Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

Peŕrier wrote:The british chose the F-35B over the F-35C because they opted for gas turbines as a cost saving measure on Queen Elizabeth carrier.

No nuclear power plant equals no steam generators, and in turn no steam catapults.

.

Gas turbine can generate steam as well.

The 30% of the power is in the exhaust, and you can generate high pressure steam with that.

"As for Russia's new aircraft carrier, its construction is planned to begin by 2025,.."
They planned many things in the past that came out a lot later & in different shapes/numbers, if at all, than originally intended. The fact that there's even a discussion in Russia whether she needs them or not & of/in what shape/size/numbers is very telling. Mr. Putin is not immortal & can be ousted; RF can fragment; the economy can plunge even more with sanctions in place; NK & Japan can be nuked & the fallout take the Far Eastern Zvezda shipyard out of operation indefinitely; & the Crimea may stay subsidised costing $Bs more.  http://www.eurasianet.org/node/86601

Meanwhile, new warships and subs must be paid for from the budget, since India switched to buy more Western "toys", & China is producing her own & for export, incl. to Pakistan. Who else is Storm CVN may be peddled to? I'm not sure it'll be worth to sell most of the gold to pay for it!

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Damn you you left a somewhat rational comment I cannot mock easily lol. Not to worry I will just make a satirical response to Pappadragon.

Time for a totaly serious demonstration of why SIZE MATTERS.

If you are being aproached by an enemy Maus What will help you more?

Oh I apologise for late reply, I didn't bother paying attention to details of post that contains image of one of biggest failures of military engineering so I didn't notice my name there.

Also, I am accustomed to have eehenie carrying the banner of complete retard so I got blindsided here.

As for your question about being approached by enemy Maus: I would never have to worry about Maus approaching anything because had you bothered to read up about that vehicle on Wiki you would have know that the large useless piece of shit in question got stuck in the mud far away from the front and was abandoned during it's first and only attempt at deployment.

It was confiscated by Red Army, analyzed and they determined that Maus is, simply put, large useless piece of shit.

Large useless piece of shit... kinda like entire concept of aircraft carrier of today, eh? 



So back to your question: what would help me most to deal with Maus? 

My answer is acetylene torch. There is substantial amount of metal in that thing that could be sold for scrap to make a quick buck. Good business is where you find it. 

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Indians r unhappy with it (there's no smoke w/o fire) & I don't think it could be improved much more, unless they build a "Super Fulcrum" ala "Super Hornet", but even then it'll be about the size of the Su-33.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2016/08/10/report-india-s-russian-made-mig-29k-fighters-face-problems/

Indians complaining? OMG!!! say it isn't so!! What a surprise.... FFS, the Indians are notorious for being very poor at operating & maintaining their equipment, and its their culture to use every trick available in their efforts to extract concessions from their suppliers. I have little doubt this is simply another example of Indian complaining to extort more for less.

The impact of the CAG report is lessened by the statement "Indian Navy officials say the Russian-made MiG-29K remains the best choice available", while at the end of the article it states:

"However, retired Indian Navy commodore and independent defense analyst, Sujeet Samaddar, gave no credence to the CAG report.

"I firmly believe auditors have no experience or professional ability to comment on technical matters of a modern state — just putting numbers and percentages.""

Given the fuckwit-games and grandstanding by India over the Su-57/FGFA, I can't take these guys seriously.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Indians r unhappy with it (there's no smoke w/o fire) & I don't think it could be improved much more, unless they build a "Super Fulcrum" ala "Super Hornet", but even then it'll be about the size of the Su-33.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2016/08/10/report-india-s-russian-made-mig-29k-fighters-face-problems/

Indians complaining?  OMG!!!  say it isn't so!!  What a surprise....  FFS, the Indians are notorious for being very poor at operating & maintaining their equipment, and its their culture to use every trick available in their efforts to extract concessions from their suppliers.  I have little doubt this is simply another example of Indian complaining to extort more for less.

The impact of the CAG report is lessened by the statement "Indian Navy officials say the Russian-made MiG-29K remains the best choice available", while at the end of the article it states:

"However, retired Indian Navy commodore and independent defense analyst, Sujeet Samaddar, gave no credence to the CAG report.

"I firmly believe auditors have no experience or professional ability to comment on technical matters of a modern state — just putting numbers and percentages.""

Given the fuckwit-games and grandstanding by India over the Su-57/FGFA, I can't take these guys seriously.

They are happy with their Su-30 defeating the British pilots and aircrafts.

I would expect the naval variant of the Su-27/30/33/35 to be stronger than the naval variant of the MiG-29/35, both modernized.

The problem with the naval variant of the Su-27/30/33/35 and the MiG-29/35 is that they are near reaching the limit of their potential of modernization, and by the 2030s will be fairly surpased by newer models.

Russia can begin to explore the naval potential of the Su-57. If the main variant can be used directly in the Project 23000 aircraft carriers or need some naval variant (always very limitant). Also it is of interest to know if the Su-34 or the future Fighter Ground Attack aircraft that replaces the Su-34 can operate in the Project 23000 aircraft carriers.

The F-35 has been critizized strongly here, now many want Russia to follow the STOVL way of the US (note that Borisov said VTOL and never said fighter). Here is some data to see the economic blow that has been and will be the F-35.


http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160324_Fact-Sheet.pdf

$55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf

$04.7 Billion = Development cost G Ford Aircraft Carriers
$12.9 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-78 G Ford Aircraft Carrier)
$11.4 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-79 JF Kennedy Aircraft Carrier)
$13.0 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-80 Enterprise Aircraft Carrier)
$13.0 Billion = My estimation of the Cost per unit (CV-81 ????? Aircraft Carrier)
$55.0 Billion = Total cost of development of the G Ford Aircraft Carriers plus construction of the 4 aircraft carriers


The reality emerges.

Many commenters also love to say that VTOL fighters exclude the option of big aircraft carriers. As we can see in the case of the US this is false.

It is very curious how many pro-US commenters wish to see Russia following the most controversial US projects of the last decades. The B-2 strategic bomber and the F-35.

The problem for them is that Russia will not even develop underperforming Strategic Bombers, neither will develop underperforming Aircraft Carriers, and neither will develop underperforming Fighters (VTOL or not).

US and the british had steam catapults without nuclear power plant because at the time they had steam turbines.

Gas turbines, exactly for their high efficiency, simply do not leave enough energy in form of heat to generate enough high pressure steam.

Steam turbines, and nuclear power plants rely on steam turbines too, transform most of the energy into heat and then in high pressure steam. After the stages transforming that energy in mechanical propulsion, most of the energy is still there in form of high pressure steam.

A typical nuclear power plant generating X MW of thermal energy, usually transform far less than 50%  of that energy in mechanical propulsion.

Energy dispersion apart, more than 50% of energy is still there, as high pressure steam, to be used for electric generation or, sometimes, to power steam catapults.

Something almost impossible to do with gas turbines, anyway so difficult and tricky nobody ever accomplished to operate steam catapults powered through gas turbines in the real world.

Peŕrier wrote:Steam turbines, and nuclear power plants rely on steam turbines too, transform most of the energy into heat and then in high pressure steam. After the stages transforming that energy in mechanical propulsion, most of the energy is still there in form of high pressure steam.

Err... No. In any steam power system, used steam is returned to the boilers as steam condensate (ie steam becomes hot water after expansion/cooling in a turbine). If you want to supply steam to other consumers (like a catapult system) you need to generate more steam.

Agree on your comments regarding gas turbines. You can't generate any significant steam using waste turbine heat, though you can use the flue gases to preheat the combustion air and fuel gas to increase the turbine efficiency.

Peŕrier wrote:The british chose the F-35B over the F-35C because they opted for gas turbines as a cost saving measure on Queen Elizabeth carrier.

It doesnt explain why Royal Air Force opted for  F-35B too. The only this that is here for 100% sure true is costs. interestingly Royal Navy cannot afford but Russian should? For what reason?

RuNavy even has even no need for an aircraft carrier ! carrier for what? for ASW ? Landing operations? humanitarian reliefs or bombing tribal structures in mountains somewhere far far and away? 

Look at Wasp Class - an universal tool for all those tasks in one. The only thing she cannot do optimally i to fight Midway style battles. 

 

Perrier wrote:
The only alternative would have been EM catapults, but when choices had to be made there were still no  operational EM catapult in the world, and without a nuclear power plant it is still tricky to say the least, to provide enough electrical power to EM catapults.

And spend extra 1 billion USD for development a catapult that cannot even launch fighter with extra fuel tanks? and you call it savings?! billion and half way results?! 


The $13 Billion Aircraft Carrier That Has Trouble With Planes
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-15/new-u-s-carrier-hobbled-by-flaws-in-launching-landing-planes

The newest and costliest U.S. aircraft carrier, praised by President Donald Trump and delivered to the Navy on May 31 with fanfare, has been dogged by trouble with fundamentals: launching jets from its deck and catching them when they land.

Now, it turns out that the system used to capture jets landing on the USS Gerald R. Ford ballooned in cost, tripling to $961 million from $301 million, according to Navy documents obtained by Bloomberg News.

While the Navy says the landing system has been fixed, the next-generation carrier built by Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. still hasn’t been cleared to launch F/A-18 jets carrying a full complement of fuel tanks under their wings, a handicap that could limit their effectiveness in combat.

 

Before the british choice, the US Marine pretended a STOVL version of JSF, i.e. F-35B,  because no LHD or LHA could possibly use catapults, either steam or EM powered, because of the power plants used in those ships.
Any other NATO Navy, the british as well, just practiced some good bandwagoning, i.e. they joined the US Marine's quest for operational indipendence to develop or maintain an aeronaval capability without the expenses and technical hurdles of either steam or nuclear power plant on their ships.

Otherwise they would have purchased the F-18 family long time ago, paying them a very reasonable price.

Np they wouldn't , why not isntall ski jump for F-18 then? 
The choice was made because F-35B was cheaper and better option.  As simple as that. Also there is a growing niche for such aircraft. 
Look Italy, Spain perhaps soon also  Australia, Japan, Korea.

I'm sorry if I'm not so proficient in English.

I'll try to explain it better.

The British decided they had not economical resources to equip their carriers with a nuclear power plant, so they choose a gas turbine plus electrical motors solution, and they had no chance to employ steam catapults.

Because the US Marine was already successful in lobbying for a STOVL version of the JSF, they teamed up with the US Marine and opted to develop their carriers as STOVL, with a ski jump instead of catapults.

If the US Marine would have not succeded in lobbying for the STOVL variant, the british would have had zero chances to develop on their own a STOVL fighter.

The same pattern has been followed by all other Navies purchasing the F-35B: they picked up the chance offered to them by the US Marine, otherwise they would never have had the resources to develop anything STOVL and advanced.

The key factor has been the requirement of a nuclear power plant to deploy steam catapults: its costs have been simply too much for most of the Navies around the world. The only alternative, steam turbine, has been discarded long time ago because maintenance and manpower intensive, and because nowadays in the western world there is nobody still designing and building steam turbines for naval application.

If propulsion would not have been the real hurdle discouraging most of the Navies, i.e. if they could find a nice and cheap way to power steam catapults, they would have easily built carriers equipped with catapults already long ago, and they would have purchased F-18 (A, B, or D and F nowadays) for a very reasonable price, long before the JSF born.

Big_Gazza wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:Steam turbines, and nuclear power plants rely on steam turbines too, transform most of the energy into heat and then in high pressure steam. After the stages transforming that energy in mechanical propulsion, most of the energy is still there in form of high pressure steam.

Err... No.  In any steam power system, used steam is returned to the boilers as steam condensate (ie steam becomes hot water after expansion/cooling in a turbine).  If you want to supply steam to other consumers (like a catapult system) you need to generate more steam.

Agree on your comments regarding gas turbines.  You can't generate any significant steam using waste turbine heat, though you can use the flue gases to preheat the combustion air and fuel gas to increase the turbine efficiency.

Usually, it returns into the circuit through condensers, i.e. thermal dissipation devices, and this because the (former) steam should re enter the circuit already in condensed form.

Without the condensers, most of the steam would still be steam, but a lower pressure.

Anyway, the point is moot: any NPP generates heat far exceeding mechanical propulsion needs, and that excess heat could be used to power steam catapults.

Gas turbines simply do not generate enough amounts of heat.

While the Russian navy may not need an aircraft carrier to destroy the nato naval threat the possibility of world war 3 is not the sole reason for the Russian militaries existence And building a military only capable of defence is not going to allow Russia to get a more desirable position Russia needs to expand its sphere of influence in order to win.

Lets say Russian support was requested by an ally to fight against insurgents a very likely scenario as the CIA seems to have its hand in most terrorist organizations having a carrier would allow Russia to respond without relying on local infrastructure that may be destroyed,captured or incapable of sustaining a Russian air force deployment.

The purpose of a carrier would mainly be to alow Russia the ability to support its allies in a Syria style situation and in doing so defending Russian economic interests while denying the west the ability to expand its influence.

Ultimately nuclear weapons are not very practical in smaller conflicts.

Light multi-purpose (i.e. hybrids of TAKR & LHA) aircraft carriers r more useful in that role, & for le$$. Indeed, building CVNs would violate Putin's directive of coming only to the level of #2 navy- he knows not to bite more than he can chew!
Dmitry Rogozin is ready to build aircraft carriers
While only the concept of a light multi-purpose aircraft carrier is ready
http://www.ng.ru/armies/2017-12-26/100_aircrafterrf.html

From what I can gather that article is speculating on a ship that has not even hit the drawing boards yet.

And might I ask what will this light "aircraft carrier" carry? VTOL,STOVL and all other versions of it are a senseless waste of money and are by no means cheaper than building a few Shtorm classes while offering much less effectiveness than a few Shtorm class carriers would.

A carrier is a rather costly liability unless it can actually carry some half decent aircraft.

The-thing-next-door wrote:While the Russian navy may not need an aircraft carrier to destroy the nato naval threat the possibility of world war 3 is not the sole reason for the Russian militaries existence And building a military only capable of defence is not going to allow Russia to get a more desirable position Russia needs to expand its sphere of influence in order to win.

Lets say Russian support was requested by an ally to fight against insurgents a very likely scenario as the CIA seems to have its hand in most terrorist organizations having a carrier would allow Russia to respond without relying on local infrastructure that may be destroyed,captured or incapable of sustaining a Russian air force deployment.

The purpose of a carrier would mainly be to alow Russia the ability to support its allies in a Syria style situation and in doing so defending Russian economic interests while denying the west the ability to expand its influence.

Ultimately nuclear weapons are not very practical in smaller conflicts.

You just described a perfect role for LHD/STOVL vessel...

Peŕrier wrote:
If propulsion would not have been the real hurdle discouraging most of the Navies, i.e. if they could find a nice and cheap way to power steam catapults, they would have easily built carriers equipped with catapults already long ago, and they would have purchased F-18 (A, B, or D and F nowadays) for a very reasonable price, long before the JSF born.

Nope, you explained very clear. But you seem not to read counter arguments. Do you have A\any ideas why US Marines always wanted V/STOL aircraft? maybe those characteristics is exactly what they needed? Why RN used  Harriers? LAtst but not least whadda hell Russia should spend a billion USD to build EMALS, for  AC ( next 15 billions SUD) just to  to have to spent next billion on navalized Su-57 ?

Especially that Russia doesn't need one. Russia paid ~ billion USD for 2 Mistrals. Of course when you add air wing and weaponery it is like 2x. It is still 1 billion per  LHD. Lets assume it is sua doopa LHD you still have 2blns per ship. 3 ships like 6blns Fighters - say 10-12blns to develop.  Where UAE also is interested in export. Russian part5-6 bllions.


Then you have 3 universal ships + fighter development = 3x2 + 6 = 12 billions.


Shtorm? 1x14 blns+ 1 bln for catapult + 1 bln for navalized F-57? and where ASW helo carriers? where are LHDs which Russia actually needs?

-------

https://www.russiadefence.net/viewtopic.forum?t=7885