Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Tsavo Lion wrote:Thanks to others for good answers to GarryB, & here r mine to these:

GarryB wrote:
More to the point they want new aircraft not upgraded old ones...
... and if there is no rush then take the time to develop real carriers that can sail around the world... not carriers that have to stop every three weeks to refuel and rearm because Russia does not have access to friendly ports world wide... look at NATO/EU ports during their short hop to Syria... they need nuke powered carriers and nuke powered destroyers and cruisers...Why would Russia send navy pilots to train in China? They have the naval training base in Sevastopol and the one they created in Russia when the Ukrainians said they couldn't use the one in the Crimea... so they have two land based training facilities... WTF would they train in China for?
Because it is not even developed for the bombers yet... to use it on a STOVL aircraft it will need to be adapted for vertical flight...
What do you think the cost of sending EOD teams to search the sea floor for ordinance would be?

The STOVLs will be used by both the Navy & Marines, like in other militaries- so their #s r not going to be determined only by the # of ships that'll carry them. On TAKRs/CVs, they can use the STOBAR.

For fucks sake if you are going to use them as STOBAR what the fuck is the point in spending money making them VTOL in the first place?

CVs can be resupplied with fuel, food & ammo. at sea by specialized ships, NP in the Med. isn't that essential now- like the Kiev class TAKRs had done: http://merelinc.com/images/048-soviet-naval/marine23.jpg https://dxczjjuegupb.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Russian-NAVY-Syria.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-g1citWAAA9NoF.jpg


After NITKA training, they'll still need to go to sea for real world ops, & there's no other TAKR while the Adm. K is laid up for 3 years, if not longer!  
TVC on Yak-141 (it & MiG-1.44 were still in development then, so   not "used", i.e r still new even after upgrading) take ages to adopt to a bomber engine. STOVLs will be primarily used on LHA/LHD ships & may go on STOBARs for added flexibility they offer, &/ if need to recover in emergencies, rearm, repair, etc.
MAD on helos/UAVs can be used to locate bombs on the ground &/ in the water, EODs then drop in & salvage them.
I'm not a smoker, period, & drink only at dinner time, after getting off line!

But without NPP, you won't have neither steam for catapults, nor enough electrical power for EM catapukt.

So it is a moot point, NPP is the best even if most expensive propulsion system for a carrier.

As a side note, providing a carrier with more than 150 MW of propulsive power only would require what? From six to eight gas turbines  with related space requirements, and a hell of fuel tanks.

A nuclear powered carrier not only spare a ridiculously huge amount of space, it could even act as a replenisher for its escorts: US carriers have used in the past their ballast tanks to store fuel to be offloaded to the escorts during long routes, replacing step by step the fuel with sea water.

In other words, not only a nuclear powered carrier has no limitations about the kind of aircrafts and/or UAV it launches, because it could have catapults, not only has a far greater endurance because it doesn't need to refuel while underway, not only has far larger spaces for stores, ammunitions, warhouses and so on because the whole propulsive system is far far more compact and requires a fraction of volumes compared to gas turbines and their fuel tanks.

It could even, at least while on transfer voyages through safe areas, provide some fuel to its escorts increasing their endurance too.

miketheterrible wrote:Key feature of vtol is that you don't need catapaults and fact you can fit more jets in tighter spaces. Also as seen before, even transport ships can be repurposed for an AC were such jets can take off from.

It's good Russia is investing in a vtol.

Well, with VTOL you could even spare weapons expenses, because VTOL aircrafts can barely take off at all, not to mention landing with some payload.

The only way to take off with some meaningful payload is Short Take Off, period.

And the only option to land with some payload still hanging from the wings or within the weapon bays is at least a rolling landing.

A pure vertical landing requires even in the F-35B, today the most modern STOVL combat aircraft existing and the reference mark in STOVL performances, to have fairly little fuel onboard and almost no weapons at all.

But I keep forgetting the truth: Russia will spend only a tiny fraction compared to the US, to develop a STOVL (or maybe even a VTOL) combat aircraft that will outperform in any conceivable parameter any other STOVL aircraft in the world, not to mention F-35B itself.

It will be so successful that it will defy Phisic's laws, and hordes of CiC of Air Forces around the world will hurry to concur first in funding its development, and then to order it by the hundreds.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I think russian  carrier aircraft should only be designed for air superiority to escort T-22Ms. Land and ship attack can be done by UKSKs and bombers.

So the future russian carriers will be able to cruise at more than 400 knots?

WOW!

Peŕrier wrote:


It's quite easy and simple:
An engine designed for STOVL operations (obviously the qualifying feature is the vertical landing) works in a completely new way in the landing phase.

It should swivel its nozzle downward around 90 degrees, at the very same time it has either to provide thrust for additional vertical jets, or should be coordinated with additional turbojets.

It means both heavy and deep mechanical modifications and a rewritten FADEC.

The whole system should then pass the whole testing and certification procedure, just like any new engine.

[]

So adapting any existing engine to STOVL operations will have costs and time, give or take, the same of developing a new engine.

 
Nobody says it is simple but for some reason Yak-43 (STOL) was plane to use NK-32. If you compare size and thrust NK-32 is more less counterpart to F135 family.  You need rework but nobody says you have to start from scratch.  Nk-32  can have thrust 245kN what is about right for such fighter to land vertically.

Not sure about how deep modifications have to go since F135 is  basically one engine.


BTW what kind of certifications do you mean for Russian military engines ?

I think russian  carrier aircraft should only be designed for air superiority to escort T-22Ms. Land and ship attack can be done by UKSKs and bombers.

So the future russian carriers will be able to cruise at more than 400 knots?

WOW!

  

Peŕrier wrote:


But without NPP, you won't have neither steam for catapults, nor enough electrical power for EM catapukt.

So it is a moot point, NPP is the best even if most expensive propulsion system for a carrier.

As for autonomy and endurance fully agreed NPP rulez. But why Russian should spend  2x Mistral costs to build 1 max 2 EM catapults alone?! Royal Navy resigned from catapults for a reason. And the reason was costs. Thus preferred  VSTOL fighters as cheaper variant instead. Why Russians should not learn of examples? 

New fighter will be developed anyway, Russians never built catapults, catapult costs helluva money (US EM cat costs 30x Karakurts), perhaps ensuring new fighter is STOL and eventually has VSTOL variant cost just less?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:


It's quite easy and simple:
An engine designed for STOVL operations (obviously the qualifying feature is the vertical landing) works in a completely new way in the landing phase.

It should swivel its nozzle downward around 90 degrees, at the very same time it has either to provide thrust for additional vertical jets, or should be coordinated with additional turbojets.

It means both heavy and deep mechanical modifications and a rewritten FADEC.

The whole system should then pass the whole testing and certification procedure, just like any new engine.

[]

So adapting any existing engine to STOVL operations will have costs and time, give or take, the same of developing a new engine.

Nobody says it is simple but for some reason Yak-43 (STOL) was plane to use NK-32. If you compare size and thrust NK-32 is more less counterpart to F135 family.  You need rework but nobody says you have to start from scratch.  Nk-32  can have thrust 245kN what is about right for such fighter to land vertically.

Not sure about how deep modifications have to go since F135 is  basically one engine.


BTW what kind of certifications do you mean for Russian military engines ?

It's quite easy: any engine not designed for vertical landings, will have to be heavily modified, and the results will have to be carefully tested and certified.

That means both a lot of money and a lot of times, because it is not like designing a new low pressure stage or a new fan for an existing engine. it means redesigning an engine adding brand new and additional parts, and modifying/adapting its performances on very specific conditions that were not foreseen in the original engine designing.

Than all the parts, and the performances in those new working regimes, should be tested and certified for military operational use: an engine, as any other complex item, could be accepted in service only if fulfilling not only required performances in terms, by example, of dry thrust or specific fuel consumption, but requirements about what storage provisions should be arranged for it, what are the precautions about employment of different oils, greases and fuels, what are the precautions about possible contaminations from chemicals, oils and any other substance that could be present in a military workshop located in an operational area and so on.

It takes months or years, only to demonstrate that the new item not only provide the expected performances, but is actually employable in the real world the way the military  expects it.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
As for autonomy and endurance fully agreed NPP rulez. But why Russian should spend  2x Mistral costs to build 1 max 2 EM catapults alone?! Royal Navy resigned from catapults for a reason. And the reason was costs. Thus preferred  VSTOL fighters as cheaper variant instead. Why Russians should not learn of examples?

New fighter will be developed anyway, Russians never built catapults, catapult costs helluva money (US EM cat costs 30x Karakurts), perhaps ensuring new fighter is STOL and eventually has VSTOL variant cost just less?

Because mistrals are amphibious ships, and the latter is an aircraft carrier. It's like comparing an An-72 to a Su-35, more or less.

Catapults don't cost a dramatic amount of money, but it's a heavy task to design reliable catapults, that's true.

Still catapults are the best option, whoever discarded them, did it because of the costs of nuclear propulsion, not the costs of catapults per se.

Any STOVL underdog will cost a magnitude higher amount of money to develop, and will anyway have less range, less payload, more development and building costs of a conventional fighter.

By the way, what a VSTOL is?

Very Short Take Off and Landing?

Peŕrier wrote:
It's quite easy: any engine not designed for vertical landings, will have to be heavily modified, and the results will have to be carefully tested and certified.

That means both a lot of money and a lot of times, because it is not like designing a new low pressure stage or a new fan for an existing engine. it means redesigning an engine adding brand new and additional parts, and modifying/adapting its performances on very specific conditions that were not foreseen in the original engine designing.


It takes months or years, only to demonstrate that the new item not only provide the expected performances, but is actually employable in the real world the way the military  expects it.
[/quite]

True but you didnt write anything was snot actually done in f35 programme. My question is different however.  So wheres the problem?  you got engine and VSTOL fighter that you can manufacture both for your navy, air force and sell it + technology of VSTOL for other possible planes/drones

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
As for autonomy and endurance fully agreed NPP rulez. But why Russian should spend  2x Mistral costs to build 1 max 2 EM catapults alone?! Royal Navy resigned from catapults for a reason. And the reason was costs. Thus preferred  VSTOL fighters as cheaper variant instead. Why Russians should not learn of examples?

New fighter will be developed anyway, Russians never built catapults, catapult costs helluva money (US EM cat costs 30x Karakurts), perhaps ensuring new fighter is STOL and eventually has VSTOL variant cost just less?

Catapults don't cost a dramatic amount of money, but it's a heavy task to design reliable catapults, that's true.

Still catapults are the best option, whoever discarded them, did it because of the costs of nuclear propulsion, not the costs of catapults per se.


By the way, what a VSTOL is?

Very Short Take Off and Landing?

You are intelligent guy but for some reason you dont want to answer my questions just wonder why 

I compare pure cost / benefit = catapult what benefit? 

a) nobody besides USA builds catapults now. For a reason isnt it?

b) Investing billion or so in catapult having to produce 1 max 2 examples iand even more to navalize fighter is surely right investment? Remember that USA hast vast experience and real AC testing abilities for catapult and Russia none of above. This makes costs /time overruns  even more probable. 

c) ACs are never gonna be built in large numbers Russian Navy. Those built in 2030s will serve well after 2050. Then unlikely any catapults will be in use  as no battleships are now.

d) navalizing land fighter was almost never practiced by US or British navy. There is always considerable cost of doing thatwith not always good results For decent numbers and large AC fleet it might have sense though.

Perrier wrote:
Any STOVL underdog will cost a magnitude higher amount of money to develop, and will anyway have less range, less payload, more development and building costs of a conventional fighter.

a) They are gonna build light fighter  in LMFS programme anyway. In decent numbers. Its already assumed that V/STOL option is seriously considered.  Which variant is to be chosen we need to live and see.

b) please show me "underdogness"  of parameters between F35B and Rafale M ? which exactly parameters make F35 so much worse? 
It's worth to mention that F35B is panned to ~500 units and Rafale so far how many ordered / produced =160 ?) 

c) V/STOL is trade off some parameters worse some unique. And actually those make it so much valuable for fleet where place is very expensive. 

BTW V/STOL is now better?  

I made a sketch of a possible STOVL  carrier borne fighter fitting the requirements of the Russian navy, the MiG-49. I know the profile looks a lot like the Su-57, but there are only so much stealth shapes that suit Russian requirements. Also my drawing skills aren't good.


My goals were to make the aircraft with spaced twin engines in order for it to use 3D TVC. However this configuration would be difficult to combine with STOVL capability. I was thinking whether for the two engines to have 2 separate lift fans, but I understood that this was impractical since:

-It would disrupt the air flow for the 2 engines
-It would be heavier than having 1 lift fan



However I couldn't think of a gear arrangement for the 2 engines to power the 1 lift fan, so instead of the lift fan the frontal lift would be done by a small independent turbofan jet engine that would be fed air from the main intakes.  The turbofan wouldn't need to be as powerful as the F-35B's lift fan since the Russian fighter would only use it for landing. The lack of a gear shaft would also save weight.

The back vertical thrust would be done by the thrust being diverted down through a lower door as you can see on the sketch. I however don't know if the engines should be moved forward so the final exhaust can be used for thrust or if the doors can open in the middle of the engines. I hope its the latter.

As with the Su-57, the MiG-49 lacks S-Ducts and  uses radar blockers instead to save weight. The sheer size of the aircraft isn't a problem since the carriers it should be used on would be around 70-80kt and just be without catapults. Also, its about as large as the Su-57 so
Since it has a lifting turbofan, the MiG-49 has room for only 1 belly weapons bay, but its enlarged compared to the Su-57's and can carry 4 K-77Ms. It also has 2 bays for WVR missiles. Its not much, but at least better than the F-35 and equal to the J-31. The Mig-49's range is also quite short due to the bulk of the turbofan, but its not much of a roblem since its not designed for long range strikes and air superiority. That's the job for Kalibrs and S-500s.
The Mig-49's only task is to provide short range interception of US carrier aircraft while outperforming the J-31 and F-35.

BTW the things on its wingtips are jammers.

Peŕrier wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:I think russian  carrier aircraft should only be designed for air superiority to escort T-22Ms. Land and ship attack can be done by UKSKs and bombers.

So the future russian carriers will be able to cruise at more than 400 knots?

WOW!

What are you talking about???

WTF is the point of combining a long range stand off attack ship (aircraft carrier) with a very close range ship (landing ship) that is like putting a bayonet on a sniper rifle..

Why do you think an aircraft carrier is an attack ship?

Why are you confusing a medium sized fixed wing carrier with a light helicopter landing ship?

Naval operations are safer and more effective if you can do them under the cover of air power.... whether it is destroying a baby milk factory network in Africa using ship and sub based missiles, or landing a peace keeping force in south america... having air cover during the operation makes everything safer...

because it is still cheaper and quicker then developing a new engine of this class of thrust form scratch?

Not true... they are going to completely redesign the engine to turn it from a very powerful but relatively old bomber engine (from the 1970s) into a state of the art new engine for the 21st C... plus give it full vectored thrust despite it likely being an engine with between 35 and 50 tons of thrust in full AB.

The R79 engine the Yak-41 used had up to 22 tons thrust in its last designed model so they are going to have to design an engine nozzle that will take rather more pressure and heat and still operate at over 90 degrees deflection angle...

That's one way to look at it but development of EM catapult in US got to 1 blns USD mark and is not finished yet. And US had vast experience in building and designing both carriers and catapults. Again US will use (if design is completed) EM catapult on many ships Russia on 1? 2? would it justify spending such budget? (30x22800 ships)

The Russians have just as much theoretical physics knowhow and work on EM equipment didn't start today in Russia. The US has vast experience in building carriers yet still are making the F-35 instead of an upgraded F-14D... how stupid are they?

The Russians are not stupid... EM cat technology can be used for short airstrips everywhere to launch aircraft from carrier based fixed wing fighters to AWACS aircraft to UAVs. Further development could lead to new types of weapons.

PAK FA as upgrade of Su-27? hmm so F-22 is an upgrade of F-14? But anyway if you look as LMFS thsi way then agreed.

The F-15 is basically a MiG-25... the F-22 is basically a stealthy MiG-25 originally but obviously just a stealthy F-15.

Hmmm but still this F-35B crap for some reason woks fine in RAF and should be ordered in like 500 units. Why so many countries want to buy it in VSTOL configuration ? Why UK? Why Spain, why Italy? They didnt have to buy this version but still did. Why Japan considers is to its carriers? perhaps not so bad in its role after all?

They believe the sales hype... it is cheaper and can operate from any flat surface... and ignore they can't actually just take off from any surface and they crash rather more often... and as fighter aircraft they have smaller payload and shorter range than almost identical conventional aircraft.

Japan spends billions on existing US equipment and makes them into more expensive military equipment... they are not weapons designers to follow.

And the UK has to buy F-35s because they sabotaged their own Harriers and their Eurofighters because they are idiots.

If -35 is underperforming because too many requirements to fin in one machine. If stealth and catobar are removed it could be much better and cheaper plane.

If stealth is removed it is a Buccaneer, not a fighter. If you took away VTOL then you get an F-35C which would be a much better aircraft...

Key feature of vtol is that you don't need catapaults and fact you can fit more jets in tighter spaces.

Unless you are building tiny useless carriers even an Su-33 can be carried and used without cats. VTOL aircraft are a pain in the ass but you wont fit more on a carrier and you will need very special heat treated tiles for them to take off from from anywhere... land or sea...

CVs can be resupplied with fuel, food & ammo. at sea by specialized ships, NP in the Med. isn't that essential now- like the Kiev class TAKRs had done

They had trouble supporting ships going from the Northern Fleet to Syria... don't you think that suggests building little tiny helicopter carriers and filling them up with VTOL aircraft with 35 ton thrust engines is going to require an entire fleet of support vessels that will be full time taking fuel and ammo to those carriers where ever they go? Finding such ships would be easy... just follow the 12knt capable Russian fueling ships...

After NITKA training, they'll still need to go to sea for real world ops

Why?

In all the years of operational use they have only ever had real world ops in Syria last year...

Besides why waste time with China? They could train their MiG-29 pilots in India...

MAD on helos/UAVs can be used to locate bombs on the ground &/ in the water, EODs then drop in & salvage them

That is even more expensive than just leaving them where they land. The magnetic signature of a missile or bomb will be a tiny fraction of that of a submarine or ship... MAD equipment would be totally useless for finding such things it would take months to find everything... in the mean time the NATO subs will be sniffing around looking for splashes to hunt down new Russian kit being dropped into their laps...

An engine designed for STOVL operations (obviously the qualifying feature is the vertical landing) works in a completely new way in the landing phase.

It should swivel its nozzle downward around 90 degrees, at the very same time it has either to provide thrust for additional vertical jets, or should be coordinated with additional turbojets.

It means both heavy and deep mechanical modifications and a rewritten FADEC.

The whole system should then pass the whole testing and certification procedure, just like any new engine.

Because during a vertical landing a really strict and near real time control of actual thrust is mandatory to provide the required control of the aircraft, deep modifications to the engine's hot section as well could not be discarded.

Actually it is rather more complicated than that... air needs to be taken from the hot section and fed to the wing tips and nose and tail unit to provide puffer jet control in addition to a front mounted lift system to balance the thrust from the rear and keep the aircraft level in the hover.

As for autonomy and endurance fully agreed NPP rulez. But why Russian should spend 2x Mistral costs to build 1 max 2 EM catapults alone?! Royal Navy resigned from catapults for a reason. And the reason was costs. Thus preferred VSTOL fighters as cheaper variant instead. Why Russians should not learn of examples?

Because it is the wrong lesson to learn.

Just because the tight fucking British don't want to develop new generation NPP systems and cripple their carriers because of that is not Russias problem.... the British already have steam cats anyway so it is no problem for them except the limits conventional propulsion impose on the design.

The Russians on the other hand have already designed their next generation NPP engines for their new large ships and will likely make all their big ships nukes from destroyers to cruisers and to carriers. Further more they will likely go the extra step and do away with enormous propeller shafts and use electric pod propulsion saving even more space.

Why not retrofit EM cats to the K and fit them on the 2 Mistral replacements and then the two new fixed wing carriers... that sounds like 5 EM cats to me for a start.

EM cats will allow large UAVs to be launched from helicopter carriers, so if they develop a UAV AWACS platform it could be used on all their new carriers.

Russians never built catapults, catapult costs helluva money (US EM cat costs 30x Karakurts), perhaps ensuring new fighter is STOL and eventually has VSTOL variant cost just less?

Russians have said they are developing EM cats and it would be money well spent as it could develop technology in other areas, including superconducting materials and super powerful magnets and increased velocity EM assisted guns...

If they just wanted cheap they could have just developed a new T series tank, BMP series IFV, and BTR series troop transport... instead they have developed more than three new entire families of vehicles... which is not cheap.

Whether you have a lift fan (that takes up an enormous amount of space which is a bad thing in a sleek modern fighter) or you have separate lift engines... which also take up space but have the added disadvantage of being heavy and consuming fuel too, there are huge penalties for taking of or landing vertically.
Rolling take offs can reduce the problem but do not offer a cure.

You also need high pressure piping through the wings and nose of the aircraft and at the tail from the main engines to generate puffer thrust to control the aircraft in the hover... this adds weight and complexity and adds vulnerable points that can destroy the aircraft if damaged because it means it can no longer land on that destroyer in the middle of the ocean...

The Russians lost two aircraft in Syria because they had no where to land because the arrester cable system failed... that pretty much ended operations for them... with V/STOL aircraft it would be worse because such accidents during vertical landing are much more common...

Amphibious ship are easy targets. There are more and more coastal missiles in normal trucks that can destroy them and make thousands of dead.

Its really nice for Russia that the mistral were not bought. They are build with civilian standards so even one small kh 35 can make huge damage to it. At least russian carriers are protected more than even their destroyers like udaloy.

Puting fighters on such ships is useless because against a competant force with a competant air force, navy with subs and coast defence, amphibious assault won't occure and in the open ocean they will be just safe as a cargo ship.

Russia doesn't need them as they don't plan to rule in south america or africa as many people think. What they need is some small carriers with very good fighters on it like a new mig or su-57 to secure their trade routes and to be able to reenforce their different fleets quickly by sending one or two fully armed carriers.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
a) nobody besides USA builds catapults now. For a reason isnt it?

Actually, the third Chinese carrier (already under construction, in service in the early 20s) will have EM catapults...

PapaDragon wrote:'
When I want to explain to kids in class why smoking crack cocaine is bad for you I just show them eehenie's fantasies on this tread   

Previous lesson: Lider already under construction

Next lesson: ships can move easily between Black and Caspian sea

Don't​ smoke crack kids, it causes brain damage     

They have enough example looking at you.

Do not know that Russia and the Soviet Union designed its Caspian sea ships taking into account the rivers and channels? This is important for them because most of the ships are not built in the Caspian sea shipyards.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:


But without NPP, you won't have neither steam for catapults, nor enough electrical power for EM catapukt.

So it is a moot point, NPP is the best even if most expensive propulsion system for a carrier.

As for autonomy and endurance fully agreed NPP rulez. But why Russian should spend  2x Mistral costs to build 1 max 2 EM catapults alone?! Royal Navy resigned from catapults for a reason. And the reason was costs. Thus preferred  VSTOL fighters as cheaper variant instead. Why Russians should not learn of examples? 

New fighter will be developed anyway, Russians never built catapults, catapult costs helluva money (US EM cat costs 30x Karakurts), perhaps ensuring new fighter is STOL and eventually has VSTOL variant cost just less?

Your numbers are not serious. You have been ignoring the real costs.

eehnie wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:'
When I want to explain to kids in class why smoking crack cocaine is bad for you I just show them eehenie's fantasies on this tread   

Previous lesson: Lider already under construction

Next lesson: ships can move easily between Black and Caspian sea

Don't​ smoke crack kids, it causes brain damage     

They have enough example looking at you.

Do not know that Russia and the Soviet Union designed its Caspian sea ships taking into account the rivers and channels? This is important for them because most of the ships are not built in the Caspian sea shipyards.

Volga–Don canal is not suitable for majority of military ships.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:'
When I want to explain to kids in class why smoking crack cocaine is bad for you I just show them eehenie's fantasies on this tread   

Previous lesson: Lider already under construction

Next lesson: ships can move easily between Black and Caspian sea

Don't​ smoke crack kids, it causes brain damage     

They have enough example looking at you.

Do not know that Russia and the Soviet Union designed its Caspian sea ships taking into account the rivers and channels? This is important for them because most of the ships are not built in the Caspian sea shipyards.

Volga–Don canal is not suitable for majority of military ships.

Seriously Militarov ? You pretend to be an expert ? They can move it on the 24th of december with the help of Santa ...

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:'
When I want to explain to kids in class why smoking crack cocaine is bad for you I just show them eehenie's fantasies on this tread   

Previous lesson: Lider already under construction

Next lesson: ships can move easily between Black and Caspian sea

Don't​ smoke crack kids, it causes brain damage     

They have enough example looking at you.

Do not know that Russia and the Soviet Union designed its Caspian sea ships taking into account the rivers and channels? This is important for them because most of the ships are not built in the Caspian sea shipyards.

Volga–Don canal is not suitable for majority of military ships.

Suitable for buyans and gepards.

GarryB wrote:
Why not retrofit EM cats to the K and fit them on the 2 Mistral replacements and then the two new fixed wing carriers... that sounds like 5 EM cats to me for a start.

I would like, again, stress that Mistral LHDs have no, I mean exactly no, mean to support fixed wing aircrafts.

Their most capable elevator has max hauling weight limited to 13 tons, and its sizes are not that large as well.

So there is no reason to make overly expensive any mistral derived ship giving it a NPP.

If you are building an LHD capable to support fixed wing aircrafts, then you are designing and building something very different from Mistral type, and the differences are not limited to displacement, catapults and power plants.

Most of the internal spaces have to be designed differently, we are speaking of a new ship, only marginally and exteriorly resembling a Mistral.

Then, as a matter of fact, an LHD usually has far more chances than an aircraft carrier to put or find itself in the most dangerous places: an LHD have to close range to beaches to perform its duties, putting it at greater risks both from air and land based threats.

That is a strong reason against NPP in amphibious ships: nobody likes to play the role of whom who created a major nuclear pollution's disaster sending a NPP ship amidst a slaughterhouse.

If everybody, the US as well, opted for conventional propulsion for amphibious ships whatever their displacement and role, it is for very good reasons.

eehnie wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:'
When I want to explain to kids in class why smoking crack cocaine is bad for you I just show them eehenie's fantasies on this tread   

Previous lesson: Lider already under construction

Next lesson: ships can move easily between Black and Caspian sea

Don't​ smoke crack kids, it causes brain damage     

They have enough example looking at you.

Do not know that Russia and the Soviet Union designed its Caspian sea ships taking into account the rivers and channels? This is important for them because most of the ships are not built in the Caspian sea shipyards.

Well, they designed those ships enlisted for the Caspian Sea capable to sail through the Volga-Don channel, but it is sure no large ship designed for the oceans could do the same.

As a thumb's rule, to safely sail through any water you need a minimum depth twice the maximum draught.

In a channel, taking into account the minor role played by tides, you could somewhat reduce that requirement, still the locks will dictate both maximum length and maximum draught any ship should have.

To add burden to burdens, a warship is not expected to spent hours just to manage a single narrow passage: if to overcome a tight turn or a lock a warship needs tugs and hours spent at very low speed, it is like saying that warship can not sail that waterway at all.

Nobody puts a warship at risk making it a sitting duck, even if hundreds miles inside its own territory.

It is just too easy to target whatever has little to no mobility at all.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:'
When I want to explain to kids in class why smoking crack cocaine is bad for you I just show them eehenie's fantasies on this tread   

Previous lesson: Lider already under construction

Next lesson: ships can move easily between Black and Caspian sea

Don't​ smoke crack kids, it causes brain damage     

They have enough example looking at you.

Do not know that Russia and the Soviet Union designed its Caspian sea ships taking into account the rivers and channels? This is important for them because most of the ships are not built in the Caspian sea shipyards.

Volga–Don canal is not suitable for majority of military ships.

Suitable for buyans and gepards.

Right. The entire combat fleet of the Russian Navy in the Caspian sea can move to the Black sea and return.

Amphibious ship are easy targets. There are more and more coastal missiles in normal trucks that can destroy them and make thousands of dead.

Cities are easy targets... with so many nukes today that can destroy whole cities in one shot making millions dead.

That is why you need other ships to operate with amphibious vessels including air craft carriers that can detect incoming anti ship missiles very early and intercept them.

Its really nice for Russia that the mistral were not bought. They are build with civilian standards so even one small kh 35 can make huge damage to it. At least russian carriers are protected more than even their destroyers like udaloy.

The original defensive suite on the Mistral class carriers was pathetic.

New Russian carriers will be better equipped.

Puting fighters on such ships is useless because against a competant force with a competant air force, navy with subs and coast defence, amphibious assault won't occure and in the open ocean they will be just safe as a cargo ship.

Putting fighters on a helicopter carrier landing ship makes it useless in its primary role. Aircraft carriers of medium size however would be a challenge to even a moderately competent air force or navy.

Russia doesn't need them as they don't plan to rule in south america or africa as many people think. What they need is some small carriers with very good fighters on it like a new mig or su-57 to secure their trade routes and to be able to reenforce their different fleets quickly by sending one or two fully armed carriers.

It is not about taking land or invading anyone... having a powerful navy makes a country powerful internationally... Britain didn't become a global power and then develop a powerful navy... it happened the other way around.

I would like, again, stress that Mistral LHDs have no, I mean exactly no, mean to support fixed wing aircrafts.

Their most capable elevator has max hauling weight limited to 13 tons, and its sizes are not that large as well.

So there is no reason to make overly expensive any mistral derived ship giving it a NPP.

Most of their big ships like likely have NPPs, so it makes sense for speed and range of operation to fit new LHDs with such propulsion too.

I would not suggest using LHDs as fixed wing aircraft carriers, but being able to operate large UAVs perhaps including some AWACS models would be useful and indeed some sort of transport aircraft could be operated with cat assistance would also be valuable too.

Then, as a matter of fact, an LHD usually has far more chances than an aircraft carrier to put or find itself in the most dangerous places: an LHD have to close range to beaches to perform its duties, putting it at greater risks both from air and land based threats.

I actually quite like the french landing vessels they used on the Mistral that had high speed and good range to allow the Mistrals to sit off shore by quite a distance while landing forces...

If everybody, the US as well, opted for conventional propulsion for amphibious ships whatever their displacement and role, it is for very good reasons.

The Americans can afford a dozen or more landing ships... the Russians will likely only have 2... making them faster and giving them better endurance is useful.

That is a strong reason against NPP in amphibious ships: nobody likes to play the role of whom who created a major nuclear pollution's disaster sending a NPP ship amidst a slaughterhouse.

Yet the US continues to fire DU ammo in foreign places....

Nobody puts a warship at risk making it a sitting duck, even if hundreds miles inside its own territory.

It is just too easy to target whatever has little to no mobility at all.

Would be an argument for never putting any military ship in dry dock...

If there is no alternative or the alternative is a month of sailing a ship from one port to another then why not put them at risk for a short period.

Certainly now that they are moving to building larger ships they could also spend money expanding the capacity of their canals and waterways... bigger waterways would allow heavier traffic that could bypass having to sail international routes to get from one part of Russia to another,,, sounds like a good investment to me...

Just curious, but what do you guys think of sketch? Could Russia make something vaguely similar?

Also, any type of VT or VL aircraft will inherently have worse performance than long takeoff aircraft because lift engines add weight, unless you have something like the Harrier's lift system, but that too has massive disadvantages.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Just curious, but what do you guys think of sketch? Could Russia make something vaguely similar?

Also, any type of VT or VL aircraft will inherently have worse performance than long takeoff aircraft because lift engines add weight, unless you have something like the Harrier's lift system, but that too has massive disadvantages.

What about a tilt engine aircraft.

Another problem with vertical take off or vertical landing jet aircraft is that hot air is really bad for jet engines.... sucking in the hot air reflected off the ground can stall an engine and dramatically reduce its thrust output.... obviously a very bad thing at very low altitude and low speed...

Vertical landing or takeoff means no weapons under the belly of the aircraft.., so wing pylons only.

You also need to direct the reflected hot air away from the engine intakes or you stall and crash.

There is plenty of cases of helicopters losing engine power because they launch a rocket and the rocket exhaust fumes are sucked into the engine intakes and stall the engine... a blast of hot air coming off the ground and going in an air intake on a V/STOL aircraft will do the same which is fatal for such an aircraft at such altitudes and speeds...

If it was so easy to backfit EMALs, the Chinese by now would be talking about doing it on the CV-16 & CV-17- both r just 30m longer Adm. K sister ships! Their CV-18 will reportedly have no NP but EMAL. The USN, CN, RN, FN, Brazilian, Australian, Dutch  & Argentinian navies had no NP on their a/c carriers but with with steam CATs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Veinticinco_de_Mayo_(V-2)

Even CVNs need to be periodically resupplied with aviation fuel, ammo., food, spares & toilet paper.

Oddly enough, Brazil was a mentor to China's fledgling carrier program—in 2009, Brazil agreed to train Chinese navy officers on the São Paulo. In 2013, according to the Xinhua state media service, a cadre of Brazilian Navy carrier pilots were training China's People's Liberation Army Navy in carrier flight operations. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a25260/brazil-retiring-only-aircraft-carrier/

Indian CVs can't accommodate Su-33s & after canceling some deals & allowing Americans on a Russian SSN, their relations with Russia could be a lot better, so u can forget about sending pilots to train there.  
Ordinance can be equipped with sm. locating beacons, if the MAD isn't of any help.
Let's compare Yak-141 data with other fighters:
Empty weight:          11,650 kg (25,683 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 19,500 kg (42,989 lb)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141#Specifications_(Yak-41) 8.15T fuel & weapons (AAMs & cannon rounds)
AV-8B Harrier II
Empty weight: 13,968 lb (6,340 kg)
Loaded weight: 22,950 lb (10,410 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: Rolling: 31,000 lb (14,100 kg)
                              Vertical: 20,755 lb (09,415 kg) -5,3T difference, with a lot more kinds of weapons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_AV-8B_Harrier_II#Specifications_(AV-8B_Harrier_II_Plus)

The F-35 is intended to be the United Kingdom's primary strike attack aircraft for the next 3 decades. One of the Royal Navy requirements for the F-35B design was a Shipborne Rolling and Vertical Landing (SRVL) mode to increase maximum landing weight to bring back unused ordnance by using wing lift during landing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35B
The rolling vertical landing technique is being developed to increase the F-35B's bring back payload when operating from the UK's planned CVF large-deck carriers.
An SRVL approach exploits the ability of the STOVL JSF to use vectored thrust to slow the aircraft while retaining the benefit of wingborne lift.
For the USMC, the technique would allow a conventional approach to a short landing on the carrier and could ease integration of the F-35B with US Navy F/A-18E/Fs.
"We strongly support what the UK is doing on rolling landings," says Lt Gen John Castellaw, USMC deputy commandant for aviation. Studies on how the F-35B will be operated continue, but SRVL "appears to be a viable option", he says.
The F-35B will also replace the USMC's Boeing AV-8Bs, but these normally operate alongside helicopters from assault carriers too small for conventional fighters. "We continue to work with the navy on this," Castellaw says, pointing out the STOVL Harrier has been operated successfully alongside US Navy fighters as part of an air wing the carrier USS Roosevelt. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-marines-eye-uk-jsf-shipborne-technique-214672/
The historic 1976-1977 Mediterranean Cruise, the Roosevelt's last incidentally, proved that the Harrier could integrate with a modern Navy Carrier Air Wing seamlessly, even aboard a Midway Class carrier with its tight confines. Regardless of the cruise's massive success, the Navy and the Marines would not sail with a Harrier squadron embarked aboard a conventional carrier again. This may have been due to the Marines' fear that they would lose funding for their dedicated Amphibious Assault Ship helicopter carriers, or it could have been due to the Navy's fear that the success of the Harrier could see their massive, complex and expensive catapult and arresting gear configured carriers becoming less relevant. https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-time-when-av-8-harriers-deployed-aboard-a-fixed-win-1692022146

The more powerful engine on Yak-141 or its follow on will make it a strike fighter on a par, if not exceeding, the F-35B, using the SRVL.
The Caspian Flotilla & the BSF ships/subs (in the Black/Med. Sea), besides those of the Baltic & the NF deployed in the Med. & Pac. Fleet in the Indian Ocean & Red Sea, can strike with Kalibre CMs anywhere in the ME, Central & S. Asia, with or w/o Turkey's, Egypt's & Iran's permission- no need to have any CVNs in the Med./Red Sea & Indian Ocean: https://www.russiadefence.net/t6686p900-russian-navy-status-news-3