Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

I was saying the same thing. And Russia still depends on oil, gas & timber sales abroad for hard currency:

The greater part of Russian exports belongs to oil and petroleum products. Other leading exports are natural gas, timber, fertilizers, machinery and equipment, armaments. The foreign countries receive from Russia over 300 million tons of oil and approximately 250 billion cubic meters of gas.
https://www.advantour.com/russia/economy/trade.htm

The armaments r the last in the list- so pl. "wake up & smell the roses" urself, GarryB!

World's Largest Amphibious Plane Readies for Water Trials
Codenamed Kunlong, the four-engine plane ..has ..a top cruising speed of 500 kilometers per hour, and a maximum flight range of 4,500 kilometers (up to 12 hours). The plane can also operate in two-meter-high waves. ..
Its maximum rescue operation radius extends to 1,600 kilometers.
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/world-s-largest-amphibious-plane-readies-for-water-trials

https://theaviationist.com/2017/12/26/the-impressive-chinese-ag600-maritime-patrol-flying-boat-makes-first-flight-in-zhuhai-china/
Their own Be-200:

can be configured as ..a freighter, ..[u]In the search and rescue role, the aircraft can be equipped with searchlights and sensors, an inflatable boat, thermal and optical surveillance systems, and medical equipment. ..can accommodate up to 45 persons. The aircraft is also capable of being configured for anti-submarine warfare duties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Be-200#Design

It's still in production:
http://www.rusaviainsider.com/fourth-beriev-200chs-russian-emergencies-ministry-completed/

Why can't Russia buy/produce under licence some & modify them for AWACS & transport roles, thus eliminating the need for the costly EMALS, since her deck fighters don't need it? An additional supply ship, or 1 already in the group, could be used as a tender for them. W/o any catapults, fixed wing AWACSs & transports on board, less crew will be needed while more internal & external space will be available for bigger #s of aircraft, stores, & ammo.

Seriously?

Amphibious aircrafts and mother ships, in pure first world war style?

I'm surprised you didn't suggested to revert to wooden biplanes...

A tender is no "mother ship"! Paraphrasing late Deng Xiaoping, if a cat catches mice, it's a good 1 no matter its color! Russia is good at asymmetric solutions- no need to blindly follow the West, esp. when pressed for $ & time. If u have nothing better to say, don't bother to reply/ridicule it next time with out of proportion analogies!

The real gold standard would be to have two carriers in each fleet, but three shared between the Northern and the Pacific fleets could be a good compromise if well managed.

Six carriers would be extravagant... two new CVNs and upgrade the K and they have their three vessels... which means even during normal operational cycles they should always have two vessels available if needed.

Why can't Russia buy/produce under licence some & modify them for AWACS & transport roles, thus eliminating the need for the costly EMALS, since her deck fighters don't need it? An additional supply ship, or 1 already in the group, could be used as a tender for them. W/o any catapults, fixed wing AWACSs & transports on board, less crew will be needed while more internal & external space will be available for bigger #s of aircraft, stores, & ammo.

The only place they could operate reliably would be lake Baikal... 2m waves... you get bigger waves at the beach 70% of the time... if they are going to try to avoid spending money on cats (and they claim they are developing them so they are spending the money anyway) it would make more sense to develop large airships for the AWACS role... a nuclear power plant of relatively small size could be used to generate a continuous supply of electrical power for the radar and electric motors, and the heat could be used to increase lift when needed to fly over bad weather...

You could build a dozen or so and use them for super heavy lift resupply... flight range would be unlimited... they would not be fast, but they could be designed to carry ship level payloads if you wanted to... and if you made them from modern synthetic fire proof material it would be bloody difficult to actually shoot one down...

It may take too long/much to develop CAT; in the meantime their ekranoplans could also be used for SAR, transport/supply if speed is essential, & even as MPA/ASW platforms & AWACS- they could get to the patrol area fast in WIG mode over 6m waves, if not more, then climb "to see farther" & fly slow to extend "the time on station".

Peŕrier wrote:False, there is no point in such approach because the only meaningful missions for russian carriers would be to provide air cover and local air superiority to the surface fleet in defending russian territory, and exercising deterrence in support of allied nations far from russian territory.

No. For this is you MiG-31 and Kindzhal. Range 3000 form Russian borders is safe.

Bombing "cavemen" does not exist as a mission or requisite for any major navy in the world.

French, British or US navies what precisely are doing last 20 years? Libya,Afghanistan, Iraq? was any meaningful war against Russia or China? Or you suggest that Qaddafi had superior air-force and AAD?

Carriers, United Kingdom is building aircraft carriers, France is since long years looking for the way to build a second and possibly larger aircraft carrier, Italy has switched from a puny 13.000 tons aircraft carrier to a 27.000 tons light carrier, Brazil has resorted to purchase a several decades old aircraft carrier in order to maintain at any costs trained its naval air wing, waiting for the day it will get the funds to build a brand new one.

And precisely whom Russia is to fight? USA ? 1 or 2 carriers is anyway way too little against cUS 10? China builds but China will net fight Russia in any foreseeable future. India? why?
Brazil? Thailand? UK? Again escort (or deck mounted) Zircon will do the job.

BTW 30-40ktons (Cavour, WASP can be also LHDs is just fine for Russia. Russia doesn't need to fight midway style battles. For this one deck fighter with Kindzhal is enough.

Calling an LHD a substitute for a carrier is simply a false statement, without any exception.

So you kno wbette rthen US Navy? you sa wlink? this was on Navy website so you had anger, now denial phase?

AlfaT8 wrote:
My bad, i though you were just talking about the catapult system
As for ASW, that's (PKR) "ASW cruiser" not (TAVKR) "Heavy aircraft carrying cruiser".
As for the mission, the Kuz was made to handle most of them, very Multi-role.

More like they tried to circumvent the Midway nonsense by investing in missiles.

I would say no nonsense but asymmetric (= cheaper) compensation. Soviet union was not able to invest so much in so powerful fleet. To counter Us 10 CVSGs you need to build either 10 own or... something to compensate it.

I believe in value of deck aviation in case of Russia I am a big fan of VSTOL+ TAVKR duo. For fighting off CVSGs you got Kindzhals and or zircons. For cavemen 12-24 strong airwing.

All i can do is hope that once the problems with S/VTOL present themselves, ....again, that the Navy go's back to the Kuz concept.

that was actually saying Borisov last year. Either 30ktons light CV or heavy 100ktons . Both nuclear. But what will be chosen?

Great then new Russian fighter wont be base don 70 year sold frame but only 50 year soled one!

If it can do the job, it can do it.

Then why US is phasing out F-18, Germans Tornados and France cannot reject Rafels for simple reason - nothing would beleft to keep image of great micro-superpower
F-18 is as good as MiG-29k. BTW Russin /MiG is working anyway on new stealth fighter. Will it be V/STOL? unlikly but I can still hope

a) Navy requested in according to Bndaryev  


b) RuAF too according to him - Short lane in war times is priceless


c) STOL fight on half price of Su-30? any African, Asian or Latin country wanting to have a good fighter cheap in maintenance.
You compare Chinese or Indian size of economy with Russian? or you believe there is no relation between size of economy  and military capabilities?

A) Who???....... The head of the RuNavy is Vladimir Ivanovich Korolev

B) The head of the Aerospace forces is Sergey Surovikin, and they've bee doing a lot of highway take-off exercises.

Borisov is above - MoD deputy

C) The Su-30 cost around $40mill the Mig-29 cost around $20mill, and you think a new S/VTOL is gonna cost as much as the Mig-29, really?    
   Even the Mig-35 is around $40mill, and that's just an upgraded variant.
   And a brand new S/VTOL to have cheaper maintenance too, really?
   This isn't some multi-platform solution like the F-35.
They are investing in real Carriers, so i doubt they are interested in some S/VTOL compromise.

Nobody will buy MiG-35 soon. Plane based on 50yold frame. Otherwise upgrading MiG-21 would be even cheaper.




[quote]

and go bankrupt because of their costs? then you lost war without and shooting. Do you think why Russia  neither build carriers nor AMD?

Investing in a platform that can actually survive will save more than a platform that can hardly defend itself.
Why, fear, incompetence, financial restraints, Stalin's words about Carriers only being a weapon of aggression, who knows.
AMD???

[/quoote]

100kt survives more AShM hits you mean? not 2 but 4-5? or how do you understand this? Why cannot have UKSK-M with S-400 + Zircon missiles? this is for defense. Big carriers make sense only in 1 case there will be a lot of them. Russia neither has resources to build nor to maintain it. Even if economy grows nicely this still will be on level of Japan.

Neither China nor USA. India with its enormous human capita will grow also to high levels.

GarryB wrote: Correction, they are going to give data that makes their product look good... if all your aircraft are going to be taking off in STOL mode then WTF is the point of developing a new 5th gen fighter that can land vertically?

Why add the complication and expense to something already complicated and not very cheap?

Like Chinese in their J-18 VSTOL Vgen fighter for navy? In general on sea place is scarce, fighter needs to be compromise  between size, characteristics and price. There are no cheap new fighters. New engines, new materials,new coatings, sensors.  Adding VSTOL ability is not major problem here and for NAvy a great advantage- you can have manu more capable fighter on smaller ships.  

They add weight indeed there is always a trade off. You want short start and landing (ew vertical) you pay weight penalty.

It is more than just a weight penalty... it makes the design fat... it means you need a fricken enormous engine just to get barely supersonic... it means most of the internal structure carries high pressure air to puffer jets in the nose, the tail and the wing tips... any of which is damaged in combat and you wont be landing vertically anywhere... except nose first into the sea.

True you need AWACS, but Russian already put low end AWACS on Ka-32. Such stuff  you caneasily put on Fregat drones (VSTOL ones

The Ka-31 is not bad, but if they are talking about EM cats and a boat with a 330m deck I am pretty sure it is not so they can fit more VSTOL aircraft.

They want a decent sized long ranged AWACS platform... which also means quite a large aircraft operating from the carrier that could also be used as an inflight refuelling aircraft to extend range and operational times for all the fixed wing aircraft that operate from the carrier... sort of the opposite of making the planes VSTOL.

STOL drones can refuel as well ...

The new carriers are for air defence, odds are they will likely have 48 plus aircraft that are Su-57s,

ok what precisely kind of defense functions? against 2-3 US CVSGs? not enough ? in Syria the whole contingent was much smaller. And it worked for 3 years.

Take head out of sand and shake for a bit... MiG-29 in use in Russian AF. Export contracts for MiG-29KR to India. Upgrade contracts to India for MiG-29. Egypt buying MiG-29 family aircraft. Russian Navy already has MiG-29KR aircraft and will not be disappearing in 10 years... and wont have had that many hours on the airframes by then either.

Sure, F-5 are still being used by Brazilian and Thai AF. Doe it mean that they are good enough? in 2030 MiG-29 will be 50yo frame based plane. Unlikely will be base of Russian deck aviation.

Lets talk about actual example how many Russian planes operated in 3 years in Syria and how many ships were armed and sunk?

Considering the direct opposition to Russia in Syria had no means to sink ships there was only one purpose for armed ships in that conflict... ie Show.

If the conflict had been further afield and the situation more contested, then the need for armed support of a supply line becomes more important.

No, because USA stopped when Russians  were really pissed. There were neve any danger of RuAF or RuArmy from coalition. And till nuclear war wont be.
In case of nuclear was 20 or 40 fighters wont matter anyway...

A d how those numebrs relate do 20-24 fighters in small carrier.

You wouldn't get 24 fighters on a small carrier... it would not have enough fuel for 24 aircraft for very long...

c'mon CVGS is not accompanied by tankers huh?

... and the arrangement of their engine nozzles means they attract IR guided missiles from any angle... the air coming out of the side nozzles on a Harrier would make it an easy target for most IR guided MANPADS...

with current EM/laser based defenses not danger anymore

BTW In case large medium carriers will be chosen VSTOL still can be used on lighter LHD as extra fighter support.

Fighter support for LHDs would be more sensible in the form of the already developed Ka-52K and Ka-31...
[/quote]

Ka-29 was to be a carrier  one, Ka-31 was AWACS

Wow... because the US who spends 700 billion a year on defence is so much better off with their F-35s and F-18s.

Exactly what makes a mix of Su-57s and MiG-29KRs... well actually MiG-35s... so bad?

nothing but they were not shown on Shtorm mockup

We know: their performance is comparable

You mean the super stealth brand new F-35 only has comparable performance to the F-18... an ancient aircraft... really?

Is that what VSTOL does to an aircrafts performance... makes it as good as a previous generation aircraft?

[/quote]

and F-18 had worse performance than F-14 ! damn lets revive F-14. F-35? stealth, sensor fusion , avionics, weapons.

The aircraft on these carriers are airborne eyes and teeth and they will be used to defend the ships operating with the carrier.

That's the one way to solve the problem. But when you rely on massive fighter application why to develop Kindzhal or Zircon?  Copy US power projection only in stupid way?

Do you think why Russia neither build carriers nor AMD?

Russia did build AMD... what do you think those missiles around Moscow were?

What do you think S-400 and S-500 are?

What is the Kuznetsov?

What are the plans for a 330m long CVN?

Yeah well 2 sites weer included in treaty. But Russia didnt build any AMD otherwise. Putin openly stated: there were no resources for this.
S-400 and S-500 are not in Cuba and Canada.  Kuznetsov is an old TAVKR rebuilt to AC. And  kept for fun or hope more will come. No real application even in Syria.
330 CVN is to me waste of money. But RuN will do as they like :-)

The example of Syria is a poor example of the navy testing their aircraft in a realistic environment.

The Navy is not going to be supporting the Russian Air Force or the Russian Army around the world in various hot spots... well it will if needed but its primary role is its own operations and its own defence... it will be protecting its surface ships and its subs and indeed things like oil rigs and other assets at sea from direct threats like pirates but also against active enemy forces potentially supported by powerful allies.

precisely what kind of enemy? UK? USA? China? for other you ned 20-24 fighters for them 48 is too little.

GarryB wrote:

The real gold standard would be to have two carriers in each fleet, but three shared between the Northern and the Pacific fleets could be a good compromise if well managed.

Six carriers would be extravagant... two new CVNs and upgrade the K and they have their three vessels... which means even during normal operational cycles they should always have two vessels available if needed.


The only place they could operate reliably would be lake Baikal... 2m waves... you get bigger waves at the beach 70% of the time... if they are going to try to avoid spending money on cats (and they claim they are developing them so they are spending the money anyway) it would make more sense to develop large airships for the AWACS role... a nuclear power plant of relatively small size could be used to generate a continuous supply of electrical power for the radar and electric motors, and the heat could be used to increase lift when needed to fly over bad weather...

You could build a dozen or so and use them for super heavy lift resupply... flight range would be unlimited... they would not be fast, but they could be designed to carry ship level payloads if you wanted to... and if you made them from modern synthetic fire proof material it would be bloody difficult to actually shoot one down...

The point is to grant the minimum required force 365 days a year, every given year in the future.

If the goal is to have an expeditionary tool, two carriers is just perfect, just like UK did with its two carriers.

If the goal is to have an integral air wing in the two main surface fleets, than two carriers  cannot fulfill that requirement 365 days a year, every single year in the future.

About Kuznetsov, it could serve at most what, 20 years counting from now?

It is what it would take to get the first future carrier fully opeerational, give or take.

There is no way on Earth it could keep sailing for longer than 40 years without a major rebuild, and a major rebuild means not only stripping down 100% of any equipment inside the hull, it means checking the whole hull meter by meter and wherever needed replacing hull's parts as well.

Galvanic currents and corrosion eat, literally, hulls, and it would cost just too much to perform such kind of job on a ship that is far from being 100% satisfactory even now.

If there would be new carrier(s) built, as soon as the first will become 100% operational, Kuznetsov will become a training platform for the last years it could be serving, and as soon as it would need too serious maintenance work, it will be radiated.


Last, airships do not have any large payload capability.

The famous Hindenburg, LZ129, had an empty weight of 118 tons, plus 40 tons ballast, to carry a payload made of a little more than 100 human beings and around 10 tons of luggage with a max range of 16,000 km.

All of those resulted in an airship 246 meters long, 41 meters in diameter, a real behemot that couldn't anyway exceed 140 Km/h and wouldn't fly very high.

For comparison, an Il-96-300 with a 25 tons payload has 12.000 km range, but it can fly at more than 850 km/h at 12.000 meters.

Airships' time is gone forever .

..the Murmansk-BN coastal radio-electronic complex, ..is designed to suppress short-wave communication and can interfere with operational-strategic and operational-tactical links of enemy control. That is, Murmansk-BN is able to disable onboard weapon control systems. In this case, for example, during a sea battle, it will take a few minutes to inflict irreparable damage on the Zirkon or Caliber rockets to the ship (aircraft carrier, cruiser, destroyer - not important) to the enemy when the weapon-defense systems are disconnected. It is noteworthy that the declared range of the complex is 5000 kilometers. However, the military is confident that its maximum range is 8,000 kilometers....
https://politexpert.net/82031-otvet-nato-ne-ostanovit-rossiyu-moskva-smozhet-protivopostavit-alyansu-kompleks-murmansk-bn?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=lentainform&utm_campaign=politexpert.net&utm_term=1243289&utm_content=6082446

Probably, the same system may be used to defend against UAVs & CMs.
Although not economical to operate by civilians, the Russian military could press airships to service. All of Siberia & the RFN&E icl. Kamchatka r no less remote than the Canadian North & Alaska. The VMF CVNs will be homeported in the Far North & Far East.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship#Heavy_lifting

If need be, a tilt-rotor AWACS version will appear; a transport 1 will be based on that, just like USN E-2s & C-2s variants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_C-2_Greyhound
In fact, the USMC V-22s r now supplying their CVNs at sea before the dedicated Navy version is delivered:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#U.S._Marine_Corps

On 5 January 2015, the Navy and Marines signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to buy the V-22 for the COD mission, and was confirmed in the Navy's FY 2016 budget. Initially designated HV-22, four aircraft would be bought each year from 2018–2020.It incorporates an extended-range fuel system for an 1,150 nmi (1,320 mi; 2,130 km) unrefueled range, ..the range increase comes from extra fuel bladders through larger external sponsons,.. Its primary mission is long-range aerial logistics, but other conceivable missions include personnel recovery and special warfare. In February 2016, the Navy officially designated it as the CMV-22B. The Navy's program ..determined that only 44 were required. Production of the CMV-22 will begin in FY 2018 and start deliveries in 2020. Bell and Boeing have pitched the V-22 as a Navy platform for various missions, such as communications, electronic warfare, or aerial refueling;.. Other roles include search and rescue and anti-submarine warfare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#U.S._Navy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Specifications_(MV-22B)

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/avx-would-replace-heavy-lift-chinook-with-tiltrotor-424834/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bix4ptq3Who https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJovLfFmOB4

Russia knows full well the benefits of having these types of aircraft & already has tilt-rotor drones in development:
https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2017/5/26/8800/?h

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/21011/Russia_s_Tilt_Rotor_Heavy_Lift_Drone_Prototype_by_2019#.WqwQUR3wa1s

Needless to say, a future V-22 Russian nearest counterpart & its quad rotor follow ons won't need CAT, and will have many civ. applications!

Adding VSTOL ability is not major problem here and for NAvy a great advantage- you can have manu more capable fighter on smaller ships.

The Chinese have never operated a VSTOL fighter before... on land or at sea... lets wait a bit before deciding perhaps?

STOL drones can refuel as well ...

Of course they can... but if you want a refuelling aircraft you tie up your fighters because if you are not going for a big AWACS platform then you are hardly going to develop a carrier borne aircraft for just transport and refuelling roles... which means only buddy buddy refuelling... which makes sense on land... a fighter that has launched all his AAMs at the enemy on his way home can top up another fighter with AAMs but low on fuel... at sea that means extra take off and landing cycles to refuel an aircraft that really should have been bigger anyway.

ok what precisely kind of defense functions? against 2-3 US CVSGs? not enough ? in Syria the whole contingent was much smaller. And it worked for 3 years.

Means you could keep 20-30 in the air at one time even allowing for losing a dozen or so over a long campaign... a NATO attack of 200 cruise missiles detected by AWACS and engaged by AAMs from those aircraft... and then engaging those 3-4 US CVSGs with a battery of 200 odd Zircon hypersonic anti ship missiles... yeah... why not?

in 2030 MiG-29 will be 50yo frame based plane. Unlikely will be base of Russian deck aviation.

Rather younger than the F-18 that will still likely be in USN service. The Su-57 will be the primary fighter... the MiG-29KR will be the two seat trainer replacing the Su-25, but with air to air and air to ground capacity that the naval Su-25 never had (it does not even have its gun).

No, because USA stopped when Russians were really pissed. There were neve any danger of RuAF or RuArmy from coalition. And till nuclear war wont be.
In case of nuclear was 20 or 40 fighters wont matter anyway...

The opposition wont always be so impotent as the anti assad forces and ISIS...

And at the end of the day the US would probably be rational enough to know when to stop... but would everyone?

c'mon CVGS is not accompanied by tankers huh?

The difference is a CVN will only need one for aircraft fuel... a CVGS will need a lot more.

A long distance from Russia that is a long thin chain that would be easy to interfere with.

with current EM/laser based defenses not danger anymore

Your confidence is impressive... is it well founded?

Ka-29 was to be a carrier one, Ka-31 was AWACS

For fighter support of an LHD you are better off with AWACS helos as well as helos that can launch AAMs than a transport helo for transporting troops... which it will be carrying anyway.

nothing but they were not shown on Shtorm mockup

Proves nothing. The K mockup had MiG-23s on it... which never happened either.

and F-18 had worse performance than F-14 ! damn lets revive F-14. F-35? stealth, sensor fusion , avionics, weapons.

There is nothing in the F-18 that could not be put into the F-14 as an upgrade... and the same could be said regarding most of what the F-35 has except the stealth... the fact that the F-14 is a much bigger aircraft however means much greater capacity and performance... redesign it so it was cheaper and easier to maintain and you have a much better aircraft than the F-35 in the VSTOL version anyway.

But when you rely on massive fighter application why to develop Kindzhal or Zircon? Copy US power projection only in stupid way?

Not copying US power projection... half the planes are not strike bombers... most of the time half the planes will be carried, but large growth potential in case it is needed is a good thing... extra capacity would allow enormous numbers of drones to be carried and used...

Yeah well 2 sites weer included in treaty. But Russia didnt build any AMD otherwise.

Not two.

the treaty specified each country (Soviet Union and US) could have one ABM defence system around either an ICBM field or their capital city... Soviets chose Moscow and the US chose ICBM field and then shut it down... so they spent the money and didn't even use it.

The Russians inherited the Soviet system around Moscow and have continued testing and upgrading since the end of the cold war to today.

Putin openly stated: there were no resources for this.

S-500 is pretty much mobile ABM system with similar performance to Moscow fixed system... there will be land based and also naval based versions and it will be global... anywhere the Russian Navy can go...

precisely what kind of enemy? UK? USA? China? for other you ned 20-24 fighters for them 48 is too little.

If you only have 24 fighters that effects what sort of conflicts you can get involved with and for how long... more means a wider range of usefulness and more combat persistance.

Also keep in mind that like the land based Su-57, the naval version will be multirole... able to hit air and ground targets but also capable of recon and jamming and other roles too.

There is no way on Earth it could keep sailing for longer than 40 years without a major rebuild, and a major rebuild means not only stripping down 100% of any equipment inside the hull, it means checking the whole hull meter by meter and wherever needed replacing hull's parts as well.

In the next 10-15 years they need a full on overhaul of the the K... especially an upgrade to the propulsion system... conversion to nuclear would be ideal, but other changes would be good too.

Last, airships do not have any large payload capability.

the main problem of range would be solved with nuclear power generation.

Otherwise the main other problems were fire risk, and structural weight and strength... the reality is that modern materials like carbon fibre and nomex and light strong fabrics that are fire retardant would be excellent to make them lighter and much much stronger.

Purge the space between the bags of gas with nitrogen and the fire risk becomes so low you can use cheap abundant and much more efficient hydrogen, instead of inert but expensive helium.

In fact a hydrogen fuel cell, plus nuclear power plant would be the ideal combination... the fuel cell with the steady electric power supply can be used to convert hydrogen gas and oxygen into water and back... that means water ballast can be converted into extra lift without dumping... heat from the NPP can be used to make the hydrogen even lighter and lift more weight... the antennas themselves will likely generate heat so operating them will add lift too.

The airship itself would be huge.. but that would work in its favour... an AAM hit like an AMRAAM means serious damage to the area it hits but the layers of bags it has to penetrate and the fact that some ballast can be dropped to compensate for the loss of lift means even a direct hit will cause the airship to descend rather than fall in a ball of fire.

Make it light enough and you could probably operate it at very high altitudes where AMRAAM is not even a threat.

Equally with plenty of radar power it could blind any radar guided missile with an intense radar pulse... and it could carry missiles itself... short range IIR guided Morfei (its thrust vector motor would allow it to manouver in the thin upper atmosphere air better than most other missiles)...

It is not going to zip around like a rocket but then the ships it operates wont do more than 40 knots anyway... and most will do rather less.

Airships' time is gone forever .

Ended too soon... don't you watch Fringe?

With modern materials the fire risk is reduced to near zero... add to that the technology in solar and fuel cells and small nuclear power supplies and electric motor propulsion... it is the way of the future where low speed is concerned.

I have read about designs intended to carry thousands of ton items from where they are made to where they are to be installed.

Imagine a factory building a 500 ton turbine to be fitted into an hydroelectric dam.... they can either make 50 ten ton bits and send each by truck to the nearest port and sail them to the closest port to the dam and then send the 50 ten ton bits by truck or rail to where the dam is... that means you need a road to the dam.

Not only could an airship pick the load up from where it is made in one piece already assembled but it could take it directly to where it is needed and used to lower it into place...

You could use such an airship to deliver all the vehicles and materials to make a runway in the middle of nowhere...

You could use it for an antarctic base... take the base down for summer and take it back to Russia for winter...

Needless to say, a future V-22 Russian nearest counterpart & its quad rotor follow ons won't need CAT, and will have many civ. applications!

They are not actually as fast as fixed wing aircraft though.... those big rotors would be annoying on deck... they would cover a lot of area... in terms of danger during takeoff and landing...

I personally don't think much of the V-22... it looks unbalanced.

The V-44 looks a bit more stable but with four sets of blades where are you going to put the radar dish...

The radome can be set (or be raised/lowered) above/below the blades for clearance. Or they could use the same or bigger radar deployed under the fuselage of 2 engine craft like on Ka-31s:

The radar of the Ka-31 airborne early warning helicopter has a 360° coverage and can spot aircraft-size target from 150 km range. Surface ships are spotted from 100–200 km range. Radar can track 30–40 targets simultaneously. The helicopter has a datalink to transfer target tracking data to the command post (land base or mother ship).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-31

Speed of V-22 is higher than of C-2:

The C-2 Maximum speed: 343 knots (394 mph, 635 km/h) at 12,000 ft (3,660 m)
Cruise speed: 251 knots (289 mph, 465 km/h) at 28,700 ft (8,750 m)
Range: 1,300 nm (1,496 mi, 2,400 km)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_C-2_Greyhound#Specifications_(Reprocured_C-2A)
Max Cruise Speed 270 kts (500 km/h) SL
Mission Radius 428 nm – MV-22 Blk C with 24 troops, ramp mounted weapon system, 20 min loiter time
http://www.boeing.com/defense/v-22-osprey/
Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph[286]) at sea level / 305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)[287]
Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary internal fuel tanks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Specifications_(MV-22B)

If they r going to develop them anyway, might as well have AWACS variant too. If these, the CAT can be dispensed with altogether.

The radome can be set (or be raised/lowered) above/below the blades for clearance. Or they could use the same or bigger radar deployed under the fuselage of 2 engine craft like on Ka-31s:

Have you seen a V-22?

The blades are enormous.... the wings they are mounted on could only be called stub wings as they are very short... if you want to mount a large disk on top of the fuselage for a radar then when the blades are in forward flight mode the disk will have to be very narrow for them to fit... and when the blades are turned up for the transition to hover which they have to do... it can only land vertically because the enormous blades would hit the ground if it tried to land with the blades in fixed wing flight...

A Hawkeye can have a dorsal mounted disk because its engine blades are tiny in comparison and can be mounted further forward in front of the centre of gravity.

Yes, I've seen them up close in California & in close formation flight over my yard in Arizona.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3FeEXwd5OM4/VWLC9sC59nI/AAAAAAAACxs/EZsy3VWgZsc/s640/Royal%2BNavy%2BV-22%2BAEW%2Band%2BTanker.jpg
http://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/V22-AEW-2-e1432315735536.jpg

If it must be larger & won't fit on top with enough clearance, then there's space on the bottom.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
Speed of V-22 is higher than of C-2:

The C-2 Maximum speed: 343 knots (394 mph, 635 km/h) at 12,000 ft (3,660 m)
Cruise speed: 251 knots (289 mph, 465 km/h) at 28,700 ft (8,750 m)
Range: 1,300 nm (1,496 mi, 2,400 km)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_C-2_Greyhound#Specifications_(Reprocured_C-2A)
Max Cruise Speed 270 kts (500 km/h) SL
Mission Radius 428 nm – MV-22 Blk C with 24 troops, ramp mounted weapon system, 20 min loiter time
http://www.boeing.com/defense/v-22-osprey/
Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph[286]) at sea level / 305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)[287]
Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary internal fuel tanks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Specifications_(MV-22B)

If they r going to develop them anyway, might as well have AWACS variant too. If these, the CAT can be dispensed with altogether.

I don't know what Maths you do use, but in my Maths 343 (kt) > 275 (kt).

The same as 1300 (nm) > 879 (nm) and 33500 (ft) > 25000 (ft)

About max and cruise speeds, values stated at sea level (sl) could not be compared with values referred to a given flying level.

I underlined cruise speeds, not max speeds, as they r most efficient for fuel consumption & used on patrols. Also their ferry range is 640mi. over the listed C-2's max range of 1,300 nm. Mission radius can vary depending on mission profile, fuel load, weight, etc., & can be extended by mid-air refueling. https://sofrep.com/75051/watch-v-22-osprey-mid-air-refueling-must-watch-video/
In the future, they may also refuel helos, CTOLs & STOVLs:

..the Osprey can conduct mid-air refuelings of the F-35 and the F/A-18 Hornet, from land or from off an aircraft carrier. ..
The Corps' 2016 aviation plan calls aerial refueling a future MV-22 mission set, and states that the aircraft will eventually be able to conduct mid-air refueling for other tiltrotor aircraft and helicopters as well as fixed-wing fighters.
https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2016/10/26/new-system-will-allow-ospreys-refuel-f-35s-flight

And you compared stated cruise speed at sea level with stated cruise speed at 28700 ft, two different performances.

V-22 could not even reach that height, according to the very same source you cited.

Those V-22's performances, by the way, are accomplished without neither the drag of a large external radome, nor the internal weights of the electronics and related power generation capacity that are integral to an E-2C configuration.

Install all of those in a V-22 and then take a look at it turning into a flying brick.

Good points, but they may fly in helo mode when looking for targets, the speed is not needed then anyway. The Ka-31s done it for years. The tilt rotor craft can have a smaller radome for less drag, reach/switch patrol areas faster, & be refueled to extend mission time by other tilt rotor or fixed wing craft. An amphib version may also appear. At least their advantages outweigh any shortcomings in performance vs. fixed wing, + they don't need CATOBAR decks & everything a$$ociated with them!

If it must be larger & won't fit on top with enough clearance, then there's space on the bottom.

If you can't fit a disk on top because it is too wide with the props facing forwards then how do you think it could fit underneath with the props facing forward?

the props will be centre of mass for the aircraft... a big huge external dish and antenna will have to be centred too... they wont go in the same place...

Interesting concept: https://www.apn.ru/index.php?newsid=37232

Having lifting fans under the deck will be more economical than STOVL/CAT, & give new lease on life to TAKRs!

Crackers... the uplift from the deck would not get an aircraft airborne... the air would just flow around it... like a hovercraft with no skirt to contain the air...

It would also be pretty stupid... blasting air up into the underside of an aircraft designed to fly forwards would be stupid...

You might as well develop a catapult system like medieval weapons of war that hurled rocks at castles.... throw a plane and while it is flying in the air it can start its engines and keep flying.... duh.

I don't think so. It's the same as the air blowing down from the fuselage. It hits the deck & moves around the plane. And why can't enclosing barriers rise a few feet around the flight path from under the decks? Even if it won't work for VTOL, it will help moving STOVL aircraft with upward thrust during take off & landings.
Bigger C-130s had done it 21 times, w/o using CATOBAR, on bigger USN carriers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-12#Specifications_(An-12)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules#Specifications_(C-130H)

..the crew successfully performed 29 touch-and-go landings, 21 unarrested full-stop landings, and 21 unassisted takeoffs at gross weights of 85,000 pounds up to 121,000 pounds.
At 85,000 pounds, the KC-130F came to a complete stop within 267 feet,.. . .. even with a maximum payload, the plane used only 745 feet of flight deck for takeoff and 460 feet for landing. .. “The last landing I participated in, we touched down about 150 feet from the end, stopped in 270 feet more and launched from that position, using what was left of the deck. We still had a couple hundred feet left when we lifted off.” https://theaviationist.com/2014/07/16/c-130-land-on-carrier/

IMO, if AN-12s can be STOVLed with this method, then anything smaller like Su-34s & MiG-31s (with their Kinzhals) can be as well. And I have no doubt that they'll develop a V-22 counterpart as well:

The change to a helicopter-style aircraft means more flexibility for the Navy. The Osprey doesn't require a carrier to be at "flight operations," which takes a crew of roughly 50 sailors overseeing the equipment required to land and launch airplanes, Navy officials said. It takes only five people to land the MV-22.
Other advantages of the Osprey: It can land supplies at night, something the Navy didn't attempt with the C-2. It also uses cargo containers, which can be offloaded by forklift instead of by hand.
The Osprey also has more lift power -- 10,000 pounds versus 8,500 pounds, Shoemaker said. The flight range is about the same.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/08/03/beginning-end-navy-c-2-greyhound.html
It may be increased soon to give it longer "sea legs":

The Navy’s Osprey will add more than 200 miles to the Nautical range of the existing Corps' variant of the aircraft in order to extend its reach out to sea on-board aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships. “The Navy's operational range requirement for the Carrier Onboard Delivery mission is 1,150 nautical miles.  This is required to provide long range aerial logistics support of the Seabase, and reflects an increase of approximately 200 nautical miles to the baseline MV-22B,”...
The new Osprey, slated to first be operational by 2021, will perform the full range of missions currently executed by the C-2s. This includes VIP transport, humanitarian relief mission and regular efforts to deliver food, spare parts and equipment for sailors aboard carriers. .. In addition, the Osprey is being developed as a tanker aircraft able to perform aerial refueling missions; the idea is to transport fuel and use a probe technology to deliver fuel to key aircraft such as an F/A-18 or F-35C. The first Navy Ospreys will be procured in 2018 with some early “long-lead” items acquired in 2017, Lemaster said. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/new-us-navy-transport-osprey-will-reach-insane-280-miles-per-16334?page=show

I don't think so. It's the same as the air blowing down from the fuselage.

No it isn't.

Think of those indoor parachute systems where a person goes into an enclosed space and an underfloor fan blows them up into the air like they are falling.

It is enclosed for a reason... if it was just open the air can leak around the object and lift will be lost.

And anyway... WTF is the point of creating an air hockey table... if you lift it above the board a few metres... who cares?

It is hardly much use if it can only operate above the carrier deck.

They already have an invention to allow an aircraft to hover 1 metre above a carrier deck... it is called undercarriage... and while that is very useful for letting it take off, you need more than just that to do so.

Even if it won't work for VTOL, it will help moving STOVL aircraft with upward thrust during take off & landings.

No it does not. It would just hold it above the surface of the deck... not even very reliably... and remember what happens in a side gust of wind... when you move a wing tip will clip the deck and you are fucked. Where are you going to put ordinance on these planes? What effect will underwing ordinance have on airflow?

It is a very stupid idea... and how are you even going to do it in the first place?

What happens if one fan fails?

Without that lift the aircraft will crash into the deck surface...

WTF is wrong with just using wheels?

IMO, if AN-12s can be STOVLed, than anything smaller like Su-34s & MiG-31s (with their Kinzhals) can be as well.
And I have no doubt that they'll develop a V-22 counterpart as well:

The F-111 was originally developed as a naval carrier fighter bomber, but failed because it was just too heavy.

The radar and missiles that were developed for it eventually ended up on the F-14...

Why waste time talking about stupid foreign aircraft?

A C-130 might be able to land on a carrier but it is of no practical use... how are you going to get it in the hangar?

With one sitting on the deck do you think you can operate normal air operations around it?

A modified aircraft like the upgraded An-2 could be used with folding wings, but why not develop new aircraft for the purpose?

They are developing EMALs... why piss around with alternative options?

Time will tell, but IMO it's doable with enough CV/N speed to have sufficient wind over deck+plane's forward motion/thrust+deck fans to create lift for STOVL. STOBAR systems could be retained.
No need for AN-12s to stay on CV/Ns for too long & go to hangars. If they break down, stop some/all flight ops & fix it; if that's not an option, dich it! The only time it may be pressed to fly to CV/Ns is if some critical parts/gear/ammo/people must be delivered/evacuated while it's too far from any avail. land base &/ out of range for other aircraft. In any case, they may also build a quad tilt rotor aircraft of similar size.