Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

Tsavo Lion wrote:The USN saved $Ms on the E-2 COD replacement with the USMC V-22s used for COD. Later, the Navy variant will be inducted. Also, they now can land on deck at night, something those E-2s were restricted to do.

its true that MC considers tiltrotors in AEW/attack craft / transport aircraft functions but isnt it that V-280 is one of prototypes for evaluation. tilt rotor vs helicopter?

Not yet, necessarily the winner.

V-22 was also interested by the fleet aviation: they saw in it as more effective in ASW than helicopters. In addition, this platform is considered as a “flying radar” for universal landing craft
[amphib.assault ships].
https://iz.ru/784712/denis-komarovskii/sheveli-vintami-zachem-vdv-mashina-kak-u-amerikantcev

In Russia, FSB Border Guards & MVD/MChS (Emergency Situations Ministry) + ambulance services/firefighters may also be interested in them.

Even for the USN, If carriers have a future, it’s in STOBAR (“Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery”) ships. They’re smaller, cheaper, less vulnerable, and over the last 75 years aircraft have been developed that don’t need a thousand feet of deck to take off from or land on.
https://original.antiwar.com/thomas-knapp/2019/03/05/aircraft-carriers-give-truman-and-ford-a-burial-at-sea/

https://ria.ru/20190309/1551600571.html

The VMF will have a mix of UDKs & STOBAR TAKRs before any NP EMALS equipped ship appears.

Smaller is not less vulnerable... that is like saying having a fleet of 1,000 Corvettes is less vulnerable than a normal fleet because they are likely to escape all being destroyed, whereas bigger heavier better protected ships will all be destroyed.

Well the honest facts of the matter is that nothing is invulnerable and everything can be destroyed, but during peace time which is the majority of its normal time in use a bigger ship will be vastly more useful than a smaller or several smaller ships.

A smaller ship is a smaller target; the smaller the target, the harder it is to find, identify & hit it. No need to be a naval expert to understand this simple fact.

Tsavo Lion wrote:A smaller ship is a smaller target; the smaller the target, the harder it is to find, identify & hit it. No need to be a naval expert to understand this simple fact.

Depend how you look for it. Radar waves can be detected at 2x max their detection range with passive radars. Then you'd prefere to be in a big ship with powerfull radars and weapons than in a corvette.

GarryB wrote:
Well the honest facts of the matter is that nothing is invulnerable and everything can be destroyed, but during peace time which is the majority of its normal time in use a bigger ship will be vastly more useful than a smaller or several smaller ships.

of course ! Yamato is the best example. Biiig is goooD

Regarding rifles, I failed to mention StG44:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44#Users



The bigger they r, the harder they fall (sink). With more crew/planes, more casualties & losses. The last event was the sinking of Gen. Belgrano in 1982, killing 323 Argentine crewmen.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/9233976/Thirty-years-on-Argentine-survivors-of-the-Belgrano-sinking-recall-the-moment-Falklands-war-erupted-around-them.html

A smaller ship is a smaller target; the smaller the target, the harder it is to find, identify & hit it. No need to be a naval expert to understand this simple fact.

But also much less well armed and less well protected and therefore much easier to hit and destroy, and not really always worth hitting if there are more interesting targets to hit.

A corvette might not be a more appealing target than a cruiser, but a cruiser is just a more useful and much much more powerful asset to the navy it operates with.

Suggesting corvettes are some how superior is like saying the Iranian navy speed boats armed with HMGs 2,000 of those are better than a destroyer or a cruiser... that is a terrible argument... but I can understand a western military expert suggesting it, because it supports their ideas of swarm attacks with cheap simple drones... problem is that so far it all appears to be just talk.

of course ! Yamato is the best example. Biiig is goooD

It is proof that having impressive looking gear on paper is not good enough... repeated in Yemen with Saudi Soldiers in Abrams tanks getting their arses kicked by tribesmen in jandals...

Regarding rifles, I failed to mention StG44:

What has that to do with anything?

Its basic mechanism is a rough copy of the SKS design which is also very similar to the FN FAL design... the SKS's design came from the PTRS-41 anti tank rifle of 1941 and was simply scaled down.

The designs of many German weapons were taken directly from Soviet designs... the Tokarev was directly copied... the Panther tank is basically a German over engineered T-34... just look at the side profiles and reverse the angle of the rear engine deck...

The bigger they r, the harder they fall (sink). With more crew/planes, more casualties & losses. The last event was the sinking of Gen. Belgrano in 1982, killing 323 Argentine crewmen.

Of course... the WWII era Belgrano could have sunk that British SSN if only it was smaller...   

So if smaller vessels are so powerful and effective.... where are all the American corvettes?

By the same token, big USN CV/Ns were stalked within torpedo range by Soviet, Swedish & Chinese subs.
The MIC won't profit as much from small ships. They got rid of their CGNs to avoid excessive operating/refueling costs & ordered CGs instead. The LCSs have their role:
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/

However,
..the Littoral Combat Ship program has been a failure. The Navy needs to change course as soon as it possibly can and replace the design with a more capable and survivable frigate that features a potent area air defense capability.

..Nuclear supercarriers are also extremely costly to operate, and their availability is based around a highly rigid and complex timetable. The recent carrier gap has proven just how little elasticity there is in America's all supercarrier force. A mix of supercarriers and smaller carriers in the 65,000 ton class would allow for a more flexible overall aircraft carrier force, with greater strike capacity being able to be deployed on short notice. ..
The Navy could still procure the F-35, but in the form of the B variant, alongside purchasing smaller America class derivative carriers as part of an overall revamp of the Navy's current carrier/carrier air wing force mixture. In fact, a supercarrier loaded with advanced UCAVs, Super Hornets, Growlers and Hawkeyes, paired with a modified America class "Lightning Carrier" loaded with F-35Bs, may represent the best of both worlds. Under such an arrangement, a full variant of the F-35 could be eliminated from production—and the most expensive one at that—the F-35C.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9224/7-revolutionary-hardware-changes-the-us-navy-should-make-in-the-trump-era

The VMF doesn't need super CVNs & can accomplish its mission with UDK/TAKR hybrids.

GarryB wrote:

of course ! Yamato is the best example. Biiig is goooD

It is proof that having impressive looking gear on paper is not good enough... repeated in Yemen with Saudi Soldiers in Abrams tanks getting their arses kicked by tribesmen in jandals...

true, especially that neither Shtorm nor Abrams were not designed to colonial wars.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
Under such an arrangement, a full variant of the F-35 could be eliminated from production—and the most expensive one at that—the F-35C.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9224/7-revolutionary-hardware-changes-the-us-navy-should-make-in-the-trump-era

Most expensive version of F-35 is the STOVL one

LMFS wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:
Under such an arrangement, a full variant of the F-35 could be eliminated from production—and the most expensive one at that—the F-35C.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9224/7-revolutionary-hardware-changes-the-us-navy-should-make-in-the-trump-era

Most expensive version of F-35 is the STOVL one

yet still more F-35B is in plans then F-35C

Most expensive version of F-35 is the STOVL one

Not if u include EMALS & the 3 planned CVNs that will use it.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Most expensive version of F-35 is the STOVL one

Not if u include EMALS & the 3 planned CVNs that will use it.

Nice try to internalize all those costs into the F-35C
USN strategy calls for creation of CVNs with EMALS as a way of their power projection capabilities not being overshadowed by any other nation. F-35C is just a plane going to use them, but far from being the only one needing catapults or the reason why USN does not use STOVL overall. F/A-18, NGAD, MQ-25, E-2D, X-47B all use or will use catapults too. Only LHA/LHD vessels of USMC meant to operate as support and under the CVN umbrella use F-35B. Not going to open the debate again about CV/STOVL capabilities, these are the simple facts.

Still, there'll be a lot more F-35Cs ordered than F-35Bs, so their overall costs r higher. If there were some STOBAR CVs, F-35C/Bs & all those other aircraft &/ tiltrotor versions of them could still be launched.
To save $5.5Bs, they proposed to retire the USS Truman to help pay for the Ford class CVNs:
https://www.richmond.com/opinion/our-opinion/editorial-an-early-retirement-for-uss-truman/article_e1293fab-b221-5785-84df-ddbbb0c9d5b2.html

A few years ago, it was the same with the CVN-73.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Still, there'll be a lot more F-35Cs ordered than F-35Bs,

Gunship wrote:yet still more F-35B is in plans then F-35C

Who should I believe?  

If there were some STOBAR CVs, F-35C/Bs & all those other aircraft &/ tiltrotor versions of them could still be launched.

> Fighters and high T/W ratio planes can indeed be launched from springboard, even fully loaded, given they have very powerful engines. F/A-18 E/F can achieve it from long runs in a STOBAR carrier, F-35Cs T/W value is even lower so min speed should be better. NGAD should have very powerful engines but given they focus on long range it is not clear what T/W ratio will result.
> The other planes have no chance from a springboard, so should be replaced with tiltrotor or STOVL versions

To save $5.5Bs, they proposed to retire the USS Truman to help pay for the Ford class CVNs:
https://www.richmond.com/opinion/our-opinion/editorial-an-early-retirement-for-uss-truman/article_e1293fab-b221-5785-84df-ddbbb0c9d5b2.html

A few years ago, it was the same with the CVN-73.

Not sure what is your point here

Who should I believe?

It's less by 13 F-35Cs, but more by 1,750 if u unclude the F-35As:
In total, the DOD plans to purchase 2,456 F-35s: 1,763 F-35As for the USAF; 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs for the Marine Corps; and 273 F-35Cs for the USN.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dod-reveals-f-35-multiyear-procurement-strategy-to-s-447785/

The USAF & USN/MC budgets come from the $ allocated to the DOD.
These plans may be revised & changed from year to year.

The other planes.. should be replaced with tiltrotor or STOVL versions

that's what I tried to say with &/ symbols.

Not sure what is your point here

The Ford class with EMALS,etc. is more expensive than the Nimitz class CVNs, & it haven't been proven yet with a lot things need fixing.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
In total, the DOD plans to purchase 2,456 F-35s: 1,763 F-35As for the USAF; 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs for the Marine Corps; and 273 F-35Cs for the USN.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dod-reveals-f-35-multiyear-procurement-strategy-to-s-447785/

which is F35B 353 vs. 340 F35C in the USA


+ Royal Navy + RAF 138 (RAF is bitching but didn't hear anything they gave up yet)
+ Italian Navy 30
+ Japanese Navy (? 40? 50?)

For UK && Japs  && Italians that would be then only type of deck fighter.

We should also add the cost of additional new & upgraded F-18E/Fs as they r heavier than F-18C/Ds & won't be able to use the STOBAR at full warloads.
According to its latest budget request for the 2019 fiscal year and associated documentation, the Navy intends to purchase 110 new F/A-18E/F aircraft in the Block III configuration over a four year period. The service also plans to upgrade at least a portion of its 540 existing Super Hornets to the new standard as part of a service life modification program, or SLM, that will run through at least 2025. ..
As it stands now, the Navy remains the primary Super Hornet customer and is set to operate the jets for years to come.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21045/here-is-boeings-master-plan-for-the-f-a-18e-f-super-hornets-future

Altogether, the Navy intends to modify more than 500 Block II Super Hornets into the Block III configuration and build 116 new Block III aircraft by 2024, ..
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-navys-new-block-iii-super-hornet-could-crush-chinas-25964
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet#Specifications_(F/A-18E/F)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet#Specifications_(F/A-18C/D)

By the same token, big USN CV/Ns were stalked within torpedo range by Soviet, Swedish & Chinese subs.

Those same subs stalked any size carrier so I don't understand your point?

Are you suggesting that the better policy of the US Navy would be to get rid of their 70-100K carriers and similar large through deck carriers and replace them each with half a dozen small carriers with VSTOLs and helos because Soviet subs would never be able to sink 60 carriers instead of 13.

I find it amusing you would think more carriers would be cheaper than less, or that a smaller carrier would be as capable as a larger carrier.

The MIC won't profit as much from small ships.

I would say there would be even more profit in smaller ships if you have to make four or five or even six times more... getting to rip off the US military 4-6 times instead of 1 means much more opportunity for graft and corruption...

The VMF doesn't need super CVNs & can accomplish its mission with UDK/TAKR hybrids.

You keep suggesting that but it does not make it true.

The Russians would be better off not making the same mistake the Americans made with the F-35B, which if you check is actually the most expensive F-35 model and removing that piece of crap from the inventory could have saved the whole programme because design and features were all skewed dramatically to cater for the Bs VSTOL capacity... they could have ended up with a tight little capable design... a stealthy F-16, but ended up with a dog.

yet still more F-35B is in plans then F-35C

Yeah, their stupidity knows no bounds...

Not if u include EMALS & the 3 planned CVNs that will use it.

If the US Navy wants to operate F-18s and Hawkeyes from their carriers they will need EMALS to do so as both types require assisted takeoffs.

Russia is looking at EMALS so it can operate AWACS platforms from their ships but their fighter aircraft already operate without cat assistance and no doubt any future fighter that is based on a 5th gen design will not need it either.

Still, there'll be a lot more F-35Cs ordered than F-35Bs, so their overall costs r higher.

Doesn't change the facts that the B model is the most complicated, most fragile, lowest performing and most expensive model of the F-35.

Buying extra of the cheaper type so you actually end up spending more money is just common sense, because you would get fewer if you bought the B model with the same amount of money and they would be crashing all the time too.

> Fighters and high T/W ratio planes can indeed be launched from springboard, even fully loaded, given they have very powerful engines. F/A-18 E/F can achieve it from long runs in a STOBAR carrier, F-35Cs T/W value is even lower so min speed should be better. NGAD should have very powerful engines but given they focus on long range it is not clear what T/W ratio will result.

Soviet planes are in a better position here because their payloads are for air to air combat and they don't have ridiculous figures for payload options as released by their marketing divisions like the F-35B...

In total, the DOD plans to purchase 2,456 F-35s: 1,763 F-35As for the USAF; 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs for the Marine Corps; and 273 F-35Cs for the USN.

So why are the US MC buying inferior F-35Cs?

The Ford class with EMALS,etc. is more expensive than the Nimitz class CVNs, & it haven't been proven yet with a lot things need fixing.

It is America... when was the last time they introduced new technology that was cheaper than the stuff it replaced?

EMALS is a whole generation ahead of the steam punk steam cat system it is replacing... lots of new technology and lots of new lessons to learn... never going to happen over night... or even a couple of months.

But then they haven't got supersonic anti ship missiles either... go figure...

which is F35B 353 vs. 340 F35C in the USA


+ Royal Navy + RAF 138 (RAF is bitching but didn't hear anything they gave up yet)
+ Italian Navy 30
+ Japanese Navy (? 40? 50?)

So lets put money on it... F-35B = 353 + 138 + 30 + 50 = 571

                                      F-35C = 340

So price for the B model is $115.5 million per aircraft including engine, so that is almost 66 billion dollars on a fragile crash prone low performing piece of crap, and the C model is $107.7 million per aircraft including engine, so that is about 36 and a half billion... so WTF were you talking about cheaper option?

Cheaper for whom?

We should also add the cost of additional new & upgraded F-18E/Fs as they r heavier than F-18C/Ds & won't be able to use the STOBAR at full warloads.

But that is the point they don't have any current AWACS platforms that can operate without CATOBAR, so there is no point in going for VSTOL everything because the only fixed wing carrier in their navy that doesn't currently have CATOBAR is the Ford. The other cat systems still work fine.

All this bullshit about Americas navy is just that... their experience and situation mean nothing for Russia.

American experience is meaningless for Russia.

Russia is not an imperialist bully that wants to bludgeon its way to pursue its national interests at the expense of all others like the US of A is/does.

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Ford class with EMALS,etc. is more expensive than the Nimitz class CVNs, & it haven't been proven yet with a lot things need fixing.

Let's wait to see what China (and eventually Russia) does in this regard. US' weapons development as of late is not a model of efficiency exactly. But the system will eventually be brought to maturity. Russia is in no hurry with EMALS, as their current fighters can operate from STOBAR carriers. They can start working on the carrier issue and take a look at catapults without hurrying up. Maybe there could be left reserve space and installation provisions on their eventual new carriers for later retrofit. Almost everything is possible if considered during design phase and correctly planed.

We should also add the cost of additional new & upgraded F-18E/Fs as they r heavier than F-18C/Ds & won't be able to use the STOBAR at full warloads.

E/F versions have coherently more powerful engines than C/D ones. Boeing said the plane could use the Vikramaditya at full load. Saying crap about STOBAR is reserved for criticising the Russians, when the game is about selling fighters to India then STOBAR is no problem you know...

GarryB wrote:Soviet planes are in a better position here because their payloads are for air to air combat and they don't have ridiculous figures for payload options as released by their marketing divisions like the F-35B...

And now Su-33 will apparently receive more powerful engines and improve TO performance further. On the other hand, it will be turned into multimode fighter, Russia is indeed interested too in being able to use their navy for strike roles. But as far as I know they don't have expectations of using them against the territory of peer countries as their deluded US "partners" still do

Those same subs stalked any size carrier so I don't understand your point?

U insisted that a bigger ship/CVN can defend itself better, but it's not true vs. subs.

Soviet subs would never be able to sink 60 carriers instead of 13.

They r Russian now; I doubt there will be a direct conflict; it's harder to target more smaller CVs than few big CVNs. A mix of them gives better deployability & flexibility. A CVN can stay at sea longer but must stay in the yards longer. The famous swordsman M. Musashi used both long & short swords & never lost to another swordsman as they all used only a long 1.

Yeah, their stupidity knows no bounds...

R u a genius that knows more than them? Did u invent anything or created a masterpiece? R u super rich?
VTOL fighters r at least good enough short-medium term solution which is better than nothing. Politics r involved there too- the RN & JMSDF can't ask for $ from the taxpayers for very expensive CATOBAR CV/Ns that may or may not be useful against China, Korea, Iran, Argentina, or Russia.

If the US Navy wants to operate F-18s and Hawkeyes from their carriers they will need EMALS to do so as both types require assisted takeoffs.

If they had STOBAR CVs with STOVLs & tiltrotor AWACSs, less of them would be needed.

Russia is looking at EMALS so it can operate AWACS platforms from their ships..

If they r not successful & no CVN is built in time, or if they decide not to waste $, tiltrotor AWACS could eliminate the need for EMALS & fixed wing AWACS/CODs. Heavier quadrotors could even have better performance. The only other economical use for fixed wing AWACS/COD airframes is in firefighting, while tiltrotors have dozens of mil. & civ. applications, esp. in the vast road-less Northern Eurasia, just like Mi-2/-4/-6/-8/-17/-26s & Kamov helos.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-2#Variants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-4#Variants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-6#Variants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-8#Basic_military_transport/airframe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-17#Variants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26#Variants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kamov_aircraft

..because you would get fewer if you bought the B model with the same amount of money and they would be crashing all the time too.

It's not all about $, & it's not a given that they'll crash at the same rate as the older STOVLs or more often than CTOLs.

So why are the US MC buying inferior F-35Cs?

They r superior on CATOBAR, at superior prices if the costs of CVNs & EMALS r included, which even the US has trouble paying for.

Cheaper for whom?

To those who can't afford CATOBAR CV/Ns & don't want to expose those expensive behemoths to aid marines storming & securing the beaches!

..they don't have any current AWACS platforms that can operate without CATOBAR, so there is no point in going for VSTOL everything..

They can cut their lo$$es by developing V-22 AWACSs & retiring a few increasingly useless CVNs, instead of keeping them for decades & spending $Bs on their RCOHs.
Given the size of an aircraft carrier and the number of systems and subsystems it has, an RCOH is extremely complex, costly (several billion dollars), and time-consuming. Each RCOH is planned to take 46 months.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refueling_and_overhaul#Refueling_and_Complex_Overhaul

During that time, other CVNs must spend longer time at sea & some change their home ports between E.,W. coasts & Japan, which ads to wear & tear causing more accidents/casualties, & their crews' families must relocate, for which the Navy pays. All these costs ad up, negating most, if not all, of the savings of not having & operating STOVLs & STOBAR CVs.
The Brits & Japanese r not more stupid than the Americans. So r the Russians & Chinese.
However, if a resurgent Russian defense industry chooses to move forward with a carrier-based VTOL aircraft, at least one Russian legislator has called for the Yak-141 to be revived , most likely with a stealthier new look for a new Cold War.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-dna-does-f-35-owe-some-its-inspiration-mysterious-jetn-46712

The Defense Ministry is discussing the creation of a new aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing, the project for the creation of which was frozen in the 90s. This was announced during the MAKS-2017 by Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov.
According to the deputy minister, the creation of such an aircraft is expected at the final stage of the state rearmament program in 2018-2025.
Borisov noted that we are talking about the revival of the series of SVPPs developed in the Yakovlev Design Bureau. According to experts, when creating a new aircraft can be used technological groundwork, accumulated during the ROC to create the Yak-141 - carrier-based aircraft with vertical take-off and landing.
https://life.ru/t/%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8F/1027820/minoborony_mozhiet_viernut_k_zhizni_iak-141

GarryB wrote:yet still more F-35B is in plans then F-35C

Yeah, their stupidity knows no bounds...[/quote]

but there are, outta there , guardians from Marvell who ensure nobody will support VSTOL ever! especially in  Russia.
Your callsign will be Thanos. Oh sorry Thanos is already taken but Theanus is still free for you tho    

GB wrote:Russia is looking at EMALS

is not, unless 3 dudes browsing internet 9-17 is what you mean by "looking" .

GB wrote:

In total, the DOD plans to purchase 2,456 F-35s: 1,763 F-35As for the USAF; 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs for the Marine Corps; and 273 F-35Cs for the USN.

So why are the US MC buying inferior F-35Cs?

interchangeability with USN? keeping price of F-35C down?

GB in The.Anus suit wrote:
So lets put money on it... F-35B = 353 + 138 + 30 + 50 = 571

                                      F-35C = 340

So price for the B model is $115.5 million per aircraft including engine, so that is almost 66 billion dollars on a fragile crash prone low performing piece of crap, and the C model is $107.7 million per aircraft including engine, so that is about 36 and a half billion... so WTF were you talking about cheaper option?

Cheaper for whom?

USMC orders 353 F-35B. LHD carries  ~24/per ship , Wasp class  $1,5B per ship
USN 3orders 340 F-35C.  Say max 70 Per Ford class, $14B per ship  

Option............................costs
F35B.............................15.*...$1,5B..=.$22,5B
F35C...............................5x.*.$14B...=.$70B


Not  much cheaper. Only $50B ..    

GarryB wrote: American experience is meaningless for Russia.

Indeed ! that's why both  emals and CVNs are pretty useless for Russians. Thank you for confirmation.