Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Tsavo Lion wrote: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.

I was thinking of a crash like the one in the video of soviet yak that hit the ship too hard and exploded. The bombs will detonate for sure in such case destroying the ship and more than one pilot.

Let's see if I get this straight:

> So, the F-35B can take off vertically with marginal fuel and payload (200 km radius with two AMRAAM and two AIM-9X at the most economic speed)
> It can make "STO" under full load... but then that means 200 m run on an LHA, essentially the whole deck

Is this the result of so many efforts and spent billions? A VSTOL variant that compromised the huge majority of the F-35 fleet but cannot take off in shorter space than a humble MiG-29K or Su-33? And to make it worse, limited to 7g, without cannon, without foldable wing, with massive logistic issues like needing to refrigerate the fuel or having a huge engine nobody knows how to transport onto a ship, with small weapons bays incapable for LRAAM, 1.6 M, terrible transonic acceleration etc...

I'm left speechless by the scale of this failure...

LMFS wrote:Let's see if I get this straight:

> So, the F-35B can take off vertically with marginal fuel and payload (200 km radius with two AMRAAM and two AIM-9X at the most economic speed)
> It can make "STO" under full load... but then that means 200 m run on an LHA, essentially the whole deck

Is this the result of so many efforts and spent billions? A VSTOL variant that compromised the huge majority of the F-35 fleet but cannot take off in shorter space than a humble MiG-29K or Su-33? And to make it worse, limited to 7g, without cannon, without foldable wing, with massive logistic issues like needing to refrigerate the fuel or having a huge engine nobody knows how to transport onto a ship, with small weapons bays incapable for LRAAM, 1.6 M, terrible transonic acceleration etc...

I'm left speechless by the scale of this failure...

A real pig with a AL-117 in the ass does better

Isos wrote:I was thinking of a crash like the one in the video of soviet yak that hit the ship too hard and exploded. The bombs will detonate for sure in such case destroying the ship and more than one pilot.

There's always a risk; they may tell pilots to do rolling landings only when bringing back any ordinance. That book isn't written yet.  

A real pig with a AL-117 in the ass does better

The Russians will learn from the F-35B saga & won't repeat those mistakes. IMO, their future STOVL fighter (not a variant of CTOL to save $) must be better in all aspects as it will need to make up for lack of CATOBAR CV/Ns & their AWs.[/quote]

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Russians will learn from the F-35B saga & won't repeat those mistakes. Their future STOVL fighter (not a variant of CTOL to save $) must be better in all aspects as it will make up for lack of CATOBAR CV/Ns & their AWs.

Russian naval fighters do NOT need CATOBAR, only the heavier planes like AWACS do... and it was actually the STOVL variant that conditioned both CTOL and CV in F-35.

You are seeing that the best foreign example, developed with endless billions of funding and with the absolute best fighter engine in the world cannot match the TO performance of Russian STOBAR examples. A Russian design could be better (needs to be WAY lighter to start with) but you are seeing the reality of STOVL in numbers, do you think Lockheed guys are not smart enough or lack resources? What is the use of this technology apart from very small and simple LHDs? Even a big LHD with ski jump and arresting gear would be better off with STOBAR fighters than with STOVL.

Russian naval fighters do NOT need CATOBAR, only the heavier planes like AWACS do...

I wasn't clear enough: "instead of CATOBAR.."
Even so, why the newest SU-33 derived China's J-15s were fitted with launch bars on their front landing gear? IIRC, they can get their engines from Russia but still plan to go CATOBAR.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Russian naval fighters do NOT need CATOBAR, only the heavier planes like AWACS do...

I wasn't clear enough: "instead of CATOBAR.."
Even so, why the newest SU-33 derived China's J-15s were fitted with launch bars on their front landing gear? IIRC, they can get their engines from Russia but still plan to go CATOBAR.

New Chinese carrier will have catapults... and AWACS. If you have catapults in your carrier it makes full sense to fit your fighters for using it.

All proposed Russian carriers I know since Ulyanovsk to our days would have both ski jump and catapults. Don't know why Chinese decided to remove the later completely in their new unit.

Isos wrote:

LMFS wrote: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 three 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...

Vertical landing with bombs under the plane isn't the smartest thing to do on a ship full of fuel, weapons and poeple.

Nevertheless, landing with underwing stores is not normal practice! Some russian aircraft in Syria have been landing with underwing armament unused. Obviously, Russians are very confident in their armament hardpoints and fuse wiring to prevent possible activation.

There may be a new kind of STOVL surpassing all previous models, as
technology improves, producing new more efficient design solutions.

And that same new technology could be applied to conventional take off aircraft to make them even better... and yet still operationally compatible with land based models.

Note the new MiG-35 will be fully carrier capable apparently... no real surprise there as they use the MiG-29KR airframe...

The Yak-141 design may still be improved & it'll be wrong to assume that it's a dead end in aviation.

In its final form with hot lift engines just behind the cockpit there is no way to land safely vertically without the potential for main engine stall when hot air gets sucked into the main air intakes.

That is why the F-35 has a geared fan there... which occupies a huge volume of space that could be used for fuel.

One solution could be fuel bladders that occupy the empty space above and below the fan that can be filled for conventional takeoff with the skijump (like a MiG-29 or Su-33 take off) and have that fuel being used up during flight freeing up space above and below the fan for a vertical take off or fan assisted low speed landing... but even then... not hopeful... lots of potential problems, and design compromise to make it land that way.

whoa for for deck fighter fighting ships was no function?

Its anti ship armament was unguided rockets (80mm) and unguided bombs... what sort of anti ship function would you recommend?

Besides despite its performance I would still rather a Granit Mach 2.5 plus 7 ton missile with a mission range of 500km over anything an Su-33 could achieve with dumb bombs.

not to mention power projection on land?

Again... how much air support does a Granit need to hit a land target?

The K and Kiev class ships had no power projection land roles... they were purely anti carrier and anti sub systems.

OK so point is: it iw useless to protect ships and drop bombs on land. Onl

It was optimised to protect Russian/Soviet Ships.

and what precisely difference ? Is there any magical update of Su-33 proving wrong that
1) F-35 had better avionics,
2) enormously more stealthy and
3) it's AA missiles have 180km range vs. 110 of Su33 (check wiki for details)

4) Su-33 being 2x bigger has similar radius and less payload?

With modern jammer pods the Su-33 is probably safe from any AAM the F-35 can carry so it comes down to guns and ability to manouver... does F-35s low RCS protect it from 30mm cannon shells?

Su-33s don't suffocate their pilots.

Su-33s are to protect Russian ships, so payload is not really an issue, but I would suggest you take payload performance of the F-35 with a truck load of salt... how can the F-35 have a payload advantage? If it carries it externally it loses its stealth, and there is no evidence it will be stealthy from shipborne radar let alone the Su-33s radar set in 5 years time.

1) wiki clearly states price 30 for Su-27/Su-30 but for Su-33for China was 50mln piece. No need to reinvent data.

So that makes the Su-35 well over 100 million dollars too... that is what China paid... because they get everything at cost right?

What would a B-52 cost to make now?

I ask because when they were made they were a lot cheaper than they would be to make now, but like the Su-33 they are not being made now... they are already made and already paid for... you are suggesting that a new 5th gen super fighter with VSTOL capability can be made for less than the cost of aircraft already paid for, already made, and already in service... do you work for Boeing?

[qutoe]My point is to check how much more expensive is navalized version of land based fighter.

in case of Su27/Su-33 30/50 -> 77% more expensive (36 built in total)?
F-35A/F-35C 94/121,2 - -> 29% (can be explained logn series, for far 340 ordered) [/quote]

Well my point is even if the new Russian aircraft is 150% more expensive than the land based model it will still be much much cheaper than anything Boeing can make or will make... whether there are cancellations or not.

Boeing is already talking about a hybrid F-22/F-35 fighter.... an F-22 with the electronics from the F-35 ...now if the F-35 is so wonderful... why would that be?

Producing an extra 36 aircraft (if they are building 2 new large carriers it will be more like 150-200 aircraft they will likely make) then it makes sense to have commonality with land based models... the US tried that with the F-35 but screwed it up by trying to combine the Harrier with the F-16... VSTOL requirements made it crap as a fighter.

Yet you still can take half of number on your CV. And cannot start without ski jump.

Why would the Ski jump fail?

no it is not. It is critical to have awareness what is happening around.

So you are saying by 2030 AWACS platforms will be obsolete? That is a bold statement... what is the backup if you are wrong?

You talk about 90-2000s but I talk about 2030s. It can be ship-borne OTH radar, can be drones dunno, can be also AWACS but there is no platform in Russia if military have little trust in tech and lots of cash.

Yeah... yeah... missiles can do everything so lets not bother developing a fighter to replace the Phantom or the Lightning... we can have a big gap and then a scramble to develop the Eurofighter Typhoon...

I have seen no claims that over the horizon radar will be anything more than AEW... which as I have said repeatedly is not good enough... in comparison an A-100 like platform could fly 200km away from the carrier and direct S-400 and S-500 based SAMs from the various ships in the fleet to targets 400 and 600km distant... including sea skimming ones without the ships emitting any signal...

By 2030 a Yak-44 sized aircraft could have new photonic radars 100 times better than the A-100 uses currently, but lets ignore investment in photonic radar and indeed EMALs cats...

If your argument is OTH radar... which by the way is not much use off the coast of Africa or in the south pacific, then I would suggest the best option would be arsenal ships with SAMs and cruise missiles and airships with massive radar antenna of different frequencies... including vertical cable antenna for ULF communications to underwater subs.

deck-borne AWACS? Which platform? Il-112? no way it could start form CV without actual ~100% redesign. Yaks engines were 4x as powerful.

Doesn't need turboprop engines... something related to the An-72 could be used perhaps even with thrust vector engines and larger wing area... obviously STOL from a Russian company of course.

Strongest argument touche lol1 lol1 lol1 but I love you anyway

I remember the artwork... popping up from behind trees like a helicopter and operating from supermarket carparks and open fields... they have never done that...

all the airfields destroyed and only Harriers flying around the place... bollocks...

that's precisely my point in discussion with GarryB && LMFS

Of course... lets just assume a solution is invented that will fix everything... except such things require decades of planning, so what sort of ship will this new miracle require? What are its specifications? Nearing in mind that even a fully VTOL miracle will have very specific requirements so get it wrong and it is a total waste of time... wait till you know more about this miracle plane and you might not have time to get a ship into service for it...

Of course Russians can fck it bu making stealth bomb truck or make things right and fouce on light fighter like LMFS

Of course... the Russians always fuck things up... the Su-27 is no where near as good as the MiG-25... opps, F-15.

And they will learn nothing from US experience with the F-35.

Of course without knowledge from the Soviets via the Yak design bureau the Americans were going to use liftjets and had no way of developing an engine that powerful with a thrust vector nozzle that can turn more than 90 degrees with full AB... there is nothing in the west like that except one developed with Yak expertise.

I have no doubts the Russians could make a better VSTOL fighter than the F-35... I just don't think it is worth the money and effort for such a programme... fragile, complicated, high loss rate in peace time and in combat, and no performance features that make them more useful than modified land based fighters.

Their best feature is to make carriers smaller... which is about as useful as something to make your penis smaller...

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

Please describe that payload... what weapons does that entail the F-35 carrying... I want to know.

For the Su-33, that would likely be R-27E missiles... 6 of them... at 350kg each, plus another 6 R-73s at 105kgs each... which is about 2.8 tons.

It can't carry external fuel tanks, and in terms of bombs I have never seen it with anything more than 2 x 500kg dumb bombs... but for its main role of air defence fighter for the carrier group its payload is 2.8 tons... if it carries R-77s instead of R-27E missiles then that would make it much lighter.

But please tell me about this 6.8 ton payload capacity of the F-35... weapon weights and pylon locations please...

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

Because most air forces wont accept fragile, crash prone navy VSTOL fighters they have no use for... a conventional take off fixed wing fighter will be cheaper and simpler and much safer and more reliable.

They also have a requirement for multi engine designs to improve safety, so a Yak-41 with three engines but where any one of those engines failing would lead to a crash so it would be even less safe than a single engined fighter because you are increasing the risk rather than decreasing it...

A multi engined fighter with VSTOL performance that can still take off and land safely with one engine.., doubt it.

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

Don't you love western accounting methods... can't wait till the 2,300 F-35s ordered is revised downwards... only a matter of time and all these 110 million per plane claims turn into 300 million per plane... how are they going to replace all those Turkish made parts too...

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

How about looking into the design constraints by the requirement for V in its design and the impact it has had on lowering the performance of the STOBAR model of the F-35?

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

Actually I always thought the Yak-38 design was ruined by the demands for high speed flight... a larger wing that offered better lift at subsonic speeds would have allowed much better flight performance, better payload and fuel fraction, without reducing top speed by very much at all. Greatly increased payload and range at the cost of a slight reduction in top speed... it could have had a real radar and decent weapons.

The F-35 has the same problem except high speed and stealth are what really drive its design compromises and performance limitations... but V just makes it rather worse...

Most fighters never break the speed of sound anyway... having a subsonic aircraft could have made it much simpler and cheaper...

But the US military wanted everything...

...and what happens when you mix all types of food inside the human body during digestion... the end result is...

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

Su-33 is an interceptor fighter without air to ground requirements beyond the odd 500kg bomb... it will never operate with a 6.5 ton payload, let alone an 8 ton payload.

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?

Actually MiG have stated they will unify the MiG-35 an MiG-33 design so the MiG-35 can be operated from carrier decks...

good so they can use max payloads.

Can they?

I rather suspect most of that 6.8 ton payload will be external fuel tanks so it can actually pretend to have a decent flight range...

So Russia with 20 -24 ship-borne fighters STOBAR is going to attack major power on land?

When has the US or France or the UK attacked a major power with carriers since WWII?

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

The only time an Su-33 would go supersonic would be to add velocity to an AAM launch...

In combat with an F-35 however it could operate at medium altitudes at transonic speeds and use a height and speed advantage over inferior enemy fighters...

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

There is no aircraft with folding wings that can pull 9gs... you can't have folding wings without effecting structural integrity...

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?

it is the same as with those smaller carriers, except the larger carriers and Su-57s will actually be useful and effective.

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

Which might save you 1 billion dollars per carrier, but you will need more carriers for the same effectiveness.

Note it would also save the Russian army money if they didn't bother developing Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang... they do seem to think it is money well worth spending though...

....................................................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

565km/h for a Blackhawk... yeah... your numbers are wrong... besides flight speed is rather irrelevant for AWACS platforms...

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.

And the landing footprint of two Mi-26s landing side by side...

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

And it is so crap it can't even operate in Afghanistan all the places the Mi-8 is used and the Afghans don't like it...

How about an Mi-38?

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 +

Of course the tips of the blades can go supersonic... they just stop developing lift when they do... that is where the thump thump thump sound comes from an UH-1... transonic rotor blades... and the Harvard (Texan).

In the west, they seriously under estimated the performance of the Bear because they assumed a much higher rotation speed for the blades... its lower speed requires a coarser blade pitch but improves thrust.

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.

Except with 6.8 tons of payload it wont be stealthy with all those external stores...

and what is PoS? point of sale?

Piece of sh!t.

lines are shut, it would be really expensive now

The MiG-35 line could be used... or MiG-35s taken from the production line used from carriers...

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

Ships already carry point defence systems... the purpose of fighters is to add an outer ring of detection and engagement... to inspect and to shoot down 1,000km from the carrier group...

Smaller fighters will not fly much past the 600km range of the S-500s on board...

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

R-27E is 160km range if the AMRAAM is 160km ranged... if you are making shit up for the F-35 then you have to be fair and extend the same BS to Russia.

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

Higher flight speed means more missile range and faster missile... which will hit the F-35 before the F-35s missiles will hit the Su-33... in fact some anti radiation R-27Rs could be used to shoot down those AMRAAMs... how many missiles can an F-35 carry?

https://iz.ru/785074/2018-09-04/manturov-zaiavil-o-gotovnosti-rossii-stroit-sobstvennye-vertoletonostcy

Manturov announced Russia's readiness to build its own helicopter carriers
 
September 4, 2018, 04:55
 4734
HELICOPTER RUSSIA MINPROMTORG DENIS Manturov
 
Photo: JOURNALISM / Alexey Maishev
Russian shipbuilders are able to build helicopter carriers and, with the interest of foreign customers, are ready to sell them, said Industry and Trade Minister Denis Manturov.


Aircrafting riddles: what officials promise
Head of the Ministry of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov and Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Borisov spoke about the prospects of Russian aircraft carriers
In August, it was reported that the Russian Federation would build universal amphibious ships instead of helicopter carriers. At the same time, the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), Alexei Rakhmanov, said that USC will build an expedition ship for the Russian Navy, combining the functions of a helicopter carrier and an amphibious assault ship.

"I propose not to catch anyone by the tongue. Terminology is very multifaceted and complex both in the army and the manufacturers, which always adapt to the requirements of the customer. Therefore, it is better to clarify this issue from the main customer, "Manturov clarified the matter.

"I can only say that we can accurately produce helicopter carriers and can sell them to customers, including foreign customers, who will be interested in this," he said in an interview with RIA Novosti.

In 2011, Rosoboronexport signed a contract with the French DCNS / STX to supply two Mistral-class helicopter carriers worth € 1.2 billion. However, a year later, because of the sanctions, Moscow and Paris terminated the contract.

August 20, experts noted that Russia has the opportunity to build warships designed to transport helicopters and aircraft that are capable of vertical take off and landing.
Información del Traductor de GoogleComunidadMóvilAcerca de GooglePrivacidad y condicionesAyudaEnviar comentarios

The reality comes again.

And Russia is doing right. The bet for aircraft carriers of 70000+ tons full load is right.

So the game guys who have lied time and time again about their capabilities are the ones your taking for their word now, funny.

and REALLY they always could build them it's just they had to build them in sections and weld it together.

The thing is it will take them forever to make a single carrier or Helio carrier.

Also nowhere in that statement did they mention 7k plus ton carriers, thats a lie on your part.

FRankly, we have yet to see what they will even DECIDE to build they keep going back and forth unable to make up their dam minds.

Only those who do nothing don't make mistakes:
https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/09/06/navys-f-35c-suffers-1st-major-mishap-suffering-millions-damages.html

Regarding the delivery of its huge engine on board:
Shaping a New Capability for the Osprey: Delivering the F-35 Engine

Alternatively, one can carry the  power module below a helicopter like the CH-53 but there are the challenges of safely carrying the engine below the helo while operating at sea as well.

https://sldinfo.com/2015/06/shaping-a-new-capability-for-the-osprey-delivering-the-f-35-engine-to-the-uss-wasp/

Length: 220 in (559 cm)
Diameter: 46 in (117 cm) max., 43 in (109 cm) at the fan inlet
Dry weight: 3,750 lb (1,701 kg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135#Specifications_(F135-PW-100)

The CH-53K will also include an improved external cargo handling system, ..The cabin will be 30 ft (9.14 m) long by 9 ft (2.74 m) wide by 6.5 ft (1.98 m) tall. Its cabin will be 1 ft (30 cm) wider and 15% larger, but will have new shorter composite sponsons. The CH-53K is to surpass the capability of the CH-53E by carrying nearly double the external payload of 27,000 lb (12,200 kg) over the same radius of 110 nmi (204 km). The CH-53K's payload reaches a maximum of 35,000 lb (15,900 kg).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53K_King_Stallion#Design

From the above data, 2-3 engines could be carried inside of it. Russia has even bigger MI-6/26s with enough range for COD ops.
More reasons for Russia to develop tiltrotors since they can do it faster at longer ranges:
F-35Cs Can't Receive Spare Engines on Carriers Without V-22s https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/04/18/f-35cs-cant-receive-spare-engines-carriers-without-v-22s/

Pratt & Whitney is pitching a new version of the F-35 engine
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/06/13/pratt-whitney-is-pitching-a-new-version-of-the-f-35-engine/

The Yak-141 R-79V-300 & RD-41 engines could also be modified or changed for better performance on the new STOVL fighter.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:So the game guys who have lied time and time again about their capabilities are the ones your taking for their word now, funny.

and REALLY they always could build them it's just they had to build them in sections and weld it together.

The thing is it will take them forever to make a single carrier or Helio carrier.

Also nowhere in that statement did they mention 7k plus ton carriers, thats a lie on your part.

FRankly, we have yet to see what they will even DECIDE to build they keep going back and forth unable to make up their dam minds.

Always lost, always surpassed by the reality:

A prospective aircraft carrier of the Navy will receive a displacement of not less than 70 thousand tons

The Navy considers it inexpedient to build lightweight aircraft carriers, the deputy head of the Russian Navy for armament, Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk

ST.PETERSBURG, April 25. / TASS /. A prospective aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy will have a displacement of at least 70 thousand tons, its technical project is not yet ready. Vice-Admiral Viktor Bursuk told journalists about this from the deputy naval commander of the Russian Navy on armament.
"The fleet believes that lightweight aircraft carriers should not be built for the Russian Federation from the point of view of the economic" price-quality ratio. "It is preferable to build aircraft carriers with a displacement of about 70 thousand tons, which allow carrying more aircraft on board," he said.

Bursuk added that "the technical specifications and the design of [such a ship] have not yet been developed, during the creation of the technical design it will be determined what is needed," but "it is already clear that its displacement will be about 70 thousand tons."

Before the Russian Navy stated that the Russian fleet expected to receive a promising aircraft carrier with an atomic power plant by the end of 2030. Earlier, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov reported that the contract for the construction of an aircraft carrier could be signed by the end of 2025. The Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation Denis Manturov informed that the sketch design of the aircraft carrying ship has already been created and submitted to the Ministry of Defense of Russia.

At the same time, the Krylov State Research Center, part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, developed a new project for a new aircraft carrier, which was also offered for the Russian fleet. Project 23000 was named "Storm". The sketch assumes that the ship will have a displacement of 80-90 thousand tons, it will be equipped with a combined power plant (both an atomic reactor and a gas turbine engine), the air group of the ship must number up to 60 units.

Подробнее на ТАСС:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5157561

A prospective aircraft carrier of the Navy will receive a displacement of not less than 70K T

Only the underlined in bold text r the key words here. As the Russian saying goes: "chicks r counted in the fall" & the American 1: "don't count chickens before they hatch!"

eehnie wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:So the game guys who have lied time and time again about their capabilities are the ones your taking for their word now, funny.

and REALLY they always could build them it's just they had to build them in sections and weld it together.

The thing is it will take them forever to make a single carrier or Helio carrier.

Also nowhere in that statement did they mention 7k plus ton carriers, thats a lie on your part.

FRankly, we have yet to see what they will even DECIDE to build they keep going back and forth unable to make up their dam minds.

Always lost, always surpassed by the reality:

A prospective aircraft carrier of the Navy will receive a displacement of not less than 70 thousand tons

The Navy considers it inexpedient to build lightweight aircraft carriers, the deputy head of the Russian Navy for armament, Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk

ST.PETERSBURG, April 25. / TASS /. A prospective aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy will have a displacement of at least 70 thousand tons, its technical project is not yet ready. Vice-Admiral Viktor Bursuk told journalists about this from the deputy naval commander of the Russian Navy on armament.
"The fleet believes that lightweight aircraft carriers should not be built for the Russian Federation from the point of view of the economic" price-quality ratio. "It is preferable to build aircraft carriers with a displacement of about 70 thousand tons, which allow carrying more aircraft on board," he said.

Bursuk added that "the technical specifications and the design of [such a ship] have not yet been developed, during the creation of the technical design it will be determined what is needed," but "it is already clear that its displacement will be about 70 thousand tons."

Before the Russian Navy stated that the Russian fleet expected to receive a promising aircraft carrier with an atomic power plant by the end of 2030. Earlier, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov reported that the contract for the construction of an aircraft carrier could be signed by the end of 2025. The Minister of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation Denis Manturov informed that the sketch design of the aircraft carrying ship has already been created and submitted to the Ministry of Defense of Russia.

At the same time, the Krylov State Research Center, part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, developed a new project for a new aircraft carrier, which was also offered for the Russian fleet. Project 23000 was named "Storm". The sketch assumes that the ship will have a displacement of 80-90 thousand tons, it will be equipped with a combined power plant (both an atomic reactor and a gas turbine engine), the air group of the ship must number up to 60 units.

Подробнее на ТАСС:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5157561

Proposed carrier for VMF than would be roughly the size of USN Gerald Ford class, which is not much smaller than Nimitz, as after numerous refits airwing group of Nimitz counts at about 60-70 aircraft, much less than initial 100! Combined powerplant would be alike to that of Kirow arrangement with nuclear for long range passage and burst speed and conventional for auxiliary, slow speed and close range passages. 60 plane airgroup fits in a ship of no less than 70Ktons, which is not smaller than late 80s, ill-fated Ulyanowsk!

In the USN sailor slang, CVNs r called bird farms.
Another Russian saying meaning the same thing: "don't divide up a bear hide of a live bear!"

-44ktons is OK for many fighters but just needs to have ,limited supplies of fuel and ammo on board


Mind if I stop here?

Can you fit 44fighters + a number of helos on 44ktons ship. Yes you can. As yu dont need to put only 4 passengers in your old VW Beetle. Not sure how battle worthy and autonomous would be such a ship though

That's small if you want to use it like US and bomb a country for 10 years.

If you want to use it to win a naval battle and destroy ships or make limited strikes with cruise missile against a conventional force, it is very good and far more than enough.

Kuznetsov with 20 mig-29k is a better air force than 90% of countries. Armed with with kh-59 they could destroy valuable targets. And with kh-31 and kh-35 they could destroy most of the fleets around the globe prety easily.

I dont think either that VSTOL fighter will be shipborne only. Just my educated guess.

This would make little economic sense and we have not heard anything about a Russian equivalent to F-35 but who knows what will be decided in the end. Mind you, not all MoDs decisions are correct and they are changed often.

or again redesigned?      

This hybrid means that implicitly. The force structure they were planning is seen as less and less capable each time, now J-20 and Su-57 cannot be disregarded as pipe dreams anymore. USAF cannot hold their own in air superiority trusting almost only in F-35s.

Kuz originally could take 24-30 Su-33? ekhm with this number you want to fight on air dominance?    

Against what enemy, in what numbers? Exchange rates count. If with my Flanker based naval fighter I can keep your STOLV fighters at arm's distance and shoot them down while they cannot reach me, I am not going to need many planes you know

So be it but when you mean new fighters then you dnt need Su-33 sized. On carriers place is scarce.

Hey, I have researched quite a bit and bothered thinking layout and dimensions(and even 3D model) of a "light" fighter that could be shipborne, obviously the smaller the footprint the better. And the current lack of capable competitors in the arena of naval air superiority fighters (thanks to US killing the F-14) would make possible to field a competitive plane even being smaller than a Flanker. But you are supposing that your STOVL would be also much smaller. Currently as discussed the F-35B has no folding wings and so on one dimension is bigger than the Su-33 so not much space would be saved

There si no other platrofm to R-37 then MiG-31 in use to my knowledge. Do you want to have MiG-31 carrier based? :D:D

That would be cool, please make some VLS cells and rocket boosters to launch the MiGs
R-37M was thought for the new Flankers and MiG-31. Don't know if it has already been achieved for the Sukhois. In the case of navy, no MiGs available so the interceptor role should be covered by whatever plane is chosen and this missile would be very valuable as the Phoenix was for the F-14. Platform-wise both T-10 and T-50 are compatible, the later including internal carriage. But given the altitude and speed delta, it is quite possible that smaller MRAAM would do. I would not spare the more expensive missile in a naval fight were capital vessels are at risk though.

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

Yes unless when you actually need to fight  

dogfight - then yess

? I mean BVR

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??

With ratio 10:1 unlikely it would  make any  difference

Sorry, who would make this 10:1?

Well this means in short - smaller fighter more units on CVN. No need to over anlyze.

We can agree that the smaller the better. Now if you want to throw some numbers you need to go into the details.

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.

Short and thick planes as the F-35 have no chance of having low drag in supersonic flight. You need a plane that looks like fast planes look, you know...

Can you fit 44fighters + a number of helos on 44ktons ship. Yes you can. As yu dont need to put only 4 passengers in your old VW Beetle. Not sure how battle worthy and autonomous would be such a ship though

Apparently you need 1k ton per plane, in typical layouts. I guess this can be improved with automation and better design / materials / manufacturing.

My understanding is that Kylov is loosing its position/personnel reductions and tries to show that they are doing anything.  It would be hard to sell anything if they dont know what fleet wants though.

I am not informed about that but of course they try to show willingness and capacity. Decision makers in MoD are not ready yet apparently.

It means the same as "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it". In other words, don't plan on getting something that can only be done after certain steps. Since u can't skin a live bear, it must be tracked & killed 1st. Certain people think that it's a done deal that the VMF will have 70K T. CVN. The real world doesn't work this way.