Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

Reacting to the Forbes publication, the former first deputy commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Igor Kasatonov said that the lack of construction of new aircraft carriers in Russia is due to the fact that there is no need for this, and not because the country is unable to create such ships.

That is perfectly normal and fine... Russia has the Kuznetsov and has upgraded cruisers and destroyers being upgraded to frigates as well as new production corvettes and frigates... the Russian Navy is not ready right now for two brand new CVNs, and certainly will not be for another few years yet because new build destroyers and eventually new cruisers will be needed to make the new carriers necessary and useful.

most of those with jobs get paid less than they should, even if/when regularly; quality medical services, drugs & education r expensive & most can't afford them.

Foreign medications are unnecessarily expensive and hard to get for a lot of countries that do not behave the way the US and west demands... a good reason for Russia to move forward and develop and produce its own medicine for local and international consumption. With state funding the goals can be cures rather than more lucrative treatments.

BTW most jobs pay less than they should anywhere... especially at levels where you deal with customers or do something that makes that company money... it is the higher ups that are overpaid that is the main problem, but that is hard to fix.

IMO, they could also navalize the old Su-24 which is similar in size & function with F-111 /14 ; if successful , its future modernized multi-role variants with better performance could be produced instead of, or in addition to, Su-57s.

In many ways the multi role Su-57 is already better than an upgraded Su-24 could become... certainly already a better strike aircraft than the F-111 and a better fighter than an F-14 could be upgraded to.

I don't think it really matters that much how many CBG US brings, in the foreseeable future they could not operate longer ranged or more capable planes than Su-57K, and they would not be armed with better AShM.

You are missing the point. I don't mean Russias two new CVNs should carry 90 fighters each so they can take on multiple US aircraft carriers at a time.

I am saying a ship with enormous capacity for more fighters than you normally carry means you wont end up like a force with a helicopter carrier with 6 fighters that can barely defend itself let alone a large group of ships which is what it is supposed to be doing.

Smart solutions to maximise the number of available aircraft on the ship make it a better carrier and more capable and useful.

And odds are the Su-57K will be on the ship but likely not the only aircraft... think of it along the lines of Redut... you can carry long range 9M96 missiles (150km) or medium range 9M96 missiles (60km), or you can carry four 9M100 short range missiles per tube... would you agree that no matter what the ship and no matter what its role and no matter how many tubes it has it will always carry a mix of different missiles to cater for a mix of roles and targets and requirements.

I have already mentioned that I would expect the Su-57 and S-70 and LMFS would be carried as standard on the new CVNs... with all Su-57s they might only fit 60 fighters, but with reduced numbers of Su-57 (say 24) they might be able to fit three squadrons of LMFS (36) so that would be 60 aircraft, plus another 30 S-70 drones that they might be able to roll onto some sort of wheeled frame that could jack them up to sit vertically on a platform you could then roll onto the lift and take down into the hangar and store them stacked like ammo... when you need some lower one down on its wheels and take it up in the lift to the deck like a normal aircraft, or in a more emergency situation take the whole frame of drones up to the deck and lower them and launch them to get them airborne much faster...

Conventional deterrence is based not in that eventually you would come on top after a terrible fight, but mainly in that you cannot ensure the safety of your forces. I don't think anyone in its right mind would expect F-35C + F/A-18E/F armed with Harpoons or JASSM, in almost any realistic quantity, to overpower 3x sqd of Su-57 with hypersonic AShM and long range AAM. Exchange ratios would not look nice for USN, as far as VMF would have decent airspace control

The fact that you see the mission of these new carriers in fighting US carrier groups is part of the fundamental problem... Su-57s can certainly hold their own against any western aircraft currently in service or projected for the next few years simply because they will be operating above an IADS with S-500, S-400, S-350, BUK, TOR, Pantsir, Verba, plus 30mm and 57mm and larger calibre guns designed to engage air targets too, with radar and optical sensors and equipment small countries can only dream of.

Most of the time these carriers will be ensuring Russian ships are not interfered with by other nations or pirates, so surprise missile attack, or sneaky stuff like explosives filled speed boat, but most of the time it will just be air superiority and situational awareness around the ships underwater, in the air down to sea level and the space above the ships.

They might be delivering cheap medication to a dozen countries in the central or south of America against the wishes of the greedy western governments supporting their greedy pharma companies that put profit before human lives... they might be delivering food, or they might be building something that the west does not approve of... when the sanctions don't work and they start sending ships and subs and aircraft to the area you need to be able to respond...

That is the capability gap USN needs to address asap, it is not about those ludicrous scenarios the fancy depicting themselves in, facing land based Russian or Chinese forces that would wipe them out in a matter of minutes, but actual capability to compete with the naval forces of other rivals in the not so distant future, say from 2030 onwards.

Their talk of smaller carriers is only going to make them individually weaker and easier to take on, but fundamentally their main failing has been focus on the ships and their weight... instead of the aircraft they carry... which is really what they are all about...

Always put your best aircraft on your carriers... it is just basic common sense.

You are never going to have thousands of carrier based fighters so the only way to make them cheaper is to standardise them with land based equivalents, but being carrier capable will make them expensive anyway, but having the best fighters makes sense in any conflict where you can't assure numbers.

Even in bad weather there might be a limit as to how many aircraft you can put up in the air... no point putting up huge numbers of aircraft just before a storm if you can't recover them and they run out of fuel and crash into the sea.

You would need an impossibly big carrier for that amount of aircraft.

I don't mean 90 Su-57s. And I am talking about wide deck and wide hangar ships...

You say that because they don't have vertical tails? But how do you expect to handle planes like that? I mean, similar approaches could be used with manned planes already, why are thy not?

They already have four strong points on their fuselage.... three wheels and the tail hook. The wheels would need to be attached to a cat system for launch so attach it to a frame that the drone can be locked into via the two main wheels and the tail hook and the nose wheel, and then rotate it to a nose vertical position. Then roll the next drone in and do the same... once four or five are vertically aligned you could manually crank the mechanism to bring all the vertically aligned drones closer together till they are almost touching... you could then roll the thing around like a trailer... put it on a lift and take it down to the hangar and park it in a corner and tie it down so it does not move.

The S-70 might be too big for such a system, but for smaller 2 ton or 5 ton drones it might work fine.

Or do you think because America does not do that that it can't be done...

The human on board does not place the main burden to the acceleration on a cat

I would say a lot of things on most aircraft have acceleration issues, but are not hardened to allow higher g tolerance because there is no point making everything on a manned aircraft tolerant to 20 g acceleration on launch if the pilot is asleep or dead if you did take off at such force.

With a dedicated cat for unmanned platforms that are designed from the outset to defend ships... perhaps with super high g flight performance to shoot down drones and munitions and enemy aircraft, or to be disposable because they carry jammers and decoys and if that works would attract enemy fire away from ships and other aircraft then being able to pull a 30g turn as the enemy munitions approach might enable it to keep decoying for longer.

In such cases a 40g launch should mean a short distance launch that might be angled sideways or off the rear of the ship... a 40g launch for a drone that weighs 2 to 5 tons could just as equally be used to launch depth charges or conventional bombs towards nearby land targets if you are clever and the technology matures well.

The numbers I did some time ago did not indicate that a plane like a Su-57 would probably need a cat for a launch from the sort TO runs.

On a very large ship I would agree... even with a full fuel load and full AA loadout, but who knows... with some special large partially externally carried hypersonic anti ship or land attack missile it might benefit from a cat launch.

Yes, that means a more complex gearbox and a shaft all along the tail of the helo hat could eventually be substituted with an electric motor directly at the rotor. And that would still be a strethc, by current level of technology...

I don't agree. The current gearbox in a Helix is big and complex and as heavy as they come. In comparison a main rotor tail rotor design has a much smaller lighter simpler arrangement because the power going through the tail rotor is tiny compared with that going through the main rotor.

I would say a turboprop or turbojet engine in the tail as a pusher engine that also generates electricity would be ideal because that electricity could then be used to power the two sets of main rotors without a need for a complex and heavy gearbox... just two electric motors, with one turning each main rotor...powered by the tail mounted engine/s.

With the azipod the propulsion is outside of the hull, and it has a rotative mechanism attaching it to the hull which can be damaged or jammed.

The propeller and rudder of any system can be damaged or jammed.

The engines and gearboxes in vessels with shafts is protected well inside the hull.

The engines and gearboxes in the pod are also protected.

The ship would only ever travel forward at any speed so the area in front of the pod could have fins and structures that will bounce any hard objects that might damage the pod at high forward speeds.

In ten years time when electric motors are twice as powerful and half the weight and size, you can easily swap them out... maybe with a double propeller in a push pull arrangement so that anything about to hit the pod is shredded by the propeller.

The Azipods on icebreakers are designed to allow the ship to sail backwards into the ice when it is too thick for the weight of the ship to break with the propellers faced forward and cutting the ice directly with its edges... these things are not that fragile...

Damaging the shaft is of course a concern, but they are extremely massive and strong. I don't have a totally formed opinion on what is better, but I do see some issues with the azipod, in terms of resistance against battle damage.

Having four located around the bottom of the ship limits the chance of one mine explosion or homing torpedo taking out all propulsion with one hit.

Those massive and strong drive shafts are thousands of tons in weight and take up a lot of space... and can still be damaged.

We are talking about 60-70 kT...

Yes, we are... do you think hydrodynamics stops working above a certain weight?

Yes I don't see any technical issue, just that making a naval plane in extremely small series is already expensive enough for wanting to make even another one. But we will see.

The secret is to make all your new land based aircraft able to operate on a carrier deck. You could try to do that by making them VSTOL fighters, but even VSTOL fighters need folding wings and surfaces.

Designing a conventional land based fighter to have strong undercarriage means it can be used on rough air strips... designing it to have an alternative wing for naval operations that is bigger and allows safe lower speed flight that fold for fitting in a hangar on a ship could allow land based hangars to contain more aircraft which also saves money too. And a tail hook can be used on land as well... there are truck based cable landing systems you could deploy to a conventional airfield to allow aircraft to land after the runway has been attacked and damaged.... laying landing cables attached to trucks with the mechanism to slow down aircraft between the holes in the runway could allow tailhook equipped aircraft to land safely despite the damaged runway.

It seems having lighter cheaper aircraft like the MiG-35 makes sense, so having the same for stealthy aircraft might have some merit... if they can make a stealthy aircraft that is genuinely cheaper to operate and cheaper to buy in numbers then why not make it with a folding wing and tailhook and reinforced undercarriage etc etc and corrosion resistance too...

It might not have the flight range or payload performance of the Su-57, but not all CAP over the Russian ships needs to be 1,000km away from the carrier... and having smaller lighter cheaper but modern and capable fighters makes sense for export and domestic use.

I don't see the crucial need for it either, but they seemed keen on it, I wonder what is the reason. In any case an UDK where small STOVL fighters are available is more capable than if only helos are present.

They were keen on the idea of the Yak-141 till they got to testing and realised it was more expensive yet in many ways less capable than a MiG-29/33.

If they are planning a VSTOL fighter then the Ka-52K is redundant. The fact that they are spending money on the Ka-52K suggests to me they don't have a lot of confidence in a new VSTOL deck fighter.

Say a big UDK with 24 helos or even more, if the displacement really reaches 40 kT, could carry relatively easily 6x STOVL planes if the mission calls for it, with improved A2A and deterring capability, and still have more than enough helos for the other missions. Not saying this alone is usable in high intensity conflicts, but most of the deployments are not of that type. I don't think it is a bad thing.

So say they buy four of these ships and maybe operate one or two as mini fixed wing carriers... so the total production run they need to make would be 12 aircraft... how could they possibly justify such a design... they would challenge the F-35 for cost per aircraft because they would each essentially be hand made planes... and still no guarantee they would be any good.

I would say JATO launched S-70s would be more use.

And probably cheaper... despite essentially being disposable...

I fully agree on the general idea, but as far as I understand, you propose a Russian carrier to be able to take up to 90 fighters. I am just saying a USN supercarrier only takes 48 fighters, so the carrier you refer would be monstrous, no matter what technology is used..

First of all aim high. Second the USN Nimitz carries 90 aircraft including helicopters, so it is not that far fetched considering Russian helicopters are far more compact than US helicopters, and the idea of stacking drones should enable lots to be carried... as well as the assumption that the Su-57K will fold and not take up an enormous amount of space and neither will the LMFS.

the whole discussion about carriers revolves around the issue that you need a certain displacement for a given airwing and that baseline lies well below 1 aircraft (not fighter) per 1 kT (see the Kuznetsov for instance), unless a major breakthrough like the new Krylov hull allows to improve on that.

And that is what I am suggesting... 3 D azipods for trimming and aquaplaning to greatly reduce propulsion requirements, and wide structure to allow more internal volume for hangar and deck space, and creative storage of drones to allow large numbers to be fitted into small areas, and yet rapidly brought onto the deck for quick deployment or recovery.

For instance, the Storm KM has the same airwing of the Kuznetsov with almost 40% less displacement. So a 60 kT semicat carrier would reach the flight deck of a US CVN with maybe 60-70 aircraft, that means no more than three sqd fighters, considering you need many helos, UCAVs, and AWACS/AEW. It is more than enough and even better, it is realistic.

A triple hulled cat might allow even better performance in terms of numbers of aircraft carried per K ton of ship weight.

The problem is that naval fighters are a luxury item, not that I have anything against the hi-lo mix. Developing a producing them for always small production runs is expensive. But other than that, of course, put LMFS and Su-57K on board.

Basing them on an already existing and in use design means spare parts and engines etc can be shared and you could actually build extra... aircraft in the far north or far east would benefit from fitting more in a smaller hangar with folding wings, and runway length can be minimised with cable arrested landings.

I proposed an automated handling system of the production line type with robotic plane carrying skids for the multihull carrier that I submitted some years ago here, it was quickly dismissed of course.

Your proposal was more about replacing steam cats and EMALS cats than anything else from my memory.

With that IADS you do not need superior fighters.

But you do benefit from superior fighters.

They are needed when you do not have such AD superiority.

They are always needed.

The naval domain is the number one scenario where Russia would need that, other than that their territory is extremely well monitored and guarded with land based assets.

The Russians know better than anyone else what a good IADS is and an IADS without aircraft based radar and fighter aircraft that can intercept targets is not a good IADS.

I would say their fundamental error is to conceiver the carrier and its airwing and armament as a tool vs land based forces. That is a beginner's error, created by their pursued foreign policy, and they do not seem even now to understand they must simply ditch that while they are in time and turn to cheaper, better armed carriers to dispute sea domain with advanced rivals instead of dropping thousands of tons of dumb bombs on the third world. But ditching our privileges is the last thing we want so they insist on the error, we will see until when.

They are trapped by their own propaganda... stealth was the solution to Russias excellent IADS... on land.

They gave up their specialised naval stealth aircraft and adopted the land based F-35 in naval versions.

If the F-35 was what it was cracked up to be it should be excellent, but it isn't so it is worse than useless... the Intruder was a better strike aircraft, as was the F-18, but they have found themselves in the position of the F-18 being the fighter and the F-35 being the strike aircraft, and neither are great compared with land based aircraft like the obvious... Su-35.

They are even worse against Su-57 and simply wont have a chance against a MiG-31K with Zircon.

Even a VLS system for small UAVS could be used, yes.

Possibly, but I think the closer they are to flying wings and can be handled like conventional but small aircraft, the better... especially when it comes to refuelling and restocking with jammers and chaff and flares and weapons.

Some sort of large belly mounted rotary launcher for tube based missiles like SOSNA, and Krisantema, and Hermes, as well as Verba and Igla-S and perhaps older weapons like Shturm and Ataka.

The middle centre bottom weapon being exposed front and rear for tube launch which then rotates to the next munition as required... it could have say 12 missiles fitted around the body of the rotary launcher and it could select the appropriate missile whether it is air to air (Sosna, Verba, Igla-S, or for use against armoured ground targets like Shturm, Ataka, Khrisantema and Hermes.

The caveat is that a carrier can afford the luxury of carrying the actually big and long ranged UAVs that give it long the range detection capabilities it actually needs more and more, given the progress in AShMs. Would you prefer carrying 50 Orlans or rather 6 Helios RLD?

Carrying large numbers of drones does not make sense for HALE and MALE drones... the AWACS platform will be doing a lot of that stuff and those heavy drones are not supposed to be expendable.

The drones I would take in numbers are the fighter support drones like S-70, or attack and suicide drones that are smaller and shorter ranged and hang around the ships rather than perform deep strike missions into enemy territory.

If you want deep strike then launch a Kh-101.

Unsurprisingly, it would benefit the most from cats when used like USN does, fully loaded of bombs for land attack.

The purpose of the cats is to operate AWACS aircraft and tanker aircraft based on the same airframe.

You would only launch heavily laiden aircraft for planned strikes because they probably can't land with five hypersonic heavy anti ship missiles under their wings and centreline.

I would suggest that launching aircraft with the cat would still prioritise the AWACS and tanker aircraft with a quick topup on the way via the tankers... or a top up on the way back.

Even for naval strike, it would carry 4x hypersonic AShM on the internal bays and that would hardly surpass 3 t load, so nothing extreme, considering the fuel load is also internal. Don't forget that this bastard of a plane takes off on a relatively short run without flap deployment, guess what it could do with them on a ramp and with second stage engines

True but Kh-101s are pretty damn good too.

Have you checked the propulsive power of hydrofoil vessels vs displacement?

But we are talking about reduced displacement ships...

All Russian fighters have strong undercarriage, the folding wing issue I hope it could be avoided with a smart landing gear and internal weapon bays. That would help a lot with performance, range and commonality.

You mean pimp my ride with the ride height raised on one side to lift one wing up and lowered on the other to lower the other wing down so instead of folding they overlap in the hangar... you could calculate the perfect fit and then build wheel ramps to make the angle even more exaggerated for better clearance when parked...

Not necessarily, the same way VKS has fighters, interceptors, bombers, helos and CAS planes. In this case the fighter would take care of the A2A and some strike roles where it has a natural and undeniable advantage.

What F-35 or smaller aircraft can reach targets 4,500km away like a Kh-101?

   
A naval fighter of any kind is going to have very short production series normally, the STOVL would be no different. Two possible conditions to improve that could be:
> Creating the STOVL version based on an existing platform, this is normally a bad idea but there might be ways to achieve that, as I proposed before.
> Selling the plane in the export market, via co-development if needed.

As said it is not such a clear busines case, but no naval fighter is I think...

You are ignoring the obvious... the MiG-35 is a navalised fighter... fit it with the folding wings and tailhook and it is ready to go.

Fit a folding wing to the Su-57 and a tailhook and it is probably also already to go too.

The LMFS will likely already be a unified design that just has folding enlarged wings with extra lifting surfaces as an option along with a tailhook.

I wouldn't hold my breath on the LMFS:
https://eurasiantimes.com/why-russias-newest-fighter-jet-with-both-manned-unmanned-variant-is-a-great-idea-that-is-likely-to-fail/

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38114/no-russia-really-doesnt-need-a-new-single-engine-fighter

IMO, it would be a lot easier & less risky to navalize the multi-role Su-34 which has commonality with the Su-33, stronger airframe, is better armed, & its pilots will need minimum time to retrain, instead of the Su-57.
If need be, its tail sting could be shortened/removed to make the length=to Su-57's length. If a large deck CV/N is ever built, there will be plenty of room for it.
The VKS & export customers will need a lot Su-57s, so it would be a waste of money & time to navalize & produce them for the NAF.

The su 34 gross weight is 39,000 kg. The su 57's is 25,000 kg. Every pound of weight on a carrier counts. The su 57 is 15 foot 7 inches in height.(identical to Mig 29) The su 34 is 20 feet. Every foot of space counts on a carrier too.

they may have single & 2 seat variants, so some planes will be lighter; in any case, with better engines & catapults, it won't be a problem.
The Su-34K would be more capable than the Su-33 (its GW: 29,940 kg, H: 20 ft); there will be enough hangar space for extra 4'3" of height.
They could even make the tailfins canted like on the F-18C/D/E/Fs for better handling.

I wouldn't hold my breath on the LMFS

From the information released they have managed to make the MiG-35 both capable and affordable to buy and to operate.

Why do you think they can't make a stealthy equivalent?

I could understand you suggesting the Americans can't make cheap affordable fighter aircraft, but...

IMO, it would be a lot easier & less risky to navalize the multi-role Su-34 which has commonality with the Su-33, stronger airframe, is better armed, & its pilots will need minimum time to retrain, instead of the Su-57 .

The Su-34 is a strike aircraft, which is not what they want. The Su-57 is a fighter first and foremost but can perform a range of other missions too.

The Su-57 is smaller and lighter and with more powerful engines and with internal weapons much lower drag.

The VKS & export customers will need a lot Su-57s, so it would be a waste of money & time to navalize & produce them for the NAF.

It remains to be seen how many will actually be made, domestically or for export... but it was almost certainly designed from the outset with naval carrier based versions in mind... the structural strengthening was probably related to allowing ski ramp takeoffs and operations from short strips which would be useful for land and ship based versions.

All it really needs is a tailhook and folding main wings... which would be trivial if the rest was already designed with carrier operations in mind.

Evolutionary designs. The su 57 is fail proof because its an evolutionary design. If the s 70 can fly, so can an unmanned su 57. If fact it will be easier than the s 70. Flying wings are less stable.

There is a long tradition in the Soviet Union for using obsolete aircraft as drones for exercises including testing air defences.

The M-23 is a drone version of a MiG-23 whose operational performance can be improved simply because it becomes expendable and no longer needs to follow strict speed and g limits.

Unnecessary items like cockpit displays and radar are removed and the autopilot is modified to enable the aircraft to be "telecontrolled".

Which essentially means it is manually controlled for takeoff and then switches to autopilot to fly an attack profile for training.

they may have single & 2 seat variants, so some planes will be lighter; in any case, with better engines & catapults, it won't be a problem.
The Su-34K would be more capable than the Su-33 (its GW: 29,940 kg, H: 20 ft ); there will be enough hangar space for extra 4'3" of height.
They could even make the tailfins canted like on the F-18C/D/E/Fs for better handling.

A naval Su-35 would make more sense, but why waste time navalising the Su-35 when the Su-57 is more capable and more modern and would be more useful.

The Su-33KUB is essentially a naval Su-34 and it was rejected as too heavy... photos of it doing fly pasts over the deck is just that... flypasts.

AFAIK no landings were attempted or achieved.

It was most likely disinformation.

I wouldn't hold my breath on the LMFS

From the information released they have managed to make the MiG-35 both capable and affordable to buy and to operate.
Why do you think they can't make a stealthy equivalent?

I doubt a single engine deck fighter is a good idea, esp. for the areas around Russia; time will tell if they make a twin engine variant that would be better than the MiG-29K.

IMO, it would be a lot easier & less risky to navalize the multi-role Su-34 which has commonality with the Su-33, stronger airframe, is better armed, & its pilots will need minimum time to retrain, instead of the Su-57.

The Su-34 is a strike aircraft, which is not what they want. The Su-57 is a fighter first and foremost but can perform a range of other missions too.

recently Su-34s practiced doing intercepts; having ground/naval strike capability would add more flexibility- there may be situations when friendly naval/ground forces need air support. According to experts, the plane’s design incorporates features from the Su-27, the Su-30MKI, Su-33 [failure], and the Su-35, making it a highly capable air combat fighter along with tactical bombing roles. In Syria, it was reported that Su-34s had intercepted Israeli F-16s, forcing them to abandon their mission and turn back.
https://eurasiantimes.com/russian-sukhoi-su-34-fighter-jets-makes-its-first-flight-into-stratosphere/

Single seat Su-34Ks could escort/refuel dual seat Su-34Ks, just like F-18Es with F-18Fs on strike missions.

The Su-33KUB is essentially a naval Su-34 and it was rejected as too heavy...

it was too heavy for the Adm K., but future CVNs should be able to handle them. If they r going to be CATOBAR, they might as well use a mix of light & heavy fighters on them too.[/quote]

The semicatamaran hull is actually similar to a trimaran in that it has both good sea keeping and extended width, but far simpler. It is the only serious design I have seen going in this direction, so while multihull carriers seem logical or advantageous, there is not so much real substance as designed from professional bureaus to prove their case.

We are really only seeing the tip of the iceberg... but be aware... in the late 1980s it was the Mi-28A that was revealed to the public first and was seen at western airshows first because it had already lost the competition with the Ka-50 to be the new attack helicopter to replace the Mi-24 Hind.

Often designs that have been rejected are revealed, not to show what they will be getting, but to give the designer/manufacturer a chance to get foreign customers interested in producing it too.

Later on the Ka-50 was revealed as the winner of the competition... the early 1990s... ironically after Desert Storm where the use of Apaches at night showed how much more capable and safe an helicopter can be when operating in the dark. Operating in the dark is of course a full time job so the single seat Ka-50s design was reconsidered and the Mi-28N was back in the race and eventually won the job to replace the Hind, with the Ka-52 winning the role of recon helicopter... a sort of non stealthy Commanche...

If you think about the restrictions on board a carrier, duplicating the amount of part numbers, processes, specialists and tools for your maintenance is the last thing you want to do. Unless you reach very big commonality between a light and heavy fighter, it goes contrary to your logistic interests.

There can be very little commonality with drones and helicopters with fixed wing aircraft. The heavy and light fighters and AWACS aircraft don't need to share spare parts... any carrier would need to be supplied with food and water and weapons and fuel, so delivering spares as they are used up should not be a huge issue... modern 5th gen engines should not need lots of overhauls at sea, and they should have enough engines to ensure that when they set sail they wont need major engine overhauls with the engines they take during the trip...

I mean 150 hours is about 5.5 hours every day for a month, so a three month trip you are looking at 450 hours life time on an engine.... and I rather doubt any of the aircraft will be used at that sort of rate, but even if they did they should be fine.

but there where two side hulls that would circle the airframes from and to the flight deck mounted on skids like in a production line and foreseeing special stations where planes could stay long term and also bypassing to change the use of the decks / direction of the flow in the line.

Production line like structures would be limiting... even with side tracks to allow aircraft to be held back or to skip a plane ahead... whereever they stopped to be loaded with fuel and weapons would fix them, so if the front four aircraft are loaded with the wrong weapons you would have to launch them to get the aircraft with suitable weapons airborne.

There is potential for changing the things done now on aircraft carriers but I think this idea would need thrashing out to make it useful.

As a replacement for an EMALS cats, I think there would be the obvious easy solution... an EMALS based cat system.... it just makes sense once it is working of course.

The fact that they are talking about a mobile cat system for testing on the Kuznetsov suggests they have made progress and might develop something that could be used on land for launching aircraft from damaged runways or short strips of motorway.

Perhaps you could start a new thread and we could discuss it better?

Still your idea so you get naming rights, but I am happy to brain storm it and tell you what I think is wrong... (constructive, no destructive).

That sort of defeats the purpose of establishing a wide perimeter around your fleet, for which long ranged aircraft are needed.

I don't agree.

Long ranged aircraft wont spend a lot of time at long range... they have satellites and they have all sorts of extreme long range radar, and they have ships all over the place including military and civilian ships and subs... having a long range fighter means detecting an attack allows you to send aircraft out beyond the 400km and 600km range limit of your SAMs, to get a closer look at the threat and to start picking off targets that may rely on swarm methods of attacks. Being able to fly out 800km with Su-57s and engage C-130 transports before they launch their 500km range swarm drones could be critical in defeating an attack before it becomes overwhelming... they might fly with those transports as they close on the group because it is peace time and this is their opening move attack, but once drones start leaving those C-130s and start heading towards your carrier group the Su-57s can start destroying C-130s and drones and any fighters that might be nearby... plus the carrier group gets very early warning it is under attack, which would give them time to prepare air defence systems and jammers and launch drones.

The missiles the US use might have a home on jam mode, in which case a drone that can pull 30 g and is fitted with a jammer could become a missile sponge, and it could start out amongst the ships but gradually fly further and further away leading many of the incoming enemy missiles with it... if it has radio and laser sensors on it and a DIRCM system it might be able to defeat missiles by setting off laser and radio proximity fuses from distances where the drone can survive and defeat other enemy missiles in the same way.

They don't need enormous range for that, but endurance would be useful.

You will not have a big number of Okhotnik on board, they are huge.

They don't have an enormous area like a flying wing. In many ways they are more like a glider... big sure, but thin fuselage and thin wing... you could stack them in a relatively small area if you modify the design to allow that... especially if you stack them.

A Russian carrier with Kamov type helicopters will need a tall hangar so stacking drones makes sense to use that available space efficiently... especially with drones...

Rather Kalibr or Kalibr-M but yeah I understand.

Kalibr M is supposed to be Kh-101... there is already enough room in the UKSK launcher for Kh-101 sized missiles... 7.4m long and 650mm wide.

The more tankers and refuelling operations, the smaller the sortie rate, useful air wing and effectiveness of your operations. So it should be preferred to use the fighters with their internal fuel only, as much as possible.

I don't agree. The fighters with reduced fuel can get airborne quickly and easily without cat assistance, while the tanker would take time to get airborne and would need cat assistance, it can also refuel the AWACS platform and reduce its need to operate the cat and long takeoff position.

By allowing the fighters to refuel inflight they can get airborne quicker and easier and could potentially take fuel from the AWACS aircraft too if needed.

The tanker aircraft could operate as a SAR platform, or could carry missiles of its own for close in defence... that could allow it to fly out with fighters towards and intercept... it could hold back from the actual bogey and then refuel the fighters on their way back to the ship...

The first fighters could refuel from the already airborne AWACS platform, with a tanker then launched to refuel the AWACS and then head out in the direction the fighters went to allow them to top up on their way back.

With normal operations fighters will operate over the ships in the carrier group and would probably operate on quarter tanks anyway.

I would expect the Su-57 to be able to take off with full fuel tanks and a full AAM internal weapon load from the ski jump ramp and without cat assistance just fine.

Its role might be to sneak out and fly around an incoming threat and then passively monitor it from behind as it approaches with an LMFS sent out to meet the target when it is 400km or so away... if the target turns out to be hostile it can be attacked from either group of aircraft... or even a ship launched missile.

I would think a medium range AAM would be cheaper than an S-400.

Subsonic CMs are not a proper tool against enemy fleet. In terms of land attack, which is a potential mission even when marginal in terms of priority, CMs are quite ok and normally should be enough. But still strike aircraft are more flexible and cheaper in case operations need to be sustained.

Nothing says off like a Yasen launched Zircon.

The question is... do you want to sink the entire fleet or get it to move on or just warn it to keep its distance and not interfere...

I would think a low flying subsonic long range missile says that pretty clearly... especially a next generation version with a scramjet motor instead of a mach 3 rocket booster... perhaps fly 2,000km to the location where the enemy ships are and then accelerate to mach 3-4 and then drop down to wave height and see how fast you can get to before impact.

I was not thinking about raising only one side but about rising or lowering some of the planes, but your idea may work in some layouts too. This approach makes no sense with current fighters because the wing stations are needed 99% of the time, but with weapon bays that is not the case anymore, so you can place the wings of two planes one above the other without practical interference.

I am talking about in the hangar... there will be no aircraft with ordinance fitted in the hangar... they only get weapons loaded on them on deck... it is a safety thing.

Apart from Kh-101 not being a naval CM, the issue is in the type of deployment an UDK would make sense on their own, like COIN, you would not have many targets that would justify the use of CMs. I talk simply from what I see in Syria, Kalibr were simply tested and not used as the weapons of choice, by a huge margin.

They used a lot of them. And the scaling up applied to the Kh-101 is being applied to the Calibr to better fit the UKSK tubes.
Sending one cruise missile is much cheaper and easier than sending a dozen aircraft including strike aircraft and fighter escort aircraft and jammer aircraft as well as some recon aircraft to check results and determine if a follow up attack is needed.

The 152mm guns of their new cruisers will likely be tasked with shore bombardment with drones spotting targets and checking effect of attacks.

The current ones could reach 70km with guided shells but they are working on 180km rounds too...

They are so much more expensive than SVP-24 launched dumb bombs, that there is not even a discussion to be made.

We are talking about countries where Russia will likely not have ground bases to launch attacks from so a carrier launched strike would need a couple of strike aircraft, plus fighter escort, and perhaps inflight refuelling aircraft and probably an AWACS aircraft to spot threats and command the mission... pretty soon we are talking about a dozen aircraft or more being involved... the 400kg HE payload of the Cruise missile is rather cheap too, but delivery can be expensive... once a cruise missile is made it might as well be useful.

Russia uses their hard earned money to increase their amounts of CMs, mainly for a high intensity conflict vs the West where they need to give really serious size to their salvos, and not to blow up Toyotas in the desert.

I rather doubt Russia will be fighting anywhere on their own without special forces on the ground at the very least but those Toyotas might be the core problem and therefore the solution is not SVP-24 or Calibr... it might be Orion with suitable mini bombs and missiles and an offshore base and launch pad it can operate from that is perhaps five minutes from the operational area that does not have any enemy aircraft as such... the S-350s and S-400s and S-500s of the ships could keep any no fly zone clear of enemy aircraft easily enough...

It might be based on a new 40K ton helicopter carrier with Ka-52s and drones...

I am talking about new planes, what would be the point with MiG-35, when there is already a -29K which is virtually the same plane? Any navalisation is a far more complex design, manufacturing and testing effort than putting a hook.

The Airframe of the MiG-29M and MiG-29KR and MiG-35 are the SAME... they will have the fittings for the tail hook present, and I doubt they have different undercarriage on the different aircraft.

As I said the MiG-29KR has a folding wing with larger area and larger area flaps for lower speed landings... the other differences would be software.

Fit the MiG-29KR wing and tailhook to the MiG-35 and you have a carrier based MiG-35.

Like I said, the revised design was intended to incorporate their three main products... the original MiG-29M, MiG-29SMT, and the Naval MiG-33... which equate to the MiG-35, the MiG-29M, and the MiG-29KR.
The top product with the best of everything they can manage, the cheaper affordable product with budget components that are capable but not as expensive and bleeding edge, and a carrier capable version.

They all share the same airframe and are interchangeable.

Even if the original plane is almost "ready to go" as the Su-57 apparently is. That is also a reason why I think avoiding wing fold would be very interesting. If you look at the numbers, it is some dozens planes t be built, at best. That number is actually even lower for STOBAR/CATOBAR planes than for STOVL ones, which every regional power is willing to use on board of LHDs.

The wings come off... you can unbolt them and remove them. Having a different set with larger area and bigger flaps and high lift devices to allow better handling at lower speeds is not a bad thing.... they could make a couple of dozen and fit them easily enough.

If they designed them from the outset to also be carrier compatible it should not be that hard.

You do know the US even managed with the F- 4 Phantom to have an aircraft that operated on aircraft carriers and on land in their navy and their air force... it is not impossible if you plan for it.

It is not like the Russians have a navy fighter design bureau.... Kamov certainly dominates their naval helicopters, but the Mi-14 is a good design too from Mil.

MiG and Sukhoi make land and sea based aircraft... it would make sense for them to unify the designs... especially with 5th gen aircraft.

I doubt a single engine deck fighter is a good idea, esp. for the areas around Russia; time will tell if they make a twin engine variant that would be better than the MiG-29K.

I totally agree... a twin jet fighter in the form of the MiG-35 shows it can be affordable to buy and to operate, or so they claim, so there is no real value in making a single engined version except in reducing its performance.

According to experts, the plane’s design incorporates features from the Su-27, the Su-30MKI, Su-33 [failure ], and the Su-35, making it a highly capable air combat fighter along with tactical bombing roles.

Interesting it is called a failure when the Su-33 is still in use.

The Su-57 is lighter with more engine power than the Su-33. The Su-34 is significantly heavier than the Su-33 and uses the same engines.

The Su-57 is a generation ahead of the Su-33 and Su-34.

It is both capable and affordable and would meet F-35s on more than equal terms.

In Syria, it was reported that Su-34s had intercepted Israeli F-16s, forcing them to abandon their mission and turn back.

Not saying the Su-34 is useless, saying it is too heavy.

It would need cat assistance for any takeoff including with no armament and minimum fuel.

Single seat Su-34Ks could escort/refuel dual seat Su-34Ks, just like F-18Es with F-18Fs on strike missions.

The shape of the forward fuselage of the Su-34 was designed for two seat side by side strike missions... converting it to a single seat does not make sense... would be simpler and cheaper to just use Su-33 which is already a single seater.

it was too heavy for the Adm K., but future CVNs should be able to handle them. If they r going to be CATOBAR, they might as well use a mix of light & heavy fighters on them too.

The Su-57K could probably be used with a tail hook and folding wing as is on the K and any future larger carrier they might make.

The Su-57K would be faster and better in almost every way than the Su-34 as a fighter and interceptor.

The Su-34 makes sense for land based strike missions, but would cost a fortune to navalise.

The Su-33KUB was essentially a two seat side by side seating Su-33.... it essentially looked the same as the Su-34 except its nose radome was round like the Su-33, instead of wider and flatter on the Su-34, but the Su-33KUB (sometimes called Su-27KUB) is just an Su-33 with two side by side seats so is much lighter than the Su-34.

AFAIK it was rejected as being too heavy and too expensive for the performance so they bought MiG-29KRs when production was started for an order from India.

Nice looking aircraft, but not practical...







The real thing... a significant number of tons heavier too:

GarryB wrote: Su-57s and engage C-130 transports before they launch their 500km range swarm drones could be critical in defeating an attack before it becomes overwhelming...

When did the U.S ever develop a 500km range swarm drone? No country in the world has swarm drones with such a massive range.

the fighters ..could potentially take fuel from the AWACS aircraft too if needed.

it's a bad idea to combine those 2 missions & risk losing such a valuable asset & crews to refueling accidents. The CODs or planes based on their airframes could be adopted as tankers, just like the land based KC-135/10s & IL-478 cargo/tanker planes.

Interesting it is called a failure when the Su-33 is still in use.

the F-35 is also an expensive failure in USAF/N while being used; the VMF has no other navalized birds with longer range than the MiG-29Ks.

The Su-57 is lighter with more engine power than the Su-33. The Su-34 is significantly heavier than the Su-33 and uses the same engines.

there r betteroff the shelf engines with more thrust that can replace their current powerplants. The izdeliye 30 (in development) for Su-57  is supposed to have 176.6 kN (39,700 lbf) thrust with afterburner, & it could be fitted on Su-34s.

Not saying the Su-34 is useless, saying it is too heavy.
It would need cat assistance for any takeoff including with no armament and minimum fuel.

if their future catapults r up to the task, why not use them if they r more capable than their Su-33s & MiG-29K/35s?

The shape of the forward fuselage of the Su-34 was designed for two seat side by side strike missions... converting it to a single seat does not make sense... would be simpler and cheaper to just use Su-33 which is already a single seater.

if need be, new navalized single seat variants could be built, & the Su-33s will soon need replacements anyway.

The Su-34 makes sense for land based strike missions, but would cost a fortune to navalise.

not much more, if at all, than they spent navalizing the Su-27; it already has some features of the Su-33.
Navalizing the Su-57 may not be as easy, & its performance may suffer as a result. What if they will need to be armed with heavier ordinance? If left unused, how much of it they'll be able to bring back instead of jettisoning? Besides, they'll likely need many 2 seaters that will be heavier.
Time will tell if it'll become another F-4, good enough for both VKS & VMF!

When did the U.S ever develop a 500km range swarm drone? No country in the world has swarm drones with such a massive range.

They haven't... I am being super generous.

But without a fixed wing aircraft carrier most Russian ships SAMs will reach about 400km so without carrier support the US would be looking to attack from a standoff distance of about 500km to assure their launch platforms are safe from S-400 missiles... I am just being logical.

it's a bad idea to combine those 2 missions & risk losing such a valuable asset & crews to refueling accidents.

They could have multiple AWACS aircraft up and one might be operating much closer to where the threats to be dealt with are so flying there immediately might make that AWACS aircraft safer, but once they get there it might take too long for a tanker to fly there too so while they are waiting they could take some fuel from the AWACS aircraft and when the tanker arrives it could refuel the AWACS aircraft first and then they could all head back closer to the ships.

The CODs or planes based on their airframes could be adopted as tankers, just like the land based KC-135/10s & IL-78 cargo/tanker planes.

I am assuming that any COD and tanker and AWACS platform could share airframe and general design.... all would benefit from good fuel fractions, and all need to be cat launch capable so structural strength would be important for all of them. Sharing a design base just makes sense to me.

the F-35 is also an expensive failure in USAF/N while being used; the VMF has no other navalized birds with longer range than the MiG-29Ks.

They have had the Su-33 for the last 30 years... is the F-18 a failure because its replacement is a failure yet they keep buying them?

The Su-33 was never meant to be anything except a naval Su-27, which is exactly what it is.

there r betteroff the shelf engines with more thrust that can replace their current powerplants . The izdeliye 30 (in development) for Su-57 is supposed to have 176.6 kN (39,700 lbf) thrust with afterburner , & it could be fitted on Su-34s.

Look at the pictures I posted in my post above... the Su-27KUB was rejected as too heavy... count the number of main wheels on its under carriage... one on each strut... now count the wheels on the Su-34... two wheels... because the Su-34 is a LOT heavier... rather more than a few extra tons of thrust will effect.

The chance of a naval Su-34 is like the chance of a naval F-111... which was tried and rejected as too heavy. It eventually turned into an F-14, which was several tons lighter.

Look up the F-111B.

There simply would be no need for an Su-34... its flight range would be shorter than the Su-57K with an AAM loadout anyway...

Russian carriers are no strike carriers like US carriers.

Russian carriers are air defence carriers first with minor secondary strike capacity.

if their future catapults r up to the task, why not use them if they r more capable than their Su-33s & MiG-29K/35s?

In the air to air role the Su-34 would not be better than the Su-57.

They would not be better enough to warrant the cost of replacing the MiGs and the Su-33s with Su-34s... it would be impractical because of their enormous weight... the best solution would be to operate it with light weapon loads and light fuel loads, but that would just make them worse in performance than the Siu-33.

The Su-57 has stealth features, and most Russian enemy countries are not well equipped to deal with stealthy targets even though it is not super stealthy, and its fighter performance is rather better than the Su-34 as well as range and speed and ability to supercruise even with current engines.

if need be, new navalized single seat variants could be built, & the Su-33s will soon need replacements anyway.

Their Su-33s have not been excessively used, and the MiG-29KR is a good replacement... much better range of new weapons and equipment, only minor reduction in flight range options, and fewer weapon pylons, but otherwise likely cheaper to operate, and certainly capable enough... and brand new of course.

An Su-57 will be a much more suitable replacement in the longer term as will be any LMFS they come up with.

not much more, if at all, than they spent navalizing the Su-27; it already has some features of the Su-33.

The Su-33 is an Su-27 with folding wings and tail hook and strengthened design and canards. Su-34 is not, it is a much heavier aircraft with a rather more significant redesign.

It is also primarily a strike aircraft and what they want is a fighter interceptor.

Navalizing the Su-57 may not be as easy, & its performance may suffer as a result.

Even if it does have reduced performance it is still head and shoulders better than any option for any other navy around the world today or for the next ten years at least.

What if they will need to be armed with heavier ordinance?

The smaller lighter more powerful Su-57 would be better able to carry large external anti ship missiles like Zircon than the already at its limits Su-34 which would struggle to launch at empty weight with no ordinance and reduced fuel weight.

If left unused, how much of it they'll be able to bring back instead of jettisoning? Besides, they'll likely need many 2 seat variants that will be heavier.

I don't think they will bother with a two seat Su-57. A two seat MiG- LMFS might be useful in the sense that a two seat MiG-35 is useful too.

Their ships and subs carry heavy hypersonic long range anti ship missiles and long range land attack cruise missiles... there is little to no benefit to putting them on a plane, but a COD variant of the AWACS aircraft could be designed to carry heavier ordinance if needed with a decent bring back capacity...

I personally think the Intruder was the best US carrier based strike aircraft... and I rather liked the British Buccaneer too... both good solid capable aircraft, but as I keep saying... the Russian Air Force does not rule the Russian Navy and for most strike roles they would prefer to use ships and subs, or long range heavy strike aircraft like the Tu-22M3M. The purpose of a CV or CVN in the Russian Navy is to provide an air component to their IADS that keeps their ships safe.

Time will tell if it'll become another F-4, good enough for both VKS & VMF!

It would become an F-111B that was too heavy to operate from ships even with the use of catapults, which led to the much lighter F-14A being developed using F-111B based avionics and engines and radar and missiles.

They could have multiple AWACS aircraft up..

the USN CV/Ns carried 4 of them in my time, with only max 2 ready or flying at any given time. I doubt there will be room for more than 4 fixed wing AWACSs on VMF CVNs.

They have had the Su-33 for the last 30 years... is the F-18 a failure because its replacement is a failure yet they keep buying them?

The F-18E/F is a lot more capable than legacy C/D model, so it's not a failure. Both models were/r also good enough for many AFs- don't tell me the Swiss & Malaysians were forced to buy them too. The Su-33 is out of production in favor of MiG-29K/35, so as the video says, it's a failure; its Chinese J-15 copy was also a failure, until they made the improved J-16, or so they claim- we will see if it holds true.
The Su-27 is the F-15 counterpart; if the US tried to navalize the earlier F-15 instead of navalizing the F-16 to make the F-18, it too would be a failure. A good land based fighter never made it to be a good deck fighter, unless it was designed from the start with navalization in mind like the MiG-29 & Rafales were. It's worth noting that the F-4 started as a deck fighter before the USAF fell in love with it & many of them were used by other AFs.
The article I posted before showed that the F-111B was rejected for political/business reasons; towards the end of carrier trials it was improved & was at least no worse than the F-14. The Su-34 could also be improved for CVN use to be on a par with the Su-33 as an interceptor, w/o losing any of its strike specs. Who knows if the VMF won't need to do more power projection ashore in 10-15-20 years than it's being projected now?

Time will tell if it'll become another F-4, good enough for both VKS & VMF!

It would become an F-111B..

I meant the Su-57, not the Su-34.

..any carrier would need to be supplied with food and water..

they make their own potable water from the sea water.

You just don't want to see the su 57 on a Russian carrier because it would be like the F-22 on a US carrier. Which is never going to happen. Advantage Russia.

I don't care if they navalize Su-57s or not. The USN could get 6th gen. fighters at the same time or shortly after the USAF gets them.

Tsavo Lion wrote:I don't care if they navalize Su-57s or not. The USN could get 6th gen. fighters at the same time or shortly after the USAF gets them.

The updated version of the Su-57, let's call it Su-57M, is going to have enough features you can call it a 6th generation.

I can sort of guess what it will be.
AI assistance to the pilot, optionally manned aircraft, variable cycle engine, electric mechanical actuators, fly-by-light i.e. fiber optics connections.
GaN AESA radar perhaps.

lancelot wrote:I can sort of guess what it will be.
AI assistance to the pilot, optionally manned aircraft, variable cycle engine, electric mechanical actuators, fly-by-light i.e. fiber optics connections.
GaN AESA radar perhaps.

None of that is 6th gen, almost all that could be implemented within the next 10-15 years.

magnumcromagnon wrote:None of that is 6th gen, almost all that could be implemented within the next 10-15 years.

When do you expect the 6th generation prototypes to come out? The F-22 flew first in 1997. The F-15 flew first in 1972. That's 25 years.
So the 6th generation prototype should be flying around 2022.

Russia and the Soviet Union seemed to be out of sync by like a decade to the US. Which makes sense from a competition perspective I think.
The result it that both the Su-27 and the Su-57 are more advanced than the respective US counterparts of the same generation.

lancelot wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:None of that is 6th gen, almost all that could be implemented within the next 10-15 years.

When do you expect the 6th generation prototypes to come out? The F-22 flew first in 1997. The F-15 flew first in 1972. That's 25 years.
So the 6th generation prototype should be flying around 2022.

Russia and the Soviet Union seemed to be out of sync by like a decade to the US. Which makes sense from a competition perspective I think.
The result it that both the Su-27 and the Su-57 are more advanced than the respective US counterparts of the same generation.

Wait 2-3 decades, the 5th generation was stillborn with the likes of the F-22 being out of production and the F-35 program failing miserably. For the most part the West hasn't figured out how to build a non-problematic long standing 5th gen airplane with a resilient RAM coating. The Su-57 will have to show them how to last like the Rock of Gibraltar.