Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

Isos wrote:
Yak-44 was what you are suggesting. But they canceled it. A cheap alternative to A-100, naval version could be used on the ground so that they could replace those on the carriers if needed. Special version for ELINT or small refuel tanker could have been also developed.

on land Il-114 could be a candidate for deck AEW is useless tho.

For VDV, aircrafts are better than helicopters/tiltrotors specially for paratroopers. Since they can carry more, longer range and they are fast so they can escape to potential fighters quickly.

Actually VDV insisted on "flying IVF" and tiltrotor for operations. I think you think that all operations need couple of thousands kilometers operations. titl rotors or "flying IVFs" can fight with radius hundreds of kilometers and dont need any prepared airfields nor infrastructure.

As for escaping fighters, I cannot imagine any airborne operations without air superiority. In case its not 500-700kmh of virtual lift vehicle vs 850 of Il-76 wont make real difference when you meet F-15/F-16.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:And what is difference long range AA mission for LHD and CVN?      

No more questions, Your Honor

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:And what is difference long range AA mission for LHD and CVN?        

No more questions, Your Honor

so now , good man, you are convinced to VSTOL? glad to see this

After Chinese tho you but good to see a new convert

on land Il-114 could be a candidate for deck AEW is useless tho.

It must be I would say. Russia lacks such small aircrafts for such roles. No need for deck version since they don't have the carrier for.

As for escaping fighters, I cannot imagine any airborne operations without air superiority. In case its not 500-700kmh of virtual lift vehicle vs 850 of Il-76 wont make real difference when you meet F-15/F-16.

Mi-26 can do the job.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:so now , good man, you are convinced to VSTOL? glad to see this  

After Chinese tho you but good to see a new convert

Not so fast! I was finally understanding all this discussion if you don't see a big difference between the missions and requirements of CVN and LHD!

Your crusade against infidels will have to continue!

Isos wrote:

on land Il-114 could be a candidate for deck AEW is useless tho.

It must be I would say. Russia lacks such small aircrafts for such roles. No need for deck version since they don't have the carrier for.

idea for tiltrotors and helos for AEW have first of all meaning for navy. For army  indeed small platforms like Il-114 can make potential cost saving however with AEW role for frontline still vertical lift vehicles have advantage - close and no need for extra infrastructure.

As for escaping fighters, I cannot imagine any airborne operations without air superiority. In case its not 500-700kmh of virtual lift vehicle vs 850 of Il-76 wont make real difference when you meet F-15/F-16.

Mi-26 can do the job.

The idea of "flying IVF" for VDV in my understanding is abut agility, firepower and survivability. This is about fast drop of VDV troops and support with firepower.  Its gonna be first wave of "human airdrop" after artillery and drones.

LMFS wrote:Not so fast! I was finally understanding all this discussion if you don't see a big difference between the missions and requirements of CVN and LHD!

Its not what I said, dotn twist my words please. I quoted senior officer of PLA Naval Research institute,who said about complimenting with VSTOL both CVNs and LHDs. Then he expressed view about using STOVL planes to perform mid- to long-range air defense. I'd love to hear what is the difference between mission of air defense form LHD and CVN?

You fight with the same opponent, same fighters and same weapons.

LMFS wrote: Your crusade against infidels will have to continue!

That's not a crusade. That's a basic education campaign

apologies mate, my idea is to bring light and win hearts and minds for VSTOL cause  respekt  respekt  respekt

Don't apologise you presented facts, I was wrong  

OK true but lets stay by fighters since unlikely fighter engineers will go to build fighter dept. Same with Kamov ones. Besides old fighters are going to be retired you constantly need to work on new models.

With a limited talent pool/funding & loads of tasks to do I don't think you can afford to have talent spread thin, better to concentrate force on getting achievable stuff done.

(1) Su-25 unlikely has any manned replacement (vide Okhotnik, Skat)
(2) AEW & Tanker. Im sure tiltrotor would be more then enough for the role. Especially that VDV wants to have one. No need to develop new platform.
(3) LMFS  actually  could be VSTOL. The only argument that not is that VSTOL will be size of Su-57
(4) never heard about any plans to navalize Su-30 nor S-57

1: thats 3 projects that need effort...
2: need a completed tiltrotor project then modifications to make AEW & Tanker, all a bunch of effort needed.
3: yes could be & thats a good prospect for concentration of effort but its still a really huge project.

4: neither have I but in my scenario there would be: immediate replacement for Su-33 operating on K would be navalised Su-30 (AEW & Tanker variants), new STOBAR carrier/s built & then eventually a navalised Su-57 would replace the Su-30s.
It has to be a much more attainable programme than developing entirely new tiltrotor, drones, stealth VSTOL fighter & VSTOL carriers.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Its not what I said, dotn twist my words please.

I quoted senior officer of PLA Naval Research institute,who said about complimenting with VSTOL both CVNs and LHDs. Then he expressed view about using STOVL planes to perform mid- to long-range air defense.  I'd love to hear what is the difference between mission of air defense form LHD and CVN?

You fight with the same opponent, same fighters and same weapons.

Not saying you cannot differentiate a LHD and a CVN, but that you don't seem to perceive the fundamentally different mission the air wing has in both of them. Your argument revolves around the notion that STOVL or STOBAR/CATOBAR does not make a difference in capacity and hence a STOVL fighter on board of a LHD can be as effective as a CATOBAR/STOBAR on board a CVN. Only they do not serve the same purpose.

One thing is supporting assault operations from the air with limited numbers of STOVL fighters, other very different to offer the AD cover for the whole fleet, including normally also the LHDs. And here, irrespective of what you argue, evidence is overwhelming. Navies choose CATOBAR or STOBAR for such mission, despite the need for arresting gear, bigger decks etc. And Russia has made it clear in its naval development plan that they want both LHDs and carriers so they clearly differentiate those roles too and don't plan to cover the role of the carriers with LHDs.

You are using the words of the Chinese guy as a proof of your theories and they are not. He is stating the obvious: that STOVL planes can help with AD and striking roles of an amphibious force... he is not even quoted as stating nothing about CVs BTW, though as a complement it would be also ok, provided there are enough numbers of the most capable planes. I only see it expensive to develop a especial plane for so few units to be constructed and hence have issues understanding the viability of the project. But I am open to surprises, we just have to wait and see.

LMFS wrote:
Not saying you cannot differentiate a LHD and a CVN, but that you don't seem to perceive the fundamentally different mission the air wing has in both of them. Your argument revolves around the notion that STOVL or STOBAR/CATOBAR does not make a difference in capacity and hence a STOVL fighter on board of a LHD can be as effective as a CATOBAR/STOBAR on board a CVN. Only they do not serve the same purpose.

One thing is supporting assault operations from the air with limited numbers of STOVL fighters, other very different to offer the AD cover for the whole fleet, including normally also the LHDs. And here, irrespective of what you argue, evidence is overwhelming. Navies choose CATOBAR or STOBAR for such mission, despite the need for arresting gear, bigger decks etc. And Russia has made it clear in its naval development plan that they want both LHDs and carriers so they clearly differentiate those roles too and don't plan to cover the role of the carriers with LHDs.

You are using the words of the Chinese guy as a proof of your theories and they are not. He is stating the obvious: that STOVL planes can help with AD and striking roles of an amphibious force... he is not even quoted as stating nothing about CVs BTW, though as a complement it would be also ok, provided there are enough numbers of the most capable planes. I only see it expensive to develop a especial plane for so few units to be constructed and hence have issues understanding the viability of the project. But I am open to surprises, we just have to wait and see.

Glad we agree that for AAD function VSTOL is perfectly suitable. My question was about fighter and mission, not about platform. Regardless what size RuN chooses or universal or dedicated it doesnet matter there will be no hundreds of fighters in the air. I understand that you'd love to see many of CVNs involved like in Midway but this not gonna happen in 21 century anymore. Last great battleships' battle was Jutland's one . Last CVs battles were on Pacific 43-44.


Russian Navy first of all need air cover and eventually anti ship strikes. Regardless if its fighters will be land, CVN LHD or sub based (ok it was Japanese idea :d).




Talking about evidence:
(1) Russia didnt make any choice regarding air carrying ship yet. The only what I've heard from MoD is first fighter then ship and that projects will be presented and evaluated.


All those Krylov fantastic plastic looks cool but it is presented for years with no effect so far. Shtorm is really slight update of Soviet projects. From 80s. Regardless what Russian Navy chooses I'd expect something modern for 2050s conflicts not 80s concept with "necronomicon" treatment.


(2) Evidence for CATOBAR? Facts say that there are no navies choosing that. Only one navy has chosen CATOBAR. US Navy. Even Royal Navy dumped CATOBAR conventional fighter going for VSTOL. Opps sorry French too using US tech and their only fighter ;-)

Russian Navy? Kuz is waiting for VSTOL. Skijump? why not after all it was invented for VSTOL same as TVC.


(3) As of usage of LHDS in sea control missions. it is actually US Navy idea to send LHDs as with augmented airwing (and w/o Marines) on sea control mode (i.e. light carriers) . I ve provided some time ago a relevant link to .mil domain.

IMHO rationale is simple: on one ship VSTOL fighters let you choose if you want to support ASW, amphibious or air support operations.




Of course as geopolitical situation is changing very quick we need to wait for yet another funding amendments to see results.

hoom wrote:Don't apologise you presented facts, I was wrong  

ok lest call it a learning curve, very steep in your case      

OK true but lets stay by fighters since unlikely fighter engineers will go to build fighter dept. Same with Kamov ones. Besides old fighters are going to be retired you constantly need to work on new models.

With a limited talent pool/funding & loads of tasks to do I don't think you can afford to have talent spread thin, better to concentrate force on getting achievable stuff done.
+++

(3) LMFS  actually  could be VSTOL. The only argument that not is that VSTOL will be size of Su-57

3: yes could be & thats a good prospect for concentration of effort but its still a really huge project.

I can only agree here. That's why VSTOL fighter was chosen as next one. VSTOL/ MiG-41 and actually that's what is left from development projects (I presume 6gen features will be in goth). Mind tat last 20 years there were Mig-29k/35+ Su-30/35 and Pak-FA.

(1) Su-25 unlikely has any manned replacement (vide Okhotnik, Skat)

1: thats 3 projects that need effort...

even more, depending on number of drones required by MoD. But unlike Su-25 this is future of warfare.

(2) AEW & Tanker. Im sure tiltrotor would be more then enough for the role. Especially that VDV wants to have one. No need to develop new platform.

2: need a completed tiltrotor project then modifications to make AEW & Tanker, all a bunch of effort needed.

Very true but again what is alternative? IMHO using chopper is possible but to achieve service ceiling is much harder to achieve the fixed wing ("tilt wing too ;-)  

(4) never heard about any plans to navalize Su-30 nor S-57

4: neither have I but in my scenario there would be: immediate replacement for Su-33 operating on K would be navalised Su-30 (AEW & Tanker variants), new STOBAR carrier/s built & then eventually a navalised Su-57 would replace the Su-30s.It has to be a much more attainable programme than developing entirely new tiltrotor, drones, stealth VSTOL fighter & VSTOL carriers.

Then you'd have replaced of 4 gen fighter with 4++gen which itself is a stopgap.  Su-30SM production lines, according to today's plans, are gonna be shut in 2022. This perhaps would look good for next 10 years of so and then what would you put on CVN?

True, money are always in tight supply. But this yet another reason you need to invest them wisely. For 2050 conflicts using 80's designed air frames doesn't seem to be like winning strategy to me.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Glad we agree that for AAD function VSTOL is perfectly suitable.

Obviously can cover that function, but with lesser capability. Maybe ok for neo-colonial wars, not ok for contesting space with other powers.

My question was about fighter and mission, not about platform.

That is exactly the problem. STOVL are used on LHDs, carriers use STOBAR or CATOBAR with the only exception of the QE, better known as the biggest Windows-running PC in the world. UK as said can allow themselves some indulgence in military issues being the junior partner of US, but all the bigger powers and even France go for other type of fighters on their carriers. That F/A-XX that you talk about non-stop when anybody mentions a naval Su-57 will be also CATOBAR, France is in discussions with US to get access to their EMALS technology for the FCAS or whatever their new planes is named, both China and Russia are actively developing EMALS too. And according to you, all that accounts as a massive evidence pointing to STOVL as future substitute of STOBAR and CATOBAR planes    

Talking about evidence:
(1) Russia didnt make any choice regarding air carrying ship yet.  The only what I've heard from MoD is first fighter then ship and that projects will be presented and evaluated.

What about some irrelevant document called naval strategy 2050??? If you think they will chose the carrier in function of the fighter then... you will surely be one of those guys that build the foundations after the roof.

All those Krylov fantastic plastic looks cool but it is presented for years with no effect so far. Shtorm is really slight update of Soviet projects. From 80s. Regardless what Russian Navy chooses I'd expect something modern for 2050s conflicts not 80s concept with "necronomicon" treatment.

- Krylov has no responsibility designing carriers for MoD. So they can propose what they want and wont necessarily be built, it means zero regarding MoD plans
- Will all due respect, I don't think you can know what the Shtorm means in terms of evolution regarding other carriers.

(2) Evidence for CATOBAR? Facts say that there are no navies choosing that. Only one navy has chosen CATOBAR. US Navy. Even Royal Navy dumped CATOBAR conventional fighter going for VSTOL.   Opps sorry French too using US tech and their only fighter ;-)

I said STOBAR/CATOBAR. And they are ALL carriers with exception of QE.
Maybe Russia can see more market for other LHD operators for the STOVL than I do. But they may as well sell EMALS technology, if they manage to develop it, it would have a good market price indeed.

Russian Navy? Kuz is waiting for VSTOL. Skijump? why not after all it was invented for VSTOL same as TVC.

Sorry????      

(3) As of  usage of  LHDS in sea control missions. it is actually  US Navy idea to send LHDs as with augmented airwing (and w/o Marines) on sea control mode (i.e. light carriers) . I ve provided some time ago a relevant link to .mil domain.

Yes, please show me where it is stated that they will renounce to CSGs due to having those LHDs  

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Glad we agree that for AAD function VSTOL is perfectly suitable.

Obviously can cover that function, but with lesser capability. Maybe ok for neo-colonial wars, not ok for contesting space with other powers.

I'm impressed seeing your zeal against Russian, Chinese and  British military  planners and experts. OK who and how would you like Russia to contest? continental USA? NATO airspace over English channel?

I have never heard any realistic scenario. Any in mind?  

LMFS wrote: but all the bigger powers and even France go for other type of fighters on their carriers., France is in discussions with US to get access to their EMALS technology for the FCAS or whatever their new planes is named, both China and Russia are actively developing EMALS too.

(1) CATOBAR rulez without catapults:
There are  no other powers besides USA using catapults of own design.   And perhaps Chine will join the club but unlikely Russia. EMALS = 2* 885M. India since 10 years  tries to make RFQ for new fighter. If catapult will be the same then good luck with progress.

Russia is developing EMALS? hmm last time I've heard this was about Shtorm surely will be built.  Any news about this ever since?

France is in discussion for EMALS?v      It would be great since they didnt even discuss building second CVN. A link perhaps?      





(2) Fighters

a) China is using copycat Su-33 and has just dtrted developing VSTOL + built J-31 which looks, to my non expert eye, like copycat of F-35

b) India is using MiG_29k with pathetic record and wants to get rid of those.

c) Russia herself stopped building MiG-29k and Su-33 and started working on VSTOL.


Well you have interesting interpretation of data.   No, VSTOL is not substitute, It is a logical evolution of legacy concepts      

Talking about evidence:
(1) Russia didnt make any choice regarding air carrying ship yet.  The only what I've heard from MoD is first fighter then ship and that projects will be presented and evaluated.

What about some irrelevant document called naval strategy 2050??? If you think they will chose the carrier in function of the fighter then... you will surely be one of those guys that build the foundations after the roof.

Apology I was wrong in wording: first fighter then start building CV. Of course you first evaluate and prepare to build. Unless you want to build empty CV. Strategy doesnt say anything about type or displacement of aircraft carrying ships AFAIR

Will all due respect, I don't think you can know what the Shtorm means in terms of evolution regarding other carriers.

Great, I love to learn! then what Shtorm does mean in term of evolution regarding carriers?      

LMFS wrote:Maybe Russia can see more market for other LHD operators for the STOVL than I do. But they may as well sell EMALS technology, if they manage to develop it, it would have a good market price indeed.

Russian EMALS for export. So you'd invest ~$1B equivalent to build 1 max 2 emals?  and then sell "cheap to some potential customers"? And the customer will be?  Belarus? Armenia? or north Korea?

LMFS wrote:

Me wrote:Russian Navy? Kuz is waiting for VSTOL. Skijump? why not after all it was invented for VSTOL same as TVC.

Sorry????      

Kuz can serve extra 15-20 years after renovation.  From which 5-7 only with  STOBAR fighters. Then VSTOL comes into picture. There is no need nto to use skijump as this WAS designed for VSTOL.

LMFS wrote:

Me pointed LMFS didnt get the poitn tho wrote:(3) As of  usage of  LHDS in sea control missions. it is actually  US Navy idea to send LHDs as with augmented airwing (and w/o Marines) on sea control mode (i.e. light carriers) . I ve provided some time ago a relevant link to .mil domain.

Yes, please show me where it is stated that they will renounce to CSGs due to having those LHDs  

You missed the point. US Navy noticed growing role of small carriers and its application. And they are the only real operator of catobar CVNs.[/quote]

You can deny as much as you want but simply MiG-29k is a dead end.

Don't bury it yet, an enlarged MiG-29/35 with better performance could be designed, just like Lavi/J-10, F-16/F-2-18C/D/E/F, & MiG-25/-31.
China is working on CAT & fixed wing AEW KJ-600, but that doesn't mean that they'll have no use for STOVLs on CV/Ns, esp. when having problems with J-15s stability.

The KJ-600 will most likely fly with China's new carriers using electromagnetic catapults, Chinese military expert Lan Shunzheng told the Science and Technology Daily. A fixed wing aircraft is too heavy for the ski jump takeoff on the Liaoning and Type 001A, Lan reportedly said. The electromagnetic catapult is a valuable addition to a modern carrier as it can launch heavier aircraft like the KJ-600, Song said. Using the new catapult, more jets can take off in a shorter time and boost the carrier's combat capabilities.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/kj-600.htm

Russian STOVLs will be used if not on Adm.K, on UDK/LHDs; no need to wait for CVNs to be built.
I can imagine large barges anchored in the S. Black/Caspian Sea &/ in the Arctic & even on big lakes/rivers substituting for UDKs & CV/Ns as their platforms, helping defend their interests.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:I'm impressed seeing your zeal against Russian, Chinese and  British military  planners and experts.

I am impressed you thinking all the navies in the world but the Royal Navy are wrong

I have never heard any realistic scenario. Any in mind? [/b]  

You have been shown dozens in this thread but you ignore them. Wont bother repeating because you simply don't want to know.  

There are  no other powers besides USA using catapults of own design.

So what?

And perhaps Chine will join the club but unlikely Russia.

"Perhaps" like they are developing them, making prototypes and planning their 3rd carrier to use them?

"Unlikely Russia" because you convinced Putin of using STOVL instead or because it would piss you off? They have said they are developing them, do you have better sources than the rest of us?

USC President Alexei Rakhmanov stated regarding the program on July 5th 2018: "We closely follow developments in shipbuilding in the leading sea powers and do not sit idle. Work is currently underway to develop systems that can also be used on modern aircraft carriers. For example, we are working on special modifications of new aircraft launch systems.”

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/russian-supercarrier-coming-soon-electromagnetic-launch-system-currently-being-tested-for-a-future-carrier-navalised-su-57-likely-to-follow

Then-CEO of the St. Petersburg-based Nevskoye Design Bureau Sergei Vlasov earlier told TASS that Russia had started work to create an electromagnetic aircraft launch system (an electromagnetic catapult) for aircraft carriers.

http://tass.com/defense/1011912

You will love this one:

Though it has not yet received the order from Russia's Ministry of Defense, the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) is ready to develop the carrier version of the Su-57, formerly known as the T-50, says chief designer Sergey Korotkov.

"If needed, we will do it, undoubtedly," he said in an interview for Russian media.

"If a new carrier is being built, it must have modern features, such as electromagnetic catapults," Korotkov added.

https://sputniknews.com/russia/201803011062099752-carrier-su57-plane-ready/

EMALS = 2* 885M. India since 10 years  tries to make RFQ for new fighter. If catapult will be the same then good luck with progress.

What makes you think they would not buy it from US or Russia if available? Or makes you so certain they are not capable of designing it?

Russia is developing EMALS? hmm last time I've heard this was about Shtorm surely will be built.  Any news about this ever since?

I doubt it since Shtorm was not requested by MoD. See above references from 2018

France is in discussion for EMALS?v      It would be great since they didnt even discuss building second CVN. A link perhaps?      

Don't be so afraid, here is your link (from Navy Recognition even). There are tons of them in the web about this.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/2018/euronaval-2018/6564-france-started-emals-talks-with-u-s-for-its-future-pa-ng-aircraft-carrier.html

a) China is using copycat Su-33 and has just dtrted developing VSTOL + built J-31 which looks, to my non expert eye, like copycat of F-35

J-31 is not STOVL, hence with well designed weapons bays, and has two engines. Looks quite ok for carrier operations to me, but this is still to be confirmed. They indicated the STOVL as needed for their amphibious force. What is your point?

b) India is using MiG_29k with pathetic record and wants to get rid of those.

Yes, they want F-18 and Rafales but may try also buying some spares for the MiGs, that would be good idea to increase availability  

c) Russia herself stopped building MiG-29k and Su-33 and started working on VSTOL.

So? Their MiGs were delivered in 2016, should they renew them each year?

Well you have interesting interpretation of data.   No, VSTOL is not substitute, It is a logical evolution of legacy concepts      

Yes, Yak-141 is the evolution of legacy planes like the F-35C, Su-57, F/A-XX, FCAS. You are convincing me 200%

Apology I was wrong in wording: first fighter then start building CV. Of course you first evaluate and prepare to build. Unless you want to build empty CV. Strategy doesnt say anything about type or displacement of aircraft carrying ships AFAIR

Only they have already naval fighters. And, as confirmed by chief designer of UAC, Su-57 could be adapted too.

Great, I love to learn! then what Shtorm does mean in term of evolution regarding carriers?      

You made the claim it was just some "necronomicon" (whatever that should mean) version of 80's soviet carriers, explain us why.

Russian EMALS for export. So you'd invest ~$1B equivalent to build 1 max 2 emals?  and then sell "cheap to some potential customers"? And the customer will be?  Belarus? Armenia? or north Korea?

Make up your mind, either it is such scarce and expensive technology to develop or is cheap to source. If it is the first case, then it wont be sold for peanuts right?
Customer could be India for instance.

Kuz can serve extra 15-20 years after renovation.  From which 5-7 only with  STOBAR fighters.

What part of "MiG-29Ks were commissioned in 2015-16" you don't understand?
BTW, they received 2 squadrons, not "4" planes:
http://www.migavia.ru/index.php/ru/novosti/press-relizy/553-mig-29kub-9-let-v-nebe

You missed the point. US Navy noticed growing role of small carriers and its application. And they are the only real operator of catobar CVNs.

That is why thy can protect smaller LHDs and carriers effectively, unlike navies without proper carriers...

Tsavo Lion wrote:Don't bury it yet, an enlarged MiG-29/35 with better performance could be designed, just like Lavi/J-10, F-16/F-2-18C/D/E/F, & MiG-25/-31.

it's not about improving MiG-29k, after 25 years since first version it's very likely a very good fighter, same with MiG-35. There is no need to upgrade it. The problem is in timing. They can be good 10years of so. then what? Against FAXX, FCAS or Tempest has low chances of survival. All countries so far (except forced due to low tech level) are developing new platform for the future. Iran lso started to build new one.

Tsavo L wrote:China is working on CAT & fixed wing AEW KJ-600

True but Chinese GDP is 20% bigger then US one. Chine is preparing to build large fleet of CSGs. In such case money and needs investment in catapults and AWACS platform is justified.

Talking about platform itself. This is copy of US approach from 1980s. Now in the US as I can see it discussion to what degree AWACS should be manned. And if not let it be just control center with all data transmitted remotely.

If you close watch Russian military budget vs needs, navy receives not much of it. Russia is modernizing 5 1155 ASW frigates. After 20 years of non investment navy requires practically rebuilding. IMHO nobody will spend billions on many large CVNs in next 10-15 minimum. First you need frigates, destroyers, subs ,amphibious forces before going global.


That's why I am a proponent of Soviet concept of TAKR (heavy aircraft carrying cruiser) . Ship ~40kt, with 18-24 (ideally 36) VSTOL airwing, pretty strong AAD, ASW defenses. Which can eventually also support amphibious operations (vide French CVN or British QE2 which both can transport marines).

Such a ship could use advantage of VSTOL air cover, and would not need so many escort ships. Whats more could coordinate smaller ships as its "decentralize defense". Mind that 22160 based corvette has 6000nm range.

22160 nn armed version can use BUKs/Poliment Redut (whe finally approved) , chopper, calibers and Paket.

Tsavo Lion wrote: Russian STOVLs will be used if not on Adm.K, on UDK/LHDs; no need to wait for CVNs to be built.
I can imagine a large barges anchored in the S. Black/Caspian Sea &/ in the Arctic 7 even on big lakes/rivers substituting for UDKs & CV/Ns as their platforms, helping defend their interests.

Unlikely, on Black or Caspian seas there is no need to use VSTOL as land based aviation can reach everywhere.

True but Chinese GDP is 20% bigger then US one.

Yes, China can afford both CATOBAR & STOVLs; if the latter was useless they wouldn't be developing them.

Unlikely, on Black or Caspian seas there is no need to use VSTOL as land based aviation can reach everywhere.

They can be in those seas for training & may be pressed to service to get local air superiority in a crisis.
Even larger floating bases could be created for CTOLs & lily pad ops of bombers & transports- recall TU-22Ms, IL-76 & AN-124s long range runs to Syria & denial of their use of bases in Iran.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

True but Chinese GDP is 20% bigger then US one.

Yes, China can afford both CATOBAR & STOVLs; if the latter was useless they wouldn't be developing them.

I agree. Same with USA - two richest countries in the world yet they decided to build VSTOL fighters.

Personally I have no doubts VSTOL are the future, perhaps not yet but with next generations surely. Now even Sapce X rockets are landing vertically. That was not technically feasible till very recently.

Unlikely, on Black or Caspian seas there is no need to use VSTOL as land based aviation can reach everywhere.

They can be in those seas for training & may be pressed to service to get local air superiority in a crisis.
Even larger floating bases could be created for CTOLs & lily pad ops of bombers & transports- recall TU-22Ms, IL-76 & AN-124s long range runs to Syria & denial of their use of bases in Iran.[/quote]


as cerebral fitness case it si good to see potential possibilities. From practical point of view though virtually zero chance to invest serious money "just in case"

If they built those, less # of CVNs will be needed. with few exceptions, They don't have the luxury of "unsinkable CVs" all over the Globe like Okinawa, Japan, Guam, Hawaii, American Samoa, Diego Garcia, Iceland, Gr. Britain, Sicily, Crete, Cyprus, & Australia.
Passages to/from 4 seas: Baltic, Black, Med., & Red can be closed to VMF surface ships & some to subs as well; while the Caspian still has no outlet. The Bering, Japan & SC Seas all have narrow straits too that can be contested. CVNs going through them r sitting ducks. Russia is left with only Kola & kamchatka bases directly fronting the open ocean.
It makes sense to have nuclear powered floating bases prepositioned in several areas around the World Ocean to avoid relying on CBGs only.
It's a lot cheaper than building artificial islands (even if they could be built in those areas), & claiming EEZs around them like China does!

Yak-44 was what you are suggesying. But they canceled it. A cheap alternative to A-100, naval version could be used on the ground so that they could replace those on the carriers if needed. Special version for ELINT or small refuel tanker could have been also developed.

The Yak-44 was never cancelled... the carrier it was designed to operate from was sold to China, and the existing carrier was smaller and does not have a catapult system, which the Yak-44 would need to operate from it.

For VDV, aircrafts are better than helicopters/tiltrotors specially for paratroupers. Since they can carry more, longer range and they are fast so they can escape to potentiel fighters quickly.

There is no transport aircraft on the planet that can outrun even the slowest of fighters...

We will agree Kinzhal is not exactly an ATGM but a revolutionary substrategic weapon, maybe not yet in the catalogue of Rosoboronexport with all characteristics disclosed

The point is that a weapons range rarely includes the range of the platform it operates from, so when they give the range of 2,000km from a MiG-31 we can assume that is the missile range and does not include the range of the aircraft. When they mentioned that the Tu-22M3M can also carry the same weapon they stated that while its range would be less (ie the range of the missile would be 1,500km) the reach of the missile would be better because the Tu-22M3M has a much greater operational radius than a Foxhound even if it is slower.

I also have not made any numbers but I would have had the same first impression as you, from 500 to 2000 km there is quite a gap. If I were not that lazy (or "busy", to be politically correct) would check in a ballistic simulator and put the doubt to rest...

His argument was that they already had the missile so just put it on a ship. My argument was that 500km is not a big enough range to make it very useful, and while you could greatly extend the missiles range by adding booster stages and making it fatter or thinner or longer or whatever, you would be developing a whole new missile... which, being a naval missile does not effect the INF treaty anyway.

Now that the INF treaty is dead, then it makes sense to develop a surface launched 2,000-3,500km range solid fuelled missile.... perhaps with a scramjet powered terminal stage because you could use it on land or at sea... the Tu-22M3M could probably carry two or three.

Who has said anything against STOVL on board of LHDs?

Me.

VSTOLs on helicopter carriers are a waste of space.

You fight with the same opponent, same fighters and same weapons.

Except China has a few ballistic anti ship missiles and Russia will have hypersonic anti ship missiles... their needs are different.

Personally I have no doubts VSTOL are the future, perhaps not yet but with next generations surely. Now even Sapce X rockets are landing vertically. That was not technically feasible till very recently.

Most VTOL aircraft land vertically, but fortunately for the Yak-38M most of the pilots were saved by the auto ejection system.

There was a fantastic Russian aircraft photographer who died some time ago and he flew in all sorts of Soviet and Russian aircraft, but the one aircraft he refused to fly in was the two seat model of the Yak-38...

Wasn't there a crap US car whose evaluation was "not safe at any speed".

The Yak-44 was never cancelled... the carrier it was designed to operate from was sold to China,..

No, the Yak-44 "was stressed to allow catapult launching and arrested landings, but was also capable of operating from the ski-jump ramps of the Project 1143.5 carriers (later to become known as the Admiral Kuznetsov class). ..was abandoned by the Russian Navy in 1993." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-44

VSTOLs on helicopter carriers are a waste of space.

There won't be pure helicopter carriers in the VMF, but there r plans for UDKs, or in English LHDs. So, it's a moot point.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:I'm impressed seeing your zeal against Russian, Chinese and  British military  planners and experts.

I am impressed you thinking all the navies in the world but the Royal Navy are wrong

Not really, i am jut convinced that Royal Navy first now RuN and Chinese Navy have just started new trend. With technology improving more and more applications VSTOL fighters will be possible.

LMFS wrote:

I have never heard any realistic scenario. Any in mind? [/b]  

You have been shown dozens in this thread but you ignore them. Wont bother repeating because you simply don't want to know.  

Well I asked for realistic one.  None of blockades or attacks on Russian ships cannot end otherwise then III WW.  there will be no top gun contesting. In this case 1 or 2 CVNs large and full of Su-57 wornt change a thing. With Russian 1 or max 2 "real carriers" Us has 11, France will have 1-2 and UK 2.  In best case you have 7:1.



Surely RuN wants to have something to wave flag.   Reasonable airwing 24-36 has  to to simple things:
(A) additional air protection against air threats in case of conflict. Vide Arctic
(B) eventual anti ship missions (vide GZURs with range 1,500km)
(C) air support colonial wars' operations (CAR or SAR type)
(C) air support amphibious operations

LMFS asks bumps on funding wrote:

There are  no other powers besides USA using catapults of own design.

So what?

You see that's the whole problem when arguing with you.  You seem to ignore cost/benefit and moeny supply restrictions challenges. In the world outside forum money talks and rulez. Of course Russia had economy of size f Soviet Union and wanted to build 6 CVNs then we live in different reality is this might be useful to do it.  

But we are talking about Russia, next 10-15 years max in the future. For one 2 carriers building a new EMALS and AWACS platform built against 80s specs are very expensive task with little practical return.

LMFS wrote:

And perhaps Chine will join the club but unlikely Russia.

"Perhaps" like they are developing them, making prototypes and planning their 3rd carrier to use them?
"Unlikely Russia" because you convinced Putin of using STOVL instead or because it would piss you off? They have said they are developing them, do you have better sources than the rest of us?

Do you really think Putin made decision about spending equivalent of billions $ just due to emotions?!         This had to be extensive discussion with military and MiC both aerospace and shipbuilding. Analysis, simulations, money and risk calculations.  Before decision was made.

I can only guess why they have decided to choose VSTOL. Ships carrying them dont have to be as large and expensive. Shipbuilding industry just is poorly developed in comparison with aerospace one. Unlike air force navy needs to replace almost all ships soon to remain combat ready. Engaging in Shtorm class CVN, amid refurbishing even 1155 ASW frigates, would be mildly speaking bizarre approach.  

LMFS wrote: about what if MoD but MoD remains silent"]USC President Alexei Rakhmanov stated regarding the program on July 5th 2018: "We closely follow developments in shipbuilding in the leading sea powers and do not sit idle. Work is currently underway to develop systems that can also be used on modern aircraft carriers. For example, we are working on special modifications of new aircraft launch systems.”
+++

Though it has not yet received the order from Russia's Ministry of Defense, the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) is ready to develop the carrier version of the Su-57, formerly known as the T-50, says chief designer Sergey Korotkov.
+++
"If needed, we will do it, undoubtedly," he said in an interview for Russian media.
+++
"If a new carrier is being built, it must have modern features, such as electromagnetic catapults," Korotkov added.

You read but somehow dont see most important stuff. But it must be your  car dealer when you want to buy a new one        



it's good that they work. MiG was working on MiG-35 and SKAT too. Without MoD official contract I can imagine it can be project of size say 500,000 mandays. They set up a team of 20 engineers. Project started? Started.

LMFS wrote:

EMALS = 2* 885M. India since 10 years  tries to make RFQ for new fighter. If catapult will be the same then good luck with progress.

What makes you think they would not buy it from US or Russia if available? Or makes you so certain they are not capable of designing it?

US has never sold anything really modern to anybody yet. Russia should invest money because maybe  India could buy? like Su-57?

LMFS wrote:

France is in discussion for EMALS?v      It would be great since they didnt even discuss building second CVN. A link perhaps?      

Don't be so afraid, here is your link (from Navy Recognition even). There are tons of them in the web about this.

It's great that Germany with such generosity are paying for French imperial ambitions. But what when Kanzlerin Merkel ist weg vom Fenster? And new German government says no more German  money for French CVN?

LMFS wrote:

Well you have interesting interpretation of data.   No, VSTOL is not substitute, It is a logical evolution of legacy concepts      

Yes, Yak-141 is the evolution of legacy planes like the F-35C, Su-57, F/A-XX, FCAS. You are convincing me 200%

You seem to be lost in time. Yak-141 should be compared with  its contemporary  so not FCAS but SuperEntendard.      

LMFS wrote:

Of course you first evaluate and prepare to build. Unless you want to build empty CV. Strategy doesnt say anything about type or displacement of aircraft carrying ships AFAIR

Only they have already naval fighters. And, as confirmed by chief designer of UAC, Su-57 could be adapted too.

confirmed MoD order? otherwise they dont.

LMFS wrote:

Great, I love to learn! then what Shtorm does mean in term of evolution regarding carriers?      

You made the claim it was just some "necronomicon" (whatever that should mean) version of 80's soviet carriers, explain us why.

because it was. What was on Sthorm what wasnt  on  Ulyanovsk?

LMFS wrote:

Kuz can serve extra 15-20 years after renovation.  From which 5-7 only with  STOBAR fighters.

What part of "MiG-29Ks were commissioned in 2015-16" you don't understand?
BTW, they received 2 squadrons, not "4" planes:

(1) MiG-29K first flight. 30 years ago.

http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/mig/29/k/mig29k.htm


(2) contract from 2012 stated 20 MiG-29K + 4 29KUB till 2015.  
2015-1988 = ? This design is from 80s. It is just upgrade and you want it to serve in 2030s?


(3) Number MiGs on Kuz in Syria
Again, try to read with understanding. On Kuz there were 4 MiGs only. Remaining on "ground sessions".

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/?skip=30&tag=%D0%90%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%20%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%BE%D0%B2

LMFS wrote:

You missed the point. US Navy noticed growing role of small carriers and its application. And they are the only real operator of catobar CVNs.

That is why thy can protect smaller LHDs and carriers effectively, unlike navies without proper carriers...

so all navies besides US one of desole French with 30 fighters too. To protect their all foreign operations os not protecting much.

The Russian Marine doctrine of 2015 explains clearly that the future fighters of the Russian Navy will be of a new generation (refered to the 5th generation).

It excludes developments based on the Yak-141.

GarryB wrote:The Yak-44 was never cancelled...

meh just frozen indefinitely after building a mockup and engines were finished in 2012 or so .

GB h8 speech wrote:

Who has said anything against STOVL on board of LHDs?

Me. VSTOLs on helicopter carriers are a waste of space.

Well, Russian, Chinese are developing VSTOL, USMC is using, RN too, Italian soon too. So you got stone that can deny reality? wow are you Theanus from Marvell?

GB wrote:

Personally I have no doubts VSTOL are the future, perhaps not yet but with next generations surely. Now even Sapce X rockets are landing vertically. That was not technically feasible till very recently.

Most VTOL aircraft land vertically, but fortunately for the Yak-38M most of the pilots were saved by the auto ejection system.

your mind is not in 80. is in 70s. Now we have almost 2020s. When VSTOL fighters (both Russian and Chinese) will be operational we move to 2030s.
Technology according to you didnt move in 60 years?

eehnie wrote:
The Russian Marine doctrine of 2015 explains clearly that the future fighters of the Russian Navy will be of a new generation (refered to the 5th generation).

It excludes developments based on the Yak-141.

dont mind GB. His mins stopped following tech form 90s

New Russian VSTOL should be not 5th but 6thn gen( i.e. DEW, drone mode)