Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

Your image is worth your IQ.

The point he is trying to get across is that when talking about the seas and oceans the distances are huge, and therefore the volume these forces are operating in is enormous and without aircraft carriers there are few places for aircraft to land.

Thanks to their missiles they have stand off ranges. What fighter can intercept a tu-22M at 2000km away.

They do, but why do you think that makes them useless?

Are those bombers firing from standoff ranges because with enemy aircraft carriers amongst its target surface ships are just too dangerous to get near?

If the bombers with standoff missiles are safe then taking away those aircraft carriers reduces the AA reach of Russian surface ships from 1,000km plus say 500km range for the AAM they will be carrying in 10 years time down to the 600km range of the S-500 and 400km range of the S-400... which means not only does the Russian surface group now no longer have airborne early warning the volume of airspace it can intercept incoming aircraft and missiles has just been dramatically reduced... and for what?

Pak da and its stealth can't be even detected at 1000km away. Neither a su-57.

Russian radars in Russia detected US F-35 stealth fighters along the Iraqi Iranian border...

Carrier's f-35 or even su-57 can't do much against a bomber firing missiles 2500km away.

Their job is not to bring down all enemy air power... if they defeat or even just detect and track incoming missiles for ship based systems to engage at extended ranges it will contribute to making the ships safer. Then 5,000km range nuclear armed missiles can hit those B-1Bs in their bases as a response to their attack on a Russian carrier group.

F-35 patroling 2000km away from the carrier is impossible.

Russia is not planning to operate F-35s AFAIK... this is the future Russian aircraft carriers thread... we are discussing future Russian aircraft carriers.

The bomber can choose when and where to attack.

It can, but a carrier group can choose where to operate too.

Carriers are targets only.

In war everything is a target.

I just told you it's 2000, not 2500 learn to read.

Actually if we are talking about Kinzhal it is probably more like 1,500km launch range because the Backfire is slower and lower flying than the MiG-31K... which is why the MiG-31K will be the primary carrier of that missile... at least till MiG-41s start operating...

A couple of planes isn't going to worry a carrier group you would need dozens and a large wing-like that would be easy to intercept.

Another factor is that even American carriers operated by America... a country constantly at war.... carrier operations are probably less than 1% of their operational lives activities.... most of the time they are doing something else.

During peace time they are useful, during times of tension they are even more useful... you can send planes out to check out a target on the sea or land or air... you can't do that with missiles... and during war for a Russian surface group not having a carrier means limited situational awareness and also a SAM missile reach of about 400km or so, compared with having a carrier with Su-57s that might supercruise 1,000km radius missions at mach 1.6 and carry the new replacement missile for the R-37M which should have a range of 400k-500km depending on the target.  That is an enormous reach extension and fact checker that gives the ships much better situational awareness and defense layers of protection and vision to prevent surprise.

Any force can be overwhelmed, but adding aircraft carriers means you will need thousands of anti ship missiles to defeat one Russian carrier group instead of probably hundreds to overwhelm it.

Hypersonic missiles make early detection and long range missiles even more critical and that means big carriers.

Little carriers with F-35s would be the vessels rendered useless because lack of weapon capacity and flight range and persistence.

You are gravely misunderstanding the use of US carriers against Russia, they would not be used to attack the mainland.

That used to be the plan but changes in forces and structure and systems means like flying at high altitude dropping nuclear bombs on targets with a B-2 is not possible now either... the defences are just too strong for either to work... which is not to say US carriers are useless... they are still fine for most other roles and form the core of US surface fleet forces, it is just that they can't be the sword threatening Russia any more... most other sea spaces on the planet they will dominate.

Even if Iran bought 10 Kinzhals, the US would simply adapt their tactics to make them less useful... I would say their best bet would be to lure them to use them against decoys and fake targets and use submarine launched cruise missiles to try to hit their launch sites in the hope of hitting stores of other weapons.

They could carpet bomb Iranian cities and just deny reports of the atrocity and say they are Iranian and Russian propaganda... the west has demonised the Russians and Iranians... who will be believed by whom?

Even when the truth comes out it is too late... Iraq got invaded because of fake WMDs, but apologists claim it was worth it to get rid of Saddam...

They would be used to choke Russian overseas assets and just keep the Russian pinned in, The carriers would be used to deny sea lanes to Russia.

Which is really what they have always been used for... ensure US access to the global market and selectively restrict access to rivals to isolate them and make surviving more expensive.

Can't the same be said about the carrier battle group? Or is it Invincible because its American? Why did you discount the possibility that the planes will be protected with defensive assets?

I think what he is trying to get across is that the sea is big, so from fixed land based airfields if you want any depth and reach out into the world you will need big heavy aircraft with big heavy missiles and lots of support aircraft to keep those aircraft flying... ie fuel.
For the carrier group they carry their defensive fighters and AWACS situational awareness aircraft everywhere they go... it is like the battle of britain all over... the British operate over their own airfields and can keep the majority of their pilots and aircraft resting on the carrier with the AWACs crews looking for threats and targets... some threats and targets could be immediately identified and in war they could simply launch an S-400 SAM from 400km away and take it out. During peacetime or if you are not sure you can send a group of fighters to investigate... or even a drone if you fancy and think the threat levels are too high...
The point is that the Germans have to fly a long way to get to their target areas and have to watch their fuel if they want to make it home again.... a bit like the Argentine aircraft over the Falklands.  The Falklands war would have been transformed if the Argentines had longer ranged fighters (F-4s or MiG-23s or F-16s), or managed to upgrade the airfields on the islands to take their aircraft so they could operate locally.

And American carrier group is not easy to intercept? Russian forces are based on land vs American forces based on ships. Russia has a ginormous advantage vs American forces in this scenario.

The Americans have shot themselves in the foot... their carrier based strike aircraft lack the range with standoff munitions to attack ground targets at rather long ranges, which means the expanding Russian anti ship capacity from land based aircraft means the US carriers can't attack Russian targets on Russian territory without putting their carrier groups at serious risk... but US carrier groups were never going to be pivotal in a WWIII scenario anyway... SSBNs and ICBMs and air launched cruise missiles will decide that.

and you expect Russia to just sit down and not retaliate? You think Russia cant choke you just because your American?

That is the point... without carrier groups Russian surface ships have an AA screen with a 400km radius around their cruisers and destroyers... much less effective than a similar surface group with a decent carrier supporting them...

Russia needs carriers to defend their interests around the world.

The carrier would have more than enough defense to deal with a few missiles.

At the moment there are a few missiles for which there is no defence... but given time and money and solutions will be found and their own equivalents will be developed.

Just because Kornet exists it does not mean everyone should stop making tanks.

So now Russia dont have a navy. interesting.

If Russia does not continue with aircraft carriers their surface fleet will be even more vulnerable to enemy action than US carrier groups in Russian waters...

Carriers are critical to keeping surface ships afloat in the open ocean where no other support is available... and that extends to anti sub as well.

Yes, Russia will fire only 2 missiles to attack the carrier group. this is very intelligent of them

Any hostile carrier group approaches Russian airspace and launches an attack they could probably get away with launching one MiG-31K with one Kinzhal.... the result will likely lead to that carrier group leaving the area at top speed...

You're one stupid guy.

How about we all ease up on the personal insults... and that is everybody...

Who's gonna intercept a fucking tupolev 2000km away ? F-35 ? Get real.

They don't need to... an AEGIS class cruiser can launch an SM-2 with a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead... command guided to position itself in the path of the incoming missile... even if the first one fails they should get it by the fifth or sixth launch...

2000km is kinzhal. They are working on many hypersonic missiles right now.

Kinzhal is 2,000km ranged from the faster higher flying MiG-31K. From a Backfire, its range will likely be 1,500km... which I agree is still outside the useful range of an F-35.

The problem is, as mentioned... when the US then uses its remaining carrier groups to blockade all of Russias allies, what is Russia going to do?

It can't fly planes to the areas in question... to vulnerable... a convoy of fighters and bombers and inflight refuelling planes would have the bombers and refuelling planes picked off stranding the fighters.

Sending surface ships without carrier support will be even more vulnerable and blind than US carrier groups because they wont have AWACS nor fighters...

To be clear even with large carriers they are not invincible... but they are much better protected and more aware, so you need a force much bigger and much better equipped to deal with them... so big sometimes the attack never comes.

Even US admirals admited carriers won't last more than a week during cold war...

Cold war has been going on for over half a century and they are into Cold War II... suspect they mean WWIII... which is fine because Russia has all sorts of weapons designed for WWIII and her surface navy isn't one of them...

How would you define this ability to protect overseas assets? If Russia fires a few dozen nukes to lets say an American base in Djibouti. how do you think they will protect this area from nuclear annihilation? Will they be able to intercept all mirvs before they reach their target?

Wouldn't it be easier and more useful to have large carriers and use surface ships in an organised defensive and offensive force that could protect itself operating in hostile areas and do things to the benefit of the Russian federation?

Who is going to trade with Russia and risk upsetting the west if the Russians have no reliable way of getting half way round the world to where you are?[/quote]

When you are right you are right. I still don't understand how many times it needs to be repeated that US carriers are not the tool against Russian mainland. Probably some hundreds of times in the last year only...

To be clear it is not by choice... the US would love to be able to send carrier based attack aircraft deep into Soviet territory to attack targets with nuclear bombs... but improvements in air defence and anti ship systems... not just Kinzhal, but other weapons too like Onyx make getting that close far to dangerous...

They of course were also going to use their carriers to pressure Russian sea lines of communication and commerce/trade to isolate them and weaken them as much as they can.... which is why Russia needs carriers to say no and to allow independent naval operations around the globe and to pursue trade relations with any country they choose.

They don't need to... an AEGIS class cruiser can launch an SM-2 with a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead... command guided to position itself in the path of the incoming missile... even if the first one fails they should get it by the fifth or sixth launch..

Even better. They will fire nuks above their heads and frize their own electronics from the EM pulse.

Then russian subs will fire 5 or 6 650mm torpedoes with 500kt nuks at the carrier group.

GarryB wrote:To be clear it is not by choice... the US would love to be able to send carrier based attack aircraft deep into Soviet territory to attack targets with nuclear bombs... but improvements in air defence and anti ship systems... not just Kinzhal, but other weapons too like Onyx make getting that close far to dangerous...

Of course, even they still delude themselves with papers from think tanks arguing how to equip the carriers for that mission, but I doubt any serious planer believe those fairy tales beyond their use as a way to get more money for the navy.

They of course were also going to use their  carriers to pressure Russian sea lines of communication and commerce/trade to isolate them and weaken them as much as they can.... which is why Russia needs carriers to say no and to allow independent naval operations around the globe and to pursue trade relations with any country they choose.

In fact this can start at any moment, without any need for a high intensity conflict. By showing the vulnerability of the reliance on Russian commerce and support you can weaken the country and destroy its international expansion possibilities. I assume such strategy can be used anytime now. That is where Russia's privileged geographical position in the middle of Eurasia comes in to play, allowing them to trade with the biggest landmass on Earth without a strong need for sea lanes. So to say, they can be contained but not asphyxiated. Many people still do not understand that such position is the main reason of Russia's extreme relevance in geopolitics and why the West needs them gone.

In fact this can start at any moment, without any need for a high intensity conflict. By showing the vulnerability of the reliance on Russian commerce and support you can weaken the country and destroy its international expansion possibilities. I assume such strategy can be used anytime now.

If this is true then the yanks would have done this already against both Russia and China, they don't need to wait for an incident to use as an excuse since they are good at inventing excuses anyways.

PhSt wrote:If this is true then the yanks would have done this already against both Russia and China, they don't need to wait for an incident to use as an excuse since they are good at inventing excuses anyways.

We will see. How many times had they violated Russian borders in the last years?

GarryB wrote:

But that raises the obvious question... why bother with subsonic drones to carry hypersonic missiles... why not just have multistage missiles... the first stage powered by hypersonic scramjet motor for very high speed penetration of enemy air defences and kinetic kill capacity, but the launch stage being a huge fuel tank with turbojet sustainer for subsonic flight around the place to extended range at medium or low altitude for great distances...

Mounting them on a drone seems a little redundant... unless it is the PAK DA that carries hypersonic missiles internally with some level of stealth over strategic distances, but the weapons use hypersonic speed to penetrate defences...

But honestly... why do you think a drone carrying two hypersonic ASMs is any different from an Su-33 carrying three or five Brahmos-M missiles?

Well the answer is really quite simple, cost/range and recoverability. Hypersonic missiles will have a consumable airframe to deal with heat. I.e the hottest parts will slowly erode. Its a one use item.

A drone will be smaller and lighter as you do not have to provision for a human or for survivability. That will be provided for by stealth. The drone is just a truck with some sensors to take the missiles within range of the target. If the drone has 2000 km range and missile 1000KM you now have a 3000 km range missile in emergencies (much better then sending your guys on a suicide mission) Also a drone will be FAR cheaper as it will just be a big wing and engine. It can also act as an AWACs platform if you put the antennas on the surface. The drone will have a smaller radar cross section as well. Loiter time with refulling drones? Unlimited!!! You can probably have a 10 T drone carry 2 missiles quite easily vs a 50T fighter.

Isos wrote:
Even better. They will fire nuks above their heads and frize their own electronics from the EM pulse.

Then russian subs will fire 5 or 6 650mm torpedoes with 500kt nuks at the carrier group.

Russia will never use Nuclear weapons against the USA, the doomsday weapon they do have is the ability to collapse the entire US financial system with cyber warfare. Of course this has massive negative implications for Russia as well, which is why its a doomsday weapon.

Even better. They will fire nuks above their heads and frize their own electronics from the EM pulse.

EMPs can be generated by nuclear explosions but they have to be outside the atmosphere to do it properly.

Are you suggesting a group of US ships led by the biggest and most powerful aircraft carrier in the world together with a dozen AEGIS class cruisers are going to just ignore a Zircon missile zipping towards them at 3.2 km per second at say 70 km altitude just a minute or two after launch... just silently sit there as it comes in and watch it obliterate any ship of that group that it chooses?

Standard SM-2 missiles include weapons armed with nuclear warheads... it is not an accident and it is not for sinking enemy ships... it is to obliterate a group of enemy bombers detected in a group at enormous distances with one missile... it is command guided and flys to a coordinate and then detonates... It would be their only chance and as I have said not a great one... they wont have thousands of them and even if it works after the fourth missile or  sixth missile that is probably all they have because as you suggest the ionisation of the high atmosphere is likely going to make that region of air opaque to radar returns for quite a few hours... after the first few they would then be best launching a couple up above their current position and turn and head out of dodge as fast as they can because they will rn out of nuclear armed SAMs faster than Russia will run out of Zircons... even Onyx is still dangerous, not to mention Kh-32, and a range of other anti ship weapons at their disposal...

Then russian subs will fire 5 or 6 650mm torpedoes with 500kt nuks at the carrier group.

The fact of the matter is that a US carrier group approaching Russian territory doesn't know there isn't a Yasen class SSN behind them on their way home at a time of obviously heightened tensions that could easily be launching the low flying supersonic anti ship Club missile from behind just to spice things up along with a variety of other goodies to surprise them with.

More importantly the problem with the low flying supersonic club is that the rocket is only mach 2,9 for about 30-40km range... it would not take that much to replace the rocket section with a scramjet powered stage... as it would be scooping up air it would not need oxidiser... just fuel, so by weight it could be quarter the weight, or more precisely it could use a solid rocket booster half the weight and then a scramjet sustainer to allow it to fly 60-100km at very low altitude at mach 2.9 which would actually make it formidable and sneaky because low and slow for the first 1,500km and then the last 100km at mach 2.9 or so at very low altitude would be hard to spot and very hard to stop.

If it was directly below an F-35 when it launched its supersonic terminal stage that F-35 could not do very much about it it could not catch it and none of its missiles (Sidewinder or AMRAAM) can fly at mach 3 at sea level for any useful distance...

So to say, they can be contained but not asphyxiated. Many people still do not understand that such position is the main reason of Russia's extreme relevance in geopolitics and why the West needs them gone.

Its enormous size also means resources largely untapped waiting for someone to find and exploit... that is how the 1% got rich... owning mines and paying people minimum wage to work for them to make them disgustingly wealthy... far beyond anything you really need... so you separate yourself from the majority and look down upon them with disdain... despite the fact that they made you your wealth... how stupid of them to let you do that to them...

If this is true then the yanks would have done this already against both Russia and China, they don't need to wait for an incident to use as an excuse since they are good at inventing excuses anyways.

What makes you think they don't already do this? Venezuela is in trouble because they have an oil based economy and the value of oil is low because they are trying to get the Russians by devaluing something they earn money from.... Venezuela looks to China and Russia for help instead of the US and there is a threat that those enormous potential oil reserves might go to Russia or China and there is suddenly a question about whether Maduro is leader of Venezuela... despite no international protests at the time of the election where he seemed to win fair and square...

If there had been an invasion a few carrier groups would be critical to prevent Russia from interfering... they have sent a Kirov class ship there previously and even that would upset their plans a little despite how actually vulnerable it would be.

China, soon with aircraft carriers and destroyers to accompany them might get to the place where they can send naval support when even Russia would struggle.

To be clear if it was WWIII and Russia needed to sink a US carrier then sending a Yasen class sub with 32 Zircons would get the job done much faster and more efficiently than anything on the surface they could send, but as you can imagine the options for such a sub are limited... launch and start WWIII or don't launch and remain invisible.

A Russian carrier group could go without firing a shot and cause a change in tactics from the US by simply being there or entering Venezuelan waters for a Naval exercise... they planned it all last year if you must know....

We will see. How many times had they violated Russian borders in the last years?

They test, but withdraw when challenged or rammed.

Well the answer is really quite simple, cost/range and recoverability. Hypersonic missiles will have a consumable airframe to deal with heat. I.e the hottest parts will slowly erode. Its a one use item.

Not really... the SR-71 is a plane essentially made of titanium and is enormously expensive to buy and make, and it burns large volumes of fuel every time it flys... but it was taken out of retirement several times because the information it provides is worth it... they call the CIA planes so they probably get paid for out of drug money profits the CIA generates anyway.

The point is that at one stage when they were talking about retiring them again to save money in some budget they wanted to spend on something else they asked for an evaluation on their condition hoping they will be worn out and can be scrapped so the money used on them can be diverted to other things... perhaps satellites or perhaps drones... but when inspected it seems the heating up and cooling down of normal operational has actually tempered the metal and the most worn ones were in better condition than the less frequently used ones...

Of course for a single use item they are still made of expensive heat resistant materials, but then using them only once means their life time costs are low.

A drone will be smaller and lighter as you do not have to provision for a human or for survivability. That will be provided for by stealth. The drone is just a truck with some sensors to take the missiles within range of the target. If the drone has 2000 km range and missile 1000KM you now have a 3000 km range missile in emergencies (much better then sending your guys on a suicide mission) Also a drone will be FAR cheaper as it will just be a big wing and engine. It can also act as an AWACs platform if you put the antennas on the surface. The drone will have a smaller radar cross section as well. Loiter time with refulling drones? Unlimited!!! You can probably have a 10 T drone carry 2 missiles quite easily vs a 50T fighter.

A drone is dumb and there are communication issues... a PAK DA bomber can carry far more missiles being a much bigger platform, but could also carry missiles to defend itself, and it is a multi use platform that can perform a variety of missions in peace time and in war.

RCS has nothing to do with physical size.

Russia will never use Nuclear weapons against the USA,

Impressed by your confidence, but it kinda sounds like the sort of logic and belief that the next sanction will do it... and make Russia comply with our demands and conform to our way of thinking.

The only thing stopping Russia using nukes against the west is the knowledge they will respond in kind and everyone dies.

The west on the other hand thinks Russia is broken and dying and kicking in the front door and watch the whole building collapse is a possibility... just one more sanction, or just get rid of Putin is all they need.

Of course if the guy that replaces Putin is not Yeltsin, but Stalin, then the old saying... careful what you wish for...

GarryB wrote:Its enormous size also means resources largely untapped waiting for someone to find and exploit... that is how the 1% got rich... owning mines and paying people minimum wage to work for them to make them disgustingly wealthy... far beyond anything you really need... so you separate yourself from the majority and look down upon them with disdain... despite the fact that they made you your wealth... how stupid of them to let you do that to them...

They, as the Nazis and the Brits before them consider Russia to be unfairly rich. That they got so much land and in such a critical position is certainly a mistake of god and they, self appointed deities, are more than ready to correct him:

"Russia has too much wealth for one country" - the Czech press compared the words of Albright and Goebbels

https://en.topwar.ru/177485-v-rossii-slishkom-mnogo-bogatstv-dlja-odnoj-strany-v-cheshskoj-presse-sravnili-slova-olbrajt-i-gebbelsa.html

A Russian carrier group could go without firing a shot and cause a change in tactics from the US by simply being there or entering Venezuelan waters for a Naval exercise... they planned it all last year if you must know....

A fleet not only deters and shows presence, they also allow long term surveillance of the area, can perform many activities on the coastal area, escort commercial vessels, conduct anti-sabotage and ASW operations, control air space, deploy EW, work as a command center, hospital, resupply of land bases etc. Suggesting to do all this from Russia, from space or with subs / bombers is simply absurd.

They test, but withdraw when challenged or rammed.

We all know to what outcome the international situation is going.

SR-71 was not REMOTELY hypersonic and titanum cannot deal with hypersonic speeds, it will vaporize. And yes even the mere mach 3 SR-71 was insanely expensive that even the USA could not deploy it as a weapons delivery platform. It was only cheaper then space launches...at the time. Remember mach 2 - relatively conventional materials but already getting hot. Mach 3 - crazy hot - specialized steel or titanium all kinds of heating issues and special jet fuel - Add 2-5 mach numbers and the resistance increases with the square so we are talking 4 to 25x the energy and heat to deal with. With current tech the surfaces will need to be replaceable like space shuttle. Also a hypersonic airframe will be extremely difficult to operate on any sort of carrier. All you really need is a nice drone with a decent cruise speed, good payload and range.

Of course RCS has something to do withh physical size. You CAN reduce RCS but the same shape/material will have a smaller RCS when you scale it down.

Czech press compared the words of Albright and Goebbels

Goebbels and Albright... the two nazi propaganda specialists that always spring to my mind first....

SR-71 was not REMOTELY hypersonic and titanum cannot deal with hypersonic speeds, it will vaporize.

Of course the SR-71 was not hypersonic, but if titanium can't cope with high temperatures then what possibly could?

The only two materials that can safely be used without risk of heat related failures at mach 2-3 are Titanium and steel... the US went for Titanium because it is light, while the Soviets went for stainless steel for the MiG-25 because it did the job and was cheap and easy to work with.

The US are used to spending money so the cost was not an issue... ironically the titanium used to build the SR-71s was from the Soviet Union...

And yes even the mere mach 3 SR-71 was insanely expensive that even the USA could not deploy it as a weapons delivery platform.

Hahaha.... we are talking the US... it was nothing like the most expensive aircraft they operated then or now.

The soviets made entire submarines out of Titanium.

With current tech the surfaces will need to be replaceable like space shuttle.

Current tech in the US or in Russia?

At mach ten for 1,000km of flight I would think the materials they make Zircon out of would be suitable...

Also a hypersonic airframe will be extremely difficult to operate on any sort of carrier.

An An-2 type aircraft could easily operate from a carrier with hypersonic missiles under its wings...

To be hypersonic it is either solid or liquid fuelled rocket or scramjet powered... which normally means solid rocket booster to get it moving.

You could launch it from anything including a submerged submarine.

All you really need is a nice drone with a decent cruise speed, good payload and range.

Why.

Name one drone that has completed more than 5,000 hours of flight operations... they are too disposable to be useful for some roles.

Of course RCS has something to do withh physical size. You CAN reduce RCS but the same shape/material will have a smaller RCS when you scale it down.

Actually the opposite of what you think. The B-2 is probably the most stealthy aircraft around... short wave radars struggle to spot it... because of its size you need much longer wavelength radars to track it than you need for something like an F-35 or F-22 or F-117.

You said why bother with drones and make a hypersonic plane. My point is exactly that you need a nice slowish drone to deliver these. Yes the material will last as long as the missile needs it to, that is the point. It will probably be some sort of ceramic composite. Yeah the golden fish I know all about it. But the construction cost of the SR-71 was just the tip of the iceberg. The fuel and maint cost was also absurd even by USAF standards. Titanium cannot cope with hypersonic temps. CMCs will probably used and even those will probably erode but will last log enough for the flight.

GarryB wrote:

SR-71 was not REMOTELY hypersonic and titanum cannot deal with hypersonic speeds, it will vaporize.

Of course the SR-71 was not hypersonic, but if titanium can't cope with high temperatures then what possibly could?

The only two materials that can safely be used without risk of heat related failures at mach 2-3 are Titanium and steel... the US went for Titanium because it is light, while the Soviets went for stainless steel for the MiG-25 because it did the job and was cheap and easy to work with.
...
At mach ten for 1,000km of flight I would think the materials they make Zircon out of would be suitable...
...

Maybe not. The Zircon is a single use vehicle. You can use ablative materials in such cases. Materials like phenolic composites. But you can't use those in an aircraft.

Titanium was used in the SR-71 because it can handle higher temperatures than aluminium alloys. Aluminium melts at really low temperature. However Titanium has one major flaw. Once it reaches a certain temperature, much below melting point, it loses rigidity and basically wobbles like a pudding and then it becomes inelastic and loses shape. At those temperatures you are better off with some sort of steel and nickel alloy. Another thing you can use is silicon carbide. Or carbon composites. Nuclear warheads travel at speeds over Mach 20 and often have a heat shield made of hafnium diboride.

You can also use active cooling on an aircraft like that. In practice no one has been able to make this work. Yet. But it is a possibility. It is used to cool the walls of rocket engines. i.e. you pump fuel in channels inside the walls of the rocket engine bell and either dump that overboard or even use the heated fuel and dump it into the combustion chamber. This is called a regeneratively cooled engine. It was invented by Eugen Sänger and Irene Bredt for the Silbervogel antipodal bomber back in Nazi Germany in WW2. It is used in nearly all modern rocket engines.

Yes this is why SR-71 had corrugated wings. I suspect any hypersonic missile will use its fuel to cool the nose, you can put the fuel tank right there and burn the boil off, you can use 2 tanks, The initial launch fuel can be a propane tank surrounded by kerosene. As the missile climbs out the propanes use refrigerates the kerosene,when it runs out the kerosene is left nice and cold and can cool the nose, the boil off can be used to fuel the missile. It only has to last about 10-12 mins.

You said why bother with drones and make a hypersonic plane.

No... if the missiles being carried are hypersonic and long ranged then the aircraft or the drone that carries them can be cheaper and subsonic.

A supersonic drone or a supersonic bomber costs money to fly but you need to fly it to train... hypersonic missiles cost more to operate over the distances they operate over but they are only ever used once so over time they don't become too expensive to keep in use operationally.

If you are going to spend money making missiles very fast to penetrate air defences or very stealthy to penetrate air defences then make them both very long range so your launch platform does not need to penetrate air defences with speed or stealth.

A flying wing like a PAK DA is fundamentally stealthy in shape, so a few tweeks and tucks and the correct materials and design and you can create a very stealthy design without making it expensive to buy or use.

Being subsonic it should not be that expensive to fly around.

My point is exactly that you need a nice slowish drone to deliver these. Yes the material will last as long as the missile needs it to, that is the point. It will probably be some sort of ceramic composite. Yeah the golden fish I know all about it. But the construction cost of the SR-71 was just the tip of the iceberg. The fuel and maint cost was also absurd even by USAF standards. Titanium cannot cope with hypersonic temps. CMCs will probably used and even those will probably erode but will last log enough for the flight.

What hypersonic planes are you talking about?

The only plane that would come close is the Mach 4.2 MiG-41, and I would suggest that the speed is dictated directly by materials and engine performance potential... it is both achievable and affordable.

GarryB wrote:

You said why bother with drones and make a hypersonic plane.

No... if the missiles being carried are hypersonic and long ranged then the aircraft or the drone that carries them can be cheaper and subsonic.

A supersonic drone or a supersonic bomber costs money to fly but you need to fly it to train... hypersonic missiles cost more to operate over the distances they operate over but they are only ever used once so over time they don't become too expensive to keep in use operationally.

If you are going to spend money making missiles very fast to penetrate air defences or very stealthy to penetrate air defences then make them both very long range so your launch platform does not need to penetrate air defences with speed or stealth.

A flying wing like a PAK DA is fundamentally stealthy in shape, so a few tweeks and tucks and the correct materials and design and you can create a very stealthy design without making it expensive to buy or use.

Being subsonic it should not be that expensive to fly around.

My point is exactly that you need a nice slowish drone to deliver these. Yes the material will last as long as the missile needs it to, that is the point. It will probably be some sort of ceramic composite. Yeah the golden fish I know all about it. But the construction cost of the SR-71 was just the tip of the iceberg. The fuel and maint cost was also absurd even by USAF standards. Titanium cannot cope with hypersonic temps. CMCs will probably used and even those will probably erode but will last log enough for the flight.

What hypersonic planes are you talking about?

The only plane that would come close is the Mach 4.2 MiG-41, and I would suggest that the speed is dictated directly by materials and engine performance potential... it is both achievable and affordable.

You were saying why not use hypersonic drones.Now you are making the exact same points I was making

You were saying why not use hypersonic drones.Now you are making the exact same points I was making

When?

Hypersonic drones would need to be recovered and reused... a hypersonic missile just needs a launch tube on a ship or submarine.

The Russian navy has land attack, and anti ship missiles... subsonic, supersonic, and soon hypersonic.

A hypersonic bomber or hypersonic drone would be redundant and very expensive to reuse over and over.

They have the Blackjack supersonic bomber, they don't need the PAK DA to be supersonic too... they have always gone for a mix of options... long range AAMs with IR and radar guidance... rocket and gun artillery... supersonic and subsonic cruise missile carriers... subsonic and supersonic and now hypersonic missiles...

A hypersonic bomber has never made sense... certain members have suggested it repeatedly and I have always been against the idea... I think even the Blackjack should have engines redesigned to allow super cruise at say mach 1.5 to 1.6 which would make it practically un-interceptable by subsonic fighters and the F-35.

The US Hustler bomber was a failure because of the enormous cost of operating high speed bombers... the Blackjack can be used as a subsonic cruise missile carrier with excellent range or it can use a dash speed to approach and leave its target while taking a serious hit on flight radius... Speed is useful to evade enemy aircraft, but will not save you from S-400 and S-500 level SAMS... unless you are talking about really fast speeds that can only be achieved by hypersonic missiles.

The operational costs of hypersonic missiles are affordable because you don't have to fly them around all the time burning fuel getting experience and training done.

GarryB wrote:


But that raises the obvious question... why bother with subsonic drones to carry hypersonic missiles... why not just have multistage missiles... the first stage powered by hypersonic scramjet motor for very high speed penetration of enemy air defences and kinetic kill capacity, but the launch stage being a huge fuel tank with turbojet sustainer for subsonic flight around the place to extended range at medium or low altitude for great distances...

Mounting them on a drone seems a little redundant... unless it is the PAK DA that carries hypersonic missiles internally with some level of stealth over strategic distances, but the weapons use hypersonic speed to penetrate defences...

But honestly... why do you think a drone carrying two hypersonic ASMs is any different from an Su-33 carrying three or five Brahmos-M missiles?

But that raises the obvious question... why bother with subsonic drones to carry hypersonic missiles... why not just have multistage missiles... the first stage powered by hypersonic scramjet motor for very high speed penetration of enemy air defences and kinetic kill capacity, but the launch stage being a huge fuel tank with turbojet sustainer for subsonic flight around the place to extended range at medium or low altitude for great distances...

I am not suggesting subsonic drones carrying hypersonic weapons...

The main problem with multistage missiles can be answered by the question what is the purpose for the different stages.

If it is to add range to the weapon then a manned aircraft makes more sense because they can monitor the situation and when optimal they can launch their hypersonic weapons and leave. For a subsonic stage of a missile that means for every hypersonic missile you have to add a subsonic engine and subsonic fuel and subsonic aerodynamics for efficient flight... which is going to make these missiles enormous... probably fighter sized aircraft if you want near strategic range of more than 5,000km.

Probably the best compromise would be a scramjet missile with subsonic wings and external fuel tanks with lower energy fuel to fly a few thousand kms using the ramjet as simple jet propulsion to slowly climb and accelerate over time... when the external fuel tanks are empty you can drop them... the first ones can be relatively high drag but used to gain altitude... once they are dropped you can fly a bit faster so part of the wing could be jettisoned  to reduce weight and drag and then it could fly at low supersonic speed like supercruising for which a scramjet engine would be ideal... no slowing air through the engine... large airflow, high speed air... climb further and accelerate more...

Eventually 2,000km from target you dump the wings and the conformal fuel tanks, light up the scramjet and accelerate and climb...

Dozens of corner reflectors in the nose make it look 200m across and hides the four other missiles tucked in flying behind it...

Remember with the older missiles like Granit... one flew high and looked for targets while the rest stayed low... scramjet propulsion means all will fly high...

Mounting them on a drone seems a little redundant... unless it is the PAK DA that carries hypersonic missiles internally with some level of stealth over strategic distances, but the weapons use hypersonic speed to penetrate defences...

Why create a new drone to carry strategic missiles to penetrate enemy air defences whey they already have Bears and Blackjacks and soon will have PAK DAs...

But honestly... why do you think a drone carrying two hypersonic ASMs is any different from an Su-33 carrying three or five Brahmos-M missiles?

If you have read anything I have posted on this forum you will know I don't think Su-33s or Su-57s should be carrying anti ship missiles.... it is just too slow.

I understand the maths... plane with flight radius of 1,000km means 800km range anti ship missile gets 1,800km range... but that ignores the other maths... flying planes around with three big heavy anti ship missiles just on the off chance you might need them is stupid... it reduces their performance as a fighter and interceptor and air munitions can't be carried around for unlimited hours on an aircraft... after a period of time on an aircraft they need to be stripped down and checked that water and vibration and stresses haven't damaged anything... so realistically the actual situation is that if an enemy ship is detected 2,000km away.... rather than loading anti ship missiles on a plane and then waiting an hour or two for that plane to fly 1,000km at subsonic speeds with its 1.5 ton missiles and then launch those missiles at the targets... it makes rather more sense to launch a mach 9 Zircon from a ship or sub closest to the target that will fly those 2,000kms in just under 11 minutes....

Carrier aircraft are supposed to be air defence protecting the ships from air attack... missiles or planes... they can be eyes and ears... in peace time you can send them out to see what some dot on a radar screen is, or you can warn aircraft to change flight paths because they are getting closer than you want to your ships... without carrier aircraft a ship can either allow the aircraft to fly straight over or it can shoot them down... hero if it was an attack trying to crash their plane into you and villain if it is 300 odd civilians in a plane that had no idea you were there... flying a fighter up there you will quickly work out if it is the former... so you can shoot them down with a clear conscience, while the latter of course will not be engaged and shot down by the ships captain.

In war time send a drone if you think it is too dangerous for your fighters to approach a large group of contacts... if they have Su-57s on their carriers then S-70s would make sense too... send one out to a group of contacts with a flight of four Su-57s holding back... if the contacts shoot down the drone those four Su-57s can launch long range AAM attacks and then withdraw... if the contacts are part of an attack then power up all the air defence systems on the ships... but don't turn on the radars in active scan mode to give away their position... the sensors on the Su-57s should provide information and long range over the horizon radar on the biggest ships should give the information they need to engage targets as they get in range... 24 odd fighters armed with AAMs can then be launched towards the threat and perhaps another AWACS aircraft launched to cover other potential directions of attack... when the four initial fighters are met by the 24 they can return to carrier to reload and refuel and the 24 can start whittling down the numbers of the enemy force or aircraft and or missiles.

With airburst 30mm cannon and radar able to precisely track the target and outgoing rounds shooting down missiles might only need 2-3 rounds per target with a laser detonating the rounds at the optimum range to bring them down...

More evidence of the extinction of carriers: program for a new 75 kt CVN for France announced

75K tons, EMALS, fixed wing fighters that don't take off or land vertically.... I like it.

And where is the Russian design of the new CVN? even France is well ahead in building such ships.

Arrow... the French leader has announced future plans... openly stating what you plan to do is not well ahead in building anything except an attempt to build confidence and get re-elected perhaps...

France has already built the Charles De Gaulle... the certainly know what they are doing and are certainly not behind Russia in many respects, but they are buying an EMALs system from the US rather than developing it themselves like the Russians are.

The technology the Russians will have to develop to make EMALs work will be enormous valuable in a wide range of other areas that involve electric propulsion and power management and distribution and storage and generation...

Arrow wrote:And where is the Russian design of the new CVN? even France is well ahead in building such ships.

What gave you the idea that France is  3rd rate ?

France has been operating a nuclear aircraft carrier for 20 years. And has been doing catapult ops since 1963.

But I do agree that Russia should build a carrier. And put naval su 57's on it.  They aren't made for real war. They are a status symbol. The only problem with Russia's aircraft carrier program is priorities. If Russia spent as much time and effort on its carrier program as they do the submarine program, Russia would have a carrier at the same level as Frances.

Thats the problem with spending so much on subs. Nobody can see them.

Backman wrote:...
What gave you the idea that France is  3rd rate ?

France has been operating a nuclear aircraft carrier for 20 years. And has been doing catapult ops since 1963.

But I do agree that Russia should build a carrier. And put naval su 57's on it.  They aren't made for real war. They are a status symbol. The only problem with Russia's aircraft carrier program is priorities. If Russia spent as much time and effort on its carrier program as they do the submarine program, Russia would have a carrier at the same level as Frances.

Thats the problem with spending so much on subs. Nobody can see them.

France is going to design a K22 nuclear reactor at 200MWt to power their carrier. The Yasen-M submarine has a 200MWt reactor already.
Russia has developed the 175MWt RITM-200 naval nuclear reactor for surface ships. Is in the process of developing the scaled up 315MWt RITM-400 naval nuclear reactor for Project 10510 icebreaker.
France arguably has more advanced GaN radar technology at this moment. The Franco-German stealth fighter is still a paper program.
They plan to use the same EMALS supplier as in the Ford carrier - General Atomics. Oh dear.

I would say Russia is ahead on this one. If it wasn't for the lack of suitable drydock on the Western side of Russia.

USC expects to build a new aircraft carrier at Sevmash

General Director of the corporation Alexey Rakhmanov stressed that Russia now has all the competencies for this.

MOSCOW, December 22. / TASS /. The United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) expects to build a promising aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy at Sevmash. This was announced on Tuesday by the general director of the USC Alexei Rakhmanov in an interview with the Russia-24 TV channel .

"As soon as the Ministry of Defense makes a decision, we are ready to immediately start designing and building it. Building an aircraft carrier for India indicates that we have experience. This experience is concentrated at the Sevmash plant, and this is where we expect to build an aircraft carrier, if it is will be ordered by the military department, "he said.

Rakhmanov stressed that Russia now has all the competencies for this.

As for the cost of building a new aircraft carrier, he explained that it will be several times lower than the cost of building aircraft carriers of the naval forces of other countries. "The cost of manufacturing in comparison with foreign ships and vessels is significantly lower. I am absolutely convinced that we will cope with the aircraft carrier. We have found an opportunity to build cooperation in such a way as to effectively fulfill the state defense order," the head of the USC explained.

According to Rakhmanov, domestic ships outperform foreign ones in terms of cost. "Do you remember how the president spoke quite recently at a press conference about the ratio of the size of the military budgets of the Russian Federation and the United States? Keep in mind a certain proportion, which can approximately illustrate the difference in the cost of ours and that of the Americans," he said.

https://tass.ru/ekonomika/10327911