Military Review

Navy carrier-based fighter

112

At the beginning of 2021, as part of the 279 separate shipborne fighter aviation regiment of the aviation Northern fleet and 100 separate shipborne fighter aviation regiment of naval aviation of the Northern Fleet, there were 18 Su-33 fighters, 19 MiG-29K fighters and 3 MiG-29KUB aircraft. If desired or necessary, all these 40 vehicles can be simultaneously deployed on the Northern Fleet's only heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser.


Let's take it as an axiom that in the thirties of our century, the Russian fleet will rotate an aircraft-carrying heavy cruiser to a full-fledged aircraft carrier, the promising appearance of which is undergoing uncompromising discussions. And he, of course, will need airplanes.

They will be discussed in this article.

The trend towards choosing a single type of aircraft for a specific aircraft carrier is becoming a good form in the modern world. And only the desire to achieve maximum results in any specific niche or area of ​​use pushes developers and customers to expand the range of aircraft types in the air group.

Three or four years ago, when the author was working on the article "Aircraft Carrier of the Russian Fleet", there was no clear idea of ​​which domestic aircraft to choose as a prototype for developing a deck version. The newest (at that time) Su-35, brought to mass production and entering the troops, surpassed the already rather big Su-33 in size. And choosing it as a prototype would not look unambiguously successful for the type of aircraft carrier proposed in this article.

The lack of publicly available reliable information about the passing tests of the Su-57 inspired only confident optimism about the country's receiving a fifth-generation fighter.

At the moment, in terms of specific figures, we can confidently assert the validity of the choice of the Su-57 as a prototype for the development of a new generation carrier-based fighter, conventionally called the Su-57K, to replace the Su-33 and the armament of the new aircraft carrier.

The table under the name Su-57K gives the characteristics of the production aircraft Su-57.

Such a loose assumption allows us to extrapolate the parameters of the future aircraft, which at the stage of implementation in metal a few years later should not differ significantly from the prototype.


The advantages in terms of the characteristics of the Su-57K over its classmate (heavy carrier-based fighter) of the previous generation are visible, as they say, with the naked eye. And they can hardly be disputed even by fans of the Su-33.

The old dilemma about the choice of a heavy or light fighter to arm the future Russian aircraft carrier looks not so unambiguous. If we consider an aircraft carrier as a weapon system consisting of a ship and an aircraft, then I would like to find criteria by which one could assess the harmony of the combination of such different products.

How, for example, do we rate an artillery piece?

First of all, its caliber is mentioned in millimeters, and only then the relative length of the barrel in those very calibers.

Let's go from afar.

What is the main task of a Russian aircraft carrier or two in the navy, what should be given priority, strike capabilities or cover for ship groups from air threats on the high seas?

Navy carrier-based fighter
Fig. 1 Projections of the Su-57 as a future prototype of the Su-57K

The US fleet of aircraft carriers, having seized dominance in the world's oceans since World War II, is still attacking various coastal states with massive use of the good Super Hornet carrier-based fighter-bombers.

The example of the rotation of aircraft carriers in the Vietnam War has become a classic. As a result of the Cold War, the last F-2006 interceptor fighters have been decommissioned from American aircraft carriers since 14. The air defense capabilities of escort ships with the Aegis system on board have significantly increased. And the universal F / A-18 could cope with the few third-fourth generation fighter-bombers over the ocean.

Is this concept of using aircraft-carrying ships suitable for our country?

Of course not!

Firstly, for economic reasons, Russia will not pull the construction and maintenance of three aircraft carrier strike groups in the Northern and Pacific fleets.

Second, the concept and strategy of using the Armed Forces in general and the Navy in particular does not provide for their use in overseas theaters of military operations in full-scale conflicts like the Vietnam or Iraqi war.

Third, for objective reasons, it has historically developed so that the basis of the striking power of our fleet is made up of submarines and surface ships.

If we agree with the correctness of these postulates, then it is necessary to draw the correct conclusions.

В historical For the next thirty years, the priority program for the maximum development of the fleet should be the need to create two aircraft carriers as the basis for the stability of naval groups in the far sea zone.

When designing, building and operating them, the geographical and climatic conditions of the areas of responsibility of the Northern and Pacific fleets of the Russian Federation must be taken into account.

The parameters of autonomy, combat stability and versatility of the tasks performed by ships should be given priority over considerations of building a budget option.

The concept of "autonomy" means equipping ships with a nuclear power plant and the maximum possible supply of fuel and ammunition to perform tasks with maximum intensity, limited by the time of a specific operation on a fleet scale. And not the ability to circumnavigate the world on food and water supplies for personnel, accompanied by tankers, tugs and a hospital ship.

So, the declared (and actually conditional) autonomy of the TAVKR "Kuznetsov" in 45 days does not agree well with the autonomy of other ships of the first rank of our fleet in 30 days. And it really cannot be achieved without a universal supply vessel, especially when it is necessary to use the maximum speed of the course and intensive flights of the based air group.

The well-known principle of building ships of the American fleet

"all or nothing"

and is currently visible in all its glory.

The refusal of the United States at one time from the construction of nuclear destroyers and cruisers did not affect nuclear aircraft carriers. To ensure the highest possible intensity of assault aircraft flights from the deck of a giant ship, it is equipped with four steam catapults. Each of these monsters weighs 2800 tons without auxiliary equipment, occupies a volume of 2265 cubic meters and consumes up to 80 tons of fresh water in the form of superheated steam per flight shift.

The energy consumption for their operation with an efficiency of only 4-6 percent can be provided only by nuclear reactors. And then with the loss of the speed of the ship. Let's mention the 18200 square meters of the flight deck and the 6814 square meters of the under-deck hangar. And these are not all the characteristics from the "most" series.

So it is, for the planes on the ship it is done "all" and more "nothing"!

Other warship functions are performed by other ships.

Thus, it is possible to deliver a powerful, time-focused strike, both against ground targets and enemy ship groups.

The invulnerability of a defenseless ship is ensured by the maneuverable capabilities of the AUG, good awareness of the air situation and a multilayer air defense system, including aviation, long and short-range air defense systems, and REP systems. Such an effective, debugged and proven system for decades can only be resisted by creating something similar, using the enemy's shortcomings and weaknesses (which, of course, there are), relying on other tactics and existing or created elements of superiority.

Fig. 2 This is how the future Su-57K might look like

Taking the excellent fifth-generation Su-57 aircraft as the basis for the development of the carrier-based fighter, we can immediately get a machine in the form of the Su-57K, which in a number of parameters will surpass the latest American fifth-generation carrier-based fighter F-35С.

The maximum thrust of the second stage engines (2 * 18000 kgf) and the maximum takeoff weight of the Su-57K (35500 kg) with a wing area of ​​82 square meters provides an advantage for our aircraft

at maximum speed (2500/1930 km / h),
practical ceiling (20000/18200 m),
by thrust-to-weight ratio (1,0 / 0,64),
in wing loading at maximum takeoff weight (433/744 kg / m2),
maximum operational overload (+ 9 / + 7,5 G)
compared to a single-engine (1 * 19500) F-35C with a maximum take-off weight (30320 kg) and a wing area of ​​58,3 square meters.

But that's not all and not the main thing!

The Su-57K can and should definitely surpass its counterpart in range and flight duration.

The Su-57K prototype surpasses the F-35S both in flight range without outboard fuel tanks (4300/2520 km) and in flight duration (5 h 40 min / 2 h 36 min).

Even if we assume a 10 percent deterioration in the process of creating a carrier-based aircraft (which we observe when comparing versions A, B, C of the F-35), then the advantages for many years will still be on the side of our fighter.

Let's return to the question of choosing between a heavy and light fighter for our aircraft carrier.

Those who wish can easily independently conduct such a short express analysis of the American F35C with our already existing MiG-29K and possible - the MiG-35K.

Honest conclusions will not be so clear and convincing.

The Su-57K, having an advantage in speed, range and flight duration, but numerically inferior to fighter-bombers from an American aircraft carrier, is able to provide reliable interception and oncoming air combat with them before the launch line of anti-ship missiles against our naval strike group at sea under two conditions:

competent tactics of application and
the presence of no worse than the Americans' awareness of the air situation at all stages of the operation.

The latter condition is considered necessary by experts on both sides. And it is provided by the American side with carrier-based AWACS "Hawkeye".

Modifications KUB, AWACS and EW


On the basis of a single-seat carrier-based fighter, a two-seat version should be created in parallel over time.

Due to some deterioration in flight performance, this model should take over the tasks for which in the past it was required to create a few, but highly specialized aircraft of other types and models.

The availability of a workplace for the second crew member is, first of all, necessary for solving combat training tasks with young replenishment of deck aviation pilots, where the cost of an unintentional error can be much higher.

Old F-14Ds and modern Su-34s with a crew of two professionals cannot be called bad. The modification of the Su-57KUB is practically not much inferior to a single combat vehicle when performing combat missions. But it becomes indispensable if suspended containers with side-looking radars and containers with REP equipment are developed, which can be controlled by a second crew member in flight.

The side-looking radar for the two-seat version of the Su-57DRLOU fighter can be created on the basis of the construction (and the element base) of the NO36 "Belka" radar, which is native to it.

Based on the need to obtain a carrier-based AWACS aircraft that is not inferior to the American Hawkeye, we select the same range for the side-looking radar as that of the Belka (frequency range X, with carrier frequencies 8-12 GHz and wavelengths 3,75-2,5 , 3,4 cm). Only with the optimization of the radar operation at a wavelength of XNUMX centimeters to reduce the influence of attenuation in the atmosphere.

The AFAR fabric, consisting of 4032 transmitting and receiving modules (PPM), located in 28 horizontal rows of 144 PPM in each, will fit into a rectangle with a height of 0,6 by 3 meters in size and will provide a horizontal beam width of 0,70 and vertical 3,60.

It is possible to fit two such AFAR designs into conformal, triangular-section suspended containers installed under the air intakes and aircraft engines.

The inclination of the antenna curtain in containers at 15 degrees from the vertical will provide optimal viewing angles of the radar in the elevation plane. If we conditionally accept the possibility of scanning AFAR within 90 degrees vertically and horizontally from the perpendicular to the plane of the antenna canvas, then with an aircraft patrolling altitude of 12000 meters (which is impossible for competitors in the face of E-2D Hawkeye and E-3C Sentry) at zero deflection, the radar beams will be directed to the sea surface at a distance of 50 kilometers to the right and left of the aircraft's course.

At such an altitude, the radio horizon of aircraft radars will expand to 450 kilometers, and in combination with a high patrol speed (900 km / h) and inaccessibility for short-range air defense systems, we get an almost ideal naval reconnaissance system for targets such as: surface ships of all classes, subsonic and supersonic anti-ship missiles and aircraft, all helicopters by definition and anti-submarine aircraft searching at low altitudes.

The placement of the aforementioned competitors with surveillance radars in fairings above the body and wings of the carrier creates a rather extensive so-called dead funnel under the aircraft. The fact that our reconnaissance officer has practically no such drawback makes it possible for him to detect missile launches from enemy submarines, which, according to their hydroacoustics, could carry them out against a guarded order or against targets on the coast.

The possibility of early detection of such a threat will provide a time gap for the response of a pair of interceptors on duty and for alerting the ships' self-defense equipment.

There is no reason to doubt the provision of information awareness of the aircraft in the forward hemisphere, which is provided by the currently most advanced domestic radar with AFAR NO36 "Belka".

Some doubts among skeptics may be caused by design restrictions associated with the placement of containers with APAR at the lowest points of the aircraft's suspension. The simplest geometry and knowledge of the radius of the earth's surface make it possible to come to terms with optimism with the shortcomings inherent in the chosen layout of the locators.

So, rather widely spaced engines and air intakes, under which they are located, and a rather compact wing allow, in the most extreme case, to ensure the rise of the radar beam at an angle of 9 degrees from the horizontal. Thus, when patrolling at an altitude of 12 kilometers, target detection is ensured at an altitude of 20 kilometers from a range of 50 km and at an altitude of 27 kilometers from a range of 100 km.

And, ending on an optimistic note, I would like to note that the detection ranges of typical air targets will be limited only by the energy potential, radio horizon and EPR!

Unity and struggle of compromise opposites


Having achieved not excellent, but remarkable capabilities of a carrier-based fighter in the AWACS version, for objectivity it is necessary to note both the resulting shortcomings and difficulties.

We will take it for granted that when designing the deck-mounted Su-57K, the Su-57 parachute braking system will be replaced with a brake hook for an aerofinisher on the deck of an aircraft carrier, the tricycle landing gear will be reinforced, folding wings and rear horizontal tail will be made.

In addition, in the two-seat version of the aircraft, which in itself will entail an increase in size and weight, it will be necessary to provide for a serious increase in energy costs to ensure the operation of containers with radar or electronic warfare equipment.

And now, since we have decided to equip the deck version of the aircraft with additional suspension points for conformal containers with radio electronics, we will be consistent in the development of this solution.

The carrier-based fighter is designed to gain air supremacy and conduct aerial combat over the sea by definition. But, while remaining the only type of fighter on an aircraft carrier and in an aircraft carrier strike group, it must also be able to carry out an attack on a surface target.

Of course, one can dream of pairing the Su-57K with the Dagger or Zircon missiles, which may be implemented in subsequent versions and modifications. And upon acceptance into service and a serial batch for new aircraft carriers, the aircraft should be capable of carrying a pair of Onyx anti-ship missiles in the aviation version.

For the sake of all the variety of equipment and armament of the aircraft, you will definitely have to sacrifice an aircraft cannon with ammunition on a two-seater version of the Su-57K.

Modern American Air Force aircraft F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, learned from the sad experience of fighting in Vietnam between MiG-21 and F-4, are still equipped with 20 and 25 mm cannons with a considerable ammunition of 480 and 180 shells, respectively. Only now the naval version of the F-35B and C can carry a lightweight version of a 25-mm four-barreled gun with 220 rounds of ammunition in a container version.

Or they may not!

Both for reasons of stealth and giving priority to other weapons (depending on the task at hand). The serial Su-57 carries a single-barreled 30-mm cannon 9-A1-4071K (a modernized version of the GSh-30-1).

Maybe it's time for trial and error to try to revert to the 23mm caliber or the new 27mm on a carrier-based fighter?

The next concession to the deck version of the aircraft (or the pursuit of perfection) may be a complete rejection of the underwing suspension points for weapons. This measure will simplify the already complex design of the folding wing and will have a positive effect on the characteristics of the radar signature of the aircraft, as well as on the operation of the side-looking suspended radar of the AWACS version in particular.

The creation on the basis of the fifth generation fighter of the entire spectrum of vehicles for arming future Russian aircraft carriers will not only simplify the logistics of their operation, but also, as a harmonious carrier-aircraft system, may interest foreign buyers in the face of China and India.

The first will certainly not stop at the construction of three aircraft carriers based on the concept of the Soviet "Varyag". He may be interested in modern technologies for building nuclear reactors for Russian aircraft carriers and the created system of deck weapons based on a modern fifth-generation fighter base. And if they do not fully acquire the set for the next generation of their aircraft carriers, then, according to custom, they can purchase single copies for future cloning or in parts in the form of engines, radars or weapons.

India at one time financed the birth of the MiG-29K to arm its aircraft carrier acquisitions. Now, having before the eyes of the Chinese the experience of building and operating aircraft-carrying ships and their carrier-based aircraft, one can assume the emergence of a desire to acquire or build such ships for their own Navy. And in order not to reinvent the wheel, an appeal to Russia for advanced technologies may follow.

The main thing is that we ourselves, in our country, do not allow the accounting approach and effective management to stall the correct direction of development of the domestic fleet for decades.
Author:
112 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. apro
    apro 20 March 2021 04: 46
    +18
    How wonderful and thoughtful it is to choose a carrier-based aircraft. Stay behind a small aircraft. And an aircraft carrier that is ???
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 20 March 2021 05: 40
      +20
      pointless and lengthy article. We read about what is not, and will not be for a long time.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 20 March 2021 06: 00
        +7
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        pointless and lengthy article. We read about what is not, and will not be for a long time.



        No, well, there is something useful in it, but the author, having written this, significantly reduced my interest in the article:
        How, for example, do we rate an artillery piece?
        First of all, its caliber is mentioned in millimeters, and only then the relative length of the barrel in those very calibers.
        First of all, we mention the class of the tool, in naval terminology. A howitzer, an air defense or anti-tank gun, something like that.
        1. NIKN
          NIKN 20 March 2021 13: 25
          +15
          Wanting that is always good. Now, if Wishlist were somehow compared not only by the existing performance characteristics of a land aircraft, but even a little further looked. Let's take the features of a carrier-based aircraft. Without going into the possibilities of what can be crammed there from desires, let us dwell on the main feature and difference from its land brother. In general, there is a lot of special things, but for example, if a land vehicle sits down with an overload of 2 units or more, this is already a prerequisite for a flight accident, while a normal landing (without leveling) of a sea fellow with an overload of 4 units is considered the norm. That is, it is no longer a modification of the aircraft (as the author sees it), but a completely new aircraft. All power elements are completely recalculated and redesigned in it, and this is almost the same amount of design work as when creating a new aircraft. And this is not touching on a huge heap of improvements concerning everything, in the flesh to the BRO mountings in their places under new loads ... Now we look how many deck aircraft we need and how much, taking into account the new development, it will cost, but provided that we rely on the Su-57, taking into account the ROC it will be the most expensive aircraft, well, very roughly like 1,5 or even closer to the 2m land Su-57.
          Well, and personal suspicions, if suddenly such an aircraft-carrying ship is destroyed ... well, the loss is global, for in stock (as in civilian life "to the warehouse") to make a couple more sets of such an expensive aircraft is simply not profitable from the word at all.
          As a result, clear planning and calculations are needed, and most importantly, the desire and need to create an aircraft carrier fleet and specialists there! calculate what and how much is needed, based on the tasks facing this fleet.
          Well, to fantasize based on your desires, this is generally not bad, only it has nothing to do with reality.
          PS: Yes, at the expense of the phrase "... will Russia pull" or "... Russia will not pull ...". I think that Russia will pull everything, but whether our government can pull what Russia can pull is a question.
          1. bayard
            bayard 21 March 2021 11: 57
            +4
            Quote: NIKNN
            ... Now we look at how many deck aircraft we need and how much, taking into account the new development, it will cost, and provided that we rely on the Su-57, taking into account the ROC it will be the most expensive aircraft, well, very roughly like 1,5 or even closer to 2m land-based Su-57.

            It is very interesting that the author decided to save on the number of aircraft carriers ... but he didn’t say a word about them. but judging by the fact that the aircraft offered by him are heavy Su-57, this is a heavy atomic dimension "Nmimts \ Ford". How much will it cost us?
            Two such monsters?
            Yes, not cheaper than $ 10 billion. each .
            Plus an expensive air wing.
            ... Without a normal AWACS aircraft.
            A fighter with a container radar, this is of course interesting, that's just how it will manage the work of air groups, issue information about the surface situation, control the reflection of an air raid from the CD ... how will it cope with the entire array of information with just ONE navigator? In the cramped cockpit of a fighter jet?
            And the author is unaware that the combat value of his protégé (one for two fleets) will be approximately equal to the value of the "Kuznetsov" at the time of its combat readiness.
            Why
            Yes, because he, like "Kuzya", will also stand against the wall from 2/3 to 3/4 of his life. Not providing any benefit during this period and presenting a VERY enviable target for the first strike of the enemy.
            And where does this desire for a strike aircraft carrier come from?
            If even the United States has the main strike potential of the fleet now in the Kyrgyz Republic on destroyers and cruisers?
            The USSR also had the entire strike force of the Fleet in the KR on surface ships and submarines, and AB was necessary (and this was especially realized in the last decade of the USSR in ensuring BATTLE STABILITY - providing air defense in the far / middle zone with fighters with AWACS and providing reconnaissance with its own forces - the forces of carrier-based aviation, for target designation to the main strike forces of the Fleet.
            We need air defense aircraft carriers!
            With deck-based AWACS.
            And for this, car monsters are not needed at all, but AV medium VI (45 - 000 tons) with an air wing of 50 fighters, 000 - 24 AWACS aircraft and 2 - 4 PLO helicopters are sufficient.
            And the amount that would have cost the construction of two of his monsters with air wings (from shuddering fighters) is quite enough for the construction of 6 (!!!) AV medium VI with sufficient air defense to provide air defense with air wings, AWACS aircraft and PLO helicopters.
            but it would be a full-fledged grouping of the aircraft carrier forces of the Fleet, capable of putting 2 aircraft carriers on duty or on a campaign in a continuous mode. In two fleets.

            Now about the wing itself. If we are building an air defense system, then we do not need the monstrous (in the conditions of the fleet and deck) Su-57 at all, but the MiG-35K is quite sufficient. There will be more of them on board and they will perform their functions quite well. Even in DM \ OZ, even when defending bastions from submarines and enemy strike aircraft. And they will cope very well with low-altitude subsonic missile launchers of the enemy.
            Quote: NIKNN
            Yes, at the expense of the phrase "... will Russia pull" or "... Russia will not pull ...". I think that Russia will pull everything, but whether our government can pull what Russia can pull is a question.

            yes Quite right - the matter is only in the will of the leadership and their awareness of the need for this.
            And the need with the inexorability of a locomotive makes us think about actions in DM and OZ, and ensuring the combat stability of the Fleet there. For a powerful construction of a tanker and gas carrier fleet is underway, two superyards are being built (Kola and in Bolshoy Kamen) for this, and it is the Navy that will have to ensure the safety of navigation. There is already an interest not only in defense capability, but also in the protection of the property and investments of our oligarchy, which therefore bears such a name that it has merged with the power of the Siamese twin. This is already his personal - selfish interest. And the business has never saved money on its security - safety is first of all.
            That's why we don't need atomic monsters. But gas turbine AV medium VI - very even. And it is in the amount of at least 6 pieces.
            And it is by no means expensive.
            For Russia and its interests.
            1. NIKN
              NIKN 21 March 2021 12: 54
              +3
              I am not a statistician, but judging by the salaries of the "servants of the people" We have already paid them an aircraft strike fleet no less than the United States paid, and this is not counting their commercial activities at our expense.
              1. bayard
                bayard 21 March 2021 16: 48
                +2
                Galley rowing is a very lucrative job ...
                In some countries .
                But this is already our routine - in capitalism, the main values ​​are capital.
    2. Scharnhorst
      20 March 2021 18: 54
      -2
      Of course have! Under renovation so far ...
    3. Revolver
      Revolver 21 March 2021 00: 02
      0
      Quote: apro
      How wonderful and thoughtful it is to choose a carrier-based aircraft. Stay behind a small aircraft. And an aircraft carrier that is ???

      Quote: V. Vysotsky
      Where is the money?
  2. Modun
    Modun 20 March 2021 05: 47
    +3
    And where will they build?
    1. bayard
      bayard 21 March 2021 12: 07
      +2
      In Kerch, after the completion of the UDC series.
      Yes, and there is nowhere else.
      And there is no better place.
  3. Angry Alt-Right
    Angry Alt-Right 20 March 2021 05: 50
    +1
    The message of the author of the article is more than adequate: In the absence of the ability to rebuild the fleet in the American manner, the presence of a 2-engine fighter as the basis of an air group is a completely adequate solution. Especially considering that the volume and configuration of the internal armament bays of the Su-57 surpasses the F-35. Let a small, but relatively more universal air group - this is what the doctor ordered.
    Considering that a fresh aircraft carrier, even of the level of Charles de Gaulle, will be simply a huge gift for the fleet.
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 20 March 2021 09: 57
      +8
      Quote: Angry Alt-Right
      su-57 surpasses the F-35
      This raises a big question: will a heavy fighter be able to take off from the deck of a not very heavy aircraft carrier and armed and fueled, or will it be as usual?
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 20 March 2021 11: 02
        +2
        if a catapult is available, it will be able, and I think it will take off from the springboard. the engine thrust of the 57go is almost a third higher than that of the Su-33.
      2. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 20 March 2021 12: 55
        +6
        Quote: Angry Alt-Right
        The message of the author of the article is more than adequate

        To be honest, it is so adequate that it is already obvious, do we really have, let alone a single-engine fighter, just another fighter for the future besides the Su-57 ?!
        1. Angry Alt-Right
          Angry Alt-Right 20 March 2021 14: 41
          +4
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          To be honest, it is so adequate that it is already obvious, do we really have, let alone a single-engine fighter, just another fighter for the future besides the Su-57 ?!

          Well, there are still mantras about the prospects of the MiG-29 (35) laughing
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 20 March 2021 14: 43
            -1
            Quote: Angry Alt-Right
            Well, there are still mantras about the prospects of the MiG-29 (35)

            Figs knows that the Merikatos F-15X have been launched into production and they advertise how great an achievement they are, so you see, the MiG-35 will work.
            1. Angry Alt-Right
              Angry Alt-Right 20 March 2021 14: 50
              0
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Figs knows that the Merikatos F-15X have been launched into production and they advertise how great an achievement they are, so you see, the MiG-35 will work.

              The F-15X (EX) is a consequence of the aging of the F-22 and insufficient saturation rates of the F-35. All the needs for it, as well as its advantages, stem from this gap rather. This state of affairs practically does not correlate with the MiG-29 (35). PS Something has not been heard about F / A-XX for a long time! Maybe they came up with it especially here, on VO!? (Joke) laughing
              1. EnGenius
                EnGenius 20 March 2021 23: 52
                0
                The F-15EX is a consequence of the aging of the US Air Force fleet and the lack of sane machines to replace the junk. The F-22 on its own.
                1. Angry Alt-Right
                  Angry Alt-Right 21 March 2021 00: 45
                  +2
                  Quote: engenius
                  The F-15EX is a consequence of the aging of the US Air Force fleet and the lack of sane machines to replace the junk. The F-22 on its own.

                  The F-22 was once considered a replacement for the F-15, in case you didn't know! good
  4. Ros 56
    Ros 56 20 March 2021 06: 56
    +3
    The questions in the article are correct, that's just the problem with implementation, but this is already the diocese of the country's leadership. Without making the necessary decisions and without serious funding, this is all unrealizable.
  5. Aleks2000
    Aleks2000 20 March 2021 07: 40
    +6
    reasoning about the empty.
    life has proved that nothing will happen
  6. sleeve
    sleeve 20 March 2021 07: 43
    +2
    Well, the message of the article is clear. Deck is a weapon of an aircraft carrier. The 57th will enable a uniform wing on an aircraft carrier. The way to the deck version is about 5 years old. A couple of years of flying around the drill version that just started. To build the platform for the same 5-7 years. Another year for production. Well, let's hope the author anticipated. Well, for one thing, he explained why "it took a long time to build."
  7. demiurg
    demiurg 20 March 2021 07: 50
    +3
    And who's stopping you from making a radar with an all-round view? Or a three-piece container with 120-degree sectors? And there should be at least two equipment operators. All the same, some of the equipment will have to be removed, incl. nasal radar.
    And the main problem. The army does not need such a plane. That is, the series will be 12-15 cars. So not cheap, AWACS based on the SU-57 will go platinum.
    The A-100 RF will not pull much, but the VKP is needed by everyone.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 20 March 2021 20: 15
      0
      If you think carefully, then 57 in AWACS version and over land can be used. More pieces of production, less price per piece.
  8. Bez 310
    Bez 310 20 March 2021 07: 57
    +10
    How long can you publish these tales?
    1. demiurg
      demiurg 20 March 2021 08: 24
      -10%
      And what have the fairy tales.
      The aircraft carrier may even have more than one in the Russian Federation. And the air wing needs to be puzzled now. So that by the end of Kuznetsov's life cycle, the new aircraft carrier will have a combat-ready air wing.
      1. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 20 March 2021 11: 23
        +8
        Quote: demiurg
        And what have the fairy tales.
        The aircraft carrier may even have more than one in the Russian Federation. And the air wing needs to be puzzled now. So that by the end of Kuznetsov's life cycle, the new aircraft carrier will have a combat-ready air wing.


        Where will the money for the construction come from?
        Our salaries are falling everywhere, except for indexation among state employees ...
        and prices are growing by 20-40% per year.
        The rise in prices is on all fronts: food, raw materials, fuel ... Wherever you look, everywhere there is a very strong rise in prices.
        Metal prices have almost doubled over the past 4 months ...

        Here it is no longer possible to finish building the dacha.
        Second-class board already at 10 thousand per cubic meter.
        Paint at least 200 rubles per square meter.
        In the fall, I considered the switchboard inside the house at 7 thousand, now it comes out at 23.
        Meter cables 3X2,5 VVG-NG - already 115 rubles ...

        Yes, and unemployment does not disappear anywhere.
        And go to work for 15 thousand at the plant?
        It might be easier in a taxi then, and no taxes to the state ...
        And the state will not have taxes - and there will be no money.
        No favor.
        1. PSih2097
          PSih2097 20 March 2021 14: 29
          +2
          Quote: SovAr238A
          Meter cables 3X2,5 VVG-NG - already 115 rubles ...

          oh well, we have it costs 68 r / m
          Quote: SovAr238A
          In the fall, I considered the switchboard inside the house at 7 thousand, now it comes out at 23.

          probably from Bosh or Siemens ??? recourse
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 20 March 2021 20: 18
            +4
            Well, don't. As an electrician, I assure you. In March, the prices for cable products and automatic machines have risen quite well. At GOST, it is disproportionately higher.
            1. PSih2097
              PSih2097 21 March 2021 08: 19
              0
              Quote: garri-lin
              Well, don't. As an electrician, I assure you.

              I myself am engaged in electrical installation (admission group 5), although we have 3 cable factories in the city ...
              Quote: garri-lin
              At GOST, it is disproportionately higher.

              to Concord wires - yes, I agree.
              https://leroymerlin.ru/product/kabel-vvg-nga-ls-3x2-5-82737018/
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 21 March 2021 10: 46
                +1
                Well, I have no specialized education, but in our village this is not important. The main thing is the image of a good employee. Ввг ng 2 × 4 140 rubles. Before the new year 3 × 4 took 110. The rise in prices this year is really annoying. As well as a clear drop in quality.
  9. ramzay21
    ramzay21 20 March 2021 08: 21
    +2
    The aircraft for an aircraft carrier should be based on light information security, and preferably single-engine. The Americans have the most experience in operating aircraft carriers and they do not put F15 or F22 heavy fighters on AB because they need more fuel. They understand that this fuel needs to be stored somewhere and the autonomy of the AUG depends on it. One F22 will consume much more fuel per flight than an F35, so they chose the F35.
    The AWACS aircraft can only replace the AWACS aircraft.
    1. Scharnhorst
      20 March 2021 19: 20
      -3
      The AWACS aircraft can only replace the AWACS aircraft.

      I propose to replace the carrier-based AWACS aircraft of the "Hawkeye" type based on the development of the 60s of the last century in America with a carrier-based AWACS aircraft based on the development of the fifth generation fighter of the 2000s in Russia. Hokai will not be sold to us! hi Import substitution program in action! love For our two new aircraft carriers, a small series of similar carrier-based aircraft, unlike the American F-35C, F / A-18 E / F / G, E-2D, will suffice.
      1. ramzay21
        ramzay21 21 March 2021 02: 27
        +2
        The AWACS aircraft can only replace the AWACS aircraft, and we urgently need such aircraft. In the same Hokai there are 3 operators and a co-pilot who performs the functions of an operator if necessary. It has a computer, a communication and data transmission system, as well as a full-fledged all-round antenna.
        The only correct decision is to return to the Yak 44E project, in two versions, aircraft carrier and land. In the aircraft carrier version, it was assumed that he would take off from the springboard and land on the finisher. Thus, our Kuzya can become a full-fledged aircraft carrier.
        The land version of the Yak 44E, released by a good series, will allow confidently control the surface and air situation in patrol areas, as well as when coupled with air defense systems, and will allow the S400, S350 and S500 complexes to reveal their potential. In addition, the cost of both the Yak 44E and its operation is several times cheaper than the A100
      2. bayard
        bayard 21 March 2021 12: 29
        0
        Quote: Scharnhorst
        For our two new aircraft carriers so far, a small series of similar carrier-based aircraft will be enough

        Quote: Scharnhorst
        based on the development of a fifth generation fighter

        And what do you know about radar, about the work of operators and navigators at air command posts?
        Do you really think that one (ONE) navigator in the cramped cockpit of a fighter will replace several navigator operators? What will a suspended container replace the all-round radar?
        We already have suspended containers for suspension on the Su-30 and Su-34. But this is not because of a good life and for insurance, in view of the lack of normal AWACS aircraft in sufficient quantity and acceptable quality.
        And the man tells you what to do - only a return to the Yak-44E project will make it possible to acquire such an aircraft not only for the Navy, but also for the Aerospace Forces.
        For the A-100 we will wait another ten years.
        First.
        And forget about the atomic monsters of the 100K VI. They won't help us.
        simply because they will never be in the right amount. They will never be able to organize a constant watch / presence at sea. And being in the base will always represent a tasty target for the first strike of the enemy.
        An unrequited goal.
        For in the base.
        And why do you need the IMPACT one so much?
        Even if the United States has kept the main strike potential of its fleet in the Kyrgyz Republic for a long time on EM and CD?
        We need 6 medium VI air defense aircraft carriers. - 3 for two fleets.
        For the SAME MONEY as your two monsters.
        But with much more and better aggregate potential.
        And it seems that the choice will be made in favor of them.
        1. Scharnhorst
          21 March 2021 17: 22
          0
          Dear bayard, stop your hysterics, no one is trying to get into your pocket and grope for anything there. What exactly do you have against the proposed conformal container with AFAR side-looking radar? You are stuck on streamlined propeller-driven airplanes developed in the early days of aviation and the birth of radar. Yes, they are simple and understandable, like the first bicycles, but young people are ashamed to ride them in the 21st century. A-100 is also "from there". There was no alternative carrier (IL-76), the element base - even before the time of the domination of the dinosaurs Grundik and Panasonic on Earth. The collapse of the USSR and the consequences we have experienced and the results are still chewing.
          And forget about the atomic monsters of the 100K VI.

          The author in the studio !!! Yours truly is a supporter of a nuclear-powered air defense aircraft carrier with a springboard launch with a VI of 70.000 tons. Take a look at my page. I see no point in arguing with your fantasies in virtual reality.
          And it seems that the choice will be made in favor of them.

          Bravissimo and Masterpiece !!! But how???... am
          1. bayard
            bayard 22 March 2021 09: 12
            0
            Quote: Scharnhorst
            Dear bayard

            hi
            Quote: Scharnhorst
            stop hysterics,

            smile And where did you see her, dear Scharnhorst?
            Quote: Scharnhorst
            What exactly do you have against the proposed conformal container with AFAR side-scan radar?

            lol Yes, actually I have nothing against container radars, since they have already appeared in our country. That's just what you suggested ... conformal ...
            For the full operation of such a radar, it is necessary that it be lowered below the shadow of the engine nacelles, otherwise it will not really see anything even at the horizontal level. Not to mention the goals that fly above this miracle of design thought.
            The second question is what to attach to?
            We sew up the arms bays, in them the APU and additional. fuel supply and a conformal container underneath? And we look only down and to the side, but below the horizontal line?
            And if the container is taken out of the shadow of the engine nacelles and is a meter high ... then the deck already begins there. And he should sit on this deck with an overload of up to 4. Risky however.
            And if you really cling to such a container, but why not on the back - along the ridge?
            "Gulf Streams", etc., carry such "boards" on their backs.
            But why bother with a fighter? It is in itself expensive and complex. He (Su-57) is able to fly at cruising supersonic! Why does the carrier of the "AWACS board" need such qualities - super-maneuverability, supersonic speed, radar stealth?
            If he himself shines in all directions, like an anti-aircraft searchlight in the night by the radiation of his container. Conformal.
            You understand that all of the above is ballast for an AWACS aircraft.
            And how will he manage combat operations in the air, if we have only one navigator / operator for everything? In the cramped cockpit of a fighter jet. In a difficult situation, he simply will not be able to control all targets in the air, his fighters, surface targets and ships of his AUG.
            Aircraft with such a container are good as an option for the Su-30SM and Su-34 - naval and tactical aircraft, to provide radar illumination of the situation for a group of fighters / bombers. Local and optional. When there is no opportunity and support from the classic AWACS aircraft.
            Quote: Scharnhorst
            You are stuck on the streamlined mushrooming propeller-driven aircraft developed in the early days of aviation and the birth of radar.

            Well, suggest a variant of the AWACS aircraft with an all-aspect, equivalent (in range and quality) overview. But this doesn’t work. Therefore, when it is possible to do with ersatz with truncated capabilities (suspended radar container, "board on the back", side-by-side placement of canvases), they use it. But they do not give a full view, and therefore radar illumination. And the enemy always comes from the shadows ... and his new CD taught this.
            Quote: Scharnhorst
            Yes, they are simple and understandable, like the first bicycles, but young people are ashamed to ride them in the 21st century.

            Do you want something trendy?
            And why you are not satisfied with the "mushroom", which allows you to have a full all-round view? it can be made fashionable - for example, triangular, with three AFAR canvases. But at the same time he WILL WORK. From all angles.
            And now admit, this is for the sake of "fashion" - from a fighter with a monstrous thrust capacity and other combat capabilities to mold ... an AWACS aircraft? To make it beautiful?
            Quote: Scharnhorst
            Stuck on streamlined mushroom planes with propellers

            Because an airplane with a propeller is the most economical in terms of fuel efficiency, which means it will be able to patrol and illuminate the air situation longer (!) Under all conditions being equal.
            He does not need record speeds and a ceiling. He needs to hang in the air in a given area as much as possible.
            He needs to have in his internal volumes a place for the work of at least 3 - 4 navigators / operators, because one or even two people simply cannot cope with such a volume of information.
            He needs to have the lowest possible landing speed, and for this, a straight wing is optimal.
            And the screws with adjustable pitch will allow you to reverse immediately after the hook touches the aerofinisher, and thus reduce the load on the glider, and in the case of operation on land, sit, if necessary, on any field with a minimum mileage.
            Nobody can do it better than a propeller-driven aircraft.
            And that's why they are still in the ranks.
            This aircraft (AWACS) does not need record performance. Its characteristics should be the maximum possible in terms of economy and duration of patrolling, minimum landing speed, and the possibility of using it from unpaved airfields and unprepared sites. The latter is necessary for the safe operation of such aircraft not only in the Navy, but also in the Aerospace Forces. This will ensure serial production (good for the industry), and will solve the problem of the terrible shortage of such aircraft in the Aerospace Forces.
            Quote: Scharnhorst
            ! Yours truly is a supporter of a nuclear-powered air defense aircraft carrier with a springboard launch at a VI of 70.000 tons.

            A la "Manatee \ Ulyanovsk"?
            And what is it good for? A nuclear installation? And for what ?
            The Americans have since the 70s - for the sake of a steam catapult. Why do we need it?
            Now the catapults are already being installed electromagnetically, steam is useless.
            So why a reactor?
            With radiation and structural protection?
            Steam (!) Turbines?
            Heat exchangers? ...
            Why is it so complex and EXPENSIVE in the production and life cycle of a power plant?
            What if there are well-developed, moderate in price and operating costs GTUs?
            If you really want steam on board, please put in parallel steam turbines powered through heat exchangers. On free heat! With an increase in efficiency almost doubled. Such a power plant for our cruisers 1164, such turbines at modern thermal power plants.
            But why the reactor?
            Nuclear?
            He has not only the purchase price, but also the entire life cycle is an order of magnitude more expensive than the operation of a gas turbine.
            Autonomy?
            Not . In addition to the actual fuel for the power plant, the ship (especially AB) needs food, fresh water, consumables, aviation fuel, ammunition, and other types of supplies.
            So no one goes on a campaign without integrated supply ships. and if so, and we replenish aviation fuel, why not replenish the tanks for the power plant at the same time?
            The Americans agreed to atomic AB only because of the problems of feeding steam catapults at maximum speed while maintaining the maximum rate of sorties of combat aviation. And they went to these inadequate expenses, because they needed 200 flights a day. and they had money.
            Why do we need this?
            Your AB of 70 tons will cost 000 - 6 billion dollars. minimum. And this is without an air wing and coastal infrastructure.
            And the same "Varan" is promised to be built for 1,5-2 billion dollars. I will estimate its cost at 2-2,5 billion dollars. But it is still 3 - 4 times cheaper than the one offered by you. And these can be built just as much as necessary to organize a continuous presence at sea. One in each fleet. That is - 6 pcs.

            Quote: Scharnhorst
            And it seems that the choice will be made in favor of them.

            Bravissimo and Masterpiece !!! But how???.

            Carefully review / listen to Putin's speech on the tab of two UDCs in the Kerch "Zaliv". Just carefully.
            Then you will understand not only how, but also where.
            1. Scharnhorst
              22 March 2021 14: 00
              0
              Bayard, good day! Thank you for maintaining a constructive discussion. I will try to consistently answer your arguments without quotations.
              EXACTLY below the shade of the engine nacelles of the engines and air intakes, it was proposed to install containers, that is, under them, and not in the area between them, where the weapon compartments and fuel tanks. And there are TWO containers, not one, in each, respectively, the right or left AFAR. Thus, the complex has absolutely no shading (closing angles) and a dead funnel in the lower hemisphere. None of the concepts with the location of the radar above the fuselage and wing has such an advantage, which is especially important given the radio horizon of the ship's radars. Not the worst of the hockey radars.

              Estimate the width of the dead crater underneath the carrier, and it will only grow with the increasing height of the patrol. The excellent flight characteristics of the Su-57DRLOU, with which you agree, easily allow you to gain an altitude of 15.000 m at a speed of 1200 km / h (in contrast to the economical H-12.000 m and V-900 km / h indicated in the article) ... Due to the lack of complete information on the aircraft, diagrams and projections are specially placed in the article, which allow the missing dimensions to be scaled primitively. According to estimates, from the lowest point of the engine nacelles and air intakes to the deck, about one meter, which makes it possible to place on the suspension nodes under them both the Onyx anti-ship missile (diameter 600 mm; the carrier is a single-seat version) and the container with the AFAR radar (the vertical dimension is the same 600 mm; AFAR cloth in dimensions of 0,6 * 3 meters with an inclination of 15 degrees can be inserted into the container). The article discusses the issue of shading with the wing upward from the container in sufficient detail.
              The choice of a fighter as a carrier is due, oddly enough, poverty! It is difficult to argue with the unification of the wing on a pair of ABs of not the largest VI. And the advantages are obvious: compare the probabilities of the Su-57K victory over the Hokai and the F-35C over the Su-57 AWACS; Su-57KUB / AWACS / EW can operate in the same battle formations and groups with strike fighters for their entire reach - which is not available for E-2D and is limited to F / A-18G in twinning with F-35C. Sorry, the declared duration of the flight without refueling and PTB (5 hours 40 minutes) is not much inferior to Hokai, refueling from the same type of aircraft is safer and simpler, which is not available to the opponent, in extreme cases on our AB you can deviate from the American template in 4 AWACS aircraft on board and accommodate 5-6 or additional crews. And it is better to shoot down the propeller carriers of mushroom-shaped fairings, imposing our tactics and using the superiority of our aircraft in air combat without risking the carrier (in the sense of an aircraft carrier and AWACS aircraft).
              What is a nuclear power plant for an aircraft carrier? Let's get around insanity, Russia is building nuclear icebreakers, nuclear submarines, nuclear reactors in India, Turkey, Belarus ... So that the country's industry works, so that the aircraft carrier does not turn into a tanker, so that the ship has advantages in speed, autonomy, for the progress of new technologies , ecology and prestige (as TAVKR smoked in the Syrian campaign, I was ashamed). Well, we know how to make them, but we have barely managed to create them with turbines for a frigate and a destroyer. For aircraft carriers and cruisers, more power is needed, to create an entire industry and new factories (existing in the past to equip even smaller projects of warships).
              Although I do not accept the accounting approach, probably one atomic "Manatee" will cost as much as three "Varanas" the ultimate truth.
              1. bayard
                bayard 22 March 2021 19: 16
                +1
                Quote: Scharnhorst
                EXACTLY below the shade of engine nacelles of engines and air intakes, it is proposed to install containers, that is, under them, and not in the area between them,

                Quote: Scharnhorst
                According to estimates, from the lowest point of the engine nacelles and air intakes to the deck is about one meter

                Quote: Scharnhorst
                and a container with an AFAR radar (vertical dimension in the same 600 mm; AFAR cloth in dimensions of 0,6 * 3 meters with an inclination of 15 degrees can fit into the container).

                Let's talk about it .
                It was not in vain that I pointed out the maximum overload when landing a carrier-based fighter (4 units). Now about the dimensions.
                If the antenna web is 0.6 x 3,0 m, then the vertical dimensions of the container itself will be no less than 0,8 m.And this is already critical, because the landing gear shock absorbers at the moment of touching the deck can sink to the same 0,2 m. (not deck) would be easier, but deck ... very risky. This threatens not only damage to the fairing of the container, but also an accident, or even a catastrophe of the fighter itself.
                In addition, such (or rather, a similar) container has already appeared in the Aerospace Forces and a new one is unlikely to be developed. Rather, they will improve the existing one.
                But this is only a dimensional issue, it just can be resolved. But this is not the main thing.
                The main thing is that one navigator / operator simply cannot cope with the entire array of information and assigned responsibilities. This is what I am telling you as an officer of the combat directorate of an air defense formation (in the past). You need a minimum of 3 - 4 navigators = operator. This is an axiom confirmed by practice. And the containers will be used not as the main means of illuminating the situation, but as an auxiliary one - in the theater of operations where at the moment there is no AWACS aircraft and to provide missions at a great distance - for highlighting / securing the aircraft of its strike and fighter aircraft.
                Now about the savings.
                For the sake of economy, it is better to leave the fighter as a fighter, and still get the AWACS aircraft normal - having taken the Yak-44 project from the shelf.
                Why is the Yak-44 profitable for the sake of economy?
                Because such an AWACS aircraft is needed not only as a carrier-based aircraft, but also as the main aircraft for the Aerospace Forces. Moreover, in marketable quantities. For videoconferencing (including naval aviation in all fleets), excluding deck-based ones, you will need from 50 to 100 copies.
                And this is a very good volume.
                And we do not need 2 aircraft carriers, even if they are nuclear. For a trivial reason - for the organization of normal services and the constant presence of one AB in the sea, it is necessary to have at least 3 AB in the theater of operations (fleet). And in total - 6 pcs.
                With atomic monsters, we cannot do this - it is expensive, difficult and very ... very long.
                therefore, when planning the development of the Fleet, it is necessary to take into account, first of all, HOW MANY of such ships we need. And only then it is already determined with what (what type) they will be.
                The air defense AB must carry 20 - 24 fighters and 2 - 4 AWACS aircraft + from 4 to 12 PLO helicopters. For such an air wing, AV VI 45 - 000 tons is quite sufficient. ("Somewhat smaller ones are declared to Varan - 50 - 000 tons.) A gas turbine power plant will cost 40 times cheaper than a nuclear power plant. to the qualifications of service personnel, easier repair, prevention and consequences of accidents / combat damage.And another very important aspect - many ports have restrictions on the reception of ships with nuclear power plants, and our handsome gas turbine will be able to freely moor in any friendly and neutral port without restrictions.
                This is also very important for long-term services in the DM and OZ.

                And in general, I think that no one will hang a container with a side-looking radar on the Su-57 - she will unmask it. And for his own needs he has his own all-round "Squirrel" giving a circular view of the range of interest. He is his own AWACS.
                And even in the case of missions from ground airfields, when the services of such a container are required, then for this they will sooner attract the Su-34 with such. For he does not need stealth, but he needs a good combat radius and a comfortable cockpit.

                Now about the carrier-based fighter itself.
                The Su-57 is undoubtedly a remarkable fighter with exceptional combat capabilities ... But not for the deck.
                Great.
                The size is great.
                And in the case of carrier-based aircraft, it is more important to have quantity (with acceptable quality) than quality to the detriment of quantity.
                That is why the Chinese are abandoning a copy of the Su-33 on their future fighters in favor of more compact ones (the dimensions of the MiG-29), and the Americans came to this by abandoning the excellent F-14. And we, when choosing a replenishment for our "Kuznetsov", settled on the MiG-29K \ KUB.
                Therefore, the MiG-35 in our case will be a perfectly reasonable choice. An air defense fighter does not need to be invisible at all, it needs completely different qualities - speed, maneuverability, a good radar and a sufficient set of weapons. From the catapult, the MiG-35 will be able to take off in full load, which means to the maximum range with a full ammo.
                And that will be enough.
                Moreover, it should be borne in mind that our industry will be able to start laying down new aircraft carriers not earlier than in 4 - 5 years + 7 years for construction and delivery. And in 12 years, we may well have something more interesting than the MiG-35, but in its dimensions.
                Quote: Scharnhorst
                Let's get around the insanity, Russia is building nuclear icebreakers, nuclear submarines, nuclear reactors in India, Turkey, Belarus ... For the country's industry to work, so that the aircraft carrier does not turn into a tanker,

                Yes, it will be a nuclear tanker - a lot of fuel is needed for the air wing.
                And replenish often - for the flights will be quite intense.
                And if you have to carry a tanker and an integrated supply ship with you, what difference does it make and how much fuel to replenish at the same time?
                In addition, since there will be EM catapults on our AV and they will need to be powered, it would not be a sin to implement electric motion on our AV - the turbines work to generate electricity, and the propulsion unit is rotated by electric motors. This will get rid of the complex, expensive and noisy transmission (gearboxes) and long shaft lines. And the engine room will become just an onboard power plant. To increase the efficiency, it is possible to implement a gas-steam turbine plant, where the hot gases of a gas turbine will recover heat on a heat exchanger that feeds a steam turbine (as in 1164 for economic turbines and civil thermal power plants). This will give serious fuel savings - an increase in fuel autonomy / cruising range, and a decrease in the temperature of the exhaust gases. The efficiency of such turbopairs is up to 37% (thermal energy into electrical energy).
                And we no longer have any special problems with gas turbines. We still have difficulties with travel gearboxes. But new production has been created, all the machines are deployed, and the production capacity should be enough to meet all the needs in the construction of the Navy.
                By the way, the UDC under construction will also be powered by gas turbines.
                Quote: Scharnhorst
                Although I do not accept the accounting approach, probably one atomic "Manatee" will cost as much as three "Varanas", here we must look back at the Soviet experience with projects 1143.1 / 2/3/4 and at the English "Invincibles"

                I think that the Varan project used not only this experience, but also the experience of modernizing one of the Krechets in Vikramaditya, and the experience of creating the Indian Vikrant (ours just helped the Indians to bring it to mind). And judging by the contours of the bow, it is also adapted to services in northern latitudes.
                By the way, the accounting approach in this case just does not hurt, because the possibilities of our budget are limited. This is important, because without calculating the costs and schedule of work on the program, all conversations will be sheer sophistry.
                I will not repeat my calculations (I have already stated them several times), but I will say in brief:
                - the cost of construction of 6 AB in VI 45 - 50 thousand tons will come out in 12 - 15 billion dollars. without an air wing.
                - air wings with coastal infrastructure - another 10-15 billion dollars.
                - coastal infrastructure for the basing of all six AB in two fleets - another 10 billion dollars.
                The term for the implementation of the entire program with the construction of AB at two shipyards simultaneously (on the "Zaliv" in Kerch and in Bolshoy Kamen) will take 15 - 17 years.
                In total, the cost of the entire program will be 35-40 billion dollars. (excluding the cost of training specialists), or 2,5 - 3 billion dollars. in year . This is 150-200 billion rubles a year.
                And if we take into account that they "lose", "underspend" or steal several times more in a year, then in the case of the implementation of this project, the budget will not really feel these costs.
                Oh yeah, another escort. Let's say 4 Project 22350M destroyers.
                This is 24 pcs. х 650 million dollars = 15 - 16 billion dollars.
                But since 12 such frigate destroyers have already been planned for construction, the additional costs will amount to no more than $ 8 billion.
                Total - for everything about everything 43 - 48 billion dollars.
                Let up to 50 billion dollars.
                This is 10% of our gold and foreign exchange reserves. But the amount will not be needed all at once, but 3 - 3,5 billion dollars a year.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 22 March 2021 19: 27
                  +1
                  This is the popular arithmetic.
                  Moreover, if you spend $ 3,5 billion. per year, then this will be enough for the ships of the auxiliary fleet - tankers, integrated supply ships, sea tugs required to work as part of the AUG.
                  Quote: Scharnhorst
                  and even Putin in this matter is not the ultimate truth.

                  And nevertheless, it is he who voices and endorses plans, tasks and decisions on financing. He spoke very cautiously ("if our work goes as it should, then the next ships will be of a different class"), but this is not surprising - the industry must still master the construction of large aircraft-carrying ships.

                  And only the choice in favor of the AV air defense medium VI gives a chance, within a reasonable time, to get the required number of ships of this class and to cover all our basic needs. The choice in favor of larger ships with nuclear power plants will inevitably lead to the disruption of programs and a strain on the budget.
                  hi
                2. Denton
                  Denton 23 March 2021 00: 44
                  +1
                  Well, as if reasoning ... First. Catapults, steam, that's just steam without any problems, you can puff and heating water in boilers, conventional on liquid fuel ... Here are just a driftwood, an aircraft carrier going at the maximum possible speed and ensuring the takeoff and landing of aircraft will eat like not itself (as everyone knows, the maximum speed is far from economical cruising). If you have a reactor, then you don’t care, there’s 40 years of firewood, and if not, then don’t care.
                  The second is electromagnetic catapult. A kind of chthonic something that is now consuming electricity that needs to be generated. Well, there is some kind of engine, generator and all this. If you do not have a reactor, then you will burn firewood, if you have a reactor, you turn the turbine with steam and all the rules. True, it is still necessary to somehow store all this electricity, but to stock it up, so that then rrraz and spend it on launching the plane. The Americans, they came up with such a horror that the PPC ... it will be interesting whether it will work normally or not.
                  F-14. It was not about the size, but about the Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Well, in the variable geometry of the wing too, more precisely in the mechanism, which was already of a type for a resource and it would have to be changed or repaired, but there were no right guys from the right side, so supernets and penguins (but this is not certain).
                  An aircraft carrier, in order to be cool, needs cool aircraft, there is no better Su-57 (there is an opinion that no one has it at all), plus most of the nodes are unified with the Su57 itself, which gives less load to the military-industrial complex.
                  Well, the aircraft carrier. This is who said that making a small boat and cramming something that is not pushed into it is easier than building a large boat and calmly placing all the systems that you need. The Americans are not fools in shipbuilding, and if they thought that 100k and 4 catapults are the optimum, then most likely it is something like this.
                  Well, finally to fellow accountants. You understand that this budget money will go to people for the most part on salary, which is already a driver of the economy, about specialists who, after working on Avik, can do anything at all, I don't even stutter
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 23 March 2021 02: 32
                    -1
                    Quote: Denton
                    ... First. Catapults, steam

                    Quote: Denton
                    The second is electromagnetic catapult.

                    You may be surprised, but a steam and electromagnetic catapult for future aircraft carriers in the USSR was developed, created and even tested by the Soviet Union in the 80s. For the future "Ulyanovsk". The steam room was ordered as the main one, and the EM as a backup if the work on the steam room comes to a standstill.
                    And both turned out.
                    We chose a steam room.
                    And even put one on the Nikolaev Shipyard - they wanted to put on "Kuznetsov" to launch the Yak-44. But they changed their minds to install and it remained there.
                    So there is some groundwork to get from the dusty shelves.
                    About powering the EM catapult - a gas turbine generator. It is compact and powerful enough. The accumulation of energy in capacitors, and this is already a proven technology. China has already created one. And we did it in the Union too. I think we can do it again.
                    Concerning the nuclear power plant.
                    You need to understand that such a power plant is not only expensive, difficult and dangerous to operate ... it is also quite dimensional, heavy and requires very serious radiation and structural protection ... and this is also WEIGHT.
                    At the same time, the most compact power plant for today is the power plant - gas turbine, and by weight too. And all the saved weight in comparison with the nuclear power plant, its radiation and structural protection (armor), steam turbines, refrigerators, a supply of fresh (specially prepared) water, etc., will be used to increase the fuel supply in the bottom tanks.
                    It was not for nothing that I compared the cost of the life cycle of an AB with a nuclear power plant and with a gas turbine unit, which includes the cost of fuel for the ENTIRE life cycle, the cost of maintenance and repair.
                    ON ORDER.
                    For AV the same VI.
                    It was not for nothing that American admirals fought off the reactors on their aircraft carriers with their hands and feet ... they had to be broken over the knee.
                    For politicians.
                    There was a war in Vietnam and the aircraft carriers were required to provide 200 sorties per day.
                    And they gave 80 - 100 - 120 (with all their strength) ...
                    There is one more nuisance here, in addition to purely financial and difficulties with highly qualified personnel ...
                    Combat damage.
                    AB is a warship and will be hit during the war.
                    And if an ordinary ship, which is badly damaged, is simply pulled into the base, docked and repaired ... then what to do with an atomic cow, which oozes radiation after the attack of the CD?
                    Just flood it yourself ... and hurry up ... so that you don't suffer ...
                    That is why (and everything else) the Americans abandoned all other nuclear-powered ships (except for submarines) completely!
                    AB suffer because of the catapults, but the submarines - God himself commanded.

                    And the most important thing is that we cannot pull the heavy atomic AB, not only because of the high price ... We simply cannot pull it. It won't take long. We have no one to build such ships.
                    Simply - there is no one.
                    And under the Union, how much they swayed, accumulating experience in the construction of such ships. And now then ...
                    Remember the experience of building a fleet in the USSR in the 30s of the last century. Then they also swung at the ocean ... More cruisers did not work out normal, and already battleships were laid ... Yes, not just any, but the most that neither is - with a main battery of 16 inches, a displacement like no one else ... and as much as 20 they were going to build ... three pieces were laid at once at three shipyards ...
                    And?
                    And they realized very quickly that they were not ready for such a scale. Well, we did not have such experience, such specialists, the industry was not ready, welding of such armor plates ... and the armor plates themselves ... did not work out.
                    There was no experience.
                    It was necessary to go from light cruisers to heavy ones, and only after successfully solving these problems, take on battleships and battle cruisers.
                    After the war, this was realized and immediately laid a large series of light cruisers.
                    And we got the best light artillery cruiser at that time. In the world !
                    And it gave experience. Design and manufacturing experience.
                    And ships appeared on which future naval commanders and admirals were brought up and trained.
                    So today we cannot escape this path if we want to get an efficient Fleet.
                    From simple to complex.
                    Now we are not sure that we will be able to build and commission two UDCs. For we have not built such ships for a very long time. And over the past 30 years it has been the largest frigate - nothing.
                    But if UDC turns out (and it has VI 35 - 000 tons), then the next stage can already be middle class AV. The same "Zaliv" will be able to build them.
                    So it's not just about money, but the very ability to build something like that.
                    And risking money (sums of a cosmic scale) on an adventure with atomic monsters, which will surely become long-term construction projects, with very ... I would even say VERY dubious prospects for success ... It's criminal.
                    Moreover, we do not need such ABs.
                    Covering the Fleet from the air in DI and OZ, providing reconnaissance, radar lighting, intercepting a massive raid of the enemy's CD on the distant approaches to the warrant - all this can be done by the Air Defense Forces.
                    And we DO NOT NEED more!
                    The rest will be done by the CD, including Zircon and Onyx.
                    Quote: Denton
                    An aircraft carrier needs to have cool planes to be cool, there is no better Su-57

                    Aircraft - yes. yes
                    But not for the deck.
                    For such a beast, a Nimitz or Ford deck is needed, but for ours, the MiG-35 or another carrier-based fighter of its size will be optimal.
                    The main thing is that there was an AWACS aircraft of the Yak-44 type, then any tasks of carrier-based aviation will be on the shoulder.
                    hi
                    And no one will ever give us money for SIX nuclear aircraft carriers.
                    And for six gas turbines at the price of two nuclear - they will give.
                    bully
                    1. Denton
                      Denton 23 March 2021 18: 40
                      0
                      It's not about the catapult itself, it's about the energy storage. In the case of the steam room, everything is simple. In the case of EM, the whole PPC is so complicated, at least for now. The Amrians use a kind of spinning crap that spins while the catapult is not active. And when starting the aircraft, they work as generators, because those generators and the power that the reactor can give out is not enough to operate a catapult, even one. Perhaps there are options (or may appear) on some kind of supercapacitors, but this is not certain.
                      About the complexity of the nuclear-powered ship. Yes, difficult. But our nuclear-powered ships are being built in series, and it is the large ships. Technologies have been worked out both in hardware and in personnel training. As for gas turbines, there are currently problems, albeit solvable ones.
                      About the damage to the ship. Yes, there is a chance that they will pierce exactly where the reactor is, but this is a loss. But in the case of a global cut, there will be no time for the restoration of AUGs, neither atomic nor any else. It is important that the AUG fulfills its task. In the case of LAN AUG, no one will break through.
                      The Americans abandoned the cruisers as a class; only Burke is being built. Plus, the AUG concept still meant destroyers. And then, as it were, dovyako. On the one hand, a bunch of cheap burks, that's cool. But they cannot run like an avik, more precisely, they can, but they feel bad, so they don't run too much. If they could run on reactors ...
                      About experience. On the one hand, yes, I agree. On the other hand, such a project, with the right approach, can just give the industry kick that is so necessary. The budget is supposed to be insane anyway, so why not have a bunch of smaller things for which there was not enough money, then time, then something else, for this business. As an example, the development of your own CAD, but without it, you can, and with it at first it will be even more difficult, but then the speed and quality of design will radically increase. Plus, a similar CAD system will go well in construction. The same is true in production.
                      Here, as first the problem, then the solution, and if there is no problem, then the solutions will not be worked out.
                      About the airplanes. It will be necessary to fight off hornets and penguins, and it will be necessary to fight back without fail. And this is only Su57 so far ...
                      1. bayard
                        bayard 23 March 2021 19: 36
                        0
                        About two years ago there were heated discussions - what aircraft carrier we need, how much, how to use, where to use. Now everyone is tired of it - it will take a long time to build up purely in terms of the technical capabilities of the industry, the situation in the world and in the country, as well as in the economy and finance, is also changing very quickly. So everyone is tired of it. All conversations go around in one circle - one or two nuclear-powered 100-ton aircraft with the Su-000, or more moderate and non-nuclear ones with middle-class fighters.
                        But the problem is that we need to have 6 aircraft carriers in 2 fleets.
                        This is the initial condition.
                        Everything else is meaningless.
                        And only from this it is necessary to proceed.
                        The second condition and given is that our industry is NOT ABLE to build ships of this class. The USSR reached this level only by the end of the 80s of the last century, and it was in Nikolaev.
                        we do not have the USSR, no Nikolaev, no Soviet engineers and designers.
                        For 30 years we have not built anything larger than a frigate. And even these frigates have been built for a long time and not without problems.
                        After all, it was not for nothing that I cited the construction of the USSR Navy in the 30s as an example. Stalin very accurately described that time - "dizziness from the successes" of the 1st Five-Year Plan. And the fuss with battleships showed the threshold of our technical, technological and engineering capabilities. A student of the 1st grade cannot immediately go to the 10th grade; he must go through this path in ascending order. For us today, this is the sequence:
                        - UDC,
                        - AB class "Varan" (not necessarily the type, but certainly - the class - VI, dimension, non-nuclear power plant, catapult, AWACS aircraft),
                        - atomic AV VI up to 100 tons with heavy fighters on board.
                        Only such a sequence with the consolidation of experience and skills in design, construction and operation.
                        With competent and RESPONSIBLE leadership of the country, this path can be covered in 15 - 20 years. This is dialectic.
                        And now we are TRYING to take only the FIRST step on this path.

                        The result of heated disputes 2 years ago was our compromise with Timokhin that out of six aircraft carriers (if everything in the country and the economy is good and there is an appetite for eating), two can be nuclear - one in each fleet. That is (1 + 2) x 2, with the construction of atomic ones in Bolshoi Kamen (after a series of super-heavy icebreakers). And this is a super-optimistic scenario, because practice shows that such tasks for capitalist Russia and its leadership ... are prohibitively difficult.
                        For everything will be stolen and no one will answer.
                        But building a fleet of 6 non-nuclear ABs looks like a completely solvable task.
                        Both financially and in terms of technical capabilities.
                        Atomic we still have 6 - 10 years stupidly nowhere to build. Bolshoi Kamen is filled with orders to the eyeballs and has not yet mastered the independent assembly of banal tankers.
                      2. Denton
                        Denton 24 March 2021 12: 50
                        0
                        Soryan, I was not here two years ago)))
                        As for the industry and going somewhere there. Do not confuse the planned-command economy and your capitalizm. The USSR did not build full-fledged avics for two reasons. Firstly, resources (including, and generally speaking, primarily human) were needed everywhere and the ocean fleet was not a priority. Second, they hoped to get by with a cheaper solution (rockets and aircraft with vertical arms).
                        But there is one more nuance, with a planned economy, the state can send money wherever it wants, for example, to create consumer goods. Under capitalism, it’s impossible. In order to do something, you need to create effective demand. And one of the ways to do this without breaking the system is a government order (look at the United States, during the Great Depression and WWII).
                        Now about the training. Now they will build the UDC. The dimension is what you need, no catapults and reactors, everything is as you like)).
                        And now you propose to cram catapults into the UDC dimension, but without a reactor (again, a unique case at the moment, since all existing avics are either with reactors and catapults, or on a gas turbine engine and without catapults).
                        I will repeat myself. We know how to make reactors and we do it in series. The reactor is more profitable in the case of an aircraft carrier, because the bunker takes up little space and at the same time it will last for many years. And in the case of catapults, Avik just needs a lot of energy (don't care what kind of thing). In the non-nuclear version, autonomy will directly depend on the fuel supply and the frequency of flights and speed, which is not good. Because Avik must run like a stung and still spit airplanes, then he will be cool, otherwise he won't.
                        About stupidly there is nowhere to build. It doesn't give an excuse))) It can be solved, it is only necessary that the one who gave the command to nada, well, followed it too.
                      3. bayard
                        bayard 24 March 2021 14: 49
                        0
                        Quote: Denton
                        Do not confuse the planned-command economy and this capitalism of yours

                        This is not my capitalism, but quite a state capitalism - as a kind of social system. With all its priorities and costs. But he is very sensitive and jealous of the safety of himself and his income. And our income comes from the export of resources. That is why the Russian naval base is being created in the Red Sea (Sudan) - to ensure the security and control of trade routes (oil and liquefied gas to India from the Arctic fields. Therefore, the tasks and structure of the future Fleet will be adjusted to these tasks - the safety of the merchant fleet on sea communications.
                        We are not like that - that is capitalism. request
                        Quote: Denton
                        Under capitalism, it’s impossible. In order to do something, you need to create effective demand. And one of the ways to do this without breaking the system is a government order (look at the United States, during the Great Depression and WWII).

                        Please do not confuse the buildup of the economy through military orders and contracts from a sovereign state (USA) with its OWN financial system, which can imitate any amount for investing not only its own, but also (as it is not surprising and ridiculous) the world economy, with the colonial (in in the full sense of the word) by the financial system of the Russian Federation, which not only cannot imitate its "own" currency, but also honestly earned profits from export, is forced to give the lion's share to some "reserve funds", from where it is FORBIDDEN to use this money to invest in its own economy and budget ...
                        Russia is practically in the position of a slave, who is not only very poorly fed and regularly beaten, but also constantly pumped out blood for the needs of the owner.
                        The USSR had a fully sovereign financial system, and the most stable in the exchange rate due to gold backing and pegging of the ruble to a fixed gold content.
                        We carried out our industrialization in the 30s on self-financing. Credits for foreign trade supplies were taken only for the supply of goods and equipment and for the duration of these supplies. full settlement of loans was carried out before the end of each five-year plan. read Stalin's speech at the congress on the results of the first five-year plan, he stated this very clearly there. In general, he expressed his thoughts very clearly.
                        Quote: Denton
                        And now you propose to cram catapults into the UDC dimension, but without a reactor (again, a unique case at the moment, since all existing avics are either with reactors and catapults, or on a gas turbine engine and without catapults).

                        Look at the new British aircraft carriers - there are no reactors, there are catapults (one of them).
                        All American aircraft carriers (before the nuclear ones) had catapults and did not have reactors.
                        Regarding the weight of the nuclear power plant with all the attributes due to it, I already wrote above - its weight + constructive and radiation protection will eat up all the savings on fuel for the power plant. That is, a gas turbine power plant with its entire fuel supply will weigh the same as a nuclear power plant + radiation and structural protection.
                        But at the same time, the GTU is an order of magnitude cheaper, and in the life cycle too.
                        The operating experience of our cruisers 1144 has shown that they are more expensive to build than our Krechet with all the stuffing and air wing. And in operation, too. Having at the same time the VI is two times less. That is why their further construction was abandoned (they planned to build 10 units), having built only 4 units. for joint operation with the nuclear "Ulyanovsk", which was planned to build, too, 4 pieces.
                        Look at the ordeal of the French with their "Charles de Golem", which is just a VI 45 tons and a nuclear power plant.
                        Therefore, on the one hand, you are right - we have the experience and the necessary technologies for the construction of a nuclear power plant with a nuclear power plant in this VI, but the PRICE OF THE QUESTION will be completely bleak.
                        And we have capitalism.
                        Now about the catapult.
                        Nothing prevents us from implementing on our promising AV electric propulsion (electric transmission - as on the same new icebreakers), with the generation of excess power (with a reserve for feeding the catapults) by compact turbine generators (GT + generator), as the Chinese do on their new (flat-deck ) aircraft carrier, as well as implemented such a power plant on their "super destroyer" pr. 055.
                        And even if we decide to install not EM, but steam catapults, then there are also no problems of obtaining free steam in heat recovery boilers (heat exchangers) of hot gases from gas turbines.
                        hi It's simple. Not burdensome in terms of finance, technically affordable and SAFE.
                        And our AV will be able to safely visit any ports and moor at ordinary piers. This is also very convenient when operating in DM and OZ.
                        Quote: Denton
                        ... Avik should run like a stung and at the same time spit planes,

                        Regarding maintaining the maximum speed to ensure takeoffs / landings. Here this requirement is somewhat overestimated and exaggerated. Yes, the Nimitz can be worn at 30 knots for flights. But this is not critical. Takeoff depends on the settings of the catapult parameters, and can provide a start from a standing AB (although the oncoming flow will never be superfluous), and during landing, the difference in speed between 20 and 30 knots will not particularly affect either. Kuznetsov quite successfully received HEAVY fighters even at a lower speed.
                        HEAVY!
                        Which no one else has, except for us and the Chinese.
                        I hope it won't.
                        And the Chinese have already realized this too.
                        Quote: Denton
                        About stupidly there is nowhere to build. It doesn't give an excuse))) It can be solved, it is only necessary that the one who gave the command to nada, well, followed the identity

                        smile Solvable. yes
                        But the shipyards are all overwhelmed with orders, and they have no experience of such work.
                        Now they will practice on the UDC, and then you look and they will be able to take on the AV.
                        Well, a woman does not give birth to a child faster than 9 months, no matter how you stimulate her - either a miscarriage will turn out, or a viable, but weakened seven-month.
                        You can also pass exams externally, but for this you need to properly master the entire training program, so as not to embarrass yourself with such an attempt.
                        hi bully
                      4. Denton
                        Denton 28 March 2021 13: 34
                        +1
                        Well, what about state capitalism, this is perhaps the most adequate form at the moment, or rather what one should strive for (further clearly socialism is clearly flowing into communism). And for all that I agree that the Russian Federation now has the economy of a colonial country. But at the same time, the money allocated from the budget (i.e. the right money) invested in the state defense order still generates jobs and stimulates the economy, albeit not as efficiently as we would like.


                        About the British Avik. Wikipedia says that catapults are mute, and F-35B planes, well, that is, a vertical. But this is not the point, the catapult can be fed from a conventional power plant. The question is, is it necessary?
                        As for the Americans, catapults appeared there when the need arose, i.e. with the arrival of jet aircraft. But as soon as the opportunity arose, they began to install reactors.
                        Actually, I naturally did not see the calculations, but we can agree that the dimensions of the reactors = the dimensions of a non-nuclear power plant + fuel supply. The only problem is that the fuel runs out, and the more actively the avik works, the faster the fuel runs out. With reactors, in principle, it is almost the same only for tens of years, more precisely, for the entire period of operation. Those. the advantage is that it is possible not to save energy on avik and at least keep the reactors at maximum power for the entire trip.
                        About life cycle cost. As far as I understand, the main costs of nuclear-powered ships are related to the reloading of reactors. Those. it is necessary to cut the boat approximately in the center and perform an operation to extract the spent driftwood, which, not only is disgusting in itself, but also heats up like nothing else. In general, the gemmor is terrible. Next, you need to load fresh snag, brew the boat, restore it and then just return it back to the fleet.
                        So that's it. With current reactors, all this is not necessary, there is fuel for the entire life cycle.
                        About the guardians. Well, we tried to shove in something unpushy, the result is predictable. At the same time, we have a lot of experience in operating YSU ships.
                        About EM catapults. The electromotion of the vesch is good, even very good. There, even now, the losses are not so terrible (well, there are especially large synchronous motors, into which not only everyone can (to be honest, can ours)). The problem is that as soon as the catapult starts to work, it will instantly drop the voltage of the entire ship's network, which is bad, not fatal, of course, but bad. The Americans are far from stupid, but even they have an EM catapult with PPC some crutches. And yes, if I’m talking about that catapult that can spit the conventional Su57K with full load.
                        As for the speed, speed, it is not for airplanes, it was not so easy to do for everyone who wanted to kill Avik.
                      5. bayard
                        bayard 28 March 2021 15: 47
                        0
                        Quote: Denton
                        As for the speed, speed, it is not for airplanes, it was not so easy to do for everyone who wanted to kill Avik.

                        The mammoth and the rocket run faster anyway - they will catch up. And speed is needed EXACTLY to facilitate takeoff and landing - less load on the air arrestor, easier takeoff, smoother landing. Well, for a quick maneuver too, including an inter-fleet maneuver.
                        Quote: Denton
                        About the British Avik. Wikipedia says that catapults are mute, and F-35B planes, well, that is, a vertical.

                        Sorry, from old memory (when they were still being built), I remember that one will be under the F-35V, the other under the F-35S - with catapults and a finisher. Then they replayed everything. But it really doesn't matter in the context of the discussion.
                        Quote: Denton
                        But this is not the point, the catapult can be fed from a conventional power plant.

                        Of course it is possible, and in the case of using a heat recovery boiler (hot gases from a gas turbine unit) - it is generally free. I mean, no additional fuel consumption.
                        This is if the catapult is steam.
                        In the case of an EM catapult, an APU of the required power must be provided, which is switched on only to power this catapult. It will take up a little space. What to use as energy storage devices is a technical question. These can be capacitors of appropriate power. There may be other technical solutions. In our case, the choice can be made based on the previous Soviet groundwork and the available modern technologies.
                        China sells EM catapults at home.
                        Quote: Denton
                        Actually, I naturally did not see the calculations, but we can agree that the dimensions of the reactors = the dimensions of a non-nuclear power plant + fuel supply.

                        Yes, that's about one weight.
                        Quote: Denton
                        The only problem is that the fuel is running out, and the more actively the avik works, the faster the fuel runs out.

                        Tell me, will your aircraft carrier simply carry its air wing as a transport?
                        Or will there be flights?
                        And the more intensive the flights, the faster the aviation fuel tanks empty. So you can burn all the kerosene in a week, or faster ...
                        So what can you do?
                        That's right - the tanker is part of a restocking order.
                        And if the kerosene for the air wing needs to be replenished regularly ... can it be replenished at the same time for the gas turbine power plant?
                        What do you think ?
                        That's it. There are no problems with refueling the aircraft carrier AT ALL. Moreover, his escort also needs to be replenished regularly.
                        So a tanker (and sometimes even more than one) will be included in the order.
                        Moreover, of any size and capacity.
                        But a power plant based on gas turbines will be 10 times cheaper than a nuclear power plant, and its entire life cycle will cost 10 times cheaper ... Well, maybe 8 times, if you're lucky.
                        Do you understand the difference?
                        AUG still needs to be refueled, regardless of the type of power plant of the aircraft carrier.
                        A nuclear reactor is needed for a steam productivity of at least 200 flights per day. Ideally 240.
                        Because the aircraft carrier is a shock carrier.
                        Just for steam for catapults.
                        By the way, the power of the nuclear power plant on the shafts is not some kind of prohibitive. On gas, and even more so conventional steam turbines, the power was obtained even higher. Look at the post-war US non-nuclear aircraft carriers and WWII battleships / cruisers.
                        The post-war Soviet battle cruiser was supposed to have a shaft power of 280 hp. Compare with "Nimitz", despite the fact that the cruiser had more than half the VI.
                        In addition, the nuclear power plant is not some particularly high-tech, it is the same boiler (only nuclear) + a steam turbine. But hemorrhoids with such a boiler ... an order of magnitude more.
                        And without a catapult, it will not work to launch an AWACS aircraft. request
                        And a full-load strike plane, too.
                        So you need a catapult.
                        To this and the Soviet admirals came at their hour.
                        And the Yak-44 was ordered.
                        hi
                      6. Denton
                        Denton 30 March 2021 18: 09
                        +1
                        About speed. It is needed in order to expand the enemy's search area for the AUG. The faster the AUG runs, the more often it is necessary to update the intelligence, the more difficult it is to issue target designation.

                        About the catapults. Again, I have not seen the numbers. But are you sure that due to utilization boilers it is possible to obtain the volumes and those parameters of steam that are needed to launch a heavy fighter? Here I have doubts, tk. American avics slow down during intensive aircraft launches and precisely because even the reactors do not pull. Well, at least look at the dimensions of the catapults that are installed on them (pictures ran on the Internet)
                        As for EM catapults, everything is generally bad here. Nothing can be compact there at all. power, albeit short-term there is great. Those. it is not advisable to pull this on the generator (and all sorts of disgusting transient processes add complexity). With capacitors, the idea is good, but in iron it is most likely not realizable right now (why I won't answer, I can only assume that the weight and dimensions of the capacitor assemblies are monstrous). The Americans have built a drive for themselves, but on a different principle. What will come of this, we'll see.

                        China has already implemented a lot in its press. I even think that their PR people will be more popular than ours. Although most likely China only wants an atomic avik with an EM catapult and 5th generation fighters. And when it will turn out to be done is unknown.

                        About the tanker. Here the trick is that the 100k avik also carries a bunch of snags for airplanes. And then when you need to be able to act autonomously. Those. run around the okiyan at a speed of 30 knots and spit in planes. He does not need a tanker in the order, and this very tanker may well pretend to be a peaceful mimic crocodile.
                        As for the escort, I'm in general for the nuclear destroyer, Schaub and Avik to keep up with and not overexert myself.

                        I already wrote about the cost of the life cycle. If the reactors are not reloaded, then you can save a lot. However, saving in our country, and what is there in almost any country, is a very relative concept and strongly depends on those who will save.

                        About steam performance, more precisely steam production. As you know, steam production depends on how much the heating elements can give. And generally speaking there is no difference in hourly or daily productivity. But here it turns out that if there are a lot of flights, and even the avik does not stand still, its fuel consumption is huge. As for the power on the shafts, well, what will they design and this will be.

                        About gemmor. Well, there is a Kuzya, which does not come out of repairs. And there is Petya who rolls on an okiyana. So, sort of xs. In general, atomic lobbyists are still paranoid and do their best to make sure that no one touches their favorite reactors with their hands. And if the system does not need to be touched, then Ninada also spends money on touching it.
                      7. bayard
                        bayard 30 March 2021 19: 41
                        0
                        Quote: Denton
                        As for the escort, I'm in general for the nuclear destroyer, Schaub and Avik to keep up with and not overexert myself.

                        You still want to ruin the military budget and the entire Russian Federation. lol
                        One such destroyer will cost the same as the nuclear cruiser "Peter" \ "Nakhimov", and it, in turn, cost more (!) Than the Soviet aircraft carrier of the "Krechet" class. yes
                        Do you know what I mean?
                        One (in your case, a nuclear-powered) aircraft carrier will need to escort how many destroyers?
                        That's right - about four.
                        Have you read it?
                        Each of them cost as much as a medium VI gas turbine aircraft carrier. good
                        Moreover, the nuclear aircraft carrier itself, at the cost of 4 - 5 such gas turbine aircraft carriers ...
                        This is what we get for the money?
                        Or in pieces (aircraft carrier GT)?
                        8 - 9 pieces. bully Varan-class aircraft carriers (displacement and armament composition).
                        It is you who propose to spend on one AUG as much as is necessary for the construction of the entire series of 6 AV medium VIs ​​with a gas turbine, with an air wing and basic infrastructure in two fleets ... what
                        No, I also like to think broadly, and to be beautiful ... but here it is somehow completely outrageous. repeat Even the Americans did not dare to do this. For nuclear destroyers in an escort ... Moreover, they still need to replenish the fuel for the air wing. smile
                        ... So they thought so - what for a goat a button accordion, it is better to rivet more (but better) ordinary "Burks".
                        And riveted.
                        As for the productivity and quality of steam ... Look at modern thermal power plants and their generating units. What will you see there?
                        Turbines.
                        And as a rule, one (and much smaller) - gas.
                        And here are two more to her - steam. Much larger in size.
                        And for both of these hulks, the heat from the exhaust of the gas turbine in the steam generator is quite enough. And they generate electricity approximately equally - one gas and two (!) Steam. As a result, the efficiency is about 40%.
                        So put such turbopairs (GTU and PT) on a large ship (and AB is a large ship), and at least implement the electric propulsion, at least bring both of them to the reducer ... There will definitely be enough power - the exhaust of a gas turbine is not coal or fuel oil to burn in boilers.
                        And on some ships such technology (turbopairs GTU and PT) were installed and are still being successfully operated - for example, Project 1164 cruisers. They have very high efficiency indicators on the economic / cruising course. There is generally a whole garland on each shaft, 4 pieces. - gas + steam for economic running + two more gas for forced running at maximum speed.
                        So the quality of steam (pressure and volume) will be quite sufficient if you put M-90FR / FRU (27 l / s) paired with steam at about the same power. And note that the excess fuel does not burn at the same time.
                        And there can be two, three, four such turbopairs, depending on the required power.
                        And with the implementation of electromotion, the power will also be sufficient.
                        By the way, I did not delve into EM catapults in particular (only general principles), but I know that in the 80s both EM and steam catapults were created in the USSR for the new "Ulyanovsk" type AV. And although the choice still fell on the steam room, the EM also turned out quite well for itself and passed the entire set of tests. Perhaps it is precisely it that is being implemented today in China, which I will not be surprised, because the huge team of their Nikolaev (and not only) has been working there for a long time, headed by the former chief designer of all Soviet aircraft carriers.
                        So, in principle, I am not against atomic energy, but not in this case.
                        And your proposals, even for the United States, turned out to be unacceptable in terms of price and associated difficulties.
                        Simply :
                        - expensive ,
                        - hard ,
                        - inconvenient (you cannot enter every port),
                        , but also very dangerous in a combat or emergency situation - fire, combat defeat of the KR or other ammunition, collision with another ship, radiation leak ... All this is called crap. Moreover, it is not justified by the benefits received.
                        The Americans have a nuclear boiler only for powering catapults.
                        Otherwise, it would not just have been abandoned long ago ... it would not have been simply built.
                      8. Denton
                        Denton April 9 2021 02: 08
                        0
                        If you want from the cost, let's go from it. So we have all the technologies for the manufacture of reactors, turbines and everything else for nuclear-powered ships. All this is used both on military ships and on civilian ships (here they are going to build a modest icebreaker for 75k tons). Serially produced. Moreover, the reactors are supplied with fuel for the entire life cycle. Those. no one will get into the reactor itself until the moment of disposal. The piping of the reactor where there is activity, most likely, is also designed for the entire life cycle. Those. there is no need to maintain the reactor at all, in any way, never. Unlike traditional boilers / turbines. Let me remind you that we have problems with GTU, which seem to be solvable, but problems.
                        The number of destroyers in the order, a question for the admirals, and for the destroyers as well. You need as many of them as you need to complete the task.

                        Now about the steam. If it were that simple, the Americans would not bother with reactors. Moreover, they had steam turbine installations of crazy power in Iowa, i.e. the experience was. By the way, about Iowa, it was mentioned somewhere that one of the reasons for the final write-off was just the cost of repair and maintenance of this most complex power plant.

                        And finally, why are all the same reactors on Aviks. There is a suspicion that with increasing power, reactors do not grow very much in size and complexity. That is, the reactor on the frigate will be larger than the gas turbine, but on the avik there will be no more.

                        About the EM catapult. The catapult itself is not that complicated. The difficulty lies in providing it with energy. If you have a city power plant, then everything is fine. The mains surge current will digest. But if the ship network is no longer a fact.
                        The point here is that a catapult consumes a lot of energy in a very short time. And the automatic control system of the generator simply will not be able to cope (since it needs to fix the frequency and voltage drops and accordingly increase the power (increase the supply of fuel or steam to the turbine). Therefore, this whole system was invented in rotating crap.
                      9. bayard
                        bayard April 9 2021 06: 45
                        0
                        Quote: Denton
                        Moreover, the reactors are supplied with fuel for the entire life cycle. Those. no one will get into the reactor itself until the moment of disposal. The piping of the reactor where there is activity, most likely, is also designed for the entire life cycle. Those. there is no need to maintain the reactor at all, in any way, never

                        There is no such machine and mechanism that would not break down in 25-50 years of operation. The same circulation pumps. And there is also the planned replacement (repair) of the heat exchanger pipes ... I once worked on a similar topic a little, and even almost became a supplier of Rosatom (then Rosenergoatom).
                        Quote: Denton
                        Now about the steam. If it were that simple, the Americans would not bother with reactors. Moreover, they had steam turbine installations of crazy power in Iowa,

                        If they then (in the 60s) had gas turbines of the required power and perfection, if they had already tried to link the gas and steam turbines into one bundle with heat recovery through a steam generator ... but no. All their ships then went on steam turbines and diesel engines ... and gas turbines only took the first timid steps in the ship's power plant.
                        By the way, the first gas turbines appeared on Soviet ships, and did not immediately regain their place under the sun - after all, they are much more complicated than steam turbines, their speed is much higher, gearboxes are more complicated - the degree of reduction is higher.
                        And in those very conditions, during the Vietnam War, it turned out ... that ordinary steam boilers can provide only 80-100 catapults with steam, the admirals demanded up to 120 sorties per day.
                        There was a war going on.
                        But then a brand new aircraft carrier "Enterprise" with eight (!!!) nuclear reactors on board came to the South China Sea and began combat work ... And immediately issued 165 sorties a day!
                        “This is what we need,” the admirals exclaimed happily.
                        But ... looking at the price tag immediately became sad ... the nuclear aircraft carrier was MONSTALLY expensive.
                        That is why they refused to build the entire previously agreed series - 5 AB of this type ... But at the same time they ordered (after some time) a new project, which was supposed to become much cheaper, have fewer reactors, and be easier to maintain .. because there was really not enough steam for the usual ones.
                        And the admirals agreed to order new atomic ones ... desperately creaking in their hearts ...
                        But steam was needed for the catapults.
                        Quote: Denton
                        Moreover, they had steam turbine installations of crazy power in Iowa, i.e. the experience was. By the way, about Iowa, it was mentioned somewhere that one of the reasons for the final write-off was just the cost of repair and maintenance of this most complex power plant.

                        The fact is that the maintenance of steam boilers requires regular cleaning, repairs, they are huge, require a lot of fresh water, and take up a lot of space.
                        On the one hand, a nuclear boiler takes up less space, does not require fuel reserves, but it is more complicated, requires structural and radiation protection, specially trained personnel ... And it has the SAME steam turbines that require a lot of specially prepared fresh water, heat exchangers, refrigerators and other priblud steam mechanics. And these turbines themselves are huge.
                        And what about the GTU?
                        But nothing - one compact gas turbine with a shaft for a reduction gear, an air duct (you need a lot of air), a gas duct for the exhaust and ... that's all. request It takes up an order of magnitude less space, weighs ... two orders of magnitude less. Does not require a supply of fresh water ... Simply - a turbine and a gearbox. But the turbine is hot.
                        And if the ship is big and there is room, then you can pair it with a hefty steam turbine ... and almost double the power on their two shafts. With the same fuel consumption.
                        We didn’t come to this right away.
                        And again, first with us.
                        Then in civil energy.
                        ... To be honest, I have never heard of the use of gas-steam turbopairs on US ships.
                        But modern CHP plants are already full of them.
                        Quote: Denton
                        that with increasing power, the reactors do not grow very much in size and complexity.

                        The reactor itself may not take up so much ... but the TURBINES and everything "even with them" ... Very ... Very different. Directly proportional to power.
                        And the reactors too.
                        Quote: Denton
                        The point here is that a catapult consumes a lot of energy in a very short time. And the automatic control system of the generator simply will not be able to cope (since it needs to fix the frequency and voltage drops and accordingly increase the power (increase the supply of fuel or steam to the turbine). Therefore, this whole system was invented in rotating crap.

                        Perhaps that is why it was abandoned in favor of a steam room at Ulyanovsk. But rather also because when using steam, there is a natural damping, and the energy of the superheated steam is directly converted into the forward accelerating motion of the catapult.

                        And in general, I am not at all against atomic AV, but only if we are talking about AV VI of at least 80 tons. A lot of calculations, simulations, analyzes were done. On smaller ones, the idea is prohibitively irrational.
                        Two years ago, we argued with Timokhin for a long time. He insisted on atomic ABs, proving their advantages. I argued that AV medium VI at a gas turbine plant is an order of magnitude cheaper for us, more convenient to use and operate. They played out various scenarios of combat use and combat services, in all possible diversity, the features and capabilities of our industry, the construction time, the required infrastructure, the time to acquire competencies ...
                        And my concept took over.
                        And in the end he said "... well, I would still like nuclear, because in some cases it is preferable."
                        And indeed it is .
                        But it is possible only after the industry has mastered the construction of AV medium VI, and they will most likely have to be built at different shipyards.
                        After all, if 45 - 000 tons of AB is possible to build on the Kerch "Zaliv", then the nuclear one only on the "Zvezda". Another superyard is under construction - Kola, but it will not be ready soon.
                        So these are the pies.
                        Quote: Denton
                        The number of destroyers in the order, a question for the admirals, and for the destroyers as well. You need as many of them as you need to complete the task.

                        Four destroyers, this is the minimum, and even then only at the transitions when building a diamond. Usually, the AV escort is much larger, because it is his outpost. When he rushes at maximum speed, providing flights, his hydroacoustics do not hear anything, and combat escort ships are obliged to protect him from submarines. And they should be enough.
                        Earlier, and at the crossings (inter-fleet) in the escort, there were 8 - 10 ships of the class from cruiser to frigate.
                        The construction of an aircraft carrier fleet is planning for decades ahead. And building 1 - 2 AB will give us almost or practically nothing. Need a series of 6 pieces. , and that is why they can only be gas turbine. Or mixed composition, but with a predominance of gas turbine.
                        And if we grab hold of the atomic one at once, we will disguise ourselves and disgrace ourselves by the long-term construction and the resulting freak. We need gradualness - from simple to complex:
                        - UDC,
                        - gas turbine AB,
                        - atomic AB, as the crown of engineering competence, financial, technical and logistic capabilities.
                        hi
                      10. Denton
                        Denton April 13 2021 02: 20
                        0
                        It is clear that everything that moves and is subject to wear and tear. But it is still somewhat easier to maintain and / or replace the piping of the reactor than to reload the fuel. Everyone understands this, and for this reason, the driftwood is for the entire period of operation.

                        About the steam. Brrrr. The Americans had powerful steam turbines, quite mastered on battleships. And there were boilers that provided them with steam. Naturally, the steam could be sent to catapults or turbines, or there and there, although most likely there was not enough there and there. And nevertheless, all this was not enough to provide the required number of departures, i.e. The steam capacity of the boilers was stupidly lacking, i.e. came to the limit of the intensity of flights. That is, even at low speed, they lacked steam for catapults.
                        You also offer gas turbines instead of steam ones, with gearboxes

                        Specifically for Enterprise, well, the Americans, as always, made a death star, then thought a little and optimized it, it turned out like norms.

                        Now the actual question is, does it make sense to make an aircraft carrier in the size of 45k tons?
                        Well, that is, we never built normal avics, and for good everything about the airfield will be new to us. At the same time, we are going to build an icebreaker of 75k tons powered by nuclear power, or are already building it. We have a lot of experience in operating nuclear reactors. We're going to use catapults anyway.

                        The Giganskaya shipyard was built, which by the way prevents the construction of another one of the same (there is a project, technologies have been worked out). The point is now to exchange for a dwarf avik, which will still need to be designed, and develop a bunch of systems, moreover, such as the same for 100k avik. If it is possible for the same 4-5 years to develop an avik of 100k tons and build a shipyard. Yes, it will be more expensive, but at the output is an avik, which, in any situation, will be able to withstand any ship in the world. And not something intermediate, which is, as it were, yes, but not quite and not everywhere, and if you need crutches and moreover urgently and on atomic thrust.
                      11. bayard
                        bayard April 13 2021 04: 18
                        0
                        Quote: Denton
                        It is clear that everything that moves and is subject to wear and tear. But it is still somewhat easier to maintain and / or replace the piping of the reactor than to reload the fuel. Everyone understands this, and for this reason, the driftwood is for the entire period of operation.

                        This is not true . Reactor repair with replacement of pumps and heat exchanger pipes is much more time consuming and dangerous than simply reloading thermal assemblies. And any atomic scientist will confirm this to you.
                        New reactors are, of course, more reliable and durable, but no one is safe from pump breakdowns ... as well as from the need to replace heat exchanger pipes.
                        So the Americans have built a nuclear power plant for China with such a reactor (for 50 years without repairs or reboots), so what? After 1,5 - 2 years, several circulation pumps went out of order ... and they were encapsulated ... and no one transferred the technology ... we had to pay a penalty and install new ones ... and now we are building reactors to China - according to our technology. And on our fuel.
                        Quote: Denton

                        Specifically for Enterprise, well, the Americans, as always, made a death star, then thought a little and optimized it, it turned out like norms.

                        Yeah, 8 reactors, that was cool.
                        But "Nimitz" has already turned out quite well. Although they are also very expensive. With old money (at the beginning / middle of the 80s) such AB cost 5 - 5,5 billion dollars. Without an air wing, etc.
                        Quote: Denton

                        Now the actual question is, does it make sense to make an aircraft carrier in the size of 45k tons?

                        And how . Moreover, we do not need an AB, like the USA, but an AB Air Defense / PLO. And the strike functions will be performed by escort ships (frigate destroyers 22350M and SSGNs as part of the KUG \ AUG). Its task is to ensure the combat stability of the ship formation - aerial reconnaissance (!), AWACS, air defense forces by carrier-based fighters, PLO by carrier-based helicopters.
                        For such purposes and tasks AVVI 45 - 000 tons is quite enough.
                        And to provide the catapult with steam through the utilization of the heat of hot gases, GTA will have no difficulty ... and fuel consumption. Simply due to the higher efficiency of thermal energy conversion.
                        Quote: Denton
                        Well, that is, we never built normal avics, and for good everything about the airfield will be new to us.

                        Yes, they did not have time to build, but they designed and developed all the necessary components. And "Admiral Kuznetsov" began its operation after the collapse of the Union. So you will have to start, though not from scratch, but from a very low start, restoring competencies and acquiring new ones. And rushing to the most difficult task right away is ... counterproductive.
                        We need steps.
                        Quote: Denton
                        At the same time, we are going to build an icebreaker with a capacity of 75k tonnes powered by atomic thrust, or are already building it. We have a lot of experience in operating nuclear reactors. We're going to use catapults anyway.

                        An icebreaker is much easier to build.
                        And we have nowhere to build an atomic monster yet.
                        "Zvezda" is not yet completed and has already been inundated with orders for 15 - 20 years.
                        The Kola shipyard is just being built, so it won't be able to do it soon, and the oil and gas workers also have very serious plans for it.
                        But there is a "Zaliv" in Kerch.
                        He can.
                        It is also possible in St. Petersburg, after the completion of a series of icebreakers.
                        But at both of these shipyards, only AV medium VI can be built.
                        So there is every reason to start with AB - average. And in 7 - 10 years, we may talk about an atomic monster of 80 - 000 tons.
                        If we pull it financially.
                        Emotions and ambitions speak in you, and I show you our real capabilities and needs.
                        We do not need one or two ABs - they will be useless, they will not provide KOH, they will not be able to ensure a constant presence at sea.
                        We need a series.
                        We will not be able to pull off a series of atomic ones.
                        Neither financially, nor technically, nor in the time required for their construction and bringing them into full combat readiness.
                        The atomic AB will be built for at least 10 years (in our conditions, for sure), and for another 3 years it will be mastered by the crew, the air group, and will undergo combat coordination with the escort ships. As a result, it will take 13 - 15 years from the moment of laying to getting into service with a full-fledged combat unit.
                        During the same time, almost the entire series of AV medium VIs ​​can be built and the first of them will already be in service.
                        And the time factor is often of decisive importance - the way the spoon is to dinner.
                        And ships - to war.
                        In RYAV and PMV, our ships were not ready for war - she found them on the stocks and in completion. And as a result - the lost RYAW, in WWI our fleet did not play any significant role ... and all the funds spent on the construction of ships (not at the right time) went down the drain ... of two lost wars.
                        Do you want to repeat such a wonderful experience?
                        Quote: Denton
                        it is possible for the same 4-5 years to develop an avik of 100k tons and build a shipyard.

                        We have a project of atomic AV VI 80 tons - this is "Ulyanovsk", it has even begun to be built. There is also a draft design of "Storm" - for 000 tons.
                        But there is little sense from these projects today.
                        We cannot do them. And not only that - they are HARMFUL for us today.
                        But the KUG \ AUG as part of the AV medium VI with 20 - 24 fighters and AWACS aircraft, four destroyers 22350M and SSGN, are capable of nagging really any aggressor. Even with two attack aircraft carriers as part of their AUG.
                        And this will be exactly the ASYMMETRIC answer.
                        And you propose a linear one ... on which even the mighty Soviet Union was undermined.
                        This must be REALIZED.
  • Wilderness
    Wilderness 20 March 2021 09: 17
    -3
    Reasoning similar to that as if in the 50s they were choosing what caliber of guns to install on new, mighty battleships. Knowing that battleships, at that time, were everything, in the dustbin of history. Aircraft carriers were cheaper then, and explosives were thrown further. There was no alternative to them. But! The world has changed and anti-ship missiles appeared, they became more and more long-range, more "smart". Now there are prerequisites for the creation of deck drones, So is it worth chasing an American train of the 70-80 model, if it rushed over the horizon, but in the direction of a dead end? Moreover, having a limited resource? Deck aircraft AWACS is definitely a necessary thing, even in the land version. But here's a carrier-based fighter ...
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 20 March 2021 09: 49
    0
    Thanks to Andrey for the article.
    The choice of the Su-57 as the main carrier-based fighter has no alternative. This aircraft will become the main aircraft for the Air Force for decades. Therefore, make a naval modification with it.
    Great plane. As soon as the engines are finished, Russia will again (as in the days of the USSR) become the leader of the military aircraft industry ...
  • Freedim
    Freedim 20 March 2021 10: 01
    -9
    With a thrust-to-weight ratio of more than 1, you can probably develop a vertical take-off (according to the rocket principle) with a compact launch pad .. Save on catapults, and even on the runway. Of course, there is no escape from the landing, but economically it can and will be more profitable. Dispatchers are again easier to steer.
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 20 March 2021 10: 21
    +7
    Such a loose assumption allows us to extrapolate the parameters of the future aircraft, which at the stage of implementation in metal a few years later should not differ significantly from the prototype.
    AND THERE OSTAPA HAS BEEN BECOMED ...! fellow
  • silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 20 March 2021 10: 57
    +2
    If we limit the task and reasoning to the topic of how to equip an aircraft carrier (which is needed / not when we do not consider it all), then the SU-57K is a good idea ... for an AWACS aircraft, I will say one thing - it is very necessary and with a good horizon, and here you need to consider a drone from a different class equipment with electronic equipment ... and the ability to patrol for a long time at a decent height in the area of ​​the aircraft carrier group
    1. Scharnhorst
      20 March 2021 13: 00
      0
      and here you need to consider a drone with a different class of electronic equipment ... and the ability to patrol for a long time at a decent height in the area of ​​the aircraft carrier group

      The existing Hokai or Ka-31 can handle similar tasks. If the Su-57DRLOU is driven in a circle with a radius of 100 km around the KUG, even at its speed of 900 km / h, it will go into the second circle only after 40 minutes. Its advantage is the ability to conduct long-range reconnaissance in a threatened direction at high speed under the cover of a pair of fighters and the ability to accompany a strike group from the deck in a cover and support group, which the E-2D and the helicopter cannot. Well, if, as an AWACS operator, there is a trained lieutenant colonel squadron commander with the right to make a decision, this will have a positive effect on the performance of any combat mission. By the way, the Americans had five crews per plane for four deck-based Hawaiys on the ship! Great load and efficiency. An unmanned AWACS will probably be good, but the flexibility and quick response to a change in the situation will probably lose.
      1. silberwolf88
        silberwolf88 20 March 2021 15: 06
        +1
        to me, an AWACS based on the SU-57 does not seem to be a good idea ... a heavy-class drone that hangs for 12/24 hours in the air at high altitude (viewing horizon, respectively) will be completely in the subject ... at least this is a very promising topic .. the rest is possible reconnaissance in directions over a long range
        1. Scharnhorst
          20 March 2021 18: 05
          +1
          As one of my former boss used to say: "Someone else would argue, but I will agree!" wink
          Only now the Su-57 has already gone into production and into service, and a promising drone !, for the deck! and that AWACS on the shoulder was! - not observed due to absence. I think the picture of the aircraft carrier "Manatee" will materialize earlier. hi
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 20 March 2021 10: 59
    +4
    Versatility is good up to a certain point, and then it turns out that a specialized machine is much better. I read an article by a retired mattress commander who writes that abandoning the F - 14 was a big mistake. If the "cat" went through a series of upgrades, like the F - 15, then the fleet would now have a long - range carrier - based fighter, with a much greater speed and duration of patrols. Simply, Boeing defeated Gruman in the battle on Capitol Hill)))
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 20 March 2021 11: 47
    +2
    In fact, taking into account economic and industrial realities, we have no alternative to the MiG-29K, we only need another radar, and then develop a modification with modified aerodynamics to ensure a lower landing speed.

    The current "system" simply will not pull anything beyond this, no matter how much the hypothetical Su-57K is better than the real MiG-29K.
    1. Scharnhorst
      20 March 2021 15: 01
      0
      Against a potential enemy (we mean the Americans), the bet on the MiG-29K in the AUG naval battle is uncontested. First, he will not be able to pull two "Onyxes" of 3 tons each. With two subsonic "Uranas" on board and perhaps even twice the number of aircraft in the outfit compared to the Su-57K from the same type of aircraft carrier, it is impossible to guarantee serious damage to the American AUG. Such factors will be against: more time for take-off and the formation of a strike group; the line of launching anti-ship missiles in the zone of confident detection from an AWACS aircraft and countering fighters from an enemy aircraft carrier; subsonic anti-ship missiles will be twice as long under possible opposition from enemy fighters and twice as long as the time spent in the zone of destruction of self-defense air defense systems of ships; less warhead weight. Secondly; the shorter flight range of the MiG-29K in comparison with the Su-57K increases the likelihood of inflicting an equally powerful retaliatory or retaliatory oncoming strike against our KUG, given the numerical superiority of the enemy by definition; the shorter flight duration of the MiG-29K reduces the range of use of even weapons of the same type, equal in quantity and weight, which entails unjustified risks for the only carrier of fighters in the fleet so far. The lower combat load of the MiG-29K, as a light fighter, by definition makes it unsuitable for accommodating the two side-scan AFARs described in the article. So the basic AFAR HO36 "Belka" consists of 1526 X-band APARs, two side-looking APARs of 4032 similar APMs will more than five times exceed the weight of the original prototype. Will the MiG-29KUB be able to "lift" the additional weight of the five prototypes of the native onboard not the best Zhuk-ME radar? Or, more correctly, what kind of AFAR canvas from the PPM from the Su-57DRLOU can he use? Hypothetically, no more than 6000 PPM, which entails a deterioration in the characteristics of the radar complex as a whole.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 21 March 2021 10: 28
        0
        All this does not matter because the country will not master the Su-57k organizationally.
  • Phoenix
    Phoenix 20 March 2021 13: 23
    -1
    It is very interesting that an AWACS based on the SU-57 will be useful not only at sea. More SU-57 army, naval and different!
  • Victor Tsenin
    Victor Tsenin 20 March 2021 15: 37
    0
    In your plate, the load at 57K is indicated as 16000, I suppose the unit is superfluous)
    1. Scharnhorst
      20 March 2021 18: 37
      +2
      It's hard to argue with Wikipedia, I didn't weigh it myself. But I assume the following. 16 tons is the maximum load of weapons and ammunition that can be placed on the hardpoints and internal compartments. If the maximum load (35500 kg) and the weight of the empty aircraft (16000 kg) are subtracted from the maximum take-off weight (18500 kg), then 1000 kg will remain for fuel. If from the maximum take-off weight (35500 kg) we subtract the maximum refueling (11100 kg) and the weight of an empty aircraft (18500 kg), then (5900 kg) will remain for the combat load. Excellent flexibility and versatility in the application not available to neighbors on the table without the use of additional external fuel tanks. And this is additional aerodynamic resistance, which entails a decrease in speed, and the loss of stealth due to an increase in the RCS, and in general, the fighting qualities of the fighter.
      1. Victor Tsenin
        Victor Tsenin 20 March 2021 20: 14
        +1
        You are smart, but 16000 does not fit in any way with reality, without the use of anti-graviton and the like)
  • Sergey Valov
    Sergey Valov 20 March 2021 16: 24
    +4
    First, for many, many years, we have been making a 5th generation fighter with stealth elements and engines capable of maintaining supersonic cruising speed, then we put external suspensions on the same aircraft, returning it to the previous generation. The beauty! We have already written about the conversion of a land aircraft into a deck aircraft, as well as into an AWACS vehicle, and what will come of it above. Versatility is also a thing in itself, because all functions will be worse than those of specialized machines. But the flight crew will also need to be trained. Also universal? And where to conduct combat training? In the north? In the Mediterranean Sea, in a wolf's den, to keep for six months a year? This is for the northerners. And what about the Pacific?
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 20 March 2021 16: 33
    +4
    And what is the size of the air group? On the "Storm" it was indicated that 70-90 aircraft, well, let's take the figure of 70, let's say. This is 140 Su-57 for 2 aircraft carriers. That is, these are 140 of the newest unobtrusive aircraft, which at the moment (2021) are still being brought to mind and the situation with the stage 2 engines is still incomprehensible.
    At the moment, there is 1 serial sample (perhaps my information is outdated), the cost is approximately $ 30 million (probably with stage 1 engines), but let's say that this amount remains, taking into account that the "+" will go to the completion of the aircraft for deck version and engines of the 2nd stage, and in "-" the deployment of large-scale production will go (140 units are just that).
    30 * 000 -> 000 $ or ~ 140 (three hundred billion) rubles. In 4, our defense budget amounted to official. data 200 000 000 300 000 (000 trillion 000 lard rubles). That is, two air wings (excluding ammunition and maintenance) will cost "naked" about 2020/1 of the annual defense budget. This is an expensive business, considering that we do not consider the cost of 894 aircraft carriers (which have not even been designed yet), infrastructure for their construction, re-equipment of bases for them and support of these 000 aircraft, retraining and training of flight personnel, and providing these people with housing. If we take 000 aircraft carriers, it is also worth considering that in their order we will have to build at least some of the new ships that will correspond to the task of defending these extremely expensive gizmos. Consequently, the "+" is still the price of several ships and, probably, at least the revision of existing projects under their bookmark.
    According to some reports, when designing "Storm", a price of 350 billion apiece was indicated (this is a purely naked price, excluding refinements and infrastructure for construction), suppose that by some miracle they will fit into it (no, of course not :-) - total for us 700 lard goes to 2 ships (you can safely double this amount so that you have an idea of ​​how it will actually cost). Note that "Storm" was designed for a non-nuclear power plant, with a nuclear one it will be more expensive, and so on. In general - we take the amount of 1.4 trillion "for everything about everything." And 300 lard for airplanes, 1.7 trilards "at a minimum", the cost of this venture "naked" - without fuel, base arrangement, formation of crews, weapons, AUG supplements. That is, the annual budget in general is for 2020. Theoretically, it seems to be a lifting amount, for a twenty-year period, for example. Practically - I doubt it, because DRYING will also be needed in larger, equal quantities for the ground forces (which brings us to additional costs for expanding production), as is often mentioned here in articles about aircraft carriers - we have a catastrophic state of affairs with naval satellite reconnaissance and airplanes similar to the American Hawks in the niche. AUG will have to complete (at least) support vessels. In other words - it will come out much more expensive than I wrote in the complex, so much so that I am afraid to even judge.
    To summarize - all this is a rough "Nubian" calculation, in my opinion, in order to do something like that, in IDEAL conditions and with a steel political will, it would take at least 20 years and absolutely horse spending, turning our defense budget into a naval Sodom and Gomorrah. So alas and ah, this is all fantasy.
  • Flyer_64
    Flyer_64 20 March 2021 16: 53
    0
    The author also needs to take into account that when creating a shipborne aircraft, reinforced take-off and landing devices are immediately laid, and this is an increase in dry weight, which can slightly reduce the flight performance of the Su-57K.
    1. evgen1221
      evgen1221 20 March 2021 18: 28
      +1
      And not only that, also a lot of materials for the airframe and other systems and in engines are also replaced with more corrosion-resistant ones or paint, and this is also weight.
    2. Scharnhorst
      20 March 2021 18: 51
      +1
      The article is certainly not interesting and can be read through a line or diagonally, but not illogical.
      Even if we assume a 10 percent deterioration in the process of creating a carrier-based aircraft (which we observe when comparing versions A, B, C of the F-35), then the advantages for many years will still be on the side of our fighter.

      This is somewhere after the third picture! yes
  • evgen1221
    evgen1221 20 March 2021 18: 17
    +2
    As the practice of the Americans shows, it is not enough to have only an avik and a fighter on it. We need bases, logistics for the provision and delivery of everything and everyone on time and on the avik itself on the campaign, personnel schools, and a lot of many routine things to the point inclusive. Dreaming, sawing is not harmful of course. But it’s not more logical so far, to concentrate forces on the most reliable closure access of foreign poachers to our economic 200-mile zones. How? Yes, at least how! At least with mines along the perimeter with fairways, at least with unmanned hunters and monitors relaying from them the order to dump to the house, or in 10 minutes you go to study the fish by diving. Ie mass something and in large quantities, eats, but it is something cheap.
  • AAK
    AAK 20 March 2021 18: 56
    +2
    Colleagues, without touching on general considerations in the comments on aircraft carrier issues (you can write a cycle of novels from the comments on all "aircraft carrier" articles on VO), I will express my opinion solely on the topic of the article:
    1. As a prototype of a 30-40-year long-term carrier-based fighter / fighter bomber Su-57, it is quite suitable, even taking into account all the alterations, most of which were noted by colleagues;
    2. Deck-based Su-57 as an AWACS aircraft (in the variant proposed by the author) - it is possible only technically and after at least 10-12 years. But there are more difficult problems:
    a) according to the experience of its own service in the air defense, one operator of the ACS of the command post of the air defense formation regiment-brigade (approximately equal in tasks and technical capabilities with the alleged Su-57DRLOU) can "conduct" even taking into account the capabilities of current computers (to detect and track the movement of strangers-friends targets with the simultaneous issuance of combat control commands) in real time no more than 25-30 objects and no more than 2-2,5 hours. In the same "Hawk-ai" in the crew, EMNIP, 4 operators and the "hardware" there is very high quality, ie. at our radar operator with the Su-57 in real work (to detect and accompany in the air more than 50 our own-foreign aircraft, plus control of the launch of weapons of destruction, of which there are 6-10 pieces per board, plus jamming conditions, etc.) brains burn purely in physiology;
    b) the AFAR 57 AFAR proposed as part of the Su-2 AWACS with the specified dimensions and number of PPMs will not provide the necessary degree of control of the air / surface situation, a larger radar will have an extremely negative effect on flight and landing characteristics;
    c) a possible way out - an AWACS based on a strategic drone in the dimensions of approximately a "global hawk" and a stay in the air for at least 10 hours, the calculation of the operators itself remains on the aircraft carrier. The main problem is the creation and stable maintenance, first of all - in a combat situation, of a broadband channel for receiving and transmitting data from the UAV-AWACS radar to an aircraft carrier.
    3. Steam catapults for a promising aircraft carrier - nonsense. Yes, a nuclear power plant is required, but its power is not in steam, but in electricity.
    1. Scharnhorst
      21 March 2021 11: 32
      0
      Thanks to my air defense colleague ("We don't fly ourselves and we won't give it to others!") For the detailed explanatory comment. But I would like to discuss a number of points with an eye to the future.
      On point 2a. I would not equate a single AWACS aircraft with two crew members (one of them is a pilot) to the command post of an air defense formation of the brigade-regiment level. Rather, it is an autonomous automated three-coordinate radar: the flight time of an aircraft is comparable to turning on the radar on schedule or on readiness; must completely complete the primary and secondary processing of radar information (I assume this functionality is automatic without the participation of the operator); The ACS is able to independently classify the detected targets both by classes (MCC, high-speed, surface) and by the degree of threat both for the radar carrier and for the guarded object (CUG). The operator only chooses from the priorities what to transfer to the fighter on duty for destruction, that the air defense systems of the ships and offers the commander of the ship formation target designation for priority surface targets for the use of ship anti-ship missiles. I agree that this is a difficult and demanding job that requires a lot of experience, preparation and responsibility. In a difficult situation, we lift the second and third AWACS aircraft with work in critical sectors autonomously or under the general guidance of the flagship.
      On point 2b. It seems to me that you missed my proposal on the use of both a standard forward-looking radar on an AWACS aircraft, and the use of two oppositely directed side-looking AFARs in the complex. 0,7 * 3,6 degrees). Based on the size (0,9 * 0,7 m) and the number of PPMs (1526 pieces) in the AFAR radar NO36 "Belka", its DN is within (2 * 2,5 degrees). And this is enough for target designation and guidance of the "B-B" class weapons at the detected maneuverable air targets. The combination of performance characteristics of both radars will provide target designation and guidance of ship-to-ship and air-to-ship weapons at much more sedentary and overall sea targets.
      According to paragraph 2c. Can you imagine the wingspan of the proposed drone? ... The advantage of the Su-57DRLOU over the drone is that the decision-making center is in it and not on the ship (aircraft carrier). Su-57DRLOU can independently direct heavy anti-ship missiles from ships to targets without transmitting information to the ship. The drone, by definition, must send the entire radar data stream to the control center and then serve as a type of repeater for ship anti-ship missiles. In addition, the AWACS aircraft allows stealthy fighters to receive information about the use of "B-B" weapons for target designation without including their own radar. Well, the problem of communication channels for my project is no less relevant than for your proposal.
      On point 3. In the above-mentioned article "Aircraft carrier of the Russian fleet" I suggest not catapults, but the use of a springboard with an increased take-off distance. The nuclear power plant for the Russian aircraft carrier has no alternative. But even for electric catapults, which the Americans were carried away with, double energy conversion (nuclear, steam, electric) will further reduce the efficiency of the system as a whole, not to mention the complication of an already complex product like an aircraft carrier.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 20 March 2021 21: 26
    -2
    no one needs an aircraft carrier, no tasks and opportunities for its construction, so even more so a carrier-based aircraft is not needed, ordinary su35 su 34, moment, tu, su57, silt can operate from the shore
  • Denton
    Denton 21 March 2021 00: 22
    -1
    And again, an adequate article. It is clear that a heavy fighter should be the deck. And the fact that the Americans decided to use the F-35 is not something that would be from a good life))), or rather naval ones, they did not really ask much.

    The idea of ​​converting the Su-57 into an AWACS aircraft is again sensible, taking into account the decrease in the weight and dimensions of the radar with AFAR, and the increase in the degree of automation of processes. And again, an adequate article. It is clear that a heavy fighter should be the deck. And the fact that the Americans decided to use the F-35 is not something that would be from a good life))), or rather naval ones, they did not really ask much.

    The idea of ​​converting the Su-57 into an AWACS aircraft is again sensible, taking into account the decrease in the weight and dimensions of the radar with AFAR, and the increase in the degree of automation of processes. B
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 21 March 2021 00: 25
    +1
    Su-57 was conceived and embodied as a fighter to conquer domination
    in the air. And this is its correct function.
    As a striker on land (or sea), he is ill-adapted. Need a hanging
    an aiming container that will negate its stealth.
    Therefore, use it as a deck boat - hammer nails with a microscope.
    1. mmaxx
      mmaxx 21 March 2021 13: 32
      +1
      Unfortunately, aircraft carriers will have to abandon highly specialized aircraft. This is a luxury in our times.
      The first steps were taken by the Americans, abandoning bombing in the 2nd MV.
    2. Denton
      Denton 21 March 2021 13: 41
      -1
      And hto told you this ???
      The only thing that he does not have for work on the ground is an OLS aimed at the ground ala F-35. At the same time, it is not a fact that this is critical.
      The containers (for the 4th generation) were needed, because the radar was not so multifunctional.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 21 March 2021 13: 30
    +3
    I disagree on the cannon. A single-barreled thirty is not heavier than a 2-barreled 23 mm. It is easier to organize the supply of cartridges inside the aircraft for one barrel.
    And outboard cannons are always worse. Installation rigidity is poor due to recoil. And for the gun, as a rule, you need to have separate suspension points. It is because of the increased strength requirements.
    1. Eug
      Eug 22 March 2021 08: 35
      +1
      The cannon container has a frantic vibration - the resistance of the external air flow plus recoil. For an areal ground target it is acceptable, for a point air target (an aircraft at a distance of 300 meters) - only "in the area" of the target ...
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 21 March 2021 15: 19
    +1
    Mechti, krugom mechti. :)
  • Eug
    Eug 22 March 2021 08: 28
    -1
    I see no point in an AWACS aircraft based on the Su-57 twin. First of all, how does the author see additional energy for power supply of PPMs of surveillance radars? As for me, an unmanned airship with a datalink on the aircraft carrier's GKP is best for these functions. And for the Su-57, as for me, Onyx is not good, we need a new, inconspicuous anti-ship missile, again, as for me, the Kh-31 in a "new guise", that is, "STEALTHEN".
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 22 March 2021 09: 00
    -1
    If the release of the MiG35S is planned, then they should be made deck-mounted in the 2-seat version .... and add to them something like the Hunter UAV for missions where STEALTH is needed.
  • Your stranger
    Your stranger 22 March 2021 16: 36
    -4
    Between su 27 and su 33, three tons of weight!
    Add three tons to sous 57, it needs a lot of redrawing,
    And what to do with aerofirishers, if their su 33 breaks perfectly!
  • Alexey Zigalov
    Alexey Zigalov 23 March 2021 14: 50
    0
    Andrey thanks for the article !!! In the development of your analysis, I agree that aircraft carriers are needed, but what they will be. Ten to fifteen years ago, the Americans began to test and place UAVs on board an aircraft carrier. In the ten to fifteen years that we will build our aircraft carrier all over the world, they will switch to the ALBK (autonomous flying combat complex) and ours will be forced to tear off the same one. ALBK 5-7 000 kg take-off, combat load 2-2.5 tons, range 2-2 500 km. The aircraft carrier is two to three times smaller, much cheaper, faster to build, etc. on board 40 - 60 pieces. Why flying robots are good, pilots do not die, it is faster to do, on board you can place in containers on some missiles, on others guns, locators, etc. based on the task at hand. They will still attack in a group. Of course, the command su-57 should go with the ALBK, although it is not necessary, there are other options, moreover, made and tested in the 70s of the last century. Thanks again for the article, at least someone is trying to think about this topic.
    1. Scharnhorst
      24 March 2021 12: 57
      0
      Thank you for the kind words Alexey! But you are probably still young? I agree that there is no limit to perfection and an aircraft carrier is very expensive. It would seem a much simpler system - a tank - but with all the development of artificial intelligence, automation and scientific and technological progress in general, so far everything has run up against a crew of three people (and on the battlefield, tankers die no less than pilots in the air). You have also heard about the officer's crew on the Project 705 submarine with the maximum degree of automation. But why did the progress in a spiral "take off" from 32 crew members on a nuclear submarine half a century ago to 52 people on the conventionally modern "Varshavyanka" of our time? From anecdotal. When the commander of the radar company was told that the unit would be replacing locators with a staff of 22 people with modern radars with a staff of 6 people, he exclaimed: "Will I go to the kitchen for them? Why do I need this!" Computers have been winning chess against grandmasters for a long time, but the world championship is still held among people! And in such a complex system as an aircraft carrier with ALBK, there will be no less problems without a man than in a tank ... hi
    2. Denton
      Denton 24 March 2021 19: 11
      0
      Again, this belief in a swarm of small drones that will overtake us ...
      Well, seriously, in a fighter weighing under 30 tons, the pilot + life support systems take well if half a ton. All other weight and dimensions are determined by the desired characteristics. Perhaps the only thing in which UAVs can theoretically be better is in those overloads on which they can maneuver.
      1. agond
        agond 24 March 2021 19: 42
        -1
        Neither * Su-33, Su-57K, nor Mig-29K are unsuitable for a carrier-based aircraft, not because they are bad, but because they are too large for the cramped conditions of an aircraft carrier (even the largest), and the very phrase "heavy carrier-based fighter "this is a vivid example of the stupidity of the inventor of this miracle,. From the point of view of logistics and safe operation of the ship-aircraft complex, it is necessary that the aircraft carrier is larger, and the aircraft is smaller, a reasonable compromise could be an aircraft of dimensions close to the Yak-130 or MiG-21,
        1. Denton
          Denton 24 March 2021 23: 26
          0
          Dear, you probably haven’t heard about such an airplane as the F-14, heavy, two-seater ...
          Moreover, you are proceeding from the concept of a fighter for Avik, which is fundamentally wrong. Correctly avik under a fighter, because it is the aircraft that are most valuable in avik. Without airplanes, it's just a floating thing.
          And as for all the same airplanes, the same Americans could not make a light fighter, although they wanted to, it turned out to be a penguin, because it does not always work out to shove in an unpushable one. As a result, crap, which is both expensive and the characteristics are not very good. And the Navy at one time really wanted the f-22k, which is still suitable.
        2. Scharnhorst
          April 2 2021 13: 05
          -1
          On the international arms market there is such a carrier-based fighter as the French "Rafale M", it is more compact and lighter than even the light MiG-29K. And its predecessor "Super Etandar" was even lighter, just a cross between the Yak-130 and the MiG-21, also of the third generation. But the French navy opted for the heavier Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier with a heavier Rafale M fighter than its predecessor Foch and its Super Etandard fighters with the same air group on board. No less prestige of the British Navy, confirmed by the fighting with the participation of aircraft carriers in the Falklands War, made a choice in favor of three times more heavy aircraft carrier "Queen Elizabeth" in comparison with predecessors of the "Invincible" class and more heavy carrier-based fighter F-35B than the famous "C" Harrier ". So, as young people say, we are in trend!
    3. AC130 Ganship
      AC130 Ganship 4 May 2021 02: 19
      0
      Well, here it started again. Like: in our design bureau we tested a car in 1978, with which later, in the early 90s, Mercedes copied its famous 600 :)
  • Maks winter
    Maks winter 24 March 2021 22: 51
    -1
    one thing comes to mind what , can sell to other countries, because, as you know, we have only one aircraft-carrying cruiser. so why should these planes be launched, if this `` half-aircraft carrier '' is more laid-off than at sea)
    1. agond
      agond April 2 2021 20: 26
      -1
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      and more heavy carrier-based fighter F-35 than the famous Sea Harrier.

      NATO strives have the task of demonstrating strength, so they have F-35B (although there is nothing to choose from), and your defensive doctrine, a heavy fighter, is redundant and, moreover, very inconvenient, since it is too large.
      1. agond
        agond April 4 2021 15: 41
        0
        I hope that the former pilot who put his heavy MiG-29K on the short deck of an aircraft-carrying cruiser more than once easily and simply put a minus to me, and
  • Evgeny Seleznev
    Evgeny Seleznev April 20 2021 21: 49
    0
    When designing an aircraft, as a universal base landing gear, is it possible to use a deck-based aircraft, or is it then a front-line fighter going under the knife for use in a deck version? The rework is expensive. And also the absence of the Russian version of the E-2C "Hawkeye" of the Yak-44e type, which in terms of versatility will be a workhorse in the interests of the Navy and the Aerospace Forces with minimal modifications for deck and airfield basing. Further, the presence of a universal helicopter for PLO, AWACS, airborne assault and fire support for the landing. Question.
  • Dmitriy51
    Dmitriy51 April 22 2021 20: 55
    0
    well, at least dream ...
    In the meantime, there is no operating aircraft carrier.
  • Givi_49
    Givi_49 April 24 2021 10: 08
    0
    Admirals are preparing for the last war. While scientific discussions are underway and materiel is being built, the doctrine will change more than once and switch to underwater-based hypersonic drones.
  • ecolog
    ecolog 1 May 2021 01: 51
    0
    All this is very good, but there is one big BUT - capitalist Russia, built into the economic world order in the knee-elbow position, will be economically strangled.
    Damn, guys, when our oil "giants" believe that the difference in prices for fuels and lubricants in Europe and in Russia is their lost profit (that is, we, as a population, are stupidly unprofitable for them), then we have already lost. And so in everything. It is clear that the current rulers are more effective and smarter than Nicholas II. But not much.
    The Great Patriotic War helped to win, in addition to Soviet power, also the enthusiasm of the masses. The younger generation could compare how their fathers and grandfathers lived and what perspectives were given to them. Hitler, speaking of the colossus with feet of clay, did not take this into account.
    What now? Galitsky, having grown rich by $ 100 million, rose in the Forbes list, although a year earlier, having grown rich, he dropped in it not the same amount. That is, while we suck, our elites have enriched themselves. At the same time, not forgetting to inflate our prices for everything. And the State Duma is mainly engaged in introducing new fines and raising VAT, excise taxes, rising food prices and everything else. Get out.
    The question arises. More precisely, a lot of questions.
    - and will citizens be so disfigured for this power when (if) there is a protracted conflict and the personnel run out? Or will it be like in WWI, when the elite will fatten and eat hazel grouses, and the rest will have to die for the straits?
  • squid
    squid 2 May 2021 14: 18
    0
    The author thoughtfully and meticulously chose a carrier-based fighter from the only Russian aircraft that will not become outdated by the time the aircraft carrier is hypothesized.
    "Uncompromising disputes" are being conducted not between supporters of different AB concepts, but between witnesses of the aircraft carrier sect and their opponents, who claim that in the current situation for the Russian Federation with the existing threats, the aircraft carrier is not needed.
    The best aircraft carrier for Tof is Kamchatka and Iturup Island, for the Northern Fleet - the Kola Peninsula and Franz Josef Land. If the author does not consider overseas local wars as the destination of AB, then these ABs are not needed.
    1. EMMM
      EMMM 3 May 2021 01: 10
      0
      I agree that we have no real reasons for local overseas wars.
  • EMMM
    EMMM 3 May 2021 00: 49
    0
    In the historical perspective of the next thirty years, the priority program for the maximum development of the fleet should be the need to create two aircraft carriers as the basis for the stability of ship groups in the far sea zone.

    When designing, building and operating them, the geographical and climatic conditions of the areas of responsibility of the Northern and Pacific fleets of the Russian Federation must be taken into account.

    Something at me completely went crazy ...
    At the beginning of the article, the author says that AUGs serve to subordinate coastal states, and now the task of using aircraft carriers as the nucleus of certain ship groups, and one of them should be located in the Arctic Ocean, sounds. Feature - Aircraft Carrier Icebreaker. And what the hell would he do there?
    There is an idea: to take away icebreakers from the commercial fleet. So that they do not crawl along the SevMorPuti.
    The Pacific Fleet's area of ​​responsibility, I believe, is off the coast of California ...
  • EMMM
    EMMM 3 May 2021 01: 07
    0
    I would like to address the author, as well as other newly minted "analysts".
    The relatively stable system of government in Russia was created by John IV (the Terrible) by the institution of the Secret Decree.
    This system allowed Russia to go through many treason, coups, revolutions, wars, shifts
    forms of government, etc.
    The decision to abandon the aircraft carrier component of the Navy was made, as you understand, not by Nikita Sergeevich.
    And I would also advise you to watch the news programs more often, where the words "asymmetric response" are often heard.
  • AC130 Ganship
    AC130 Ganship 4 May 2021 02: 14
    0
    Author, from what ceiling did you get that Su57 carries 16 tons of payload? Then Tu22M3 can be safely thrown into the trash heap :) Or have you also counted 10 tons of kerosene?
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 7 May 2021 08: 00
    -1
    Hands off the Su-57! There are ships, let the sailors drown them, but don't touch the planes.
  • Eug
    Eug 16 May 2021 15: 16
    +1
    As for me, it is necessary to "split" the Su-57 into a heavier two-seater version to replace the modern Su-30,34 and for use in carrier-based aircraft (here I absolutely agree with the author) and a lighter (compared to the Su-57) single version Su-57L, having scaled the current one under two non-afterburning "izd. 30". Such a modification would belong to the F-18 class, Rafal, Typhoon, MiG-35. I believe that the single-seat Su-57 is at the limit, if not beyond it, of the pilot's physiological capabilities. I agree on the double, with the exception of one point - on-board power engineering. I can only guess, but, most likely, the Su-57 is equipped with two GP-35s with a total capacity of 70 kW and no surplus. It is possible to put two more in the "heavy" modification, but is 70 kW enough to power the AWACS antennas? Not sure. Therefore, I believe that using a heavy fighter as an AWACS is problematic and it is necessary to create a new Yak-44 type carrier with the capabilities of both AWACS and long-range anti-submarine patrol. The composition of the naval air group I see the following - four AWACS-anti-submarine, twelve to sixteen Su-57K (heavy double) and, accordingly, sixteen to twelve new light Su-57L. There are also 4 search and rescue helicopters with the ability to use anti-submarine weapons for external target designation. Something like this..
  • ivpe211
    ivpe211 9 June 2021 09: 09
    0
    sobsna even the most su57 is not yet there (the motors are not ready).
    the same aircraft carrier is not present.