Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

LMFS wrote:

 Actually at the end finally Ican say second that mate  

Really? I cant believe it!

neither do  I, neither do I      

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:and comparing Su-57 with Yak38 of Harrier (cheers to GarryB       ) is?

Yeah, more or less the same level of unfairness. As said, without the endless billions thrown at it and the awesome F-135 the F-35B is simply inconceivable. You need to level technologies involved.

true, that's why with current level of tech IMHO VSTOL with good performance is possible. Of course Russians can fck it bu making stealth bomb truck or make things right and fouce on light fighter like  LMFS      

? Where do you take this from? Different missions call for different loads, that is all. Payload of Su-33 in your own data is the same as F-35B. But given it is an A2A aircraft this is hardly an issue.

Su-33 Russian iwki

f-35 Wiki/f35.com/naval  technology.

No payload of F-35B is 6,800 s 6,500 of Su-33      

MTOW of Su-33 is clearly stated (33.000 kg), if you want to suspect, the undefined "60.000 lb class" of the F-35B should be the first place to look at. Refusing to provide MTOW of a plane is a way to hide overweight problems.

perhaps yes perhaps no

it is possible canards  also frame and landing gear has to be reworked. The you got very expensive fighter (Su-35 + 30-40%) again with reduced both fuel and payload. Do you think STOBAR costs nothing? Of why Su-33 with 2x 125kN engines  have only 6500kgs max and 5700 fuel?

The dance of the data... do not invent the 5700 kg fuel please.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%83-33
ou're right! Russin wiki - main mode of fillinf (fuel) -5350kg

I added 350kg then real sorry      

Масса топлива: 9400 кг
основной вариант заправки: 5350 кг

STOBAR starting from CTOL has a cost, but I do not see the reason for it being so big, apart from the effects of building so few of them as in Su-33. Do you think a especially developed STOVL fighter, built in very limited numbers and with the special propulsion system would be cheaper than a STOBAR plane developed from a CTOL Russian plane with robust undercarriage??

and why VSTOL should be built in limited number? Russia has no light fighter now... apart from pre-retirement MiG 29 derivatives.

And what about the several billions in STOVL development? If you add that to the 50(?) units you will procure the result is appalling (100 million development costs for 5 billion development and 50 units) For reference, total cost of development of Su-57 was about 10 billion IIRC

and 12 ordered? this gives 834 mlns per unit right?  looks to me like 4x cheaper      

Does it make sense to use specialized air-superiority fighter as multi-role/attack one?

If you conceive now a naval fighter in Russia it would be multirole with high probability, but the T-10 platform is perfectly apt, even the Su-35 can do that. The Su-57 is multirole by definition. Even when the function of the carrier is AD, it doesn't make sense to limit a modern aircraft in that way, especially with a platform so capable as the Sukhois. It is the F-35 that has a serious limitation in that regard, for evident reasons of size and design.

if you build 80ktons or bigger ships  + more LHD and can affors why not? apparently cheaper option is to have light fighter for land and naval and smaller fleet.

C and B have different roles, as said above.

they any comparison makes no sense to me. Either we compare VSTOL with navalized fighter or none.

Endless money is thrown because it was designed CTOL unnecessary and CATOBAR too and stealth on top of it.

In fact I submit the only accomplished version of the F-35 is the STOVL. It is a breakthrough compared to the Harrier while the A and C versions are rather retrograde in many aspects. The whole program was shaped to get and optimized STOVL plane IMHO.

with less payload and less stealth would be far better plan tho

Compare 6,5tons Su-33 vs  8tons of Su-35 or  better copare both:

You assume the Su-33 is a navalized Su-35 which it is clearly not.

                            MiG-29k             F-35B (VSTOL)
payload -                   5,500 kgs [/b]           6800 kgs
combat radius            850km                      930km
top speed                  22000 km/h     1930 km/h
range                        1500km                     1700km
length                        17,3 m                      15,4m
wingspan                    12m               10,7m                        

Still using wrong data even when I pointed out previously... fine.  [/quote]

you mean speed? sorry but 1200 mile/hr was everywhere.  So you can be wrong as well...

BTW MiG-35 with new design and same empty weight as MiG-29K has 2000 km range, even when MiG-29 is not a especially accomplished design in that regard (was not the requirement as point defence fighter).

but you were mentioning MiG-29k  now MiG-35 ? OK, fighter which is produced in whooping 6 pieces and has no navalized version even planned?      

Please note that MiG cannot start from KUZ w/o ski jump and land vertically on short strip w/o arrested landing?!

I noticed, it is a STOBAR fighter... it is good the K has all the necessary equipment. QE also has ski jump even when conceived for the F-35B

good  so they can use max payloads. And can have 50 on board unlike 24-30 on Kuz.

there is no CTOL on CV/Ns         on carriers you got   F-18/Rafale/F-35 (all on STOBAR) and in pair with 1900 speed, so nope it is not less effective.

I meant the speed limit of the F-35 is way too low. And since US uses their planes for colonial wars they will of course find CTOL opponents. Or 2.2 M Su-33s...

So Russia with 20 -24 ship-borne fighters STOBAR is going to attack major power on land? or I missed the point? Su-33 woul deven see rockets comming not ot mention F-35. So why do you need advantage of short dash on after burners?

Actually for strange reason they say somewhere 1,6 Ma on altitude but  everywhere is 1200mph (which is ~1940km/h or 1,6Ma bt on sea level.
Thus until I have no test results let me please stick to 1200miles/h

I suspect this is incorrect and comes from laziness to check speed of sound at altitude, but stand to be corrected. I know no plane that reaches max speed at low altitude. And the F-35's aero is especially difficult in supersonic flight.

and how often Su-33 goes with supersonic? not to mention its radius then

True but its all we got, in such case  how one can assume that Su or MiG data are correct?

Fair enough, I suspect we are not given very good data either. But at least if you put some data on Wiki you should know how to make a sum...  

blame US system of education not me      

on 5400kgs or 9400kgs with no payload because this is relevant too.  BTW Su-33 is 2x bigger and 10000 kgs heavier not perfect comparison to me.

MTOW of Su-33 is stated 33 ton, than means max fuel + 5 ton payload. That would be a whole f*cking lot of AAMs!  
Su-33 is not that much heavier than F-35, or rather the F-35B is no light fighter at all.

Empty weight 14.7 vs 18.4 ton
MTOW 27.2 vs 33 ton


So actually F-35B difference between empty/MTOW is 12500 and Su-33 14600
whoa 4 tons heavier and only 2 tons more useful load?  

Su-33 is not twice bigger!! But it is a honest heavy fighter instead a overweight light fighter turned bomb truck like the F-35. And given it has a very good wing fold it can be packed as densely as the F-35 while being much cheaper.

unless you can cut aiftrame in half then yup (15 vs 22 is like 50% longer)

hmm and does it matter why? it always significantly expensive. In case of F-35 is 50-50 between VSTOL and CATOBAR so here series is fairly long. In Sukhoi case  is should be relatively even more expensive.

Wiki says Su-27 - 30mlns $  Su-33 50mln $. 70% more per unit then.

Have to research this, honestly does not make sense to me. Additionally, I does not work the same in terms of unit costs if you plan the STOVL version from the beginning like in F-35 or develop the STOBAR afterwards like the Su33

S-33 needed different engines, redesigned frame, avionics, landing gear surface... for 36 pieces?

yet still is ~50% longer. BTW so you want to fold Su-57 wings with internal weapon bays? or base on 60 years old airframe? good luck with both!

Su-33 is 35% longer than F-35. F-35B is 45% wider than Su-33
What do weapons bays have to do with wing fold?

how far form wingtip you can go no to damage structural integrity?

They are going conventional. That means a LHD with STOVL still will not replace the CV (no AWACS there for instance). Discussion is whether STOVL will replace STOBAR fighters aboard the carrier. And that would make no sense to many here, once you plan a full flying deck with arresting gear, sky jump and even catapults from what we read from Russian sources (development of EMALS also confirmed several times)

When you see one official  EMALS info keep me posted please.  AWACS doesnt have to be plane you know. It is functionality  It is like you say - Russia needs tens of destroyers and hundreds of tomahawk cells. But instead gone for defensive distributed firepower with tens of small ships.

But why do you suggest only extreme solutions exist? either no LHAs or  only mammoth sized CVNs ? US plans to use LHA as light carriers for specific missions too. Earlier in this or previous thread I've quoted US military doc about strategy where  LHA were to be used as light sea control whips.  

No, you are suggesting STOVL is superior since it takes off faster. Which would imply CVNs are a lesser solution...
I agree LHAs and CVs have different roles and can coexist

No, all I was saying is that currently Russia would be better off with universal ship that combines 3roles LHD/ASW/CV. This is more cost effective especially if you have VSTOL fighters.
I still cannot imagine though what application can have 100ktons carrier stuffed with Su-57 in 2050s?! will be CVNs still in use then?

Not sure abut F-35B but Yak-141 without ski-jump required 120m take off strip in STOL regime, Yak-43 160m.  MiG-29k - 260m , Su-57 350m (O'd presum with max thrust,half fuel  and little weapons).  With smaller fighters and shorter start strips you can have more on deck and using shorter lanes start them faster. Perhaps some also  can start vertically but this was not my point.

Modern STOBAR fighters reach those TO values fully loaded with ski jump, so where is the need for the STOVL?

STOL with ski jump gets you  20-30ktons smaller ship size?  

Control of the VTO requires calmed seas and scarce ship movement in the F-35B, so the use in sea conditions is very limited to start with. Runs of STOVL and STOBAR are similar. Lift through aerofoil is more efficient than by pure thrust. And the highest the T/W ratio gets, the shorter the runs and more comfortably fighters can take off, even on dry settings from the long runs. So no big difference for TO. Landing can be different, but STOVL will normally perform rolling landing too in practical application. Don't know exactly how much deck this takes.

Not exactly true. Kuz is almost 60ktons. Show me 40-30ktons with STOBAR please?

Tsavo Lion wrote:No, I'm not. What's the meaning of ur awatar?

A beautiful Polish actress plying Russian paramedic in WW II TV series from 70s. Cool movie about Soviets and Poles being bothers-in-arms . Series was for kids but most of adults liked this as well

..currently Russia would be better off with universal ship that combines 3 roles LHD/ASW/CV.

Adm.K TAKR is already an ASW/CV/CG combo, & their future CV/Ns r projected/advertized to carry at least a dozen ASW/SAR helos.
Making it also LHD is like combining a long range bomber & heavy transport plane. Neither will be able to perform as such as well as a pure bomber & transport.
As I already mentioned a while ago, the Soviet admirals wanted an LHD to do ASW & DDG/CG tasks but wrecked the whole project: "chase 2 rabbits, catch none".

Tsavo Lion wrote:

..currently Russia would be better off with universal ship that combines 3 roles LHD/ASW/CV.

Adm.K TAKR is already an ASW/CV/CG combo, & their future CV/Ns r projected/advertized to carry at least a dozen ASW/SAR helos.
Making it also LHD is like combining a long range bomber & heavy transport plane. Neither will be able to perform as such as well as a pure bomber & transport.
As I already mentioned a while ago, the Soviet admirals wanted an LHD to do ASW & DDG/CG tasks but wrecked the whole project: "chase 2 rabbits, catch none".

Disagree on this. then you cannot build multi-role fighter or ship with modular construction. is this what you are saying?

It's possible to build combined ships but they won't be as fully capable in some or all of those 3 assigned roles. There is a good reason the USN CVNs r not TAKRs & LHDs as well.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:neither do  I, neither do I      

Don't worry, this can happen to anyone

true, that's why with current level of tech IMHO VSTOL with good performance is possible. Of course Russians can fck it bu making stealth bomb truck or make things right and fouce on light fighter like  LMFS      

If I were to attempt a LMFS that would need to have also a STVOL variant I would screw commonality and great deal of stealth for the STOVL version and put main engine as backwards as possible in the CTOL/STOBAR version to create space for weapon bays and would do the STOVL version with the engine much more displaced to the front and probably without bays or only small ones for 2 MRAAM + wing roots for SRAAM like in PAK-FA. STOVL would be a PoS but at least CTOL version would be saved unlike in the F-35 program  

No payload of F-35B is 6,800 s 6,500 of Su-33      

I know one American joke which is even better: F-35A has more payload than a Su-34.      

As said, if I have the time I will try to find out the real STO performance limits of the F-35B. If one is to judge by T/W ratios at full load (0,67 for F-35B and 0,78 for Su-33) the short take off of the F-35B will not be THAT short.

perhaps yes perhaps no

Yup, that is pretty much the definition of suspicion

you're right! Russin wiki - main mode of fillinf (fuel) -5350kg

I added 350kg then real sorry      

Масса топлива: 9400 кг
основной вариант заправки: 5350 кг

Love to be trolled in Russian, thanks!

Do you think this has any influence in our discussion? They will put the fuel they need for each mission. And the plane can take off in A2A mode from the short runs with both normal and full fuel load.

and why VSTOL should be built in limited number?

Because it is an expensive PoS??

Russia has no light fighter now... apart from pre-retirement MiG 29 derivatives.

With that advertising capacity you should consider applying as salesman for the MiG-35    

and 12 ordered? this gives 834 mlns per unit right?  looks to me like 4x cheaper      

Actually only 2 ordered you know... that is a carrier-priced fighter, not even US has matched this

PAK-FA was needed to reconstruct whole industry so even if they do not build many it was necessary. But I am sure they will end up substituting the T-10 platform with it for some hundreds of units, apart from enabling a lot of other projects...  before you say it, that includes your shitty STOVL yes

if you build 80ktons or bigger ships  + more LHD and can affors why not? apparently cheaper option is to have light fighter for land and naval and smaller fleet.

Hope they manage at least the light one with all the features they propose, not dreaming about much bigger ships. If you manage a light 5G fighter with at least 2500 km range and very small footprint it would be great, if not Su-57K would be head, shoulders and waist above any other naval fighter. In the real world we will see the MiG-29K sticking around for a while I guess

they any comparison makes no sense to me. Either we compare VSTOL with navalized fighter or none.

Maybe, this is a difficult comparison since the only example is the F-35 and that is a very "special" project.

with less payload and less stealth would be far better plan tho

Would partially agree. Marines want it to cover their assess during expeditionary operations, so I guess Navy should have taken care of AD by the time they take over. Maybe I am wrong but I think stealth is not that important for that role.

but you were mentioning MiG-29k  now MiG-35 ? OK, fighter which is produced in whooping 6 pieces and has no navalized version even planned?      

Agree, but naval aviation in Russia is a botched project altogether. They need to invest and deploy in a reasonable scale to judge. And you are comparing with the most expensive defence project in history...

good  so they can use max payloads. And can have 50 on board unlike 24-30 on Kuz.

They will end up buying MiG-29K for better performance, much smaller prices and bigger numbers on board

So Russia with 20 -24 ship-borne fighters STOBAR is going to attack major power on land? or I missed the point?

US is making exercises these days with combined forces of two carriers so they must be getting afraid    
If you have a navy there is the possibility that you have to use it eventually I guess.

Su-33 woul deven see rockets comming not ot mention F-35. So why do you need advantage of short dash on after burners?

If a Su-33 flies higher, faster and longer with longer ranged and faster missiles it enjoys very lopsided engagement windows to shoot down F-35s as if they were sitting ducks. No "situational awareness" and PR crap can avoid the physics ruling engagements. Unless you are suggesting that neither plane would take off and fight off the opponent, since it is dangerous and can end up badly for someone

and how often Su-33 goes with supersonic? not to mention its radius then

As often as it needs to hunt down STOVL pregnant penguins

Radius is a minor problem once your opponent is swimming in the sea, there is a thing called buddy refuelling.

whoa 4 tons heavier and only 2 tons more useful load?  

Useful load??? Does this apply to a STOVL operated plane? Your F-35B is heavier than a F-15E Strike Eagle and you have the nerve of making such digs at the Su-33!
BTW, empty weight to payload ratio is more than 2 for both planes, so 4 heavier for 2 tons more payload is quite ok

unless you can cut aiftrame in half then yup (15 vs 22 is like 50% longer)

Nyet! Calculated for you below.

S-33 needed different engines, redesigned frame, avionics, landing gear surface... for 36 pieces?

Exactly. It was cancelled half way, it was planned for four carriers IIRC and ended up a botched work as so often with the RuN. BTW, the price you mentioned was not for China? So it was not domestic price, or did I understand wrong?

how far form wingtip you can go no to damage structural integrity?

Man, I don't know that. PAK-FA has lower wing load than Su-27 so the same mechanic arrangement should allow for similar folding. But checking the structure and layout of the wing, logic point would be right between ailerons and flaps. That would give a width of ca. 9.5 m once folded. I ignore if this could be improved, but since the vertical tail can be rotated, wing may be folded closer to the body.

Some fuel capacity would be lost and empty weight increased for sure.

Weapons bays have IMHO no interference with this, why would they?

When you see one official  EMALS info keep me posted please.

There have been many references to this, it is officially being developed. No idea what status and what hopes of success though.

 AWACS doesnt have to be plane you know. It is functionality  It is like you say - Russia needs tens of destroyers and hundreds of tomahawk cells. But instead gone for defensive distributed firepower with tens of small ships.

Personally would agree that this will be more distributed in the future, but all that I hear from Russian sources is a rather conventional AWACS concept.

No, all I was saying is that currently Russia would be better off with universal ship that combines 3roles LHD/ASW/CV. This is more cost effective especially if you have VSTOL fighters.
I still cannot imagine though what application can have 100ktons carrier stuffed with Su-57 in 2050s?! will be CVNs still in use then?

This is the last step in Putin's plan to invade CONUS, you should know this after so long in the forum!

AShM are very powerful, but CVNs are too. What happens when DEW get deployed onboard of capital ships? You have also read here about plasma area weapons. And you have posted yourself a paper about shipborne OTH radars. A big CVN has nuclear reactors that can generate amounts of energy close to those of a main power plant, so there will be lots of defensive means tht will have evolved together with the threats as it always happens. I would not disregard the CV so lightly.

STOL with ski jump gets you  20-30ktons smaller ship size?  

For very small vessels STOVL could be an option, I have agreed on this like half a novel ago...

Not exactly true. Kuz is almost 60ktons. Show me 40-30ktons with STOBAR please?

The light CV just presented at Army?? It has even EMALS mind you...

Finaly! Russia will start development of tiltrotors for paratroopers:
https://iz.ru/784712/denis-komarovskii/sheveli-vintami-zachem-vdv-mashina-kak-u-amerikantcev  Mi-30 project:
https://topwar.ru/20847-konvertoplan-mi-30-proekt.html

Later, navalized variants will surely follow.

Russia's is ready to build helicopter carriers, incl. for export
https://iz.ru/785074/2018-09-04/manturov-zaiavil-o-gotovnosti-rossii-stroit-sobstvennye-vertoletonostcy

Tsavo Lion wrote:Finaly! Russia will start development of tiltrotors for paratroopers:
https://iz.ru/784712/denis-komarovskii/sheveli-vintami-zachem-vdv-mashina-kak-u-amerikantcev  Mi-30 project:
https://topwar.ru/20847-konvertoplan-mi-30-proekt.html

Later, navalized variants will surely follow.

Russia's is ready to build helicopter carriers, incl. for export
https://iz.ru/785074/2018-09-04/manturov-zaiavil-o-gotovnosti-rossii-stroit-sobstvennye-vertoletonostcy

Well, they are going to study it if I am understanding correctly. With high speed helicopters being developed already since long I don't see the big advantage of the tiltrotor which compensates its greater complexity.

LMFS wrote:
Well, they are going to study it if I am understanding correctly. With high speed helicopters being developed already since long I don't see the big advantage of the tiltrotor which compensates its greater complexity.

....................................................V-22 vs.......................UH-60

a) payload......................................9,070 kg.....................1,200 kg/4000kg (external/)

b) ceiling.......................................7,620 m.......................5,790 m

c) ferry range.................................3,590km......................2200km

d) Fuselage length...........................17.5 m........................15.27 m

e) rotor diameter.............................25.8 m........................16.36 m

f) max speed...................................294 km/h....................565 km/h




Hmmm higher, longer faster and with 2x payload by similar dimesions. OK hi speed chopper can fly say 400-440 km/h still ceiling,  range, speed will be worse than tiltrotor's one.

BTW why tiltrotor? LHA - you got tool for AWACS

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

LMFS wrote:
Well, they are going to study it if I am understanding correctly. With high speed helicopters being developed already since long I don't see the big advantage of the tiltrotor which compensates its greater complexity.

....................................................V-22 vs.......................UH-60

a) payload......................................9,070 kg.....................1,200 kg/4000kg (external/)

b) ceiling.......................................7,620 m.......................5,790 m

c) ferry range.................................3,590km......................2200km

d) Fuselage length...........................17.5 m........................15.27 m

e) rotor diameter.............................25.8 m........................16.36 m

f) max speed...................................294 km/h....................565 km/h




Hmmm higher, longer faster and with 2x payload by similar dimesions. OK hi speed chopper can fly say 400-440 km/h still ceiling,  range, speed will be worse  than tiltrotor's one.

BTW why tiltrotor? LHA - you got tool for AWACS

Wouldn't it be good to compare with a high speed helicopter and not with some random conventional chopper?? This is close to useless as a comparison, since the flight dynamics of a high speed helo will be different to conventional ones. Rotor is completely different to start with. Reported speeds for ongoing developments are >500 km/h for instance. Price and reliability of the V-22 are terrible. Having said that, if they research and come to the conclusion that a tiltrotor can be done and makes sense, then they should go ahead, but IMO there is a strong incentive to sticking with high speed helicopters which can pretty much do the same and are not going to be such a risky niche development.

Still need to see a tilt-rotor as AWACS. Wouldn't the blades interfere with the main antenna?

LMFS wrote:
Wouldn't it be good to compare with a high speed helicopter and not with some random conventional chopper?? This is close to useless as a comparison, since the flight dynamics of a high speed helo will be different to conventional ones. Rotor is completely different to start with. Reported speeds for ongoing developments are >500 km/h for instance.

1) chopper is wide deployed in US armed forces and have similar comparable size. V-22 is being used now. now on US.

2) 500 + ?
So far I only ve heard about ~480 in dash and max 400 cruis speed - 25 % slower than old V-22

3) with less wing area cannot be more fuel efficient as tilt rotor in "aeroplane" moide


4) ceiling (for AWACS count too )


.

Still need to see a tilt-rotor as AWACS. Wouldn't the blades interfere with the main antenna?

use AESA?

It's a lot easier to make a V-22 size or bigger tiltrotor than a high speed helo of similar size which'll still fly slower & lower with less range, as posted above. Quadrotors will follow.  
[img][/img]
https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/why-the-us-gator-navy-needs-the-ev-22/

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/bell-v280-valor-v22-osprey-replacement/

https://news.rambler.ru/army/39777811-avianosets-shtorm-izmenit-balans-v-treh-regionah-mira/?utm_campaign=2018-05-05&utm_term=main_news_4&utm_content=news&utm_source=email&utm_medium=r_news_daily&updated

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.rambler.ru%2Farmy%2F39777811-avianosets-shtorm-izmenit-balans-v-treh-regionah-mira%2F%3Futm_campaign%3D2018-05-05%26utm_term%3Dmain_news_4%26utm_content%3Dnews%26utm_source%3Demail%26utm_medium%3Dr_news_daily%26updated

Aircraft carrier "Storm" will change the balance in three regions of the world
THE RUSSIAN NEWSPAPER + 11 MORE ON May 5, 2018
16323113 COMMENTS 938

Photo: Russian Newspaper
The Russian prospective aircraft carrier of the Storm project will become the world's first marine carrier of the fifth generation aircraft, which will give the Russian Navy a strategic advantage over any other fleet. In addition, the presence of a Russian ship of this class can seriously change the balance of power in three regions of the planet, which are now attracted by the attention of the world's leading powers: the Arctic, the Mediterranean and Southeast Asia.

"If Russia's military-political relations in the Persian Gulf are strengthened, as now, the presence of a large aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean will be a symbol of support for Russian allies and will ensure the safety of cargo delivery for them," the authors of the article published in the journal Military Watch believe.

The aircraft carrier "Storm" will be adapted to work in the Arctic Circle. His arrival in the Arctic will give the Russian military an indisputable advantage over all other countries claiming natural resources hidden under ice. If the aircraft carrier becomes the key to them, he will undoubtedly pay for his development.

The third region where the emergence of a new Russian aircraft carrier can dramatically change the alignment of forces - the Asia-Pacific. The situation there is not easy: China is increasing the power of its navy to control the disputed islands, and recently adopted anti-ship ballistic missiles DF-21 seriously worried the US military, since they are intended to destroy aircraft carriers. The US and its allies have to demonstrate their strength by conducting naval exercises in the surrounding waters. The appearance in this boiling boiler of a Russian aircraft carrier with a powerful grouping of the newest aircraft is a serious argument in favor of China.

By the way, the Celestial Empire can become a buyer of Russian aircraft carriers. In China, there are already two aircraft-carrying cruisers of the Soviet model and deck fighter J-15, a copy of the Su-33. With the help of Russian aircraft of the fifth generation of Su-57 Beijing could significantly expand the capabilities of ship aviation. Another potential buyer of Russian aircraft carriers is India .
Reference "WG"

The project of the prospective multipurpose aircraft carrier "Storm" was first shown at the St. Petersburg Naval Salon in 2013. Designed by the Krylov Center, a ship with a displacement of 100,000 tons will be able to take on board up to 90 aircraft and helicopters. The nuclear power plant will remove restrictions on the range of navigation, and the ice class will allow the ship to enter the Arctic. The flight deck will have two trampolines and four electromagnetic catapults. Receiving aircraft will provide an aerofinery.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:1) chopper is wide deployed in US armed forces and have similar comparable size.  V-22 is  being used now. now on US.

Yeah quite similar... V-22's empty weight is more than 3 times bigger than the UH-60. Excellent comparison!  

2) 500 + ?      
So far I only ve heard about ~480 in dash and max 400 cruis speed - 25 % slower than old V-22

Well, it has been stated in those terms. No device is operational so it remains to be seen what is achieved. Max speed of V-22 at sea level is 509 km/h

3) with less wing area cannot be more fuel efficient as tilt rotor in "aeroplane" moide

It has rotary wings. And they will have bigger area than in normal helos, see below. We need to see how this works in terms of flight efficiency, service ceiling and others, we have no data to compare. And helos can always be equipped with fixed wings if this is considered beneficial I guess.

BTW, the range you refer for the V-22 implies filling the cargo compartment with fuel tanks... combat radius for UH-60 and V-22 as per wiki are 592 vs 722 km, 22% difference.

4) ceiling (for AWACS count too )

No doubt!

use AESA?

Tsavo Lion submitted an interesting concept for the V-22, which addresses the issue of the rotors by placing three arrays that cover 360º around the plane while avoiding the blades, maybe I saw this in the past but I was not remembering it. In any case is not operational but good idea.

Tsavo Lion wrote:It's a lot easier to make a V-22 size or bigger tiltrotor than a high speed helo of similar size which'll still fly slower & lower with less range, as posted above. Quadrotors will follow.

With electric motors quadrotors would be very interesting and flexible, but by now this is not done that way for heavy military aircraft, probably due to weight issues. Cannot agree that a tiltrotor is easier than a high speed copter. Russians are working on the latter since beginning of 2000's, they are apparently close to having one ready for naval operations. So, even when I have nothing against tiltrotors and agree that they need to take a look at them, I think it is indeed easier (by now at least) to make one development instead of two, especially when tiltrotor technology has proven challenging and expensive.

EDIT: video about US efforts in this area

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhi9DcyJDww

We need to see how this works in terms of flight efficiency, service ceiling and others, we have no data to compare. And helos can always be equipped with fixed wings if this is considered beneficial I guess.

The main rotor(s) on high speed helo will still add more drag than forward facing tiltrotors. Stub wings on helos will only add ~15% lift; props on them &/rear facing push props on those helos will add speed but won't best the corresponding specs on tiltrotors. They may be more complicated but with better performance will pay for the themselves many times over, otherwise the russians wouldn't have bothered with them in 1972-1986 & now.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:1) chopper is wide deployed in US armed forces and have similar comparable size.  V-22 is  being used now. now on US.

Yeah quite similar... V-22's empty weight is more than 3 times bigger than the UH-60. Excellent comparison!  

true, also true that with similar size can carry 24/30 troops vs 11 Black Hawk. For 30-40k carrier those 80-100 tons difference (8-10 units) is unlikely decisive factor

2) 500 + ?      
So far I only ve heard about ~480 in dash and max 400 cruis speed - 25 % slower than old V-22

Well, it has been stated in those terms. No device is operational so it remains to be seen what is achieved. Max speed of V-22 at sea level is 509 km/h

565 km/h at 4600m  and super hiper fast chopper  on 3000m 472 km/h measured (Airbus) Interesting is not measured on sea level for a reason I guess
True that Russians pan to have 500-520 km/h well need to see it yet. If main characteristics will be comparable (what I doubt) I think that load capacity and Total cost of ownership will decide which one prevails

3) with less wing area cannot be more fuel efficient as tilt rotor in "aeroplane" moide

It has rotary wings. And they will have bigger area than in normal helos, see below. We need to see how this works in terms of flight efficiency, service ceiling and others, we have no data to compare. And helos can always be equipped with fixed wings if this is considered beneficial I guess. [/quote]

true so far all choppers are pretty poor in terms of altitude comparing to planes. Also true you cannot indefinitely speed blade tips are already around speed of sound in fast choppers. Not sure if they can go 1 Ma +

use AESA?

Tsavo Lion submitted an interesting concept for the V-22, which addresses the issue of the rotors by placing three arrays that cover 360º around the plane while avoiding the blades, maybe I saw this in the past but I was not remembering it. In any case is not operational but good idea.

like that? Since 90 Israel makes them, Italy, Singapore and Chile are operating too.

s. Cannot agree that a tiltrotor is easier than a high speed copter. Russians are working on the latter since beginning of 2000's, they are apparently close to having one ready for naval operations. So, even when I have nothing against tiltrotors and agree that they need to take a look at them, I think it is indeed easier (by now at least) to make one development instead of two, especially when tiltrotor technology has proven challenging and expensive.

and you think 500km chopper will be low end solution and reliable?  BTW Yet US  Marines ordered V-280 tiltrotor to replace all utility and attack helos for some reason.

EDIT: video about US efforts in this area

and here Russian drone (concept already is flying this one looks like scaled up art





and here Ka-92 form 2009 first time presented.      

Tsavo Lion wrote:The main rotor(s) on high speed helo will still add more drag than forward facing tiltrotors. Stub wings on helos will only add ~15% lift; props on them &/rear facing push props on those helos will add speed but won't best the corresponding specs on tiltrotors. They may be more complicated but with better performance will pay for the themselves many times over, otherwise the russians wouldn't have bothered with them in 1972-1986 & now.

There is no way you can know this, unless you work for Kamov and are not telling us. This is a new technology with which the Russians are bothering themselves since almost 20 years.

US Army is pitching Bell with their tiltrotor prototype against Sikorsky's high speed helo, if the comparison was so clear I guess Sikorsky + Boeing would have spared themselves the effort.

..load capacity and Total cost of ownership will decide which one prevails

Future serial production of tiltrotor aircraft for civilian, MChS, FSB, NG & military use with export potential & many common parts will decrease unit/pilot training cost & negate their possible higher ownership cost with better performance vs. helicopters.
For the VMF, if they r adopted for COD &/ AWACS roles, it'll save $ on developing Yak-44 based/inspired planes. Also in the Arctic, Siberia & the Far East, speed & range r essential in civil transport, SAR & supply ops now mostly done by helos from small airfields.
IMO, the competition between US companies designs can't be directly reflected in Russia as development, materials & labor costs as well as geography & doctrines r different.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
For the VMF, if they r adopted for COD &/ AWACS roles, it'll save $ on developing Yak-44 based/inspired planes. Also in the Arctic, Siberia & the Far East, speed & range r essential in civil transport, SAR & supply ops now mostly done by helos from small airfields.
IMO, the competition between US companies designs can't be directly reflected in Russia as development, materials & labor costs as well as geography & doctrines r different.

I'd love to see Fregat type tiltrotor as AESA AWACS for navy

GunshipDemocracy wrote:565 km/h at 4600m  and super hiper fast chopper  on 3000m 472 km/h measured (Airbus) Interesting is not measured on sea level for a reason I guess
True that Russians pan to have 500-520 km/h well need to see it yet. If main characteristics will be comparable (what I doubt) I think that load capacity and Total cost of ownership will decide which one prevails

Airbus model has nothing to do with Kamov's counter-rotating rotors.
Development costs, footprint, procurement costs, foreign market and many other issue will be weighted. I repeat, the high speed helo is already under development.

true so far all choppers are pretty poor in terms of altitude comparing to planes. Also true you cannot indefinitely speed blade tips are already around speed of sound in fast choppers. Not sure if they can go 1 Ma +

That is why Kamov proposed their technology. Blade stall and tips getting supersonic are both addressed  

like that? Since 90 Israel makes them, Italy, Singapore and Chile are operating too.

No, that is a regular plane

and you think 500km chopper will be low end solution and reliable?  BTW Yet US  Marines ordered V-280 tiltrotor to replace all utility and attack helos for some reason.

To the first, if they are developing the chopper then they probably expect it to be reliable and affordable.
The V-280 has not been ordered yet, is being developed unless I am very wrong...  

and here Russian drone (concept already is flying this one looks like scaled up art

and here Ka-92 form 2009 first time presented.      

So???

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:neither do  I, neither do I      

Don't worry, this can happen to anyone

but why me? why meee?      

true, that's why with current level of tech IMHO VSTOL with good performance is possible. Of course Russians can fck it bu making stealth bomb truck or make things right and fouce on light fighter like  LMFS      

If I were to attempt a LMFS that would need to have also a STVOL variant I would screw commonality and great deal of stealth for the STOVL version and put main engine as backwards as possible in the CTOL/STOBAR version to create space for weapon bays and would do the STOVL version with the engine much more displaced to the front and probably without bays or only small ones for 2 MRAAM + wing roots for SRAAM like in PAK-FA. STOVL would be a PoS but at least CTOL version would be saved unlike in the F-35 program  

whaaat? again agreed?!      

No payload of F-35B is 6,800 s 6,500 of Su-33      

I know one American joke which is even better: F-35A has more payload than a Su-34.      

is more stealthy but unlikely with armor underneath and unlikely as agile in dog-fighting

perhaps yes perhaps no

Yup, that is pretty much the definition of suspicion

   

Масса топлива: 9400 кг
основной вариант заправки: 5350 кг

Love to be trolled in Russian, thanks!

I can troll in many languages      

Do you think this has any influence in our discussion? They will put the fuel they need for each mission. And the plane can take off in A2A mode from the short runs with both normal and full fuel load.

true, the difference is in mode of operations - F-35 is to sneak in to AAD areas and use  standoff weapons unlike Su-33 which is an air-superiority fighter.   I'd love  to have reliable data on air-2-air capabilities tho.

and why VSTOL should be built in limited number?

Because it is an expensive PoS??

and what is PoS? point of sale?      

Russia has no light fighter now... apart from pre-retirement MiG 29 derivatives.

With that advertising capacity you should consider applying as salesman for the MiG-35  

there's nothing wrong with MiG-35 but in 10-15 years Russian needs new fighter. US, Germany/France, UK are working on new projects.  China is churning models 2 per year alwasy looking like F-35 or MiG 1.44 tho      

PAK-FA was needed to reconstruct whole industry so even if they do not build many it was necessary. But I am sure they will end up substituting the T-10 platform with it for some hundreds of units, apart from enabling a lot of other projects...  before you say it, that includes your

shitty

STOVL yes

you dont want me to go personal do you?      

if you build 80ktons or bigger ships  + more LHD and can affors why not? apparently cheaper option is to have light fighter for land and naval and smaller fleet.

Hope they manage at least the light one with all the features they propose, not dreaming about much bigger ships. If you manage a light 5G fighter with at least 2500 km range and very small footprint it would be great, if not Su-57K would be head, shoulders and waist above any other naval fighter. In the real world we will see the MiG-29K sticking around for a while I guess

like  world sees F-5 and MiG-21 now        This ntot about looong range or short one, or super payload. IT is about doctrine how ot use it. Rides over US mainland or point defense of Arctic/Pacific Subs grouping or Syria like conflicts.

with less payload and less stealth would be far better plan tho

Would partially agree. Marines want it to cover their assess during expeditionary operations, so I guess Navy should have taken care of AD by the time they take over. Maybe I am wrong but I think stealth is not that important for that role.

I'd presume is actually very important.  Stealth to come closer to shore and destroy AADs before operation starts.

And you are comparing with the most expensive defence project in history...

because is funded by a nation with exceptionalism ideology so every fighter must be exceptional in some sense. This was in financial one.      

good  so they can use max payloads. And can have 50 on board unlike 24-30 on Kuz.

They will end up buying MiG-29K for better performance, much smaller prices and bigger numbers on board

lines are shut, it would be really expensive now :D:D

So Russia with 20 -24 ship-borne fighters STOBAR is going to attack major power on land? or I missed the point?

US is making exercises these days with combined forces of two carriers so they must be getting afraid    
If you have a navy there is the possibility that you have to use it eventually I guess.

for point defense ? yup heavy, expensive fighters in vestigial numbers instead of many smaller capable fighters ?

Su-33 woul deven see rockets comming not ot mention F-35. So why do you need advantage of short dash on after burners?

If a Su-33 flies higher, faster and longer with longer ranged and faster missiles it enjoys very lopsided engagement windows to shoot down F-35s as if they were sitting ducks. No "situational awareness" and PR crap can avoid the physics ruling engagements.

doest see longer (last avionics update in 2009, no AESA,not sure about EW comparison ) and is not in C4I .

missiles? Su-33 best: R-27T/P -4,5 Ma /90-110 km
F-35   AIM-120D   160+ km  4Ma

In short Su-33 would die before even notice any of F-35s

and how often Su-33 goes with supersonic? not to mention its radius then

As often as it needs to hunt down STOVL pregnant penguins

Thus higher speed actually remains unused asset in most of situations?

Radius is a minor problem once your opponent is swimming in the sea, there is a thing called buddy refuelling.

so from 24 fighters 8 is out after refueling ? wow this definitely increases your chances with 60F-35

whoa 4 tons heavier and only 2 tons more useful load?  

Useful load??? Does this apply to a STOVL operated plane? Your F-35B is heavier than a F-15E Strike Eagle and you have the nerve of making such digs at the Su-33!

yet still S-33 is 4 tons heavier and payload is 300kgs smaller you know      

unless you can cut aiftrame in half then yup (15 vs 22 is like 50% longer)

Nyet! Calculated for you below.

S-33 needed different engines, redesigned frame, avionics, landing gear surface... for 36 pieces?

Exactly. It was cancelled half way, it was planned for four carriers IIRC and ended up a botched work as so often with the RuN. BTW, the price you mentioned was not for China? So it was not domestic price, or did I understand wrong?

And for Su-30 was?

how far form wingtip you can go no to damage structural integrity?

Man, I don't know that. PAK-FA has lower wing load than Su-27 so the same mechanic arrangement should allow for similar folding. But checking the structure and layout of the wing, logic point would be right between ailerons and flaps. That would give a width of ca. 9.5 m once folded. I ignore if this could be improved, but since the vertical tail can be rotated, wing may be folded closer to the body.

Some fuel capacity would be lost and empty weight increased for sure.

so length - 19,8m and after folding wings still as wide as F-35 without folded wings? BTW so we have now onlu 28,6% longer, lets say same width so place is
(1,286) 2 = 1,65 more space needed.  Not 2 so progress.  

Weapons bays have IMHO no interference with this, why would they?

nice fan art. Enve here you can see only tips of wings can fold.

Personally would agree that this will be more distributed in the future, but all that I hear from Russian sources is a rather conventional AWACS concept.

That's what I am afraid of      

I still cannot imagine though what application can have 100ktons carrier stuffed with Su-57 in 2050s?! will be CVNs still in use then?

This is the last step in Putin's plan to invade CONUS, you should know this after so long in the forum!

konus in Polish is derogatory description of a small guy        

AShM are very powerful, but CVNs are too. What happens when DEW get deployed onboard of capital ships? You have also read here about plasma area weapons. And you have posted yourself a paper about shipborne OTH radars. A big CVN has nuclear reactors that can generate amounts of energy close to those of a main power plant, so there will be lots of defensive means tht will have evolved together with the threats as it always happens. I would not disregard the CV so lightly.

all true but  IMHO unlikely CNNs will be in this size and form. For drones you dont need so much space for living, supplies, medical or entertainment.

STOL with ski jump gets you  20-30ktons smaller ship size?  

For very small vessels STOVL could be an option, I have agreed on this like half a novel ago...

   

Not exactly true. Kuz is almost 60ktons. Show me 40-30ktons with STOBAR please?

The light CV just presented at Army?? It has even EMALS mind you...

Yup, they presented a model and this one is USS Enterprise - from Tamiya      

@Gunship:

I'm getting worried that there is something wrong with us since we are increasingly agreeing after a long discussion, definitely not normal

I know one American joke which is even better: F-35A has more payload than a Su-34.      

is more stealthy but unlikely with armor underneath and unlikely as agile in dog-fighting

Well, Su-34 is a big fat bomber and should not be so good at dogfighting but at least its 8 ton payload are real, usable ones and not just a datasheet trick. It is not clear F-35A can carry full fuel and payload at the same time and even then, the take-off run, range and real usability would be more than questionable. The same goes for Rafale with 9.5 ton claimed payload. It is nice that a plane can structurally withstand it, but will it really be of any use? Or rather, how much of that will be ordnance and how much will be just external tanks to have a decent range in real operation? Flanker derivations do not normally carry external tanks so they can load much more useful ordnance in practical conditions.

and what is PoS? point of sale?      

Hahaha... starts with piece and ends with *hit
Apart from offending for free, I meant that STOVL are more expensive and have inherently limited fuel capacity + extra weight. Barring a tremendous design and/or technology breakthrough that removes such limitations, they should only be used where CTOL or STOBAR are not an option. And that means to me essentially small LHDs. With few of these vessels planed for service and few planes per ship, total STOVL numbers should be low me thinks.

like  world sees F-5 and MiG-21 now        This ntot about looong range or short one, or super payload. IT is about doctrine how ot use it. Rides over US mainland or point defense of Arctic/Pacific Subs grouping or Syria like conflicts.

Yes. And it makes difficult for anyone to foresee what will be done, since Russian power projection doctrine does not seem very clear. Sergey Vlasov from Nevskoye complained about the ever changing doctrinal approach and the lack of continuity in carrier building and operations. He is right IMO, without continued effort there is little hope of progress in this concrete area of development.

I'd presume is actually very important.  Stealth to come closer to shore and destroy AADs before operation starts.

They would be used against developing countries to start with. The bigger carriers would take care of main AD sites. Marines would be more busy with SHORAD, but at short range the level of stealth of a F-35 is questionable. Israel is successfully attacking Syria, where only modern AD assets are short range, with 4G fighters+ stand-off weapons so I am not sure a stealth fighter is really critical in such conditions. Lighter, faster one without weapons bays would do IMO.

because is funded by a nation with exceptionalism ideology so every fighter must be exceptional in some sense. This was in financial one.      

Totally, and I'm not sure until when this can be sustained. Lockheed proposing the F-22 / F-35 hybrid and some countries reducing their orders. Procurement of F-35 forcers services to save beyond reasonable on the rest of programs. If stealth hype loses steam any time soon (already signs of this are visible and procurement is planed to go until 2039 IIRC) numbers could be notably reduced.

for point defense ? yup heavy, expensive fighters in vestigial numbers instead of many smaller capable fighters

Who says point defence? Sukhois would use their range to move the fight away from the carrier and fight for air dominance. Again no evidence that the numbers would be bigger (and by how much) with STOVL planes.

doest see longer (last avionics update in 2009, no AESA,not sure about EW comparison ) and is not in C4I .

missiles? Su-33 best: R-27T/P -4,5 Ma /90-110 km
F-35   AIM-120D   160+ km  4Ma

In short Su-33 would die before even notice any of F-35s

Hey, I am comparing platforms not avionics. It would be unreasonable to compare a future plane in which you invest billions with an old, neglected Flanker version. An updated Su-33 would  have an Irbis radar, all the Russian missiles and the 41F-1S engines at least, and still be orders of magnitude cheaper than a new development. And it would not fight alone as you can imagine, against F-35s it would most probably rely on other assets, apart from the fact that F-35s cannot take off from nowhere, their basing would be very easy to locate and hence attack.

Unless detection fails massively, I simply don't see how F-35s could take on Sukhois with R-37Ms.

Thus higher speed actually remains unused asset in most of situations?

Yes unless when you actually need to fight  

so from 24 fighters 8 is out after refueling ? wow this definitely increases your chances with 60F-35

I think I don't understand. If you are massively outnumbered you will struggle in any case. But if you can free some of your fighters they can help with refuelling, that is all.

At least a superior fighter will have better exchange rates against the opponent and allow to partially compensate the exorbitant numerical superiority of USN. That is why a naval Su-57 would be important, US is not expected to field anything comparable in the next 20 years. Would the F-22/F-35 hybrid address this potential capability gap of their naval aviation too??

yet still S-33 is 4 tons heavier and payload is 300kgs smaller you know      

See above. Russians don't seem to engage in that kind of datasheet tailoring.

Exactly. It was cancelled half way, it was planned for four carriers IIRC and ended up a botched work as so often with the RuN. BTW, the price you mentioned was not for China? So it was not domestic price, or did I understand wrong?

And for Su-30 was?

What do you mean? Su-30 costs less than 30 million, like 150 ordered for Russia (don't have the numbers) + IAF etc.

so length - 19,8m and after folding wings still as wide as F-35 without folded wings? BTW so we have now onlu 28,6% longer, lets say same width so place is
(1,286) 2 = 1,65 more space needed.  Not 2 so progress.

Again at maths... 28% longer and 13% narrower makes by your questionable footprint calculation method 14% more area. But more relevant as said is how you use the hangar and deck area and this is sadly not so easy to asses. Reason for this is that dimensions of the fighter and the place where it needs to be stored are comparable therefore you cannot use up all the space, like storing irregularly shaped items on a box leaves much unused space.

Nevertheless keep in mind this is fan art, no idea if they could make it more compact. And in any case, deployments of the K have not been with full air wing until now.
But if the price for making a compact plane is make it incapable of supersonic flight due to low fineness ratio / high wave drag then it is not worth it. The exchange rates against a naval Su-57 would be dismal.

AShM are very powerful, but CVNs are too. What happens when DEW get deployed onboard of capital ships? You have also read here about plasma area weapons. And you have posted yourself a paper about shipborne OTH radars. A big CVN has nuclear reactors that can generate amounts of energy close to those of a main power plant, so there will be lots of defensive means tht will have evolved together with the threats as it always happens. I would not disregard the CV so lightly.

all true but  IMHO unlikely CNNs will be in this size and form. For drones you dont need so much space for living, supplies, medical or entertainment.

True, maybe you can reduce the crew to a fraction of USN carriers and that would save massively in terms of space, complexity and costs. Half of the air wing could be compact drones. Automation and modification of the operations should allow for smaller vessels, but a CVN will always be an expensive capital ship

Not exactly true. Kuz is almost 60ktons. Show me 40-30ktons with STOBAR please?

The light CV just presented at Army?? It has even EMALS mind you...

Yup, they presented a model and this one is USS Enterprise - from Tamiya      

I REALLY hope Krylov made some numbers and feasibility considerations before presenting this proposal you know...

Hey Gunship:

Some info on STVOL performance by the F-35B:

Its STOVL take-off requirements are for a 2 x 1,000 lb J-DAM, + 2 x AIM 120, plus fuel for a 450 nmi combat radius — from a flat deck, or land surface, in 600 ft at seal level in tropical conditions, with 10 kts of wind. It also requires return from a 450 nmi combat mission with the 2 x 1000 lb J-DAM + 2 x AIM 120 combat load retained & sufficient fuel, including reserves for a vertical landing (ordnance retained). Operations from a “ski-jump” deck reduces the take-off run by ~ 100 ft.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-F-35bs-STOVL-capability-compare-to-that-of-the-Harrier

So according to this source it will make 830 km radius with 1300 kg payload... taking off from a strip two times longer than the one at the K... an interesting STO requirement considering the PAK-FA could take off from the same position at the K fully loaded, and that flat TO run claimed for it is 300 m (unspecified load)

Searching further...

EDIT 1

> Apparently requirements changed from 550 to 600 feet run for STO under full load.

> From UK's QE:

SEP 2014 PAUL E EDEN

"300 Take-off run in feet from QEC for lightly loaded F-35B

800 Take-off run in feet from QEC for fully loaded F-35B"

Source: AEROSPACE TESTING INTERNATIONAL September 2014

WTF???

If those bombs & missiles r disarmed as they normally r, there's less chance they'll detonate in a crash; rolling landings will be used most of the time anyway. In the worst case, jettisoning them is also an option, as the y cost less than the fighters & pilots.