Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Very true, of course depending what is a modest payload. MiG-29k  has 4,500kg payload,  MiG-35 has 6,000kg.  This is less than actual F-35B.

You stick to your fetish comparisons which do not make much sense actually. F-35 is a bomb truck so it has good payload and fuel capacity, but B version much less than A and C ones. Mig-29 is way lighter, has a main AD role with added strike capability not the other way around as the F-35. Accordingly, it has way better dynamical parameters than the F-35, you should compare those too and not only payload which obviously benefits the bomb truck.

Well, wasnt it you who complained about intrinsically small VSTOL payload, Sir? As for F-35. F35B wasn't built to energy-maneuverability theory, yet still it is a fighter.  
nd can kill MiG-29k with ease.

Check its radar + RCS  vs MiG-29ks one.

LMFS wrote:If you remember there were discussions about LHDs and carriers. They are both in the naval strategy, and have been discussed separately, including statements about Priboy, Lavina and then opting for multifunctional vessels. Maybe all carriers and LHDs have been joined now? Maybe, but last news is that RuN will take a decision regarding their carriers in 2019 after review of the design proposals. To me this last news looks fully compatible with LHDs/LHAs with more or less amphibious or air wing weight like America class. Which makes full sense by the way.

I didnt say Rakhmanov had stated this was the chosen model. We'll live to see. Spring 2019 should bring results.  But he clearly stated: one hull and 4 functions of which one is an aircraft carrier. Read again if you dont believe.

LMFS wrote:

BTW Im not sure what do you mean by  carrier to cover? VSTOL one will be the only carrier fighter and ships it is going to be based on likely  only carriers in navy.

Naval strategy begs to differ, but we can all have our own opinions and clashes with reality at will.

I look forward to listen to you theory because no practice you have.  And what your naval strategy says about fighting missions against 10:1? or 3:1?
US alone has 1000 deck fighters. No sane commander is going to slay its troops fighting against them from one CV.
 
Logic says you attack carriers instead of  fighters. You first use stand off weapons like 1,500km GZUR and or Kh-50. VSTOL fighters with radius ~1000km are more than enough for this purpose.  All you can do is locally try to defend  own ships. At most.


BTW 1000km is still better by 20% then MiG-29k.

LMFS wrote:

Al-41 izd 30. is 18,000 kgf engine. It  should do for   J-39 Gripen sized plane. J-39s MTOW is 14,000kg, add 15% for stealth.

Izd. 30 is no AL-41, is a clean sheet design but I understand, it would be thrust enough for a plane between JAS-39 and maybe F-16 considering extra weight of weapons bays, avionics, LO and vertical lift HW. Remind nevertheless that JAS-39 has an engine in the class of the F-404 or RD-93, not of the AL-41. You cannot put a huge engine in a tiny plane, as you can imagine those need to be in proportion.

Izd 30 my bad you're correct.

As for  Gripen, well I meant weight/size class not this particular model to be converted to VSTOL.  

LMFS wrote:

2) ctol fighters intrinsically cannot get even close to STOL parameters of VSTOL.

F-35B needs 200 m for TO at full load, more than the MiG-29K on the K despite a generational gap in engine technology... and that considering the TO weight from the short runs is very close to MTOW. Now take 5G engines and you have TO full load from less than 100 m. But Yak managed to take off with two missiles in 60 m, congratulations.

1) you compare payloads? a paragraph above you claimed that MiG poor payload does not concern. Especially that its AAM load is about 2 tons and Yak started with 2,600kgs.

2) F-35B 200m without skijump with better payload x1,5.  MiG needs how long takeoff strip?  500m? 700m? with MTOW?  any real data on this would help.


3) MiG-29K - is there any  proof that it can even use MTOW non KUZ?, and at best can start with 4500kg payload and  using 200m + skijump. Congrats. If they can of course start. Not like in Syrian campaign.

Yak could start MTOW 60m without skijump.  Of course 5Gen engines will shorten this distance  too. Why not 30m so 300% advantage is still valid.

LMFS wrote:

Start here is also important. 30-60m s 100-200m does make difference for deck length.

QE is 300 m long. America class is 260 m long IIRC. Kirovs were what, some 300 m? Where are the space savings? All those vessels could have a 100 TO run at the bow for STOBAR planes

it's OK if you dotn see 300% TO strip difference. The important thing is that Russian Navy does and decided to switch from STOBAR to VSTOL. RN planners as well.

LMFS wrote:

Not to mention about much cheaper and simpler construction of deck.

Didn't you say springboard was invented for STOVL? QE keeps it operating F-35B, as did Soviet ships. Where are the savings for TO?

skijump can decrease TO by half in case of F-35B? to 450ft in wors scenario to 300ft in good. Well not sure about how you imagine how carrier works, that there is one single runway all over the deck? So you have 195 and 4,500kg vs. 90 and 6,800kg.

BAR Landing?  VSTOL and landing is again better MiG- 150m-90m  arrested,  F-35B - 175ft i.e. 53m rolling or vertical.

LMFS wrote:

This ~10% of extra weight or internal fuel capacity is low price IMHO to  pay in exchange to excellent STOL qualities.

In the humble opinions of USN, PLAAN, French navy and RuN it is better to have CATOBAR or STOBAR planes. But they have not been lucky enough to be taught by you I guess.

not reflecting reality,
Chinese are switching from STOBAR to CATOBAR and VSTOL.
Russians decided to switch from STOBAR  to VSTOL
France? Of course then only one French carrier with 100% US CATOBAR tech. Do you suggest Russia should buy form USA? BTW France has 0.1 deck fighters of USMC and cannot afford second carrier so far.

US has military budget by order of magnitude higher then Russians yet they still use CATOBAR + VSTOL.

LMFS wrote:

I disagree here, Sir. NASA and FPI are no playing with so called distributed power which uses for xSTOL (at least FPI ;-) purposes small and thin wings to get up in the air with very short distance. Land too. Small engines are "cheating wings" that aircraft is moving with much higher speed.

Show me an example of this applied to a supersonic plane and we can discuss

and what would you want to discuss? we both know nothing about it. That is the  future tech, more like 25  not  7-10. nonetheless is in making now.
https://www.amazon.com/Innovation-Flight-Revolutionary-Aeronautics-Supersonic/dp/1549706357

LMFS wrote:

or 50 years ;-) Well hard to disagree.  Anyway I cannot imagine pilot fighting with constant 9g without at best being knocked out.

Bogdan specifically addressed this issue. 5G is extremely hard on the pilot, both physically and mentally due to reduced reaction times and overloads. Even better aero than 4G with new engines allow for more sustained manoeuvring, so these extreme piloting conditions are way longer than before. To the point that they already think in unmanned Su-57

Bogdan should have blamed Russian energy-maneuverability doctrine not Su-57      

LMFS wrote:

Then again perhaps Su-57 will be basis for VSTOL?
Only size is against all other parameters can be for. Let's see.

Based on what? How do you lift the plane?

based on level of unification?  and not me but me Russian engineers.  
Su-33 was a serious redesign of Su-27. canards, wings surface, hull, engines. Requirement was: as much as possible unify with T-10 frame. I dotn know what ill be level of unification  if any .  I mean with airframe not engines, avionics or weapons.

LMFS wrote:

Are you saying that  Indian government's  audit chamber was laying? Russians are so happy in turn that decided to extend life of Su-33 by 10 years and almost immediately after that started to develop replacement?

Serviceability of a plane without spares is zero, and the operator can be the only guilty party in that. Russia bought two sqd. and is using them normally, stop the nonsense.

You are entitled to opinion but facts are facts, I'll stick to them.  You can discard them in your posts, I dont mind. Though they objectively are stay out there for anybody else. There wer eno official audit of Russian MiGs result published so how can you calim everything is OK?\

OK evidence established:
1) MiG-29k has poor serviceability in Indian Navy
2) In Syria there were 4 MiGs on Kuz, 1 lost 1 not serviceable
3) MiG-29k  is neither ordered  nor offered anymore
4) MiG-29k is planned to be replaced by VSTOL fighter
5) MiG-29k it doesne have any AESA radar and its radar can at best see fighter (in front) 120-130km (3-5m2 RCS)

LMFS wrote:

I really dot understand how does it matter how much space is taken by lift engines or ventilator as long as fighter has required radius?

Then you can't understand anything about aircraft, sorry.

Strong statement for somebody who's theories contradict with most of navy aviation planners, including Russian ones.


You know in the real world fighter (or any product) is as good  as its ability to fulfill military requirements.  Your personal fetishes like range or payload play really  here at most  secondary  role. Great when they are on good level,  but even with poor payload or range as MiG-29k it's OK. Navies can live with that      

LMFS wrote:Could not care commenting again more funny numbers an comparisons already debunked 50 times.

again strong statement from somebody  who didnt even know that Kuz has jet blast  deflectors, couldn't find empty weight of MiG-29k and claimed it not as wiki says or didnt know that Yak had only 7% internal fuel less than MiG.

BTW Yak had better range with extra tanks than MiG (MiG-29k 3 vs Yak 1).  

LMFS wrote:

if F-35B is so bad why only Su-57 from Russian inventory is better? and Su-57 with ROAFR has only great chances of success against. I'm afraid F-35B is capable fighter in its class.

With that amount of technical arguments you must be right for sure  

Former Chief of Russian AF was saying that all 4++ are not adequate to meet Vgen fighters. You claim otherwise.      
he was actually also mentioning about ekhm experts

Well, its great to talk to expert better in military matters better than gen Bondaryev!!!      
Kudos for your technical and military knowledge, based on years of service I presume, Sir.

..putting the engines above the wing did enhance lift during landings and takeoffs, but it makes the engines a bitch to work on for maintenance.

They could store extra engines & swap them with those needing work; engine maintenance can be done in a jet shop & every CVN/TAKR has 1. So An-71/-72s can still be used on them! An-32 also has its engines above the wing, with 361 built as of 2011; I never heard that their maintenance was a big issue. More than 240 An-32 aircraft are being operated in the countries around the world.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-32

yup 30-60m STOL is more efficient than vertical, though it still has ability to start vertically for a reason.

and they could be refueled by tilt-rotor tankers after burning too much fuel on VTOs.
Known as the V-22 Aerial Refueling System, or VARS, the system will help extend the range of F-35Bs, and other V-22s by providing an additional 10,000 pounds of fuel to aircraft forward deployed with Marine Expeditionary Units. The Corps expects its new refueling system to be operational by fiscal year 2019. ..
“This will significantly enhance range, as well as the aircraft’s ability to remain on target for a longer period. Overall, VARS will be a huge force multiplier for both a sea-based MAGTF [Marine Air-Ground Task Force] and forward deployed expeditionary forces.”
The extra 10,000 pounds of fuel will greatly extend this range as well as other aircraft in the Corps’ arsenal, like the F-35B.
The F-35B has a combat radius range of a little over 450 nautical miles and a fuel capacity of 13,100 pounds of fuel, according to a Lockheed Martin fact sheet. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/04/23/the-corps-is-on-track-to-turn-the-mv-22-into-a-refueling-tanker/

In effect, the combat radius will be increased by:
10Kx450/13.1K=~343nm.;+450nm=793.5nm total.
That's more than F-18C/D's 400 nmi air-air mission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet#Specifications_(F/A-18C/D)
and over the MiG-29's 772 nmi max. range:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29#Specifications_(MiG-29)

Tsavo Lion wrote:

e]yup 30-60m STOL is more efficient than vertical, though it still has ability to start vertically for a reason.

and they could be refueled by tilt-rotor tankers after burning too much fuel on VTOs.
[i]Known as the V-22 Aerial Refueling System, or VARS, the system will help extend the range of F-35Bs, and other V-22s by providing an additional 10,000 pounds of fuel to aircraft forward deployed with Marine Expeditionary Units. The Corps expects its new refueling system to be operational by fiscal year 2019. ..

Good news, Sir. Especially that Russia seem to develop own tilt-rotor. BTW ha ha F-35B radius is on level of MiG-29k (850km after wiki) I wonder where is this STOBSR range advantage?

No wonder that Russians prefer to build VSTOL fighter.

How many of them would fit on a CVN?

You would only need two...

so what? they have limits in heat exchange. (wiki)

AND

but when attempting to take-off, the launch delayers did not work [14]As a result, the aircraft in the full afterburner mode stood for an extra 10 seconds on the deck of the ship and burned through the armature of the raised gas shield [14]

so actually burned through cooling pipes.

So operated for 10 seconds longer than normal and damaged the water cooled heat resistant panel.... THANK YOU.

WTF do you think the engine from this new VSTOL fighter you keep blabbering on about will do?

Will the entire deck surface of these carriers be water cooled?

What about vertical landings or take offs from conventional airfields... a bit or molten tarseal for the engine intakes perhaps... I am sure tar would be the ideal fucking lubricant for a modern jet engine... but no... modern materials can take it right?

yup 30-60m STOL is more efficient than vertical, though it still has ability to start vertically for a reason.

To be gay...

That's why now they are going to distributed propulsion. Technology advances... the small wings one is STOL

Wow... no one has ever thought of anything like that before... except have you heard of blown flaps?

1) long range strikes is LMFS idea, I was just responding

2) Su-57? Su-57 is of course just one of ideas, with relative small probability to materialize, idea if Russians want to unify platforms and build heavy deck fighter.
IMHO better is to invest in light fighter since more can be carried by ship and thus can better defend ship grouping.

More like an example of you... take something that works and make it expensive and more likely to fail... first you say a naval Su-57 is too expensive... even though you are advocating a VSTOL version of a slightly lighter aircraft... then you think a VSTOL version of the Su-57 would work...

No, it puts biggest nail to Mi"G-29k , now confirmed cheers cheers cheers actually they can develop 2 if they want. Infact they already did it.
One CVN less one new fighter more. Not to mention wasting money on useless YAK-44 or EMALS too.

But they will need EMALS and some form of AWACS platform to cover the helos as they recover the pilots from the VSTOLs from the water after each mission.

1) Your trying to manipulate here, why? Arnata is perspective tank same as VSTOL fighter or Su-57. And yes Armata will be procured when west starts to improve their tanks or service lfie T-72s will come to an end.

Armata and T-90 are already designed and either in service or ready for service, while the T-72 is the old model... in terms of our discussion, the Armata is the newly designed product... the Su-57, the upgraded older model vehicles... the T-90 (Su-33), and T-72 (MiG-29KR) have been upgraded and can still do the job but your idea is for a helicopter tank, which you think has some special feature that makes it interesting... the fact is that flying might be useful to get over obstacles, but ultimately it makes the aircraft fragile and vulnerable to damage and prone to fatal crashes... but lets not let facts get in the way of a good story...

If MiGs by accident will be serviceable of course.

What difference would their serviceability make anyway the K is in overhaul. It means they will still have plenty of air frame hours when the K gets back in the water.

Yak-141 - where Yak can have only 1 drop tank 1,750kg
Ferry range: 3,000 km (1,865 mi)

GOT YOU... the Yak-41 has no belly position to carry fuel tanks like the MiG-29K does so how did it fly with such an asymmetric load?

Over half its payload capacity under one wing?

Not bloody likely.

like payload? VSTOL 6,800kg vs CATOBAR 8,000kg?

And what payload exactly will it carry that weighs 8 tons?

I'll give you a hint... it is not cleared for any type of ordinance that would allow it to carry anything like that sort of weight and in combat it would be dead if it ever did carry such a payload.

You would only need two...

even 1 won't fit in the hangar for maintenance, & 2 will leave no room for helos/tilt-rotors.

But they will need EMALS and some form of AWACS platform to cover the helos as they recover the pilots from the VSTOLs from the water after each mission.

Tilt-rotors could do AWACS & SAR missions; no need for EMALS!
The VMF will use STOBAR along with future STOVL fighters until Su-33s & MiG-29Ks retire, hence no official statement that STOBAR is being phased out, esp before STOLs & UDKs r ready.
There's a possibility that STO/CATOBAR UCAVs & fighters will continue later on future CVNs/TAKRs just like in China & the USN. No need to burn bridges & make careless statements!

even 1 won't fit in the hangar for maintenance, & 2 will leave no room for helos/tilt-rotors.

Duh... Dude!!! ....even if you could fit three in the hangar... how would they get there?

Just keep it on deck... with such a potent bomber and interceptor why not convert it to nuclear propulsion, and have it only land on the carrier to rearm at sea...

They could be based in Russia and flown to where the carrier is... it could land to change crews and rearm at sea when needed and spend the rest of the time flying near the carrier group offering radar detection capabilities for low flying threats.

Tilt-rotors could do AWACS & SAR missions; no need for EMALS!

No need for Tilt rotors either but you seem to want them...

The VMF will use STOBAR along with future STOVL fighters until Su-33s & MiG-29Ks retire, hence no official statement that STOBAR is being phased out, esp before STOLs & UDKs r ready.
There's a possibility that STO/CATOBAR UCAVs & fighters will continue later on future CVNs/TAKRs just like in China & the USN. No need to burn bridges & make careless statements!

Some want to eliminate large carriers and EMALS because that locks the Russian navy into VSTOL crap...

It is like hoping your countries best high jumper breaks their leg so your son can represent your country... even though he was not the first selection choice because he is not good enough to win at world class level.

Russia needs bigger carriers, and with that it needs AWACS platforms which means it also needs EMALs to allow much heavier aircraft operate from her than her size would otherwise allow.

Bigger carriers cost more, but offer much better performance and capabilities so it is money well spent.

You can buy cheap $10 shoes that last for 4-6 weeks, or you can buy $50 shoes that are more comfortable and last 3 years... some think buying 5 pairs of $10 shoes is the solution... What I am saying is that instead of buying 5 pairs of shoes 4 weeks apart, they could spread the cost of the $50 dollar shoes over a similar period and get a better product... buying two decent sized CVNs over 20 years wont be more expensive than buying 4-5 mini CVNs over the same time period. What would Russia do with 4-5 carrier groups anyway... and the cost of 4-5 carrier groups wont be any cheaper than the cost of two carrier groups with larger carriers... the two carrier groups would just be better defended with better C4IR and better aircraft.

Ur logic is flawed on all of it. If u advocate STOVL Tu-160, than it's not as "useless & under performing" as u said many times before.
Tilt-rotors r needed & they r going to build them for other roles anyway, even if they r disliked by u after I posted info. on tankers the USMC will use to improve the F-35B performance.

Russia needs bigger carriers, and with that it needs AWACS platforms which means it also needs EMALs to allow much heavier aircraft operate from her than her size would otherwise allow.

So is China, but she didn't just wait to build a flattop CVN & got ex-Varyag, towed it around Africa, completed it, & now using it as a trainer, while building an enlarged sister ship & LHDs.
If the VMF waits decades for a top of the line Nimitz or Ford-like CVN, they'll waste time & her geopolitical interests will continue to suffer.
Tilt-rotor AWACS, tankers & CODs won't need EMALs, saving $. Their fighters can already use STOBAR. Su-30s/-34s can be navalized & perform better than Su-33s, not to mention MiG-29Ks. They don't need to copy the USN, the FN & the future PLAN's CVN concept; just like the RN (which invented the CATOBAR), the Indian/Italian/ Spanish & Japanese navies, they'll be fine with STOVLs on UDKs/LHDs/CVs, STOBAR TAKRs or the hybrids of those.
The NSR can be better secured w/o CVNs but there, nuclear icebreakers & subs r needed. Even the USN/CG didn't need & can't afford more than a few of them, as they spend all their allocated $Bs on CVNs, AWs, SSNs, SSBNs & their escorts. https://vz.ru/news/2018/12/4/953728.html

OTH, Russia can't afford CVNs, their escorts, AWs, SSN/G/BNs & the largest nuclear/conventional icebreaker fleet in the World.
China too needs & will have only a few icebreakers, but they can still afford all the rest of the above.

Russia will have to wait longer for CVNs with EMALS. Plans r being corrected by reality. The economy & political situation may worsen & they may never get them, just like what happened with Varyag & Ulyanovsk.

GarryB wrote:

How many of them would fit on a CVN?

You would only need two...

two fightera? serious?

Soviet Union completed 4 Kiev Class (1143) and 1143.5 Kuz (now) Varyag (1143.6 ) was sold to China. Now Russia ha Kuz.
What RuN plans we'll see not so far, this spring MoD is supposed t choose best project of CVN to be eventually materialized.

If "universal ship" will win I bet on 3-5 series. IMHO 5 ragher then 2 but well need to wait what will come out of that.

GB wrote:
What about vertical landings or take offs from conventional airfields... a bit or molten tarseal for the engine intakes perhaps... I am sure tar would be the ideal fucking lubricant for a modern jet engine... but no... modern materials can take it right?

again your stories from the crypt       , but do you have any real facts?! something that happened in reality not in your mind?   we all 've seen videos. Do they build new runways every tim? no,
does VSTOL cause "flying rocks" ? no, unless invisible only  and with no mass too.

GB wrote:

yup 30-60m STOL is more efficient than vertical, though it still has ability to start vertically for a reason.

To be gay...

you re sooo cute saying this      

GB wrote:

That's why now they are going to distributed propulsion.  Technology advances... the small wings one is STOL

Wow... no one has ever thought of anything like that before... except have you heard of blown flaps?

you are soooo smart and gay when you say wow, if flaps would be enough nobody would research new directions.

GB wrote:

2) Su-7? Su-57 is of course just one of ideas, with relative small probability to materialize, idea if Russians want to unify platforms and build heavy deck fighter.
IMHO better is to invest in light fighter since more can be carried by ship and thus can better defend ship grouping.

More like an example of you... take something that works and make it expensive and more likely to fail... first you say a naval Su-57 is too expensive... even though you are advocating a VSTOL version of a slightly lighter aircraft... then you think a VSTOL version of the Su-57 would work...

The fact is new fighter will be created. I was wondering about level of unification. Do you understand?
BTW VSTOL is reasons learned example. Instead of take good MiG-29 and make pathetic MiG-29k instead of promising Yak series. Russian MoD returned to vSTOL concept as more corresponding their needs.

GB wrote:

1) Your trying to manipulate here, why? Arnata is perspective tank same as VSTOL fighter or  Su-57.  And yes Armata will be procured when west starts to improve their tanks or service lfie T-72s will come to an end.  

Armata and T-90 are already designed and either in service or ready for service, while the T-72 is the old model... in terms of our discussion, the Armata is the newly designed product... the Su-57, the upgraded older model vehicles... the T-90 (Su-33), and T-72 (MiG-29KR) have been upgraded and can still do the job but your idea is for a helicopter tank, which you think has some special feature that makes it interesting... the fact is that flying might be useful to get over obstacles, but ultimately it makes the aircraft fragile and vulnerable to damage and prone to fatal crashes... but lets not let facts get in the way of a good story...

Why official programme you call my idea?! I am proponent of VSTOL but it is objectively materializing so far. Andis because brings huge value for RuN.
And officially also MiG-29k is dead too.

GB wrote:

Yak-141 - where Yak can have only 1 drop tank 1,750kg
Ferry range: 3,000 km (1,865 mi)

GOT YOU... the Yak-41 has no belly position to carry fuel tanks like the MiG-29K does so how did it fly with such an asymmetric load?

Over half its payload capacity under one wing?

Not bloody likely.

Dear Expert, so you didnt know that YAK had  a mount for a conformal fuel tank 2000l?          Check wiki if you dont want to dig deeper.
Below you got small pic where in most of configurations 2000l extra tank is there. No it was not my drawing      




ПТБ  - Подвесной топливный бак =.drop tank
2000л........................................=.2000l

like payload?  VSTOL 6,800kg vs CATOBAR 8,000kg?

And what payload exactly will it carry that weighs 8 tons?

I'll give you a hint... it is not cleared for any type of ordinance that would allow it to carry anything like that sort of weight and in combat it would be dead if it ever did carry such a payload.[/quote]

and how would you kill fighter you dont see? you got better data be my guest

F-35
RCS of 0.005m2
nonody said detaild about APG-81 for F-35 but APG-77 they are based on have performance blow:

APG-77 has an operating range of 125–150 mi (201–241 km),[3] against a 1 m2 (11 sq ft) target. A range of 400 km or more, against a 1 m2 (11 sq ft) target, with the APG-77v1 with newer GaAs modules, is believed to be possible while using more narrow beams.[4][3]

MiG-29k
RCS I've found is 0,7-1m2
after wiki[quote] Zhuk-M is X band
Russian variant has 110-130k front detection of "fighter size", engilsh wki says Zhy7k-ME has 120km to dectec 5m2 target.   No IRST installed on MiG-29k

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D010_%D0%96%D1%83%D0%BA

LMFS wrote:@Tsavo Lion:

agree that it would be good to spare the EMALS, but why do you think US, China, France and Russia all use them or have announced they will use them? There must be a reason for that, considering tiltrotors are a known option since quite a while.

Russia didnt announce anything yet. Unless one interview with manager form shipyard you take as official.
France is negotiating with USA so they didn't actually announce anything about their own.
US and China budgets are well beyond Russian one. By order of magnitude US and Chinese soon too.
Besides in US and China there is economy of scale which in Russian case wont be ever. Building large CVNs makes absolutely no sense in Russian in any foreseeable future.

..75 F-35B Lightning IIs built so far. The main distinguishing feature is the possibility of a shortened takeoff and vertical landing. The F-35B can reach a speed of about 1930 km/h, carry up to 6.8 tons of weapons and fly to a distance of 1667km (without refueling). The combat radius ..is 833km.
[more by 111km of F/A-18E/F: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet#Specifications_(F/A-18E/F)]

At the Pentagon, this version of the “Lightning II” has high hopes, since large aircraft carriers are not needed for their transfer, quite ample amphibious assault ships and other amphibious assault ships armed with the US Navy. It is also possible to operate them from coastal aerodromes and limited size sites. Thus, at the end of September, F-35B aircraft of the US Marine Corps attacked militants in the Afghan province of Kandahar, moreover, American aircraft took off from the universal landing craft "Essex" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Essex_(LHD-2)], which was in the Arabian Sea. The results of combat use were not publicly reported. The South China Sea could be a potential area of ​​use for the F-35B. Also, this modification was ordered for the fleet of Great Britain and Italy, the possibility of buying these aircraft and Japan is being considered. ..the UK confirms its plans to acquire 138 F-35B aircraft, although so far only 48 fighters have been contracted.
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2018-12-06/2_1025_discount.html?print=Y

At a certain base in California, I didn't notice any damage on the runway caused by Harriers doing test VTOLs. They were used on ships for decades w/o causing major deck damage.
Many of them were stationed in MCASs Yuma, AZ before the F-35Bs:
https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/1987/06/mcas-yuma-home-harrier-group
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-LbTscXT90
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft3j3p92mb0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2o3wLZJJ9I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SECzI0VdR88
https://www.f35.com/about/who-is-flying/yuma

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:I didnt say Rakhmanov had stated this was the chosen model. We'll live to see. Spring 2019 should bring results.  But he clearly stated: one hull and 4 functions of which one is an aircraft carrier. Read again if you dont believe.

Soviets also did several types of carriers. USMC has as explained vessels  with the same basic design but more or less air wing and with or without well deck. But USN keeps their CVNs regardless.  We will see what RuN does.

2018

US budget........$700bn....................USN...-.11..CSGs
Russian budget.$46bn .....................RuN...-...1..CSG
......................(₽2,8T with PPP say $90bn )

I now hope now you see the difference

Soviets were planning to keep Yaks on Ulyanovsk AFAIK.

LMSF wrote:

I look forward to listen to you theory because no practice you have.

Not my theory, Russian naval development strategy.

in this case, since you said that in Russia naval development you see long range fighters and emals the best way to sort it out is simply quote of that fragment which mentions:
ELMALS, large CVNs and only CATOBAR fighters.

LMFS wrote:

 And what your naval strategy says about fighting missions against 10:1? or 3:1?
US alone has 1000 deck fighters. No sane commander is going to slay its troops fighting against them from one CV.

All you need is one missile that goes through USN AD and a carrier to launch it. Su-57 with internal hypersonic missiles already announced, half a squadron and the whole carrier fleet including USMC is under serious threat of being disabled. But you need to have more range and performance than your opponent's missiles and/or aircraft or you will be the loser in the exchange, and hence you cannot deter it.

Wait you have just repeated exactly what I had written. You said only about longer range of fighters. The distance form Murmansk to Reykjavik is 2,412km so Russian VSTOL carrier can park there and block any ships coming around Island.

Then since I am wrong so what precisely radius is ok according to your theory?

BTW Hypesonic airborne missiles were announced in 2013 AFAIK. GZURs project was reminded last year by Jane's (then vis BMPD got disseminated over Russian press).
Regardless on GRUZ or onott I seriously doubt in mid 2030s 6 missiles will be enough to take down CSG. Technology in US does not stand still and in almost 20 years they develop anti hypersonic defenses as well.

What is Pantsir SM or Buk-3 prepared to do now?

LMFS wrote:

Logic says you attack carriers instead of  fighters. You first use stand off weapons like 1,500km GZUR and or Kh-50. VSTOL fighters with radius ~1000km are more than enough for this purpose.  All you can do is locally try to defend  own ships. At most.

You are contradicting yourself, this scenario is a no go for RuN according to you.

and precisely where do I contradict myself?

LMFS wrote:Same old random, lame excuses. Fact is F-35B has worse TO performance in US flattops than MiG-29K on the Kuznetsov and that's it, despite being 30 years younger in conception and being STOVL. That means in needs the full deck to take off, voiding any advantage it could have in operational tempo. To me, this is an utter failure in terms of TO performance.

Well, the same crap about MiG-29k again. F-35B has better permanence on QE2 then MiG-29k on KUZ. TO is shorter more then 2x.
Since Yak had 60m without skijump. New Russian vSTOL is likely to be better, much better.

LMFS wrote:

it's OK if you dotn see 300% TO strip difference.

The one you just made up? No I don't see it.

which story do you mean? this one abut "flying concrete slabs flying around landing Yak"? I dont make up stories about VSTOL.
But no worries Russian Navy sees VSTOL value and that's why decided to discontinue obsolete and poorly serviceable MiGs
and replace by promising VSTOLS.

skijump can decrease TO by half in case of F-35B? to 450ft in wors scenario to 300ft in good.

Do you have sources?




Requirements as per 2015 official documents (https://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/4e5324/f35_december_2015_selected_acquisition_report_sar/)


+ here
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/f-35b-lightning-ii-fly-with-raf

LMFS wrote:

Well not sure about how you imagine how carrier works, that there is one single runway all over the deck?

In a ship with a relatively narrow deck and with 250 length m where a F-35B needs >200 m for take off, tell me how many planes can TO, land or even be parked in TO positions at the same time.

Well it is somehow resolved by USMC . Apparently ti is not 200m+ - since it is classified. It is alos not my greatest concern as long as it wont be Russian CVNs case. Russians will most likely keep skijumps (vide Kuz, QE2) and we know nothing about deck size either. Cheaper then deck arresters IMHO (also tried for Yaks - 7m STOL)

LMFS wrote:

BAR Landing?  VSTOL and landing is again better MiG- 150m-90m  arrested,  F-35B - 175ft i.e. 53m rolling or vertical.

STOVL has an advantage in landing. Been saying that for weeks or months already.

so better in start and landing by 200-300% and you still dont see advantage for navies?

LMFS wrote:

not reflecting reality,
Chinese are switching from STOBAR to CATOBAR and VSTOL.

Do not think they are abandoning STOBAR any time soon, they are building a new STOBAR carrier now and Liaoning is pretty new. But they are developing CATOBAR true, and will use STOVL for their assault ships, as any rational planer would do.

abandoning in new designs doesnt mean existing are going ot be discarded immediately. Same with MiGs on KUZ.

LMFS wrote:

Russians decided to switch from STOBAR  to VSTOL

This is what you say. Please provide the quote where MoD declares they abandon STOBAR for STOVL, maybe I missed something.

so now skijump is more important than MiG-29k? I meant conventional fighters (vide obsolete MiG-29k) wont be there, skijump most likely remains.
and why why BAR for VSTOL? as extra catcher? perhaps but unlikely.

LMFS wrote:

France? Of course then only one French carrier with 100% US CATOBAR tech. Do you suggest Russia should buy form USA? BTW France has 0.1 deck fighters of USMC and cannot afford  second carrier so far.

France not doing as you would like so they must be idiots, I now.

of course not. France as low level vassal of US they can buy from US awacs+cat. Thus not wasting resources on developing own EMALS. Fighter will be half or (rather more ) paid by Germans. Good deal IMHO.
But what does it have to do wit Russia?

LMFS wrote:

US has military budget by order of magnitude higher then Russians yet they still use CATOBAR + VSTOL.

Yes, STOVL for USMC as support of expeditionary forces and CATOBAR for USN  against high-end threats, as I said.

oops you forgot to mention US has 15x bigger military budget by nominal value and "only" 8 times higher in PPP.

LMFS wrote:

Bogdan should have blamed Russian energy-maneuverability doctrine not Su-57      

He is not blaming the plane, just saying that modern air combat is going to be extremely fast and demanding. Hence the intellectual support the plane provides to the pilot.

no worries, 10? 115? years from now on and no pilots might be needed

LMFS wrote:

based on level of unification?  and not me but me Russian engineers.  
Su-33 was a serious redesign of Su-27. canards, wings surface, hull, engines. Requirement was: as much as possible unify with T-10 frame. I dotn know what ill be level of unification  if any .  I mean with airframe not engines, avionics or weapons.

So you know it can be done, only have no clue how. I guess that closes the discussion about STOVL Su-57. Have the courage of making a concrete proposal for us to criticize instead of hiding behind excuses.

\

you are always talking about proposals? proposal of precisely what?! i am no aerospace engineer neither are you. How and what would you require?
STOL Su-57 can be? we'll live to see what OAK

LMFS wrote:OK evidence established:
1) MiG-29k has poor serviceability in Indian Navy

Luckily we have recent news to debunk all this crap about the Indians:[/quote]

good news then ! it is not that much crap then, only medicore performance and being obsolete
I really hope RuAF procures 2-3 squadrons of MG-25 perhaps then Indians could buy 126+ production lines?

Tsavo Lion wrote:
At a certain base in California, I didn't notice any damage on the runway caused by Harriers doing test VTOLs. They were used on ships for decades w/o causing major deck damage.
Many of them were stationed in MCASs Yuma, AZ before the F-35Bs:

c'mon that's state's propaganda BTW I wonder if USN will consider ever F-35B

Another interesting this is is Russian VSTOL will be 1 or 2 engines?

There is no real scale economy in CVN business, which is going to build 2 or 3 units of a type. They are built, fitted and tested one by one, not in a serial production.

The Nimitz class CVNs were built in batches of 3, 5, & 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier#Ships_in_class

The Ford class CVNs will repeat that:
There are expected to be ten ships of this class. To date, five have been announced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier#Ships_in_class

Series production reduces their overall costs.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Russia didnt announce anything yet. Unless one interview with manager form shipyard you take as official.

Statements from industry people with name and reputation at stake are not a bad source to me. There have been repeated reports that Russia is developing EMALS. I am completely neutral to the issue to be honest, if there was a simpler solution I would prefer it, the thing is military planers of the main nations seem to have clear ideas about its need.

Great,  then we both agree that EMALS might eventually can materialize but it is announcement only if MoD says - money in allocated and programme started. Anyway we'll see within next ~6 months what concept won this round of MoD CVN competition.  Will it be SHTORM or similar then likely catapult, will it be something small well then no.

LMFS wrote:

France is negotiating with USA so they didn't actually announce anything about their own.

So they are taking the needed steps to have EMALS, which is BTW critical for the type of carrier and naval aircraft they are planning to use. Own development or not is not the matter here, they are in NATO after all.

I'm afraid that money is the major determent from development on their own. US they have spent so far ~$1bn on EMALS,
AWACS platform? A-400M is what €10bn? lest slash it to 1/3 or AWACS so we have cost of 1 new carrier by investing in emals and awacs platforms alone!


France luckily for themselves can just buy all for a fraction of price. Russia from the other hand has to develop all by itself. This is not only money question but also taking human resources from other projects.
I frankly  dont see here any resources'  spent justification. Especially with small number carriers envisaged.

LMFS wrote:

US and China budgets are well beyond Russian one. By order of magnitude US and Chinese soon too.

Effectiveness of Russian procurement is also an order of magnitude better than American one. But nobody is talking about 10 or 11 100kT Russian CVNs. We have discussed the costs estimations and they are in line with what the navy has at disposal, you can think what you want of course.

no wonder that they asked USC to prepare small universal carriers' plans. Building big carriers with tiny amount of escort ships, little subs makes little sense, it is similar to me being midget and giant in one. Especially that Russian carriers wont ever have any chances in sea battles with USN.For all other tasks small ships will be enough.

LMFS wrote:

Besides in US and China there is economy of scale which in Russian case wont be ever.

There is no real scale economy in CVN business, which is going to build 2 or 3 units of a type. They are built, fitted and tested one by one, not in a serial production. Of course first unit will take more time than subsequent but that is all.

and for each CVN US  designs new AWACS, catapults, reactors, software, radars? you know development of this is couple of billions + you still need to develop LHS equipment and radars and all stuff.

LMFS wrote:

Building large CVNs makes absolutely no sense in Russian in any foreseeable future.

Depending what you call large. MoD has stated they intend to get carriers of about 70 kT.

so far I've heard admirals saying this not MoD. Admirals dotn have cash. But I always can be wrong here. BTW abut recent  USC news I dont think concept was prepared without MoD knowledge.


Lets be patient. spring 2019 shall unveil what concept won. I bet on 5( required) 3 agreed universal ships      

LMFS wrote:Please tell us how much cheaper the tenth unit of the Ford class will be compared to the third or fourth ones, so we see the difference between series sizes that could apply to Russia and to US. Just from intuition, the tenth unit will be built in 15-20 years with completely new systems and hence redesigned to a substantial degree (not serial production). But if you have better information I stand to be corrected of course.

Each carrier incorporates changes from its previous
sister ship. At times, the changes—the redesigned island and bulbous bow added to CVN 76, for example—are fairly significant; most changes, however, are minor, incorporating the latest equipment or weapon systems.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR948/MR948.chap7.pdf
 
That's why the r grouped in "subclass" categories. I don't have the data to break down the costs as u asked, but:
A figure of about 10% has sometimes been mentioned in
discussions of a two-ship buy, and might be viewed as a preliminary rough estimate of the combined savings from accelerating the procurement of CVN-81 and using a block buy contract
to procure both CVN-80 and CVN-81 (i.e., of using the third option above). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf

According to Vice Adm. Tom Moore, commander of Naval Sea Systems Command, purchasing two carriers at once has a historical precedent for reducing costs and expediting delivery. While it isn’t uncommon for smaller vessels to be purchased in bulk, or in “blocks,” the massive expense associated with just a single new carrier (projected to be $11.5 billion each) makes this methodology prohibitively expensive… unless the overall cost of developing the fleet is reduced by enough to make the initial cost of doubling an order worth it.
"The facts are pretty clear: when we’ve had a chance to do two-ship buys on the carrier side, with CVN-72 and 73 and then again with 74 and 75, in terms of the total cost performance of the ships and the number of man-hours it took to build those ships, within the Nimitz-class those four ships were built for the fewest man-hours and the lowest cost. So you’re clearly getting benefit out of that, but you have to balance it against the other competing needs of the budget.”
https://thenewsrep.com/101031/the-us-navy-is-considering-a-cost-saving-plan-to-buy-2-new-aircraft-carriers-this-year/

10% of $11.5B = $1.15B.
Maximum estimated Russian CVN will cost 250B rubles; at 10% savings= 25B rubles; but even 5%, or 12.5B rubles it would be still worth it! They'll need at least 4-6 of them anyway, & as quickly as possible:
https://army-news.ru/2018/12/grustnyj-vzglyad-na-vmf-rossii-eshhyo-chut-chut-o-krejserax/?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

Russia from the other hand has to develop all by itself.

Not necessarily- China is already ahead of them on this & could sell the technology. Why duplicate the effort? They r already developing an airliner & a heavy helicopter together. See corresponding treads.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:in this case, since you said that in Russia naval development you see long range fighters and emals the best way to sort it out is simply  quote of that fragment which mentions:
ELMALS, large CVNs  and only CATOBAR fighters.      

None of us has such statements in either way, don't be silly. CVs and LHDs are mentioned as separated items in the document, which makes sense since they cover different roles. Outside of the document, parallel to statements about LHDs and STOVL there are others about Su-57K, CVs and EMALS that cannot be ignored, that's all

There are no parallel statements. The only official statement so far  was: we replace Su-33 and MiG-29k by VSTOL fighter for our carriers.
If you believe in rumors , recent talk about the universal ship is to be carrier too. Why are you ignoring this message then? selective hearing I suspect.

LMFS wrote:Requirements are 600 ft on US flat deck and 450 on UK ski-jump carrier, carrying 2 x 1000 lb JDAM and 2 x AIM-120, fuel for 450 NM radius mission. That is like 2.4 tons load and full fuel, still not clearly better than the MiG but we could make a simulation and check it out. There is not going to be a huge difference in favour of any of the two I think.

MiG-29k can even better! 125m ! ok then without any payload and i presume little fuel. F-35 lengt is defined fo rworst ocnditions or I am wrong? i wonder what MiG-29k can do in worst conditions from 195m runway...

LMFS wrote:This is as crappy a source as it gets and you know it. No weight indication so no clarification, MiGs also take off from short runs close to 100 m on the K.

same as F-35B vertically      

LMFA wrote: No idea how they will design their LHDs. No reason for not using springboard, agreed.

It is utmost stupidity since actually Brits were first to implement skijumps... USMC is that hard that doesn need europeon tech        

LMFS wrote:

Cheaper then deck arresters IMHO (also tried for Yaks - 7m  STOL)

Yeah no arrestors for STOVL on LHDs, otherwise they would be full blown carriers.

wait wait does it mean that VSTOL and arresters can make up a fully pledged CVN?      

LMFS wrote:

so better in start and landing by 200-300% and you still dont see advantage for navies?      

Maths are not your main strength I see. But STOVL is ok for navies in the assault support role as discussed.

Yak 60m - MiG-195m
F-35-90m MiG-195m

so what your math says? did you indent new one? kudos!

LMFS wrote:Check out the rolling landing on the QE by the way and tell me how much space they save. In terms of TO as proved above they save practically nothing.

Mig-29 -   90-150m (wiki)
F-35B   -  53m  - link I've  already quoted couple of times.

so what did you say about math? no difference?

LMFS wrote:

abandoning in new designs doesnt mean existing are going ot be discarded immediately. Same with MiGs on KUZ.

Chinese are both modifying the J-15 for CATOBAR operations and developing the J-31 which is hinted as future naval fighter. In contrast, they spoke a couple of times about the STOVL. Roughly the same state of development of PAK-FA in year 2000 or 2001, supposing the program will go forward.

hmm J-15 is outgoing one based on Su-27 . Made in tatatdaaam 40 units (Chinese wiki). this unlikely wil be main fighter for future 10 Chinese carriers. Will it be J-31 nobody knows yet. OK Chinese do.

But how does it influence Russian any status I sincerely dont know. Chinese have their own "weight", budget, resources and plans.

LMFS wrote:

LMFS wrote:

Russians decided to switch from STOBAR  to VSTOL

so now skijump is more important than MiG-29k?      

MiG-29K will be used because is already bought, we don't give a damn about it but it is what RuN has at disposal now. And it is capable and perfectly ok for the next years, stop going full drama queen about it.

adequate you mean? of course it is. BTW me a drama queen ?      

LMFS wrote:France is IMO the Western country with the best understanding of national power elements, specially in what regards to military development. So not exactly the lowest level vassal, rather the contrary, and very probably US would be happier with France being less demanding and settling for lesser naval aspirations, but countering Germany has its costs.

you mean France countering Germany?!  or US? OK as for France I've made a mistake. A vassal. I didnt say in any case a willing vassal.  Germany is not a vassal of US. It is an occupied country. I bet German naval ambitions will grow once US occupation weakens.

Alliance with France is the way to achieve this.  Both countries have natural need to protect themselves from US/UK. And the same time no global  ambitions so Russia is not thei natural enemy as for Anglosaxons.

LMFS wrote:

good news then ! it is not that much crap then, only medicore performance and being obsolete      

I can feel your sincere happiness about this success of the Russian defence industry  

of course  I do !  one failed navalization of MiG-29k  is an exception and in any case not a rule for Russian MIC. Im sure that MiG
has improved its quality before started to market MiG-35.  
MiG-35 should  be a decent fighter. Unfortunately appeared for RussianAF 10-15 years too late.

Tsavo Lion wrote: They'll need at least 4-6 of them anyway, & as quickly as possible:

well they need is one thing what kind and how many Russia decides to fiel dit another. In case this "universal 4 roles ship" wins competion I bet on 5 requested ships (mostlikely 3 granted budget)to is is only my betting now

Tsavo wrote:

]Russia from the other hand has to develop all by itself.

Not necessarily- China is already ahead of them on this & could sell the technology. Why duplicate the effort? They r already developing an airliner & a heavy helicopter together. See corresponding treads.

I know but I dotn see anytime soon any serious military cooperation in building new models. IMHO if any India could be first choice as for joint project (vide Brahmos i and II, T-90, Su-30MKI, Ka-226)

Will it be SHTORM or similar then likely catapult, will it be something small well then no.

A small carrier would need EMALS more than a bigger ship...

US they have spent so far ~$1bn on EMALS,

So $50 million of Russian investment money should do the job...

Not necessarily- China is already ahead of them on this & could sell the technology. Why duplicate the effort? They r already developing an airliner & a heavy helicopter together. See corresponding treads.

Because Chinese requirements are unlikely to match Russian requirements...

Besides Russia wants new technology... not improved old Soviet technology.

MiG-35 should be a decent fighter. Unfortunately appeared for RussianAF 10-15 years too late.

Lucky EU and US waste time with dead end F-35 super expensive dog then.

IMHO if any India could be first choice as for joint project

A light 5th gen fighter would be interesting, but with India it would take 10 years to write out the agreement to develop and then another 20 years to actually make the damn thing.


And even then after 15 years they still might cancel.