UAC is ready to develop a new carrier-based fighter for a promising aircraft carrier

The United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) is ready to develop a new carrier-based fighter to equip a promising aircraft carrier; there was no order from the military to create a ship version of the Su-57, said UAC general designer Sergei Korotkov.

Quite a lot of work. If necessary, we will, of course. We are competent in this.

- said Korotkov, answering a question about the prospects for the creation of a deck fighter for a new aircraft carrier.

He noted that the UAC did not receive an order from the military for the adaptation of the Su-57 (PAK FA) for use with an aircraft carrier.

If the Ministry of Defense makes such a demand, we will. But there is no such requirement, as far as I know.

- said the general designer.

According to him, work on the creation of an aircraft carrier and its wing should be conducted in parallel.

If we make only the air component, and do not deal with the ship, then nothing will dock. The complex of all activities related to take-off, landing, operation, electromagnetic compatibility and so on. This should be done together

- he said.

Recently, Nikolai Maksimov, head of the Institute of Shipbuilding and Armament of the Navy Military Training Center of the Russian Defense Ministry Nikolai Maximov, reported on the plans of the creation of a new aircraft carrier complex for the Russian Navy on the TV channel Zvezda.

It is planned to build an aircraft-carrying complex, which will include the aircraft carrier itself, the wing and the basing system.

- said Maximov, Interfax-AVN reports.

Comments

[bazzbazz]

A fighter for which there is no ship. What a pity that Russia sat in a black hole under Gorbachev and Yeltsin! So much time, technology and specialists have been lost.

[jeka424]

She now goes deeper into the black hole

[supertiger21]

Quote: bazzbazz

A fighter for which there is no ship. What a pity that Russia sat in a black hole under Gorbachev and Yeltsin! So much time, technology and specialists have been lost.

Quote: jeka424

She now goes deeper into the black hole

So, good already with pessimism! I do not see any grandiose problem described by you. I believe that the same Admiral Kuznetsov can be modernized by adapting to Su-57 to replace the old Soviet Su-33. And with the new ship modification of the Su-57 I do not see any serious difficulties. After all, the Lokhidovites created on the basis of the standard F-35 deck F-35C, increasing the wing area, making it foldable and adding a brake hook. Therefore, we should not have problems.

[ZVO]

Quote: supertiger21

After all, the Lokhidovites created on the basis of the standard F-35 deck F-35C, increasing the wing area, making it foldable and adding a brake hook. Therefore, we should not have problems.

They initially designed 2 different planes in parallel. For the differences between the F-35A and F-35C are only in the area of ​​the wings.
But also:
other mechanization. a completely different fuselage set, a different internal layout ...

They are only outwardly similar ... But only similar.
like Su-27 and Su-35 ...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: supertiger21

After all, the Lokhidovites created on the basis of the standard F-35 deck F-35C, increasing the wing area, making it foldable and adding a brake hook. Therefore, we should not have problems.

"At the base" - this is the initial military Wishlist. In fact, all three Lightning models turned out to be unique and compatible by only 20 percent.
And even so, the deck designers managed to get into a problem with the brake hook, which did not grab the cables of the aerofinisher (this is for the thesis "no problem"). As they wrote in 2012:

Palmer announces a U.S. Department of Defense document of November 2011, which indicates that all eight landings of the third prototype F-35C (CF-03 aircraft) on an aircraft carrier deck simulator (similar to NITKA) based on the US Navy Lakehurst aircraft during the first tests in August 2011 were unsuccessful - in none of the eight cases did the F-35C hook catch the aerofinisher cables. Thus, the aircraft showed its complete inability to land on an aircraft carrier.
These facts became known earlier, however, in this case it is revealed that the design features of the F-35C became the cause of the failure with hook hooking - an unusually small distance between the hook touch point and the main landing gears, amounting to only 7,1 feet (about 2,18 meter). Therefore, the hook does not work efficiently and is not able to provide a reliable grip of the aerofinisher cable. For comparison, the F-14D carrier-based fighter had a distance of 22 feet between the hull touch point and the main landing gear, while the F / A-18E / F had 18,3 feet.
It is noted that despite the fact that the requirements for designing the hook of deck aircraft are detailed in the American military standards MIL-A-181717C and MIL-D-8708C, they were inexplicably ignored by Lockheed Martin designers.

Moreover, this problem did not appear for the first time - it was encountered before the F-35C.

[Dimontius]

Do not tell the experts from the KLA; you cannot bring a hundred years of a pack to your mind, what a deck option is there. I don’t understand how to develop a glider in isolation from the engine, without which it can’t be called the fifth generation at all?!?! They’re just doing that populism.

[jeka424]

On paper, it always works well.

[Andrey Yuryevich]

UAC is ready to develop a new carrier-based fighter for a promising aircraft carrier

something with the current rulers, rezanul as "give money" with zero exhaust ....

[gig334]

Quote: Dimontius

Do not tell the experts from the KLA; you cannot bring a hundred years of a pack to your mind, what a deck option is there. I don’t understand how to develop a glider in isolation from the engine, without which it can’t be called the fifth generation at all?!?! They’re just doing that populism.

The engine of the first stage, which stands on the Su-57 is superior to the f-22 engine. So this is a full fifth-generation engine. Comparison
It was just that at the same time a second engine, called product 30, was made. It is even more powerful, more powerful than all raptors by its head. He will also be put on the Su-57, when brought to mind. But these Su-57s will most likely come with an additional letter designation.

[Dimontius]

Well, you posted a leaflet ... But there were already so many materials about the pack ... do you want to say that your picture beats them all? I doubt it very much ...

[gig334]

Quote: Dimontius

Well, you posted a leaflet ... But there were already so many materials about the pack ... do you want to say that your picture beats them all? I doubt it very much ...

Do you think your language is an argument? hatred towards Russia is in full swing in you and this is evident. And hatred dulls people, deprives rationality and objectivity. Good luck.

[Dimontius]

What does Russia have to do with it? Or is any criticism a hatred of Russia? ahhh i got it .. did you catch a note of the western press? Well, here's a tip: read it less. And then already in your enemies, look.

[Setrac]

Quote: Dimontius

Well, you posted a leaflet ... But there were already so many materials about the pack ... do you want to say that your picture beats them all? I doubt it very much ...

Something I do not see in the table of incorrect data, can you poke a finger?

[Andrey Yuryevich]

Quote: gig334

gig334

what's next? Do you want about hypersound-4 +? here you are from the "technique of youth", they are throwing such "recipes" - just hold on! ... oh youth ...

[Yrec]

Russia will not have an aircraft carrier. There is nowhere to put it, stupidly. If only the Arctic Ocean will melt completely. Our MO "noodles" hangs "probable" friends. Russia is a continental power, not a maritime one. Therefore, the Navy is funded on a residual basis, there is not enough money for an aircraft carrier, by any means. With its tasks and MRK + Tu22M3 cope.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Yrec

Russia will not have an aircraft carrier. There is nowhere to put it, stupidly.

It's funny That is, the Navy of the USSR found places for the TAVKR, and Russia has nowhere to put it.
The same "Kuznetsov" was basked at a ship repair plant.

Quote: Yrec

With its tasks and MRK + Tu22M3 cope.

I can directly see how RTOs and Tu-22M3 provide anti-submarine defense systems. No, this cannot be done from the shore - on the right flank of the anti-submarine border in the North, the time for approaching the reserves from the shore is longer than the time that the aircraft carriers reach the launch range of the onboard URO. Our duty fighters over the Plow and the Plow itself will be knocked out before the main forces come from the coastal airfield.
Or how RTOs with their anti-aircraft defense (and "carcasses" too) try to reach the launch range of anti-ship missiles in the AUG.
By the way, where do you get the marine Tu-22M3 from? MRA has been disbanded for 5 years now.

[Andrey Yuryevich]

Quote: Yrec

Russia will not have an aircraft carrier. There is nowhere to put it, stupidly. If only the Arctic Ocean will melt completely.

respected KAA BOA, drove me into slippers, and I almost agreed that we urgently needed AUG, ... but questions remained. money, then ... money ... and then why? after thinking sleepless nights, I decided (well, I decided-a dumb sofa ohfitser) that in principle ... after the "calibers" and "long-range" aviation ... yes ... why? cover the squadron? which one? from the shore you can ... the coastal battery will cost you less. (no, well, maybe I’m stupid, I don’t argue, refute) contain a whole brood accompanying the aircraft carrier? Danunah ... let the Americans put the budget there. we will manage to launch the "bastions" ... KAPRAZ, have mercy, do not send to the "point" ...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Andrey Yurievich

after the "calibers" and "long-range" aviation ... yes .. why?

Then, that the RCC carriers for their use will be forced to approach the AUG, entering the radius of the work of the AB air group. And you can’t do without fighters here.
But the problem is that the AUG will not be substituted, standing in the very place where it will be most convenient for us to work with aviation from the coast.

Quote: Andrey Yurievich

cover the squadron? which one? from the shore you can ... the coastal battery will cost less.

And how to cover the PLOW from the shore, holding the boundary of the PLO somewhere near Bear Island? 600-700 km to the nearest ground airfield.
And to move the line closer - this means reducing the time of arrival of the Kyrgyz Republic or increasing the depth of the affected territory of the Russian Federation.

Quote: Andrey Yurievich

let the Americans lower the budget there. we will manage to launch the "bastions" ...

By whom shall we let them in? On wing aircraft? Because the AUG ships will operate outside the coastal SCRC.

[san4es]

Quote: Yrec

... There is nowhere to put it, stupidly. ,

... Well, if "stupidly" - then nowhere.

[Polite Moose]

UAC is ready to develop a new carrier-based fighter for a promising aircraft carrier

We do not need a note about the boy.
We don’t have a boy either ... (Cat Matroskin)

[Engineer]

We are competent in this

Considering that work on the T-50 was still in the 80s, and was hardly completed in the 2000s, I strongly doubt the current competence of specialists. Unless they get from the storage shelves the operating time on a deck fighter for Ulyanovsk. And for one on the Yak-44 and the Ulyanovsk itself will not be resurrected.

[shans2]

T-50 in the 80s?) Enough rave, work was ongoing on the current Su-35, ...

[Yrec]

Firstly, the TAVKR is not a full-fledged aircraft carrier, secondly, the enemy easily gets the artillery to the places where our AOGs are possible, thirdly, it is better not to compare the capabilities and funding of the USSR Navy of the USSR and the Russian Federation, fourthly, the method of using our aviation (anyway which one) is noticeably different from the American one, fifthly, wherever our AUGs float, it will ALWAYS be in hostile waters and vulnerable, sixthly, there is still no money for a full AUG, even if they find money for an aircraft carrier. You can continue for a long time, why we will not have an aircraft carrier in the next at least 15 years.

Quote: Alexey RA

Quote: Yrec

Russia will not have an aircraft carrier. There is nowhere to put it, stupidly.

It's funny That is, the Navy of the USSR found places for the TAVKR, and Russia has nowhere to put it.
The same "Kuznetsov" was basked at a ship repair plant.

Quote: Yrec

With its tasks and MRK + Tu22M3 cope.

I can directly see how RTOs and Tu-22M3 provide anti-submarine defense systems. No, this cannot be done from the shore - on the right flank of the anti-submarine border in the North, the time for approaching the reserves from the shore is longer than the time that the aircraft carriers reach the launch range of the onboard URO. Our duty fighters over the Plow and the Plow itself will be knocked out before the main forces come from the coastal airfield.
Or how RTOs with their anti-aircraft defense (and "carcasses" too) try to reach the launch range of anti-ship missiles in the AUG.
By the way, where do you get the marine Tu-22M3 from? MRA has been disbanded for 5 years now.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Yrec

First, TAVKR is not a full-fledged aircraft carrier

TAVKR with a displacement of 45-65 thousand tons with an air group of 2 squadrons requires almost the same basing conditions as the traditional AB: a deep-sea pier, dock and coastal airfield.

Quote: Yrec

secondly, the enemy easily reaches almost the places of our AUG’s possible base, almost with artillery

Exactly the same problems for RTOs and coastal aviation.

Quote: Yrec

thirdly, it is better not to compare the capabilities and financing of the Navy of the USSR and the Russian Federation

Right. Therefore, we do not have the money and time for meaningless experiments and "asymmetric responses", caused not by tactical or operational considerations, but by the banal dislike of decision-makers for certain classes of ships. Back in the days of the USSR Navy, it became clear that without a full-fledged AB, the fleet could not even defend.

Quote: Yrec

fourthly, the method of use of our aviation (anyway what) is noticeably different from the American

No unparalleled worldwide the method of using aviation will not provide an advantage in the air over ships if the time for approaching their reinforcements is longer than the time for the enemy strike group to reach the launch line. And this means only one thing: relying on coastal airfields leads to the fact that our naval forces will be able to defend only the near zone of their bases. And the carriers of the enemy’s URO will act in the most favorable conditions.

Quote: Yrec

fifth, wherever our AUG floats, it will ALWAYS be in hostile waters and vulnerable,

Wherever our missile regiment sailed and the Tu-22M3 flew, it will ALWAYS be in hostile waters and vulnerable.
Why should our AB go far? The North Sea east of the Medvezhye or the approaches to the Kuril ridge - these are the areas of its operation.

Quote: Yrec

sixthly, there is still no money for a full-fledged AUG, even if they find money for an aircraft carrier

If there is money for UDC, there will be money for AB. Moreover, without AB it makes no sense to build a UDC.

[Geonezis]

Aircraft carrier is the pinnacle in the hierarchical chain in the fleet. What is the point of generally talking about him if, in all other links, things are not very soft to say the least. It’s the same as starting to make the roof of a house, without even laying the foundation. IMHO only after the restoration of other components of the submarine and surface forces it is worth breaking the creation of an aircraft carrier.

[Yrec]

It’s not enough to gash an aircraft carrier, you need to make a full-fledged AUG. To do this, we have to put our army on a hungry rations, and we have it in priority. Amers have a priority fleet. Amerikosy bathe their AUGs based on the support of the "Aegis" in all seas and oceans, they own the situation on a global scale. And we? Only locally. By the way, they provide air defense anti-submarine groups themselves. It’s enough to see how many air defense lines are blocked on our ships. In extreme cases, you can use A-50/100 for guidance. We still do not know everything about the capabilities of Caliber in the role of RCC.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Yrec

It’s not enough to gash an aircraft carrier, you need to make a full-fledged AUG. To do this, we will have to land our army on a hungry rations, and we have it in priority.

If you take an adversary, then he has the cost of building an AB equal to the cost of 2,5 -3 ICAPL.
And do not talk about the poverty budget of our armed forces in general and the fleet in particular. In the budget of the fleet, pomnitsa, there was money for the construction of such strange things as hydroaerodromes in freezing bays.

Quote: Yrec

By the way, they provide air defense anti-submarine groups themselves. It’s enough to see how many air defense lines are blocked on our ships.

How many times have they reiterated on this site: Air defense of an air defense system based on an air defense system does not provide reliable defense of a naval force. For the range of their work on the MV and PMV - 30-40 km. And most importantly, with the standard tactics of using the aviation of the US Navy, air defense systems are incapable of firing carrier rockets and are forced to fight only with the consequences - the missile defense itself.
SAMs are good as the last frontier of defense, shooting through the anti-ship missiles that burst through the screen.

Quote: Yrec

In extreme cases, you can use A-50/100 for guidance.

1 regiment for the whole country. By the way, their own AWACS, "tied" to the AB, were one of the implicit reasons why the fleet so wanted AB.
And how are you going to use AWACS to aim missiles with PARLGSN (and now in the near future we have all such missiles) on an invisible target for radar illumination?

[Herman 4223]

Without aircraft carriers, it is impossible to provide a sea corridor to Kaliningrad; you cannot protect the islands: Novaya Zemlya, Kuril Islands, Sakhalin. You can’t project the strength of the fleet on the oceans and in general conduct a naval battle. And the most important thing is that you won’t be able to save money either; This will also require not a small amount of money, but will not provide protection for the islands and will bring the borders of the defense of the sea borders closer to our shores.

[Vita vko]

How much can you monkey up for the Americans.
Yes, an aircraft carrier is needed, but certainly not in the form that American military theorists impose
with obese brains and accustomed to impunity.
After all, in Russia there were wonderful projects of submarine aircraft carriers.

The idea is wonderful, especially if invisible aircraft of the Su-57 type will be based on such an invisible aerodrome for space exploration facilities. In addition, in the Arctic, a normal aircraft carrier cannot be deployed even accompanied by an icebreaker. But the underwater airdrome is exactly what is needed for the polar latitudes because able to surface anywhere.

[Winnie76]

Quote: Vita VKO

After all, in Russia there were wonderful projects of submarine aircraft carriers.

For the sake of interest, he looked at the profile, maybe a schoolboy. K.T.N. There are no words.

[Vita vko]

Quote: Winnie76

For the interest

Like a schoolboy to a schoolboy. Read about the Japanese submarine aircraft carriers during the Second World War, probably their children also built.

[sabotage]

The question is not the possibility of building the fool in the picture. And the fact that one underwater mine, a torpedo, a deep bomb or a crew error can cause damage to 3 annual budgets of the country.

[Vita vko]

Quote: sabotage

one underwater mine, torpedo, depth bomb or crew error

I advise you to ask how many missiles you need with the usual b.ch. in order to incapacitate an aircraft carrier, it’s definitely not one or two, and even then temporarily with a successful hit. The probability of crew error is reduced to zero by standard "foolproof" systems. And about the price, this is generally a moot point. Note aircraft carriers do not go anywhere one by one, so the cost of the entire AUG with very high visibility and extremely dubious survivability must be added to the standard solution. In general, it was not in vain that the Americans sank all Japanese submarine aircraft carriers, they were very afraid that the USSR would recognize the technology and go down this path.

[Zaurbek]

UAC, apparently freed from the design of the Su-57 ... and they need a download. The topic with the aircraft carrier is not close, and I would start to design a light / medium fighter with one 30 product (with the widest international participation). The MiG-35 will not be very modern for a very long time and after 20 years it will need a replacement. And the fact that what is needed for an aircraft carrier LA is far from the most paramount concern. There are white spots on the shaft (starting from the catapult, ending with the AWACS plane). Moreover (even if everything was lost) there is a MiG-35 in ship execution. For the first time (taking into account modern at the time of modernization) will go.

[Xscorpion]

Quote: bazzbazz

A fighter for which there is no ship. What a pity that Russia sat in a black hole under Gorbachev and Yeltsin! So much time, technology and specialists have been lost.

This is better than developing a fighter for about ten years, and then building as many of them.

[Xscorpion]

Quote: Yrec

Russia will not have an aircraft carrier. There is nowhere to put it, stupidly. If only the Arctic Ocean will melt completely. Our MO "noodles" hangs "probable" friends. Russia is a continental power, not a maritime one. Therefore, the Navy is funded on a residual basis, there is not enough money for an aircraft carrier, by any means. With its tasks and MRK + Tu22M3 cope.

It is written in the article:

It is planned to build an aircraft carrier complex, which will include the aircraft carrier itself, an aircraft wing, and a basing system.


Or out of habit, just to blurt out that everything was gone?

[Tektor]

But there is no need to rush ... To the aircraft carrier yet, as to the nearest star, at night.

[Antokha]

Well, great, there is talk, we are moving towards the aircraft carrier. I read the comments, one pessimism, sometimes completely stupid. Type: why do I need a toilet, I do not have toilet paper.
Large-scale projects are excellent at gathering and mobilizing people. Many will want to work precisely because of the scale and importance of the project. A large project cannot be taken without taking it; everyone is constantly looking at it. Such works take industry and personnel to a new level. By the way, there are new frames to replace the old ones. The country was riveted by engineers, and they work in their specialty. The country certainly riveted excellent programmers, and there are circuitry / radio operators / electronics engineers, I personally know. These are all people up to 40 now. Money? Easy! What can a country not find $ 5 billion? We write off such debts to Africa just like that. Need political will. And the fact that we are doing an aircraft carrier a la American, and so let's do it first, then we will overtake. All the same, ours will be taking into account the latest trends, but it is necessary to line up the hand and manufacture it on a fairly understandable design. The Chinese did it too. So, all is well, we are moving!

[link]

Do you even know that an aircraft carrier is a strike weapon? Their task is to strike at targets located on the seashore and in the depths of the enemy’s territory, provide air cover and support the landing forces and ground forces operating in the coastal zone, etc. That is, it is a means of aggression and attack, and by no means a defense. In Soviet times, American aircraft carriers "grazed" in the Mediterranean Sea, from where their aircraft could fly to the Crimea and Ukraine to strike, and our ships then "grazed" aircraft carriers. And who is going to attack Russia? Why does she need strike aircraft carriers?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: link

Do you even know that an aircraft carrier is a strike weapon? Their task is to strike at targets located on the seashore and in the depths of the enemy’s territory, provide air cover and support the landing forces and ground forces operating in the coastal zone, etc. That is, it is a means of aggression and attack, and by no means a defense.

Wow - what, it turns out, the aggressors were Admirals Kuznetsov and Gorshkov, who punched full-fledged ABs for the Soviet Navy.
AB in particular and AUG in general is a multi-purpose weapon. Its versatility is ensured by the possibility of changing the composition of the decked air group. During the Cold War, for each of the AB Yankees, there were 4-5 standard air wing formulations, including 1-2 anti-submarine ones, intended to defend the transatlantic route from Soviet submarines.
For our fleet, the ABs were primarily a way to cover the defense forces of the frontiers from the air.

[link]

Don’t tell me something ... Unlike you, I was at TAKR Kiev in 1978 and I know what's what ...)) The main attack weapons of TAKR were not planes at all, but the B-500 complex (on in the background in the second photo, where I stand at the RBU), fired at 500 km.

[Vasyan1971]

"The UAC is ready to develop a new carrier-based fighter for a promising aircraft carrier."
I feel, I will not live to one or the other.

[weddu]

Before building new aircraft carriers, build a couple of analogues of Admiral Kuznetsov, on new physical principles ... And aircraft should eventually take off from any deck ...