Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

LMFS wrote:

 Actually at the end finally Ican say second that mate  

Really? I cant believe it!

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.

? 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.

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.

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?

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 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

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.

C and B have different roles, as said above.

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.

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

                            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                        

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).

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

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...

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.

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...  

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.

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.

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

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?

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)

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

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?

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

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

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!  

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

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.

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.

EDIT: video about US efforts in this area

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.

LMFS wrote:

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.      

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!

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  

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

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.

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.

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

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!

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

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?

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.

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...