Again your words far of the real information, because do not resist the contrast with.
The ship presented in the Forum Army 2018 is to export. And logically is presented with conventional propulsion.
Logically Russia does not export nuclear reactors for military purposes.
Taking into account that the Russian Navy rejected projects under 70000 tons, not sure if we will see the variant with nuclear propulsion.
LMFS wrote:
GunshipDemocracy wrote:True. But how about this: PAK FA after after almost 20 years of development was rejected by one main cosponsors. Poor stealth,no new engines, not really better than other new fighters but very expensive. One of prototypes failed and burned because of engine malfunction. Thats why 20 years after start programme RuAF ordered 12 units.
You are truly a lost cause aren't you?
Fairly lost, you will see like he repeats and repeats the same, despite to know the reality.
hoom wrote:https://www.russiadefence.net/t7631p400-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-3#235923 With link to http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/september-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6509-russia-s-krylov-light-aircraft-carrier-project-features-semi-catamaran-hull-design.html that quotes Krylov guy saying its semi-catamaran
I'm not entirely sure why it hasn't worked out in practice The yacht above had a bunch of tank testing done before they committed to building but went back in the shed fairly soon after launch & had the gap filled in to make it an ungainly monohull
Was reading about one of the other implementations (a powerboat) & it had an engine that should have been good for 15kt but couldn't get past 8, suggestion was the smooth curve upwards from monohull to tunnel causes huge suction/effectively much shorter waterline
I assume this idea was intensively tested (at TsAGI probably?) before they disclosed it... I think this is a great approach, this size of deck for 44 kT is really surprising. Nuclear propulsion and little bigger (for bigger endurance and hopefully one fighter squadron more) and they would reach practical parity with USN carriers. Counting on Su-57K maybe even this size would work
LMFS wrote:I assume this idea was intensively tested (at TsAGI probably?) before they disclosed it... I think this is a great approach, this size of deck for 44 kT is really surprising. Nuclear propulsion and little bigger (for bigger endurance and hopefully one fighter squadron more) and they would reach practical parity with USN carriers. Counting on Su-57K maybe even this size would work
I'm sure that Shtomrm was also intensively tested tha same way This concept IMHO is just kind of CGI only in plastic. That's the problem. Surely 12 Su-57 oh well 18 would make it equal to 90 fighter US Ford especially with FA-XX
LMFS wrote: It is better if you make some numbers, really. How fast do you think a Su-57 would travel after 100 m take-off run accelerating @ ca. 1g? It is not slow at all,
on those were numbers . Assuming constant a=9,8m/s2 I assumed take off speed 180km/h = 50 m/s it would be t= (V(takeoff) - V(initial))/a ~ 5,1s
s= 0,5 (at2) = 0,5(9,8xsqr(5,1)) ~ 130 m
in fact it is enough for naval planes to go well past stall speed, especially when using a ski jump. You can watch videos and check your numbers easily. A fighter like MiG-29K covers this distance in the K in little over 5 seconds IIRC, starting from standstill. That is, by the end of the ramp it is close to 180 km/h, plus the wind + ship speed. So it takes off easily...
Then VSTOL needs even less. Yak-141 w/o skijump (with deck arreststers to get full trust) 70-80m. OF course 80m of ship is for free. Soruce Yefim Gordon Russian Yakovlev Yak-38 & Yak 41-M: The Soviet Jump Jets )
Why? it was same rhetoric GaryB is using against Yaks BTW tell me what is not true in above statements?
Not really. You are using cheap propaganda arguments which make no sense at all. Garry was trying to point out fundamental conceptual flaws (ingestion of hot air) that motivated to change to a lifting fan in the F-35. He is openly critic of STOVL but that does not mean he is using empty arguments
if my arguments are cheap then mantra about deck Yak-38 in desert and Harrier from 60s to V gen fighter are really bringing discussion on factual level
True that VSTOL are more complicated but offer other qualities. Especially needed for Navy. Ingesting of hot air like PAK-FA which fell and burned means design needs to be reworked or fighter is to be dropped? Garry has full right to express his opinion what doesnet change the fact that VSTOL program was officially started.
x
Nevertheless for the de Gaulle: - 42.500 tonnes full displacement against 44.000 of the Russian design. But the later has a WAY bigger flight deck. - Max 40 aircraft against 46. Remind, those Rafales are in fact lighter than the MiG-29K. 2 AWACS against 4. And 3 helos against 12-14.
OK so you admit that smaller fighters and small displacement count.
As for Krylov vision:
1) We should alwasy compare 30years old design with new one to increase feel good factor 1) hull was extensively tested ? ekhm any proof of that? I'very much doubt on this 3) AEW? they didnt mention AWACS in brochure. And of course platform which no programme was even vaguely announced? ? 4) narrow hull large deck high deck. I'm sure this helps with buoyancy
5) 24-28 fighters doesnt sound like numbers you wanted to see...
Don't know what is so funny. At the risk of disclosing a big secret, Krylov + value the represented planes have is essentially zero.
The secret ingredient?
Regarding the Su-33, what take off position are you referring? The ones I see are equipped with a pretty big ski jump
then look again and it those shall use skijump then needs to turn sharp righ to start
Well as for mini and limo good example. Do you know why limo is expensive? because is available to few. Most people drive Hyundai or Honda to have reliable and affordable car.
The problem is that in this example the mini is spruced up to be like the limo, which makes it no longer affordable.
it was your example you just love expansive toys, unlike Russian Navy which probably prefer Honda (on of least trouble prone cars) and still affordable.
Lets be honest.... but a real carrier with real AWACS platforms and real fighters would have been vastly more use to them in the Falklands Islands war.
and which one from "proper" British carriers would you use then? BTW Again mantra about 80s?!
The Indian order reopened production but production of the new aircraft design with all new materials including composites. The design was revised to be more stealthy and used up to date components and systems +++ and it is the same for all other aircraft in Air Force service everywhere... they are up to block 70 updates for the F-16s flying around the place...
. ok so basically frame form 80s was redesigned on early 2000s and should fly well in times when 6gn is supposed to fly? Is that what you suggest for Russian Navy? and In US F-16 or F-18?
VSTOL is more complex but not "fragile" that's your phobia not reality. 6g fighter is same level of complexity complexity and "fragility" . Yet both Russia & US are developing them.
We don't even know what constitutes a 6th gen fighter, but we can be sure it will have backup systems and redundancies so that in the case of a failure that it can limp home. A VSTOL with a failed engine or even a blocked nozzle is screwed.... even shrapnel damage could render the aircraft unable to hover... which means it needs a backup alternative... hook and cable system... so it might as well get rid of the V and just use STOBAR instead and become a much simpler and cheaper aircraft with better performance.
1) if there are damaged nozzles in Su-57 or Su-35 both fly normally. Only VSTOL has problems. 2) Russians spending money on VSTOL project without considering cost benefit
Let's agree to disagree. VSTOL is no less "fragile as any other fighter. Complexity is balanced by smaller and cheaper ship to carry or more of fighters on deck. And no Russians are no idiots.
Who said anything about continuous.... it can't even take off once vertically without heat resistant matts protecting the ground...
and making full airbase with 2km concrete runways is faster, easier and cheaper then truckload of such matts?
BTW how do you think Su-57 can start so short for it weight if not using of TV?
Large wing area for its weight and the ski jump directing the aircraft into the air at launch at which point the engine nozzles would be deflected at a downwards angle to contribute both forward thrust and lift to unload the wing and increase their capacity to generate lift. [/quote]
Well TVC was actually developed for STOL or V/STOL. F-15 TVC was designed to be STOL fighter. To have shorter runway . Sameas Russian fighters. So as long as I seriously doubt that TVC is not used during STOL. Of course wing surface helps. But who says VSTOL cannot have large wing surfaces, canrds or LREX?
1987 was approved plan for low rate initial production in Saratov plant 292.
There were only two flying prototypes and after one crashed the program was cut. [/quote]
Actually there were 4 41 and in Saratov ordered 8 prototypes of Yak 41M (improved avionics + LREX)
The reason for the crash was obvious exhaust thrust hot air ingestion in the main air intake... solution would need a complete redesign to stop the hot gas from the lifting engines moving forward near the main engine intakes....
I agree but 1) improvement agains existing VTOLs was a quantum leap 2) Yak was continuously improving design thats why 8 pieces was already 41M
It is this enormous internal volume that makes the F-35 a bit of a dog... if it didn't have that design requirement it could be a stealthy F-16 which is what it was originally intended to be...
My idea about Russian VSTOL, less weight on stealth or bomb payload, more on being a maneuverable fighter with efficient engine.
Even if the Yak-41 design had been available they would have picked the MiG...
that we dont konw.
Yeah... you actually have to contribute funds to something to be called a cosponsor, If India thinks it is crap why isn't it ordering F-35s?
because they didnt sponsor that and seriously I added this paragraph to show absurdity of accusations that Yak was shit. You can cut press releasees and try to prove similar thing to very capable fighter.
Have heard MiG guys and AF guys say the MIG-31 will need replacing by 2028, so if they don't have something ready to replace it by 2025 their might be issues.
Then they need to find workaround. Quick.
yeah in 70s-80s data transmission was suspicious indeed. Not in 2030s tho. You see AEW&C can be realized in many ways, IMHO chopper is worse than drone. Both ceiling and duration fo flight makes drone a better option.
Yeah actually I don't know... the Kamov is a very heavy helo, but a real fundamental change from the ground up to make it an AEW platform could probably make a real difference in terms of weight and size... I mean even putting the new more powerful engines Klimov have developed should add to performance in terms of operating height and a serious upgrade in terms of electronics could also transform its performance... but even assuming it remains in the 10-12 ton class... what sort of UAV do you have in mind in that weight class than can carry a 6 metre wide antenna array and also spin it in flight.
I mean it is all nice a fixed wing UAV able to fly faster and higher than a AEW helo, but if it can't deploy a radar antenna as big and can't maintain height with such an antenna deployed then you gotta say how is this thing going to operate... it will need serious engine power to get airborne from the Kuznetsov... whereas the Ka-31 could operate from a frigate and jump from frigate to frigate or destroyer even without a carrier present... it could even operate from a supply ship that is supporting the surface group... most of them have helicopter pads..
Still radar horizon depends on ceiling... with 3km you dont have more than 250km for surface targets. Ka-60 in turn has 6km...but only 2500kg payload.
.
They actually do. UAV Fregat already has working proof of concept. VDV requested own tiltrotor (perhaps will be competing with high speed helo). Long before any CV is gonna be launched tilltrotor can be reality.
Ahhh dude... if a small model that takes off conventionally constitutes proof they have a tiltrotor, then can I refer you to various plastic models and fan art to prove they have 70K ton carriers too?
Fregat has proven it can fly unlike Krylov plastic model that cannot sail that's the difference but probably could win prize on modeler fairs
Scale it up to slightly bigger than Kuznestov and give it nuclear propulsion and EMALS and a ski jump ramp and they might have something there... very clever... offers some advantages of a catamaran design without the excessive width issues...
why to stop on Kuz size? if you have unlimited budget scale at will. If not below 40ktons.
I just wonder how those Su-33 on ake off position is going to start without ski-jump neither with a catapult?!
It has a ski jump...
but not on left runway looking from front. But ok that Su-33 is so good that can sharply turn right before start and use ski jump
You keep stretching data and arguments so much I don't know what to say.
From the data shown you see simple STOBAR fighters take off with more load in less space that STOVL ones... and besides that they have more useful capacity since they don't need additional lift-generating HW and are cheaper and simpler.
Therefore, only clear theoretical advantage of STOVL is in landing, but arresting gear has been used for decades and also STOVL end up performing rolling landings so in the praxis they are only sensible in very small and basic LHDs. If you have CVs, logic indicates to put a ski jump on it, arresting gear and a catapult in the angled deck.
STOVL program has been apparently started, we will see what the result is in terms of both aircraft and carrying vessels. By now the only reality in RuN is the K with its Su-33 and MiG-29K, and it will continue to be so for a good while
LMFS wrote:@Gunship: You keep stretching data and arguments so much I don't know what to say.
perhaps you can say that Krylov thoroughly tested each design, Su-57k is real?
STOVL program has been apparently started, we will see what the result is in terms of both aircraft and carrying vessels. By now the only reality in RuN is the K with its Su-33 and MiG-29K, and it will continue to be so for a good while
Of course! this was precisely what they said. Both fighters will fly ~10 years and when they already obsolete technically and morally are gonna be retired. BTW if apparently here - is defined as an official announcement of deputy PM for MiC mentioning direct Supreme Commander order then yes.
From the data shown you see simple STOBAR fighters take off with more load in less space that STOVL ones...
from which data? can you provide hose? Less space?! precisely which one vs which one like Su-33 vs F-35?
As for payload is only in your fantasy. Check numbers please before you say something like that again please. Numbers say:
Su-33....................6,500 kg (in air superiority variant 3,300kg) Mig-29K.................4,500 kg F-35......................6,803 kg
MiG-29k -4,500kg only Indian variants izd (9-41 and 9-47) -5,500kg) Боевая нагрузка: 4500 кг (у варианта для Индии - "изделия 9-41 и 9-47" - 5500 кг[10])
and besides that they have more useful capacity since they don't need additional lift-generating HW and are cheaper and simpler.
So you are serious? deck fighters are much more complicated and heavy than land based. Gear, frame must stronger, hooks, anti corrosion not to mention. Only 2 richest fleets in the world : US and China are manufacturing and designing those. This is the best proof that they are both simple and cheap. Now compare navy doctrines and budget of USN and ChN with RuN.
ah yeas France too! Rafale is cheaper than VSTOL. Needs catapult and programme cost is 45blns€ . That's why is cheap!
Therefore, only clear theoretical advantage of STOVL
If this would be correct (what is not IMHO) than is good enough since besides USN and Chinese Navy all other navies with deck fighters either have or design/plan to develop ones. But this is only in your theory so far.
is in landing, but arresting gear has been used for decades and also STOVL end up performing rolling landings so in the praxis they are only sensible in very small and basic LHDs. If you have CVs, logic indicates to put a ski jump on it, arresting gear and a catapult in the angled deck.
Very small like 70ktons QE2? As for size. do you live in the world of endless military budgets. Lucky you, RuN does not. TVC and skijump were designed for deck fighters and applied for VSTOL first. I see no problem with using VSTOL with both but this is no argument against . Just VSTOL use those facilities more efficient.
BTW Project Yak-43 was to be STOL only. Land based. Its takeoff strip was to be 130m without ski jump. Vs MiG-29k 240m. Payload: 4000kg vs 4500kg. Of course navalized is better [/quote]
GunshipDemocracy wrote:perhaps you can say that Krylov thoroughly tested each design, Su-57k is real?
There you go again. I have NEVER said that > I supposed Krylov made calculations and simulation and/or tests regarding the new layout... excuse me for implying they are a professional design bureau. But have never stated that they have done them, only have given my personal opinion, since based on my experience in development making a proposal without a technical backing is simply ridiculous and would have no more value than any fan art on the internet. Design bureaus do not engage in such reputation-destroying activities normally. > I have hoped for Su-57K and also given my personal opinion, based on objective design features and Flanker precedent, that the plane has the potential to be modified for naval operation. Have also highlighted the reasons for which I think it is a unique opportunity for RuN to reach deterrence capacity against USN in remote areas for a fraction of their budget.
Of course! this was precisely what they said. Both fighters will fly ~10 years and when they already obsolete technically and morally are gonna be retired. BTW if apparently here - is defined as an official announcement of deputy PM for MiC mentioning direct Supreme Commander order then yes.
Good that we agree on something. I consider it firm when contracts are disclosed, until then I take it as an intention to develop or work on something. Only being cautious, not denying anything.
from which data? can you provide hose? Less space?! precisely which one vs which one like Su-33 vs F-35?
I (and others like hoom) have shown the Su-33 and MiG-29 can take off almost 100% load from the short positions on the K which are 95 m. In sharp contrast, the F-35B needs 600 feet to take off full load, which is almost DOUBLE the space. And that considering the neglected Su-33 and MiG-29K with 4G engines, while the F-35B has the BY FAR highest T/W ratio and most modern fighter engine in the world and is a brand new 5G design. To talk about fair comparisons...
As for payload is only in your fantasy. Check numbers please before you say something like that again please. Numbers say:
Su-33....................6,500 kg (in air superiority variant 3,300kg) Mig-29K.................4,500 kg F-35......................6,803 kg
Have you considered fuel? And maybe cannon which F-35B does not even carry? I dived deep in these data and brought them to you on a silver plate, but you manage to ignore them one way or another. Short T/O performance of F-35B sucks compared to a high T/W ratio STOBAR fighter. It is that simple.
So you are serious?
100%. You just have to compare the F-35A and B to see prime example of capacity impairment due to STOVL. And it is huge.
deck fighters are much more complicated and heavy than land based. Gear, frame must stronger, hooks, anti corrosion not to mention.
I a not talking about naval vs land based but STOBAR vs STOVL. STOVL for naval use must meet almost all the requirements that you mention above plus huge amount of HW for generating and controlling twenty tones of vertical lift, which in our universe translates invariably into weight + space + cost + complexity. Given the scarcity of space and weight restrictions of a fighter, it is a huge design compromise.
Only 2 richest fleets in the world : US and China are manufacturing and designing those. This is the best proof that they are both simple and cheap. Now compare navy doctrines and budget of USN and ChN with RuN.
Manufacturing what? STOBAR? CATOBAR? Naval fighters in general? RuN does operate naval fighters in STOBAR configuration so they probably match their doctrine
ah yeas France too! Rafale is cheaper than VSTOL. Needs catapult and programme cost is 45blns€ . That's why is cheap!
What 45 billion? They use steam catapults licensed from US, but nevertheless I don't understand what you try to proof.
Very small like 70ktons QE2? As for size. do you live in the world of endless military budgets. Lucky you, RuN does not. TVC and skijump were designed for deck fighters and applied for VSTOL first. I see no problem with using VSTOL with both but this is no argument against . Just VSTOL use those facilities more efficient.
Look, Russia has STOBAR CV and fighters, don't tell me they can't afford them.
Krylov institute presented a concept of semi-catamaran carrier: https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5625190
The authors claim, that despite of being light(44k tonnes), it would be able to carry the same amount of aircraft units as a medium weight carrier, thanks to it's semi-catamaran desing. So, what do you guys think?
Ives wrote:Krylov institute presented a concept of semi-catamaran carrier: https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5625190
The authors claim, that despite of being light(44k tonnes), it would be able to carry the same amount of aircraft units as a medium weight carrier, thanks to it's semi-catamaran desing. So, what do you guys think?
we have discussed it in russian aircraft carriers thread..
Ives wrote:Krylov institute presented a concept of semi-catamaran carrier: https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5625190
The authors claim, that despite of being light(44k tonnes), it would be able to carry the same amount of aircraft units as a medium weight carrier, thanks to it's semi-catamaran desing. So, what do you guys think?
we have discussed it in russian aircraft carriers thread..
LMFS wrote:> I supposed Krylov made calculations and simulation and/or tests regarding the new layout... excuse me for implying they are a professional design bureau... Design bureaus do not engage in such reputation-destroying activities normally
OK and for me it is like car manufacturers dont first design car then will never ever be on streets just to see what people say? You can suppose whatever you want but as we both know there is no proof Krylov did anything like that. And unlikely as this requires both time and money.
> I have hoped for Su-57K and also given my personal opinion, based on objective design features and Flanker precedent, that the plane has the potential to be modified for naval operation. Have also highlighted the reasons for which I think it is a unique opportunity for RuN to reach deterrence capacity against USN in remote areas for a fraction of their budget.
OK fair enough. We both exchanging here personal opinions. . As for Su-57 there is no such thing as deterrence with 20-24 fighters against couple of US CSGs with 150-180 and large escort groupings. Any blockade of Russia is a declaration of war. Price? 100mlns $ is a piece (source wiki) so mildly estimating navaized is 150mlns$ .
large CVN 14 bln $, if you have 40 Su-57 there +6billions = 20blns + escord group (numners based on similar ships build in the west) Small CVN (lets say 2,4-3) + 3,6$ blns for 24 fighters so you got 6blns +escort group
If is unlikely to be cheap and disputable qualities of deterrence. And in country which builds 22800 instead of frigates. because you got small ship 200mlns cheaper.
As for other tasks Syria type war we know no PAK-FA was ever needed. Since 2015.
I consider it firm when contracts are disclosed, until then I take it as an intention to develop or work on something. Only being cautious, not denying anything.
You can consider as you like, sir. The fact is: deputy PM for MiC Borisov said it is included in new SAP 2027 and Putin personally asked to start it. I am sure this is not firm. Cool calculating Putin just loves expensive new toys. . Unlikely any contract is going to be sighed until fighter is ready.
BTW What precisely contracts were signed since 2000 till 2018 for PAK-FA? none. in 2018 12 pieces? and MiG-35 - first flight 2007 - 2018 none. In 2018 whooping 6 pieces ordered.
You can consider it firm. 12+6
I (and others like hoom) have shown the Su-33 and MiG-29 can take off almost 100% load from the short positions on the K which are 95 m.
and what is "almost" 100% with what fuel/range then? In AA profile Su-33 takes 3300kg . Dunno why.
In sharp contrast, the F-35B needs 600 feet to take off full load, which is almost DOUBLE the space.
and? how does it relate to new Russian fighters? what does it prove? absolutely nothing. We dont know what will be specifications of Russian fighter.
ha ha If you almost double form 4 to 7 tons MiG payload then perhaps we can make any. BTW Obsolete Yak-41 could start 120m. Without skijump. With could perhaps 40-50m.
Short T/O performance of F-35B sucks compared to a high T/W ratio STOBAR fighter. It is that simple.
you never compared Su/MiG starting without Ski-jump, why? F-35 starts 2/3 at worst this distance and there is nothing preventing it using ski jump. Nothing.
So you are serious?
100%. You just have to compare the F-35A and B to see prime example of capacity impairment due to STOVL. And it is huge.[/quote]
Huge in precisely what? in range? 300km? in payload? (6,8 vs 8tons)? what here is huge? Combat radius of F-35 is still better then MiG-29K (935 vs 850km)
BTW: F-35A is land based F-35B is naval VSTOL
STOVL for naval use must meet almost all the requirements that you mention above plus huge amount of HW for generating and controlling twenty tones of vertical lift, which in our universe translates invariably into weight + space + cost + complexity. Given the scarcity of space and weight restrictions of a fighter, it is a huge design compromise.
Building a jet fighter is already compromise since turboprop has better range and fuel economy. Once you decide to sacrifice economy for speed, simple canards make a fighter structurally unstable and without advanced computer algorithm cannot fly Is it not a compromise? navalized fighter is again compromise. Weight, range and payload vs short take off is already a compromise.
That's why you got technology for.
Manufacturing what? STOBAR? CATOBAR? Naval fighters in general? RuN does operate naval fighters in STOBAR configuration so they probably match their doctrine
and now started VSTOL as it suits much better BTW what contradiction do you see between CATOBAR and VSTOL?
ah yeas France too! Rafale is cheaper than VSTOL. Needs catapult and programme cost is 45blns€ . That's why is cheap!
What 45 billion? They use steam catapults licensed from US, but nevertheless I don't understand what you try to proof.
No not steam catapults but Rafale. After wiki: Rafale Program cost €45.9 billion (as of FY2013)[9] (US$62.7 billion)
Very small like 70ktons QE2? As for size. do you live in the world of endless military budgets. Lucky you, RuN does not. TVC and skijump were designed for deck fighters and applied for VSTOL first. I see no problem with using VSTOL with both but this is no argument against . Just VSTOL use those facilities more efficient.
Look, Russia has STOBAR CV and fighters, don't tell me they can't afford them.[/quote]
Tell it to Russians. They have decided to build VSTOL instead going down your route. In ~10 years they will have no STOBAR anymore. As soon as VSTOL is in series.
LMFS wrote:> I supposed Krylov made calculations and simulation and/or tests regarding the new layout... excuse me for implying they are a professional design bureau... Design bureaus do not engage in such reputation-destroying activities normally
OK and for me it is like car manufacturers dont first design car then will never ever be on streets just to see what people say? You can suppose whatever you want but as we both know there is no proof Krylov did anything like that. And unlikely as this requires both time and money.
> I have hoped for Su-57K and also given my personal opinion, based on objective design features and Flanker precedent, that the plane has the potential to be modified for naval operation. Have also highlighted the reasons for which I think it is a unique opportunity for RuN to reach deterrence capacity against USN in remote areas for a fraction of their budget.
OK fair enough. We both exchanging here personal opinions. . As for Su-57 there is no such thing as deterrence with 20-24 fighters against couple of US CSGs with 150-180 and large escort groupings. Any blockade of Russia is a declaration of war. Price? 100mlns $ is a piece (source wiki) so mildly estimating navaized is 150mlns$ .
large CVN 14 bln $, if you have 40 Su-57 there +6billions = 20blns + escord group (numners based on similar ships build in the west) Small CVN (lets say 2,4-3) + 3,6$ blns for 24 fighters so you got 6blns +escort group
If is unlikely to be cheap and disputable qualities of deterrence. And in country which builds 22800 instead of frigates. because you got small ship 200mlns cheaper.
As for other tasks Syria type war we know no PAK-FA was ever needed. Since 2015.
I consider it firm when contracts are disclosed, until then I take it as an intention to develop or work on something. Only being cautious, not denying anything.
You can consider as you like, sir. The fact is: deputy PM for MiC Borisov said it is included in new SAP 2027 and Putin personally asked to start it. I am sure this is not firm. Cool calculating Putin just loves expensive new toys. . Unlikely any contract is going to be sighed until fighter is ready.
BTW What precisely contracts were signed since 2000 till 2018 for PAK-FA? none. in 2018 12 pieces? and MiG-35 - first flight 2007 - 2018 none. In 2018 whooping 6 pieces ordered.
You can consider it firm. 12+6
I (and others like hoom) have shown the Su-33 and MiG-29 can take off almost 100% load from the short positions on the K which are 95 m.
and what is "almost" 100% with what fuel/range then? In AA profile Su-33 takes 3300kg . Dunno why.
In sharp contrast, the F-35B needs 600 feet to take off full load, which is almost DOUBLE the space.
and? how does it relate to new Russian fighters? what does it prove? absolutely nothing. We dont know what will be specifications of Russian fighter.
ha ha If you almost double form 4 to 7 tons MiG payload then perhaps we can make any. BTW Obsolete Yak-41 could start 120m. Without skijump. With could perhaps 40-50m.
Short T/O performance of F-35B sucks compared to a high T/W ratio STOBAR fighter. It is that simple.
you never compared Su/MiG starting without Ski-jump, why? F-35 starts 2/3 at worst this distance and there is nothing preventing it using ski jump. Nothing.
So you are serious?
100%. You just have to compare the F-35A and B to see prime example of capacity impairment due to STOVL. And it is huge.
Huge in precisely what? in range? 300km? in payload? (6,8 vs 8tons)? what here is huge? Combat radius of F-35 is still better then MiG-29K (935 vs 850km)
BTW: F-35A is land based F-35B is naval VSTOL
STOVL for naval use must meet almost all the requirements that you mention above plus huge amount of HW for generating and controlling twenty tones of vertical lift, which in our universe translates invariably into weight + space + cost + complexity. Given the scarcity of space and weight restrictions of a fighter, it is a huge design compromise.
Building a jet fighter is already compromise since turboprop has better range and fuel economy. Once you decide to sacrifice economy for speed, simple canards make a fighter structurally unstable and without advanced computer algorithm cannot fly Is it not a compromise? navalized fighter is again compromise. Weight, range and payload vs short take off is already a compromise.
That's why you got technology for.
Manufacturing what? STOBAR? CATOBAR? Naval fighters in general? RuN does operate naval fighters in STOBAR configuration so they probably match their doctrine
and now started VSTOL as it suits much better BTW what contradiction do you see between CATOBAR and VSTOL?
ah yeas France too! Rafale is cheaper than VSTOL. Needs catapult and programme cost is 45blns€ . That's why is cheap!
What 45 billion? They use steam catapults licensed from US, but nevertheless I don't understand what you try to proof.
No not steam catapults but Rafale. After wiki: Rafale Program cost €45.9 billion (as of FY2013)[9] (US$62.7 billion)
Very small like 70ktons QE2? As for size. do you live in the world of endless military budgets. Lucky you, RuN does not. TVC and skijump were designed for deck fighters and applied for VSTOL first. I see no problem with using VSTOL with both but this is no argument against . Just VSTOL use those facilities more efficient.
Look, Russia has STOBAR CV and fighters, don't tell me they can't afford them.[/quote]
Tell it to Russians. They have decided to build VSTOL instead going down your route. In ~10 years they will have no STOBAR anymore. As soon as VSTOL is in series.[/quote]
@gunship democracy & al. I am very suspicious that STOVL fighter is a priority for Russian army/ Navy. There are too many programs underway to finance one more, completely new highly capable aircraft. BTW, I think that STOVL cannot ever achieve such characteristics as normal STOBAR/CATOBAR fighter. There are too many technical limitations. Also, you mention 13Bn$ price for new big carrier. Have in mind that russian military industry is free of paying VAT for equipment produced for russian military, and that industry prices and salaries cannot even be compared to western ones. So, Russians can make comparable weapons & equipment much, much cheaper. Current production price of SU-57 for russian AF is somewhere like 60M$, so 40 planes make some 2,5Bn$, not 6Bn$.
I think this is a great approach, this size of deck for 44 kT is really surprising. Nuclear propulsion and little bigger (for bigger endurance and hopefully one fighter squadron more) and they would reach practical parity with USN carriers. Counting on Su-57K maybe even this size would work
I agree... the Russian Navy said they wanted a carrier bigger than 70K tons, but what they actually meant is that they wanted one that was bigger and with better capacity than the Kuznetsov... this new design scaled up to the same weight as the Kuznetsov could carry rather more aircraft, and with nuclear propulsion could be a rather impressive carrier.
Without weighing too much, yet not having a small carrier performance.
Surely 12 Su-57 oh well 18 would make it equal to 90 fighter US Ford Suspect Suspect Suspect especially with FA-XX
Actually as Syria has shown... the US wont fly FA-XX aircraft into airspace controlled by S-400, so why would their navy fly FA-XX into airspace controlled by S-400 and S-500 and Su-57s?
By then the surface ships will have Zircon and related hypersonic anti ship missiles so the Su-57s would not need to go anywhere near the US ships...
Then VSTOL needs even less. Yak-141 w/o skijump (with deck arreststers to get full trust) 70-80m. OF course 80m of ship is for free. Soruce Yefim Gordon Russian Yakovlev Yak-38 & Yak 41-M: The Soviet Jump Jets )
By that logic a Ka-52K is already ready for service and can take off vertically too...
Ingesting of hot air like PAK-FA which fell and burned means design needs to be reworked or fighter is to be dropped?
Are you trying to equate one engine fire in one PAK FA prototype with the total inability of a Yak-41 to actually do what it was fundamentally designed to do... that is land vertically on a carrier deck... please.
5) 24-28 fighters doesnt sound like numbers you wanted to see...
It carries a similar number of fighters to the Kuznetsov... so obviously a scaled up version with more would be what the Russian navy would be looking at... of course with nuclear power.
it was your example you just love expansive toys, unlike Russian Navy which probably prefer Honda (on of least trouble prone cars) and still affordable.
If I loved gold plated toys I would be demanding a 120K ton carrier to prove Russian superiority at sea... Russia needs nothing of the kind, and such a vessel would be a liability.... just like US carriers are becoming... their wonderful free income from being the international currency is coming to an end... and their actions are making it come faster...
and which one from "proper" British carriers would you use then? BTW Again mantra about 80s?!
Even the Ark Royal with Phantoms and Buccaneers and AWACS platforms would have been much better... Phantoms had BVR missiles and would have devastated the Argentine air force without even needing to get close... AWACS would have told them where they were and warned of attacks on ships so rather fewer ship losses would have occurred, and Buccaneers could have hammered Argentine ground forces much more effectively than the SHARs...
Instead they had to mount a long range risky attack on airfields with Vulcan bombers...
I harp on about the Falklands war because it is about the only case where a cheap budget carrier has been used in real combat...
I agree that without the carrier nothing would have happened and the Malvinas Islands would still be in Argentine hands, but it would have saved a lot of British ships if they had a real carrier...
. ok so basically frame form 80s was redesigned on early 2000s and should fly well in times when 6gn is supposed to fly?
Well it is supposed to be 5th gen fighter time now, yet 90% of the world does not have them operational yet...
6th gen are supposed to be largely unmanned, so I rather suspect what will happen in Russia is that 5th gen fighters will enter service in some numbers, but there will still be a lot of 4++ gen fighters too because they are cheap and can carry rather more missiles and bombs than a 5th gen aircraft can on a much less expensive platform. When 6th gen arrives I suspect they will replace the 5th gen aircraft and with 6th gen avionics being fitted to 4+++++++ gen fighters they will do the job good enough most of the time at a reasonable price too.
Not set in stone.... if things change then new plans can be made... the point is that as long as a 4++++ gen fighter can operate from the carrier then a 5th or 6th gen should be able to too, because it will have even better power to weight ratios anyway.
1) if there are damaged nozzles in Su-57 or Su-35 both fly normally. Only VSTOL has problems.
Su-57 and Su-35 can have half their wings shot off but they land conventionally... a VSTOL aircraft gets a damaged wing or tail that damages the puffer jet nozzles then it can't land vertically and must land conventionally... or crash.
2) Russians spending money on VSTOL project without considering cost benefit
There is nothing wrong with funding a few prototypes to explore technology options... the huge irony is that if the platform is subsonic then the huge internal volume the lift fan take up is not a problem.... it is only with supersonic aircraft that it ruins performance... if the F-35 was supposed to be subsonic then it would be fine... the subsonic model could be the VSTOL model and a slimmer supersonic model could be reshaped for optimal performance and would be much more like a stealthy F-16... but they ruined the flavour of the soup by trying to add too many strong flavours that didn't match.
The AWACS platform could be equipped with a large front fan behind the cockpit and two high bypass turbofans at the rear that can be vectored down for landing and taking off with a large fixed triangular structure above the back of the aircraft with a phased array radar antenna fixed there contoured to be a lifting surface so it is basically a biplane, but with lift engines for short takeoffs and landings... being subsonic you can make it as fat as you like and high bypass engines that are really powerful because they are high bypass turbofans move a lot of air but it is cold air... not hot air... even load it up with long range AAMs like R-37M and perhaps even air launched models of the S-400, but really having more fuel for longer operational time and the extra lift of the radar antenna will compensate for the bulk of the aircraft... and because it is subsonic it doesn't matter...
But then I still think an airship would be the most elegant solution all round...
Let's agree to disagree. VSTOL is no less "fragile as any other fighter.
I am sorry, I can't agree there... they are terribly vulnerable to combat damage...
[qutoe]and making full airbase with 2km concrete runways is faster, easier and cheaper then truckload of such matts?[/quote]
There are 500m strips of straight motorway all over the planet, but those trucks of matts can't follow those aircraft everywhere and deploy those matts every time that VSTOL fighter wants to touch down for a bit.
Well TVC was actually developed for STOL or V/STOL. F-15 TVC was designed to be STOL fighter. To have shorter runway . Sameas Russian fighters. So as long as I seriously doubt that TVC is not used during STOL. Of course wing surface helps. But who says VSTOL cannot have large wing surfaces, canrds or LREX?
Thrust vectoring on the F-15 and MiG and Flanker angled the engine nozzle down maybe 15 degrees or 20 degrees... for VSTOL takeoff AND landing the engine is operating in full AB thrust directly down at the runway surface... now any aircraft taking off will rotate and the engine exhaust might flash the ground for a half a second but at that point it is generally moving at 150+km/h so the surface would get heated but it would be strip dozens of metres long for a fraction of a second... not one area full thrust 20+ tons of thrust and 1,600 degrees C for 10 seconds or more....
Actually there were 4 41 and in Saratov ordered 8 prototypes of Yak 41M (improved avionics + LREX)
Where are they then... I know of one in a museum in Russia and the other was destroyed in the enormous fire after it crash landed and ruptured its belly fuel tank on the deck of a carrier.
1) improvement agains existing VTOLs was a quantum leap
Yak-41 was no a quantum leap ahead of the Yak-38M... the Yak-38M could take off and land on a carrier.
2) Yak was continuously improving design thats why 8 pieces was already 41M
Despite all promises made there was no evidence that the final product was even going to match the performance of the MiG-33, let alone be useful.
The ski jump on the Kuznetsov was largely for VSTOL fighters... they tested MiGs and Su-33s on a land based Ski Jump setup before they tried it at sea and found it improved their performance too so they kept the design despite cancelling the Yak.
They even had a cable arrest system they could set up on a road so aircraft with tail hooks could operate from motorways... the cable reduction gear was mounted in trucks to slow down the planes...
My idea about Russian VSTOL, less weight on stealth or bomb payload, more on being a maneuverable fighter with efficient engine.
Not trying to be a contrary bastard, but if you dump the requirement to be supersonic then you could make it a really fat plane... which would create lots of internal volume for lots of fuel but also lots of internal weapons... it would not be fast but it could be rather more stealthy than other aircraft with external weapons...
Once you dump the need to be supersonic then you get lots of options regarding engine arrangement... and with full vectored thrust engines inflight manouver performance should not be an issue... being able to point your nose and gun and radar anywhere you like without the risk of stalling would make you one hell of a dogfighter... launching missiles directly at a target instead of making it pull a hard turn on launch means it can turn to match any manouver the target makes with better manouverability than if it was already turning really hard to get around to face the target... it also means all its fuel burn accelerates it towards the target instead of initially heading away and then losing energy turning hard to face the target...
that we dont konw.
They operated Harriers... they know.
Then they need to find workaround. Quick.
They are working on it... it is called MiG-41.
Still radar horizon depends on ceiling... with 3km you dont have more than 250km for surface targets. Ka-60 in turn has 6km...but only 2500kg payload.
Ka-31 has a operational ceiling of 3,500m... but I suspect the new Klimov engines they have been developing should improve that a little... but I doubt the radar range for small anti ship missiles wont be more than 150km anyway... especially heading towards the antenna.
Fregat has proven it can fly unlike Krylov plastic model that cannot sail that's the difference lol1 lol1 lol1 but probably could win prize on modeler fairs
But the model didn't take off vertically so it actually proves nothing at all...
why to stop on Kuz size? if you have unlimited budget scale at will. If not below 40ktons.
The Russian Navy said they wanted slightly more capacity than the Kuz can manage... this vessel design can almost match the Kuznetsovs performance in a much lighter vessel design so scaling it up to allow for nuke propulsion and the fitting of EMALS just makes sense from their perspective... from your perspective you probably want them to shrink it down to 30K ton and put 6th gen VSTOL pixies on it...
but not on left runway looking from front. But ok that Su-33 is so good that can sharply turn right before start and use ski jump
Are you talking about the image at the top of this page? (Page 20 and post number 476?)
It has the same front as the kuznetsov... it just has a wider deck because of the new hull design...
The angled deck used for landing aircraft is flat from front to back, while the nose launch position has a ski jump...
Both fighters will fly ~10 years and when they already obsolete technically and morally are gonna be retired.
The SU-35 is perfectly adequate for fighting F-35s, and the Su-33 could easily be upgraded to that standard... and in 10 years time the Su-35 and the Su-33 can both be further upgraded to whatever level necessary. The MiG-29KR is like a MiG-35, which is very much a slightly smaller Su-35... a Su-35 that doesn't need to fly as far...
As for payload is only in your fantasy. Check numbers please before you say something like that again please. Numbers say:
Su-33....................6,500 kg (in air superiority variant 3,300kg) Mig-29K.................4,500 kg F-35......................6,803 kg
So please tell us what this 6.8 ton payload this F-35 will be carrying and how far exactly would it be carrying it?
The Su-33 and MiG-29KR would both be carrying less than 3 tons in an air to air role... normal load would be 6 R-77s and 4 R-73s and Sorbitsa jamming pods on the Su-33, and probably 2 fuel tanks and 4 R-77s and 2 R-73s for the MiG-29KR... so that would be 175kgs for each of the R-77s and 105kgs for each of the R-73s... so 1050 and 420 for the Su-33... so pretty much 1.5 tons plus jamming pods and 700kg plus 210kgs and the fuel tanks... I would be surprised if either was carrying more than 2 tons.
But what sort of ordinance would the F-35 be carrying... I would be interested...
Only 2 richest fleets in the world : US and China are manufacturing and designing those.
Which carrier aircraft is China designing?
The Russians designed the Su-33 and MiG-33, and redesigned the MiG-29KR and Su-33KUB, not to mention the Su-28, and of course the Yak-41.
Look, Russia has STOBAR CV and fighters, don't tell me they can't afford them.
He seems to think that saving a few billion to get a small and cheaper but not cheap carrier is the best option... and that would be fine if you never actually use them.
If you find yourself in a spot and actually need the carrier then you will wish you spent a little more and got a better one.
You can consider as you like, sir. The fact is: deputy PM for MiC Borisov said it is included in new SAP 2027 and Putin personally asked to start it. I am sure this is not firm. Cool calculating Putin just loves expensive new toys. . Unlikely any contract is going to be sighed until fighter is ready.
Replacing their entire armoured fleet is not cheap either, but they decided the crew protection levels were not good enough... of course tactics were the real problem... driving tanks into cities full of ammo against people trained in the use of them with all your best anti tank weapons was always going to end badly... performance of armour in the second chechen conflict and indeed Syria showed they are not totally obsolete when handled properly... and of course new systems like new ERA and APS systems and they would probably be fine, but the new replacement systems are going to be much better... but certainly not cheap.
ha ha If you almost double form 4 to 7 tons MiG payload then perhaps we can make any. BTW Obsolete Yak-41 could start 120m. Without skijump. With could perhaps 40-50m.
Hahahahaahahaha.... come on GD... when they give figures for max payload and figures for take off performance they don't mean takeoff at max fuel and max payload... they mean best take off performance which normally means quarter fuel and no payload.
No not steam catapults but Rafale. After wiki: Rafale Program cost €45.9 billion (as of FY2013)[9] (US$62.7 billion)
F-35 programme... 1.5 trillion... the most expensive combat system on the planet... a deathstar would be cheaper...
Tell it to Russians. They have decided to build VSTOL instead going down your route. In ~10 years they will have no STOBAR anymore. As soon as VSTOL is in series.
Well in there defence they have not demanded an all powerful design that replaces all current Russian fighters with a single unified piece of crap like the F-35... it doesn't have to be a money pit of useless...
kumbor wrote: @gunship democracy & al. I am very suspicious that STOVL fighter is a priority for Russian army/ Navy. There are too many programs underway to finance one more, completely new highly capable aircraft. BTW, I think that STOVL cannot ever achieve such characteristics as normal STOBAR/CATOBAR fighter. There are too many technical limitations.
you have full right not to believe that Putin personally ordered from MiC this project personally and money is allocated in SAP 2027. Then surely has low priority.
It is interesting thought about too many programmes. But which ones? Su-57 is actually on finish. There are only 2 so far. All other is just upgrades air-frames designed in Soviet times to keep them up and running.
MiG-41 and VSTOL and 6-gen (which can be MG-41 and VSTOL thus we end up 2.. ;-)
As for characteristics can you elaborate a bit please? weight? speed? payload? takeoff? which ones are important?
Also, you mention 13Bn$ price for new big carrier. Have in mind that russian military industry is free of paying VAT for equipment produced for russian military, and that industry prices and salaries cannot even be compared to western ones. So, Russians can make comparable weapons & equipment much, much cheaper. Current production price of SU-57 for russian AF is somewhere like 60M$, so 40 planes make some 2,5Bn$, not 6Bn$.
and proportions too. For one new big you have 4 small. And if Su-57 is 60 then new light can be 30-40. In every case you save money and have new more capable stuff to do task.[/quote]
kumbor wrote: @gunship democracy & al. I am very suspicious that STOVL fighter is a priority for Russian army/ Navy. There are too many programs underway to finance one more, completely new highly capable aircraft. BTW, I think that STOVL cannot ever achieve such characteristics as normal STOBAR/CATOBAR fighter. There are too many technical limitations.
you have full right not to believe that Putin personally ordered from MiC this project personally and money is allocated in SAP 2027. Then surely has low priority.
It is interesting thought about too many programmes. But which ones? Su-57 is actually on finish. There are only 2 so far. All other is just upgrades air-frames designed in Soviet times to keep them up and running.
MiG-41 and VSTOL and 6-gen (which can be MG-41 and VSTOL thus we end up 2.. ;-)
As for characteristics can you elaborate a bit please? weight? speed? payload? takeoff? which ones are important?
Also, you mention 13Bn$ price for new big carrier. Have in mind that russian military industry is free of paying VAT for equipment produced for russian military, and that industry prices and salaries cannot even be compared to western ones. So, Russians can make comparable weapons & equipment much, much cheaper. Current production price of SU-57 for russian AF is somewhere like 60M$, so 40 planes make some 2,5Bn$, not 6Bn$.
and proportions too. For one new big you have 4 small. And if Su-57 is 60 then new light can be 30-40. In every case you save money and have new more capable stuff to do task.
[/quote]
OMG! THIS IS NAVAL SUBFORUM, TOPIC ON AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. For months already we here talk mostly on aircraft not on ship!
Tell it to Russians. They have decided to build VSTOL instead going down your route. In ~10 years they will have no STOBAR anymore. As soon as VSTOL is in series.
Well in there defence they have not demanded an all powerful design that replaces all current Russian fighters with a single unified piece of crap like the F-35... it doesn't have to be a money pit of useless...
OK now we're talking. Indeed I dont think they want jack-of-all trades. Rather light 6gen drone/manned maneuverable fighter to test technologies,new principles weapons.
It is gonna be built not to replace Su-57. It's gonna to complete it. And fill RU AF and RUN ranks as MiG-29 and Su-27s will be gradually retired.
Not trying to be a contrary bastard,
oh you are, you are
GarryB wrote:Actually as Syria has shown... the US wont fly FA-XX aircraft into airspace controlled by S-400, so why would their navy fly FA-XX into airspace controlled by S-400 and S-500 and Su-57s?
F/A-XX actually designed to "work" in Area Denial environment. That's main 6gen requirement besides having drone mode. There were no Su-57 neither more than 8 fighters in Syria. New fighter will be similarly capable in hostile environment if not better. As technology for 20 years advances.
By then the surface ships will have Zircon and related hypersonic anti ship missiles so the Su-57s would not need to go anywhere near the US ships...
VSTOL neither
By that logic a Ka-52K is already ready for service and can take off vertically too...
the p'tit difference is that (I assume 6gen) VSTOL is officially ordered by Putin. BTW I didn see any Russian aerospace or military expert opinion that VSTOL sucks.
Only one (Krylov? :D:D) shipbuilding engineer said we need big big big CVNs. Well understandable. this would give him a job.
Ingesting of hot air like PAK-FA which fell and burned means design needs to be reworked or fighter is to be dropped?
Are you trying to equate one engine fire in one PAK FA prototype with the total inability of a Yak-41 to actually do what it was fundamentally designed to do... that is land vertically on a carrier deck... please.
There was inability only in your head. In 2014 (not fire on 2011 show) with your reasoning should prove that fighter cannot fly on its own. Not to mention that not all prototypes had stealthy coating. Could they fly supercruise anyway?
In real terms as prototypes accidents both are equal.
PAK FA accident: After a regular test flight landing smoke was observed above the right air intake, then there was a local fire. It was quickly extinguished. Plane damaged beyond repair. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=166845
5) 24-28 fighters doesnt sound like numbers you wanted to see...
It carries a similar number of fighters to the Kuznetsov... so obviously a scaled up version with more would be what the Russian navy would be looking at... of course with nuclear power.
it carries 24 fighters and you say it is cool ?great I thought that 30-36 would be better but OK if you have small CVN 24 is still better then none.
and which one from "proper" British carriers would you use then? BTW Again mantra about 80s?!
I harp on about the Falklands war because it is about the only case where a cheap budget carrier has been used in real combat... I agree that without the carrier nothing would have happened and the Malvinas Islands would still be in Argentine hands, but it would have saved a lot of British ships if they had a real carrier...
Hmm then RN didn't draw conclusions? incompetent admiralty? They still have VSTOL fighters with skijump in RN por perhaps for small conflict they bring better value then big and expensive fighters.
.ok so basically frame form 80s was redesigned on early 2000s and should fly well in times when 6gn is supposed to fly?
Well it is supposed to be 5th gen fighter time now, yet 90% of the world does not have them operational yet... []/quote] Neither Russia does. You fight with EU or US and in 2030-2040s they will have it. You'd better too.
6th gen are supposed to be largely unmanned, so I rather suspect what will happen in Russia is that 5th gen fighters will enter service in some numbers, but there will still be a lot of 4++ gen fighters too because they are cheap and can carry rather more missiles and bombs than a 5th gen aircraft can on a much less expensive platform. When 6th gen arrives I suspect they will replace the 5th gen aircraft and with 6th gen avionics being fitted to 4+++++++ gen fighters they will do the job good enough most of the time at a reasonable price too.
unlikely. A drone fighter is completely designed as drone perhaps modular to be used with cabin module. Drone lighter and more g capable and can use weapons that can be dangerous to pilot. MiG-29 has max overload +9g. And what if has 20g? is lighter and more stealth?
If your reasoning would be reflected in armed forces then no Russian tracked robots need to be built. Simply you have thousands if T-55 from stores, add avionics and et voila you dot perfect drone! . I dont see it happening.
No 4+++++ fighters will be produced in2030s. Unless export orders. Their service life cycle is about to end in many cases.
1) if there are damaged nozzles in Su-57 or Su-35 both fly normally. Only VSTOL has problems.
Su-57 and Su-35 can have half their wings shot off but they land conventionally... a VSTOL aircraft gets a damaged wing or tail that damages the puffer jet nozzles then it can't land vertically and must land conventionally...
I asked about nozzles. I assume that lack of answer means both crash. wing? Both can land normally if damage is small. Great no difference!
Let's agree to disagree. VSTOL is no less "fragile as any other fighter.
I am sorry, I can't agree there... they are terribly vulnerable to combat damage...
no less than Su-57. Su-57 is armoured ? if no then both are on the same level.
and making full airbase with 2km concrete runways is faster, easier and cheaper then truckload of such matts?
There are 500m strips of straight motorway all over the planet, but those trucks of matts can't follow those aircraft everywhere and deploy those matts every time that VSTOL fighter wants to touch down for a bit.
motorways near front-line? have you ever seen a map of Russia? roads density? Russia has ~7km/100km2. 1/6 road destiny of NZ. Sightly less than Australia. And 60 times smaller then Nl.
Trucks with matts is easier to dispatch or conceal. They can follow infantry brigades. why not? much more practical than building new airfields on daily basis.
Well TVC was actually developed for STOL or V/STOL. F-15 TVC was designed to be STOL fighter. To have shorter runway . Sameas Russian fighters. So as long as I seriously doubt that TVC is not used during STOL. Of course wing surface helps. But who says VSTOL cannot have large wing surfaces, canrds or LREX?
Thrust vectoring on the F-15 and MiG and Flanker angled the engine nozzle down maybe 15 degrees or 20 degrees... for VSTOL takeoff AND landing the engine is operating in full AB thrust directly down at the runway surface... now any aircraft taking off will rotate and the engine exhaust might flash the ground for a half a second but at that point it is generally moving at 150+km/h so the surface would get heated but it would be strip dozens of metres long for a fraction of a second... not one area full thrust 20+ tons of thrust and 1,600 degrees C for 10 seconds or more....
vertical take off outside ships is unlikely needed. Short one was already performed by Harriers. And it worked.
Actually there were 4 41 and in Saratov ordered 8 prototypes of Yak 41M (improved avionics + LREX)
Where are they then... I know of one in a museum in Russia and the other was destroyed in the enormous fire after it crash landed and ruptured its belly fuel tank on the deck of a carrier.
They are where is CVN Ulyanovsk or 2 971 class submarines in Amur shipyard.
1) improvement agains existing VTOLs was a quantum leap
Yak-41 was no a quantum leap ahead of the Yak-38M... the Yak-38M could take off and land on a carrier.
first supersonic VSTOL deck fighter in the world, with good avionics and bvr missiles
2) Yak was continuously improving design thats why 8 pieces was already 41M
Despite all promises made there was no evidence that the final product was even going to match the performance of the MiG-33, let alone be useful.
Su-33 was so useful than why 26 or so was ordered ? oh it must must have been so perfect you dont need them many. And now again Russian staff wants VSTOL not Su-33 forever ?! but why
but if you dump the requirement to be supersonic then you could make it a really fat plane... which would create lots of internal volume for lots of fuel but also lots of internal weapons... it would not be fast but it could be rather more stealthy than other aircraft with external weapons...
with maneuverable deck bomber drone, I agree a good idea. Navalized Skat? RN needs fighters first of all tho.
Then they need to find workaround. Quick.
They are working on it... it is called MiG-41.
meeh Tu-22M3 would have even better payload and range.
Still radar horizon depends on ceiling... with 3km you dont have more than 250km for surface targets. Ka-60 in turn has 6km...but only 2500kg payload.
Ka-31 has a operational ceiling of 3,500m... but I suspect the new Klimov engines they have been developing should improve that a little... but I doubt the radar range for small anti ship missiles wont be more than 150km anyway... especially heading towards the antenna.
Ka-60 has already 2x ceiling. As for small AshMs tech is also advancing, perhaps new radars can do better.
Fregat has proven it can fly unlike Krylov plastic model that cannot sail that's the difference lol1 lol1 lol1 but probably could win prize on modeler fairs
But the model didn't take off vertically so it actually proves nothing at all...
Krylovs? no
Fregat did. Check vid on YT I've provided.
The Russian Navy said they wanted slightly more capacity than the Kuz can manage... this vessel design can almost match the Kuznetsovs performance in a much lighter vessel design so scaling it up to allow for nuke propulsion and the fitting of EMALS just makes sense from their perspective... from your perspective you probably want them to shrink it down to 30K ton and put 6th gen VSTOL pixies on it...
OK respect your arguments yet reality proved the opposite. They go definitely for VSTOL. What siez of CVN? a compromise between costs/needs.
Why emals? There is no naval fighter for catapult in Russia, you need to build one. EMALS in US is not yet finished and costs ~1 billions $. If you build 12 CNVs and have nearly unlimited budget then it makes sense. If you build 1-2 for 40-50 fighters where do you see benefit opposing to ski jump?
but not on left runway looking from front. But ok that Su-33 is so good that can sharply turn right before start and use ski jump
Are you talking about the image at the top of this page? (Page 20 and post number 476?)
tell me you dont see it now? landing on angled deck without hitting those fighters on deck? man this must be best pilot in the world!
The Su-33 and MiG-29KR would both be carrying less than 3 tons in an air to air role... +++ I would be surprised if either was carrying more than 2 tons.
then why guys do you wank around with payloads? I've heard that Yak was shit because could take 2,6 tons payload + 1 fuel tank. MiG-29k is great beccause does the same.
Dunno F-35 payload. But if tis bigger in bomber profile is certainly sufficient in fighter one. But what sort of ordinance would the F-35 be carrying... I would be interested...
Then ask Americans what combination of AIM-120 AMRAAM and AIM-9X Sidewinder or possibly MBDA Meteor will it take.
Only 2 richest fleets in the world : US and China are manufacturing and designing those.
Which carrier aircraft is China designing?
J-31?
The Russians designed the Su-33 and MiG-33, and redesigned the MiG-29KR and Su-33KUB, not to mention the Su-28, and of course the Yak-41.
Not Russia really, Soviet Union did. In 80s
You can consider as you like, sir. The fact is: deputy PM for MiC Borisov said it is included in new SAP 2027 and Putin personally asked to start it. I am sure this is not firm. Cool calculating Putin just loves expensive new toys. . Unlikely any contract is going to be sighed until fighter is ready.
Replacing their entire armoured fleet is not cheap either,
ekhm not sure how does it relate to the topic?
ha ha If you almost double form 4 to 7 tons MiG payload then perhaps we can make any. BTW Obsolete Yak-41 could start 120m. Without skijump. With could perhaps 40-50m.
Hahahahaahahaha.... come on GD... when they give figures for max payload and figures for take off performance they don't mean takeoff at max fuel and max payload... they mean best take off performance which normally means quarter fuel and no payload.
Oh got it! those min payload and min-fuel refers to western fighters only! and Russian are always with MTOW? if both have the same then data prove I am right.
Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
Ives wrote:Krylov institute presented a concept of semi-catamaran carrier: https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5625190
The authors claim, that despite of being light(44k tonnes), it would be able to carry the same amount of aircraft units as a medium weight carrier, thanks to it's semi-catamaran desing. So, what do you guys think?
Have been proposing something along these lines (more keels = better from factor and hence more space) for a while. So obviously for me it is a fantastic to see the idea holds water and they are brave enough for innovating in something so set in stone as CV hull shape. At 304 x 78 m, the flight deck is simply huge, and the hull is very wide at the stern so probably hangars are also quite big. This vessel is like 30% lighter than Kuznetsov and has the same air wing. Additionally IIRC it would have catapults for AWACS at the angled deck and a big helo group. Sea keeping seems very good, was our concern until we saw the news about the semi-catamaran design. So I see it as a extremely promising proposal MoD should definitely accept and develop with nuclear propulsion for construction in the next 15 years as it is or maybe little bigger. Proper high-performance fighters and AWACS or advanced AEW should be devised in that time.
@Gunship:
> Your numbers for Su-57 costs, CVNs, LHDs and STOVL are very weak, and they are the basis of all your argumentation about Russia not being capable of affording anything better. I don't know how you don't see it. > If missions do not call for highest level capacity, then the LHDs and STOVL are also not necessary. Acc. your logic, if there is any action needed at some hot spot send some transport vessels with relief or expeditionary forces and if US messes with you, nuke them. Reality shows (Su-24, Il-20, drones at Hmeimim, Wagner guys, "lucky" mortars landing on some general's room, Su-25s met by F-22s etc etc) without top level assets you don't have even monitoring of activities in theatre so cannot operate in the minimum necessary safety and are even exposed to all kind of false flags. Without deterrence, state and non-state actors harass and embarrass you 24/7 so you cannot politically maintain the effort. And if US wants to push you aside at a given moment with a show of force, are you going to start WWIII over some third world country? If you want to project power you need to reach in theater, conventional deterrence. So you need a CV with all it implies. > PAK-FA was firm since it had a disclosed program name, concrete bureaus making concrete proposals etc. None of this is still in place for the STOVL... at least yet.
kumbor wrote:@gunship democracy & al. I am very suspicious that STOVL fighter is a priority for Russian army/ Navy. There are too many programs underway to finance one more, completely new highly capable aircraft. BTW, I think that STOVL cannot ever achieve such characteristics as normal STOBAR/CATOBAR fighter. There are too many technical limitations. Also, you mention 13Bn$ price for new big carrier. Have in mind that russian military industry is free of paying VAT for equipment produced for russian military, and that industry prices and salaries cannot even be compared to western ones. So, Russians can make comparable weapons & equipment much, much cheaper. Current production price of SU-57 for russian AF is somewhere like 60M$, so 40 planes make some 2,5Bn$, not 6Bn$.
We (almost) all agree on what you say, this is looking very much like a match Gunship vs rest of the world. I appreciate his brave stance but we still need to see how pieces of the new Russian navy strategy fall in place.
GarryB wrote:I agree... the Russian Navy said they wanted a carrier bigger than 70K tons, but what they actually meant is that they wanted one that was bigger and with better capacity than the Kuznetsov... this new design scaled up to the same weight as the Kuznetsov could carry rather more aircraft, and with nuclear propulsion could be a rather impressive carrier.
Without weighing too much, yet not having a small carrier performance.
It is unclear what they want and for what purpose exactly, they don't transmit any impression of having a clear consensus but who knows. Krylov is making it very easy for MoD since they managed a small carrier with big capacity as we were discussing previously it would be necessary to improve over the traditional carrier design. If it includes catapults as it seems with AWACS and 2 squadrons fighters then it is as cheap and simple as a credible carrier can be. Really think they can make the difference with the fighters and save massively in ships. The conditions are given for RuN to create mid term a capability surprise and a crisis in the USN of huge proportions. Only piece missing is the shipbuilding capacity which is still leaving so much to desire.
GarryB wrote: He seems to think that saving a few billion to get a small and cheaper but not cheap carrier is the best option... and that would be fine if you never actually use them.
If you find yourself in a spot and actually need the carrier then you will wish you spent a little more and got a better one.
I have many issues with Gunship's stance in this regard: > Don't see where the huge savings in his proposal are going to come from. A heavy, very well equipped LHD with fixed wing 5G fighters and all the VLS, well docks, radars etc is going to be massively expensive. Metal for the hull is relatively cheap > Don't see where is he taking the cost assumptions for a bigger CVN with STOBAR fighters. They are pretty f*cked up IMHO > Don't understand why to make LHDs and STOVL to start with... since for him the deterrence is nuclear it seems. > Don't see the economic sense and viability of a STOVL for couple LHDs, and have not heard anything about a STOVL for VVS or even light fighter that could have commonality.
As said above, for protecting interests abroad I think you need in theater conventional deterrence capability. And two middle sized CVNs are not the world for a military industry like the Russian one. Really don't see they are going to bankrupt themselves because of this at all.
LMFS wrote:We (almost) all agree on what you say, this is looking very much like a match Gunship vs rest of the world. I appreciate his brave stance but we still need to see how pieces of the new Russian navy strategy fall in place.
I'd say rest o of forum against facts Pieces of naval doctrine seem to be quite clear. Defense using bth nukes and precision weapons, especially hypersonic ones. Subs first. CVNs later as deck fighter is there. And unlikely not before 2027.
Why to build small CVNs? they can do same job requested for a fraction of costs. There's no magic in that. Perhaps we define small in a different way?
A Krylov CV one is small to me. Somehow you protest against my proposals and are happy with Krylov one. i wonder where do you see the difference.
@Gunship: > Your numbers for Su-57 costs, CVNs, LHDs and STOVL are very weak, and they are the basis of all your argumentation about Russia not being capable of affording anything better. I don't know how you don't see it.
VSTOL should as good fighter as Su-57, range can be shorter tho since its unlikely gonna be same size. It will be a generation newer design. I wonder why plain numbers that only USA so far is able to build and sustain large CVNs fleet dont seem to be noticed by you. Even Soviet Union (second economy in the world) couldn't afford for a fleet of large CVNs. China started to design heavy CVNs after being 2nd Worlds economy. Russia is on 6th place so far. Russia doesn't even build destroyers now. And you want CVNs without escorts?
Ah and on top of CVN you still need to build LHDs so it's making costs even higher. No LHD doent have to replace CVNs. Although something being a mix of TAKR+some amphibious capacity would be best compromise IMHO for Russian needs.
If you check what were TAKRs designed for you'll see that not mu]ch changed form those times.
Reality shows (Su-24, Il-20, drones at Hmeimim, Wagner guys, "lucky" mortars landing on some general's room, Su-25s met by F-22s etc etc) without top level assets you don't have even monitoring of activities in theater so cannot operate in the minimum necessary safety and are even exposed to all kind of false flags.
Great example supporting my thesis. Thanks!
Il-20 had no cover even that fighters were there so CV on deck would not change anything. [ b]Wagner employees were not on Russian govt mission[/b] that's why nobody covered them.Fighters were there just nobody had sent them. But somehow you fail to see the difference.
In case of Su-25 there were enough 2 fighters or 1? How massive CVN would change a thing there?
Without deterrence, state and non-state actors harass and embarrass you 24/7 so you cannot politically maintain the effort. And if US wants to push you aside at a given moment with a show of force, are you going to start WWIII over some third world country? If you want to project power you need to reach in theater, conventional deterrence. So you need a CV with all it implies.
USA dont give you amshow force like they didnt really do in Syria. It is enough to be there. Too risky for them. Hmm how 30 modern fighters cannot cope with non state actors without aviation at all? can you show at least one example please.
> PAK-FA was firm since it had a disclosed program name, concrete bureaus making concrete proposals etc. None of this is still in place for the STOVL... at least yet.
PAK FA after almost 20 years (wow) of programme started to be Su-57 and will go in series like (second stage engine, full weapon suite and state tested && approved) 2021~2023? so almost quarter of century from programme start.
Nobody ever mentioned Su57K tho. If I ever see any of such mentioning I change my opinion. Now i dotn see reasons to do it.
Krylov is making it very easy for MoD since they managed a small carrier with big capacity as we were discussing previously it would be necessary to improve over the traditional carrier design. If it includes catapults as it seems with AWACS and 2 squadrons fighters then it is as cheap and simple as a credible carrier can be. Really think they can make the difference with the fighters and save massively in ships. The conditions are given for RuN to create mid term a capability surprise and a crisis in the USN of huge proportions. Only piece missing is the shipbuilding capacity which is still leaving so much to desire.
wait wait now you contradict yourselves guys. 24 fighters now is OK. 37ktons CV is also OK. BTW check how many shipyards able to build 300m ships are now being built, 1?2?
I have many issues with Gunship's stance in this regard: > Don't see where the huge savings in his proposal are going to come from. A heavy, very well equipped LHD with fixed wing 5G fighters and all the VLS, well docks, radars etc is going to be massively expensive. Metal for the hull is relatively cheap
is US Ford/America the price ratio is 1/4 (with Wasp 1/8 ). Why do you think for Russia will be different?
As said above, for protecting interests abroad I think you need in theater conventional deterrence capability. And two middle sized CVNs are not the world for a military industry like the Russian one. Really don't see they are going to bankrupt themselves because of this at all.
Well QE2 has 40 VSTOL , ski-jump not catapult and Marines, de Gaulle 30 CATOBAR + marines. This is good example what do you do wit budget restrictions. Somehow for them is good enough.
Why is it worth arguing about aircraft carrier design when there will absolutely be no free drydocks for them in the next 15 years? By that time ACs will be completely obsolete because of ballistic and hypersonic missiles.
GunshipDemocracy wrote:A Krylov CV one is small to me. Somehow you protest against my proposals and are happy with Krylov one. i wonder where do you see the difference.
Ok then. It has catapults, ski jump, AWACS, two squadrons potent fighter and is a CV, not a LHD. If you think this is ok then we agree more than disagree. But then LHDs would need to be designed additionally I am afraid, this is not what you propose.
@Gunship: > Your numbers for Su-57 costs, CVNs, LHDs and STOVL are very weak, and they are the basis of all your argumentation about Russia not being capable of affording anything better. I don't know how you don't see it.
VSTOL should as good fighter as Su-57, range can be shorter tho since its unlikely gonna be same size. It will be a generation newer design. I wonder why plain numbers that only USA so far is able to build and sustain large CVNs fleet dont seem to be noticed by you. Even Soviet Union (second economy in the world) couldn't afford for a fleet of large CVNs. China started to design heavy CVNs after being 2nd Worlds economy. Russia is on 6th place so far. Russia doesn't even build destroyers now. And you want CVNs without escorts?
Ah and on top of CVN you still need to build LHDs so it's making costs even higher. No LHD doent have to replace CVNs. Although something being a mix of TAKR+some amphibious capacity would be best compromise IMHO for Russian needs.
If you check what were TAKRs designed for you'll see that not mu]ch changed form those times.
Don't dodge the issue. Your cost numbers hold no water, so your estimation of what is affordable and not is completely distorted. Mid and long term Russia should be able to have two or three additional CVs + K and two or three LHDs. This has nothing to do with outspending USN or any other hollow arguments, just with the proper force dimensioning of a super power. See plans of India and China please, even UK wants at least two of their newest sailing coffins.
Great example supporting my thesis. Thanks!
Il-20 had no cover even that fighters were there so CV on deck would not change anything. [ b]Wagner employees were not on Russian govt mission[/b] that's why nobody covered them.Fighters were there just nobody had sent them. But somehow you fail to see the difference.
In case of Su-25 there were enough 2 fighters or 1? How massive CVN would change a thing there?
It is not that difficult, really. In none of those cases Russia nuked US, just got screwed and had to endure the blow with a brave face. What has improved the situation has been the progressive increase in Syria of the presence of high-end conventional assets that cut from the root any foul play possibility. So to dispute geopolitical space with US in remote areas just with some lame guys with poor equipment will not only not work but actually convince any possible ally that Russia has no capacity to hold its own and much less to protect them.
USA dont give you amshow force like they didnt really do in Syria. It is enough to be there. Too risky for them. Hmm how 30 modern fighters cannot cope with non state actors without aviation at all? can you show at least one example please.
Don't be naïve. US is always ready arm proxies and "friendly" regimes with whatever weapons are needed to embarrass Russia. Even unreliable, total nutcases like the jihadists have been using US targeting intelligence and military planning, advanced communications and thousands of tonnes of weapons, some of them quite modern. Russia is not flying above MANPAD ceiling for nothing. If things go uglier, some modern SAMs or AShM can always fall in wrong hands, just give them some time.
That means, where the non-state actor ends and where regular armies or even US armed forces start is absolutely unclear in complex theaters, of which Syria is a good example.
PAK FA after almost 20 years (wow) of programme started to be Su-57 and will go in series like (second stage engine, full weapon suite and state tested && approved) 2021~2023? so almost quarter of century from programme start.
Stick to facts please. We are in 2018 and PAK-FA was started in 2001, so 17 years development from the very first step not 20. First serial units delivered after 18-19 years. In 2021 it will be 20 years not quarter of a century. Besides, what are you fussing about? All I am saying is the STOVL program is still in the very early stages.
Nobody ever mentioned Su57K tho. If I ever see any of such mentioning I change my opinion. Now i dotn see reasons to do it.
So? This has nothing to do with the discussion
wait wait now you contradict yourselves guys. 24 fighters now is OK. 37ktons CV is also OK. BTW check how many shipyards able to build 300m ships are now being built, 1?2?
The smaller the vessel it can cope with the task the better. Why now mentioning 37 kT, it is 44 kT full displacement. It has the same air wing than K with 30% less weight, what is not to like. You don't need many shipyards to produce such vessels, 1 or 2 are perfectly ok. What are you trying to prove?
is US Ford/America the price ratio is 1/4 (with Wasp 1/8 ). Why do you think for Russia will be different?
Because an America class will not act without the cover of the CVN and yours will need to, that is why. Your LHD would need to be armed and equipped to the teeth. Ergo it would not be cheap.
Have you devoted any thought to understanding why America is cheap and Ford expensive? What are your ideas?
Well QE2 has 40 VSTOL , ski-jump not catapult and Marines, de Gaulle 30 CATOBAR + marines. This is good example what do you do wit budget restrictions. Somehow for them is good enough.
And its perfectly supporting my thesis
Konashenkov has laughed his ass out about the military value of the QE, I doubt they want the same. De Gaulle is rather an example of what we propose, not of what you propose BTW. But nevertheless a NATO nation under the umbrella of USN can indulge in things RuN will not be able to.
Price ratio 1/4. Now better? what about holding water?
De Gaulle is rather an example of what we propose, not of what you propose BTW. But nevertheless a NATO nation under the umbrella of USN can indulge in things RuN will not be able to.
DE Gaulle is not bad ta all. She can carry up to 800 marines. More than Mistral Only no useless catapult but ski jump. Steam in Arctic? emals is like 1/3 of CVN costs and with VSTOL useless.
LMFS wrote:Ok then. It has catapults, ski jump, AWACS, two squadrons potent fighter and is a CV, not a LHD. If you think this is ok then we agree more than disagree. But then LHDs would need to be designed additionally I am afraid, this is not what you propose.
e 1) You say LHD. I say LHA or TAKR I think that amphibious operations support is also important part of CVN role. At worst better armed de Gaulle.
2) Skijump? I never said ski jump is bad. TVC+ski-jump were designed for VSTOL fighters
3) With catapult ? I didnt see any for new Krylov model. In every case investing billions in development of 1 max 2 pieces makes no sense neither military nor financial.
4) No AWACS. They clearly stated AEW. AEW&C is definitely important. AEW plane? There is no platfor now and unlikely will be any platform specifically developed.
Developing new platform? for 2-4 planes? Il-114 program is about 1bln $, lets assume this would be same range (although should be higher) : then we got 1 AEW platfomr for 250mln$ EMALS? US 1bln$ for 10-12 CVNs. Russia less but 500mln?
LEt me guess after discussion with min of finance. All ambitious plans will be taken off agenda and old good ski jump and AWE on VSOTL drones or helos will be accepted.
AEW...platform................................service ceiling.............................radar horizon vs ships..........availability Ka-60............................................ 6000.m........................................320km............................project ongoing available in 2030s Ka 31'............................................3500.m........................................250km...........................available VSTOL fregat drone....................................8000 m........................................370km............................proof of concept works needs a programme
Mid and long term Russia should be able to have two or three additional CVs + K and two or three LHDs. This has nothing to do with outspending USN or any other hollow arguments, just
mid term Technology advances very fast. What is midterm to you? 2040? 2050?
it is not that difficult, really. In none of those cases Russia nuked US, just got screwed and had to endure the blow with a brave face.
Did you ever read the story behind that? ? Il-20 was deliberate action of Jewish State not US. Wagner was private company working fr Syrian businessman. No CVN would ever change outcome then and ever.
What has improved the situation has been the progressive increase in Syria of the presence of high-end conventional assets that cut from the root any foul play possibility. So to dispute geopolitical space with US in remote areas just with some lame guys with poor equipment will not only not work but actually convince any possible ally that Russia has no capacity to hold its own and much less to protect them.
True but this has nothing to do with CVN. Number of fighters was average 4. With peak like 8. The rest is navy and S-300/S-400.
.That means, where the non-state actor ends and where regular armies or even US armed forces start is absolutely unclear in complex theaters, of which Syria is a good example.
and where is this Air Force of non-state agents? none. Neither Syria, nor Afghanistan nor Central African Republic. That's why 4-8 fighters was more then enough.
We are in 2018 and PAK-FA was started in 2001, so 17 years development from the very first step not 20. First serial units delivered after 18-19 years. In 2021 it will be 20 years not quarter of a century. Besides, what are you fussing about? All I am saying is the STOVL program is still in the very early stages.
in 2019 will be 12 Su-57 with engines of first stage with second stage state tests shall complete 21-23? I might be wrong of course. Regardless 20 or 23, VSTOL will be 20+ years newer design, with all new tech used. Actually a next gen fighter.
wait wait now you contradict yourselves guys. 24 fighters now is OK. 37ktons CV is also OK. BTW check how many shipyards able to build 300m ships are now being built, 1?2?
The smaller the vessel it can cope with the task the better. {}It has the same air wing than K with 30% less weight, what is not to like.
Do I get it correctly that Krylov is OK (24-28 fighters)? but QE2 (40 fighters) is not?
You don't need many shipyards to produce such vessels, 1 or 2 are perfectly ok. What are you trying to prove?
ok so you dont need escort right? destroyer cruiser Lider is 200m. Nuclear PP and 15ktons displacement.
1 shipyard? then you build 2 CVNs 15 years until design is rendered obsolete? and no Liders in between?
is US Ford/America the price ratio is 1/4 (with Wasp 1/8 ). Why do you think for Russia will be different?
Because an America class will not act without the cover of the CVN and yours will need to, that is why. Your LHD would need to be armed and equipped to the teeth. Ergo it would not be cheap.
TAKRS were much cheaper than any CVNs that's why Soviet Union was using them. Especially that they didnt require so many escort ships. BTW cover in what type of scenario ?
Konashenkov has laughed his ass out about the military value of the QE, I doubt they want the same.
Because Brits tried to ridicule Kuz. If Americans would to the same why he couldn't say exactly about Ford class?
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
GunshipDemocracy
