the life of an AESA radar, progressive refinements in many aspects of antenna behaviour can be incorporated through incremental software upgrades. Software programmable AESAs at this time largely implement digital equivalents of established antenna beam shapes, scan patterns and sidelobe behaviours. Over time with proper intellectual effort, further improvements are possible.

The available data and modelling thus easily supports the proposition that the APG-79 is a 20 kW peak power class radar, with the caveat that better performance is theoretically achievable, as is lower performance given the technology available. With around one half the aperture area of the BARS and Irbis E radars, the resulting order of magnitude power aperture product of 38 dBWm2 puts the radar almost exactly in between the two Russian designs. If we are generous with assumptions and consider growth potential, then it might be rated a little closer to the Irbis E.

It is also worth asking the question of what peak power rating the APG-79 would require to match the 40.8 dBWm2 power aperture product of the Irbis E, given that its aperture is around half the area of the Flanker radar. The result is a considerable 35 kW - reflecting the reality that half the antenna size requires twice the peak power to match a power aperture figure. Is such performance feasible? The per transistor module rating is then 32 Watts, which is feasible but quite challenging. The peak radiant power density at the face of the antenna is 8 W/cm2 which is around twice the cited current state of the art. The HEMTs would have to be state of the art, but basically such peak power performance is pushing against the capacity of the extant cooling system, and achievable transistor performance in efficiency and power output.

Claims that the APG-79 can outrange the Irbis E are very difficult to support given basic radar physics. A claim of a tactically significant range advantage over the extant BARS is also hard to support. The corollary of this is that a late model F-35 Joint Strike Fighter APG-81 with similar module count, module power and aperture size to the APG-79 will not provide significantly different performance, relative to the later Russian radars.

miketheterrible wrote:

Isos wrote:
I did look for the difference and (even if I didn't look in details) AESA is better, have better range, more resistant to ECM, can do more things, low probability of intercept.

Even sputnik released a comparison between Su-35 radar and F-15 radar and said the F-15 radar is better.

I'm not saying it's magic.

http://www.ausairpower.net/aesa-intro.html

In many respects an AESA is a fighter radar designer's dream device, since it not only vastly improves performance and functional capabilities, but does so with improved reliability and complete digital control of antenna/transmitter functions. Over the life of an AESA radar, progressive refinements in many aspects of antenna behaviour can be incorporated through incremental software upgrades. Software programmable AESAs at this time largely implement digital equivalents of established antenna beam shapes, scan patterns and sidelobe behaviours. Over time with proper intellectual effort, further improvements are possible.

Carl Kopp isn't exactly reliable.

A very important person I know, will also tell you about AESA being rather poor in reliability as Canada spent massive amounts on upgrading ground based radar to AESA.  It made his job very difficult when monitoring the radars installation and use.

Also, it cannot have magic range increase.  It won't.  It is once again energy input = energy output.  Hence why Irbis-E can detect targest and track at ranges up to 400km while F-15's cannot but close.

miketheterrible wrote:First you need to learn the difference between marketing and capabilities. PESA radar is a concentration of energy into one spot while AESA is multiple elements operating separately. In the end, energy input is what matters and you will end up with same performance. Issue with AESA and all those elements is that they end up having an average failure rate at around 10% or greater during operation so you are not getting full potential at all times.  There are AESA advantages but not worth it.

You are also reading up on old N001 radar. Medo would correct you. If operating n001 vep it would have a detection range of roughly 300km for fighter aircraft. As well, F-18 sh isn't 1m^2

medo wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:First you need to learn the difference between marketing and capabilities. PESA radar is a concentration of energy into one spot while AESA is multiple elements operating separately. In the end, energy input is what matters and you will end up with same performance. Issue with AESA and all those elements is that they end up having an average failure rate at around 10% or greater during operation so you are not getting full potential at all times.  There are AESA advantages but not worth it.

You are also reading up on old N001 radar. Medo would correct you. If operating n001 vep it would have a detection range of roughly 300km for fighter aircraft. As well, F-18 sh isn't 1m^2

N001VEP have range of 300 km against big planes and ships. It can detect F-16 fighter at the range of 160 km, what is still more than enough for the range of the missiles Su-30MK2 use.

GarryB wrote:Building a carrier is nothing like building an SSN or SSBN.

A carriers operational costs are enormous in comparison and require a fleet of vessels with decent air defence capability to operate with them.

Having said that there is no substitute for air power... whether on land or at sea in terms of attack and defence.

There is no point in Russia building 2-3 carriers even now as when they would be ready there would be no ships to operate with them.

A new carrier in the mid 2020s would be a useful addition and another of the same class at the end of the 2020s would be a good step for them... by then they should have a young small ship fleet and a new mid to heavy fleet, with frigates in service in numbers and destroyer/cruiser sized vessels coming into service in numbers too.

Right now a MiG-29K2 and Su-33 would be superior to 90% of the worlds air forces, with the support of a cruiser and a few destroyers.

GarryB wrote:Building a carrier is nothing like building an SSN or SSBN.

A carriers operational costs are enormous in comparison and require a fleet of vessels with decent air defence capability to operate with them.

Having said that there is no substitute for air power... whether on land or at sea in terms of attack and defence.

There is no point in Russia building 2-3 carriers even now as when they would be ready there would be no ships to operate with them.

A new carrier in the mid 2020s would be a useful addition and another of the same class at the end of the 2020s would be a good step for them... by then they should have a young small ship fleet and a new mid to heavy fleet, with frigates in service in numbers and destroyer/cruiser sized vessels coming into service in numbers too.

Right now a MiG-29K2 and Su-33 would be superior to 90% of the worlds air forces, with the support of a cruiser and a few destroyers.

Singular_Transform wrote: It is relative

The Kuz cost as much as a super carrier, but it can operate independently ,but it has only a small load of planes.


There are certain compromises.

Tell that to all the air forces that are buying AESA instead of PESA if you think AESA is not worth it ...

While SuperHornets have their AESA and have low rcs.

Not realy for Su-33. Most Asian countries have Su-30Mk.. European countries have Rafale, typhoon. Arab countries have mix of modern F-15 rafale and typhoons. Mig-29k can compete but not the sukhoi unless it gets a modern powerfull radar and a big modernization.

Pantsir was financed by UAE and then used by Russian IIRC. However it will take time to finish it.

The Kuz cost as much as a super carrier, but it can operate independently ,but it has only a small load of planes.


There are certain compromises.