Alternative to "supercarriers": light aircraft carrier based on UDC project 23900

The image is based on drawings by ansokolov39.livejournal.com

In previous articles, we examined the issue Why does Russia need an aircraft carrier, learned, which aircraft carriers are being built or are in service with the world's leading fleetsand also considered for what tasks and with what air group can the universal amphibious assault ships (UDC) of project 23900 be used? - and the ships of this project can be very effective.

Yes, the 23900 project is still at an early stage of construction, yes, there are risks that it will drag on, but this in turn makes it possible to consider the 23900 project as the basis for a light aircraft carrier. According to the author, for ships of this class - aircraft carriers, developed on the basis of the UDC, the Spanish designation of the UDC "Juan Carlos I" - "a ship of strategic projection of force", but "strategic" is very suitable, therefore it is more logical to use the designation "aircraft carrier force projection ship ”(AKPS).

So far, the ships of Project 23900 are "clean" UDCs, since horizontal takeoff and landing aircraft cannot land on them, at least due to the lack of a springboard and aerofinishers, and we do not have vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (VTOL). Nevertheless, in terms of their characteristics, the UDCs of project 23900 are comparable to foreign aircraft-carrying UDCs, adapted for the operation of the F-35B VTOL aircraft, therefore, potentially these ships may well solve the tasks of aircraft carriers.

First of all, it is necessary to decide which option is preferable - the adaptation of the UDC for horizontal take-off and landing aircraft or the use of vertical take-off and landing aircraft? Of course, we are not talking about any catapults - the maximum is a springboard. Moreover, the springboard is necessary both for horizontal take-off and landing aircraft, and is extremely useful for VTOL aircraft.

Horizontal takeoff

The length of the project 23900 UDC is 220 meters, the width is 38 meters. Suppose that the dimensions of the AKPS based on the project 23900 will remain unchanged.

UDC model of project 23900. Photo wikipedia.org

For comparison, the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser (TAVKR) of project 1143.5 "Admiral Fleet Soviet Union Kuznetsov "the maximum length is 306 meters, the width is up to 72 meters, the Indian" Vikramaditya "(Russian production) has the maximum length is 274 meters, the width is up to 53 meters - these ships are capable of carrying horizontal takeoff and landing aircraft.

Heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser (TAVKR) of project 1143.5 "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov". Photo wikipedia.org

Indian aircraft carrier Vikramaditya. Photo wikipedia.org

The Japanese Izumo-class destroyer-helicopter carrier has a maximum length of 248 meters and a width of 38 meters, while the Spanish Juan Carlos I UDC is 231 meters long and 32 meters wide, and ships of this type can only carry VTOL aircraft.

Nevertheless, the length of the take-off run of the MiG-29K carrier-based fighter when using a springboard is 110-195 meters, depending on the payload, the length of the run when using aerofinishers is up to 150 meters. In principle, the potential for basing the MiG-29K on the modernized UDC of the project 23900 is available.

MiG-29K. Photo wikipedia.org

Even better takeoff and landing characteristics should be possessed by the Su-57 and Su-75, if they are implemented in the ship-based version (and regarding the Su-75, if it appears in the series at all).

It should be borne in mind that the features of the layout of the UDC of project 23900 and a potential aircraft-carrying ship of the projection of force on its base will provide either the takeoff of one aircraft, or the landing of one aircraft. The size of the UDC hoists is also questionable - are they capable of accommodating / lifting an aircraft of the Su-57 type, even if it is equipped with folding wings?

VTOL

As world experience shows, the most optimal option for light aircraft carriers based on UDC are vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. The problem is that, as we said above, Russia does not have a VTOL aircraft, and this is despite the fact that at the end of the XNUMXth century we were leaders in this direction.

One of the most underrated combat aircraft is the Yak-141 VTOL aircraft. Photo wikipedia.org

At the same time, our western "partners" are armed with the fifth-generation F-35B VTOL aircraft, which in terms of characteristics is practically not inferior to classic horizontal take-off and landing aircraft, including deck-based aircraft.

Can Russia create a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, and is it needed? First of all, VTOL aircraft is a corresponding engine. An excellent groundwork for creating engines for VTOL aircraft went to Russia from the USSR. This backlog can be used both to adapt existing engines, for example, "Products 30", and to develop a fundamentally new engine, the possibility of creating which was discussed in the article Soviet legacy: fifth generation turbojet engine based on Product 79.

Of course, the second option is much more interesting. Firstly, it is vitally important for our country to preserve several design schools and provide "redundancy" in case of design errors and the choice of the wrong direction of development. Secondly, a promising turbojet engine based on "Product-79" according to the developers, should provide the ability to create a cold jet stream due to the large maximum degree of bypass and, accordingly, large transmitted air volumes. In this case, the speed of the "cold" jet stream will be commensurate with the speed of the "hot" jet.

This means that a VTOL aircraft based on such an engine will minimize damage to the runway (runway), it is possible that when using VTOL aircraft with a "cold" turbojet engine, it will not even be necessary to equip the UDC deck with a heat-resistant coating.

Nevertheless, as for horizontal take-off and landing aircraft, it is advisable to equip the UDC with a springboard - this will increase the range and payload of the VTOL aircraft.

The springboard is a simple yet effective means of increasing the payload of the deck aviation... Photo wikipedia.org

There is an opinion that VTOL aircraft are radically inferior to the "classic" horizontal take-off and landing aircraft. Earlier, at the time of the Yak-38 and Harrier VTOL aircraft, this was the case, but already the Yak-141 in its tactical and technical characteristics (TTX) was close to the "classic" aircraft of a similar weight category. After the appearance of the F-35B VTOL aircraft, this difference became even smaller. Comparison of the capabilities of "classic" horizontal takeoff and landing aircraft with VTOL aircraft was discussed in the article Vertical take-off: a dead-end direction or the future of combat aviation.

By the way, the possibility of acquiring the F-35B is being considered by the Israeli Air Force, which wants to use the possibility of basing the F-35B in limited areas to protect against the sudden destruction of existing airfields and aircraft on them with high-precision weapons long range. At the same time, Israel has no aircraft carriers and is not expected, that is, this is a VTOL aircraft for the "ground" air force. According to the author, Israel is quite reasonable in its approach to manning its armed forces - life compels, therefore the very fact of such consideration speaks volumes.

The F-35B is an as yet underestimated US military and export advantage. Photo wikipedia.org

A significant advantage of VTOL aircraft based on light aircraft carriers, and even on full-size ones, is the ability to provide takeoff and landing of a significant number of combat vehicles in the shortest possible time. This does not require the use of bulky and difficult to use catapults, and aerofinishers.

What company and on the basis of what aircraft can a Russian VTOL aircraft be created? Of course, first of all, this is the Russian light aircraft Su-2021 "Checkmate" announced in 75. Whatever it was, but so far this is the only light Russian aircraft that has even been officially announced.

Su-75 "Checkmate". Photo wikipedia.org

From time to time there is information from the MiG company about the development of light fighter projects, including vertical takeoff, but the degree of development of such projects is questionable. It would seem that it would be logical to entrust the creation of VTOL aircraft to the Yakovlev Design Bureau, but did it retain the competence to create VTOL aircraft and create modern combat aircraft?

Another option is the creation of a heavy VTOL aircraft based on the Su-57 using a lifting fan and promising turbojet engines "Izdeliye-30" or turbojet engines P579-300, but here the question arises whether such a project is feasible in principle.

There have been no precedents for the creation of heavy VTOL aircraft yet, but it is quite possible that this direction will turn out to be promising. Photo wikipedia.org

UAV

Another type of aircraft that can potentially be used on a modernized aircraft carrier UDC can be horizontal take-off and landing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) (helicopter-type UAVs can also be used from a non-modernized UDC), information about this has already been announced in the Russian media.

Reconnaissance and strike UAVs can bring new capabilities to light aircraft carriers. Photo kronshtadt.ru

The requirements are the same - a springboard and a landing hold-down system. Moreover, it can differ significantly from traditional aerofinishers, for example, it will be some kind of mesh capable of gently stopping a UAV of a relatively small mass.

Horizontal takeoff or VTOL aircraft?

In fact, the answer to this question is quite simple. If Russia is able to create a VTOL aircraft that is not inferior or even superior in its characteristics to the F-35B VTOL aircraft, then the choice will definitely be in favor of VTOL aircraft - they have the advantage of rapid deployment, easier landing, and the possibility of using jump airfields. If not, then the simplest option would be to use the existing MiG29K, and then the "chilled" MiG-35 or the promising Su-75 Checkmate.

A combined option can also be considered. A springboard is required for both VTOL aircraft and horizontal takeoff and landing aircraft. Installing a heat-resistant coating for a VTOL aircraft is not too difficult a task, especially since if a VTOL aircraft with a "cold" jet stream is implemented, then it will not be particularly required.

What remains is the system for ensuring the landing of horizontal take-off and landing aircraft - that is, aerofinishers (and some other additional equipment). And here it all depends on how difficult and expensive it is to integrate aerofinishers with the necessary additional equipment into the UDC design. If this is feasible, taking into account minor adjustments to the UDC project, then, by incorporating aerofinishers into the design, we will get the most versatile light aircraft carrier / UDC or an aircraft-carrying force projection ship capable of providing the basing and operation of classic horizontal takeoff and landing aircraft, VTOL aircraft, UAVs and helicopters for various purposes. , as well as the landing of troops, including ground combat vehicles.

The placement of air detectors and other systems that ensure the landing of "classic" carrier-based aircraft will make the force projection aircraft carriers as versatile as possible. Photo wikipedia.org

Cost / efficiency

If the creation of a super-aircraft carrier is an almost impossible task for our country at the current level of development of the Russian shipbuilding industry, then we are quite capable of creating a light aircraft carrier. As world experience shows, light aircraft carriers with VTOL aircraft, often based on UDC, are the choice of many countries, including those that are highly developed in technical and military terms, with a strong economy.

Once again, let's compare different types of aircraft carriers and UDC:

- supercarrier Gerald R. Ford - about $ 10-14 billion;
- UDC of America type - about $ 2,5 billion;
- French nuclear aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle" - about $ 3,3 billion;
- British aircraft carrier of the Queen Elizabeth type - about $ 4,3 billion;
- Italian landing helicopter carrier "Trieste" - about 1,1 billion euros;
- Spanish aircraft carrier / UDC "Juan Carlos I" - about 360 million euros;
- Japanese "destroyer" - helicopter carrier "Izumo" - about 1,5 billion US dollars.

The estimated cost of Project 23900 UDC may be about USD 500 million.

There is no doubt that an attempt to build a Russian super-aircraft carrier will suck all the juice from the military budget of the Russian Federation in general, and the Navy in particular.

Even if we, having undermined the economy, build 2-4 supercarriers, the United States will easily increase its number of its own by the same 2-4 units. No, confrontation with the US Navy is possible only in asymmetric ways.

On the other hand, light aircraft carriers are quite capable of covering the deployment of strategic missile submarine cruisers, solving expeditionary missions and fighting against the countries of the "second echelon", the same Turkey or Japan (of course, not alone). At the same time, force projection aircraft carriers will be a much more versatile tool, having the ability not only to deliver airstrikes and ensure air supremacy, but also to land quite serious ground forces.

And no Montreux conventions - the UDC in the format of an aircraft-carrying ship, the projection of force can freely walk through the straits.

It can be assumed that force projection aircraft carriers will be especially effective as a mobile staging area for the deployment and support of special operations forces.

The value of special operations forces in combat operations of the present and future will continue to grow, but they need effective support, supplies and evacuation capabilities. Photo wikipedia.org

Separately, it is necessary to mention the export potential of light aircraft carriers. If Russia can create a high-quality light aircraft carrier / UDC, then many countries will want to purchase it, for example, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, Vietnam, Brazil - what a slap in the face for the United States, which considers Latin America its "backyard".

The multipurpose aircraft carrier Atlantico is a former British amphibious assault carrier and the current flagship of the Brazilian Navy. Photo wikipedia.org

Few people can afford to build a supercarrier now, perhaps only the United States and China are now capable of this, and China with reservations. The rest - only with substantial assistance from the same USA. The same is with the acquisition - you can't just take, ditch the US $ 10 billion (and it will probably be more expensive to sell) and proudly dissect seas and oceans in a brand new Ford. It is also necessary to equip it with an air group, train the crew, build a service infrastructure - few people can afford such time and resource costs. Yes, and the leadership of the "partners" Navy understands that one or two supercarriers will not give them anything. Nobody in France, Britain or other European countries seriously believes in the Russian threat. To attack Russia ourselves - they will sink, if without the United States - that's for sure, and maybe even with the United States. And to carry out expeditionary operations and "bend fingers", and there are enough light aircraft carriers in abundance.

At the same time, many countries are happy to acquire light aircraft carriers, including those with a relatively modest military budget. It's good for those to whom the United States will sell the F-35B VTOL aircraft, but what about the rest? So they can become clients of the Russian military-industrial complex (MIC), which will allow the country to earn billions of dollars, create thousands of jobs, and, taking into account cooperation, provide hundreds of thousands of people with jobs. The sale of a light aircraft carrier / UDC entails the supply of an air group for it, landing craft, military equipment, weapons for all this, service contracts and training contracts.

The key element of the possibility of exporting aircraft-carrying projection ships is the creation of a VTOL aircraft, since it is a modern highly automated vertical take-off and landing aircraft that makes significantly less requirements for the pilot's qualifications (landing can be almost completely automated). This reduces the risk of accidents, especially such ridiculous ones as the aircraft falling overboard. In addition, VTOL aircraft can provide a high intensity of work of the air group, even from light aircraft carriers / UDC.

What tasks can a force projection aircraft carrier be able to solve? For the most part, the same as the "clean" UDC - to ensure the deployment of SSBNs and expeditionary operations, to provide air cover for the fleet in conventional conflicts, but the aircraft-carrying ships of the projection force will do this with much greater efficiency than the "pure" UDC. Try to predict what tasks such a ship, moving to a certain area, will solve - whether it will look for enemy submarines, or provide support for regime change in a neighboring country, or it simply works as a "transport", transporting military equipment to a Russian military base in the region.

Supporters of supercarriers, of course, will object - a light aircraft carrier cannot carry airborne early warning aircraft (AWACS), it will have a lower intensity of aircraft sorties. But it is VTOL aircraft that can make the intensity of flights of carrier-based aircraft from a light aircraft carrier comparable to that provided by supercarriers, or even surpass it. As for AWACS aircraft, at the first stage they can be partially replaced by AWACS helicopters, in addition, there are ways to completely solve this problem, which we will talk about later.

Returning to economic issues - instead of building one supercarrier, you can build four aircraft-carrying force projection ships.

This relationship can be traced very clearly, both on the example of the United States and ships of this class, created by other countries. It is enough to exclude from the tasks of the aircraft carrier only one - the direct confrontation of the US Navy (and as we said earlier, a direct confrontation between the US Navy and the Russian Navy without the use of asymmetric solutions is impossible in principle), and then it will become clear that for solving any other problems the capabilities of an aircraft carrier ship force projection enough in abundance. Especially when it comes to four AKPS instead of one supercarrier - one ship cannot be present in four places at the same time.

Conclusions

1. The capabilities of light aircraft carriers based on UDC - aircraft-carrying ships of projection force will cover almost all the needs of the Russian Navy for aircraft-carrying ships.

2. The force projection aircraft carrier can potentially be implemented in a variant capable of providing the operation of both "classic" deck-based aircraft for horizontal take-off and landing, as well as for vertical take-off and landing aircraft.

3. The cost of building force projection aircraft carriers will be 4-6 times less than the cost of building supercarriers, they are quite "affordable" for the Russian Navy not in single quantities, but in a series of four to eight ships.

4. The export potential of force projection aircraft carriers will create thousands and support hundreds of thousands of jobs.

5. The most important and one of the most difficult tasks in the context of the creation of aircraft-carrying force projection ships is the development of a modern vertical take-off and landing aircraft, comparable or superior in performance characteristics to the American VTOL F-35B.

Comments

[riwas]

First of all, it is necessary to decide which option is preferable - the adaptation of the UDC for horizontal take-off and landing aircraft or the use of vertical take-off and landing aircraft?

In principle, there is also a third option. Use of a vertical take-off and landing drone to ensure take-off and landing of horizontal flight aircraft. Well, this option is still at the level of theoretical research.

[Avior]

Use of a vertical take-off and landing drone to ensure take-off and landing of horizontal flight aircraft.

Excuse me, but how is that?

[riwas]

Excuse me, but how is that?

What's incomprehensible? Everything that a vertical take-off aircraft carries for takeoff is placed in a separate drone. There should be common attachment points for the aircraft and the drone. At the start, the drone is controlled by the pilot of the aircraft or it is done autonomously. After reaching the required height and horizontal speed, they are disengaged. The drone sits down vertically, and the plane flies about its business. Landing with aerofinishers. Well, this is all just theoretical research.

[Avior]

A vertical takeoff aircraft carries for takeoff a lifting fan, a deflected engine nozzle, a gas-jet stabilization system and a supply of fuel, which, during vertical takeoff, eats as if not into itself. How it is possible to transport the deflectable nozzle and the fan separately - I can't even imagine.
But the nuance is also that, how. As a rule, modern vertical takeoff aircraft take off with a takeoff and land vertically.
Which complicates the task even more.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Avior

A vertical takeoff aircraft carries for takeoff a lifting fan, a deflected engine nozzle, a gas-jet stabilization system and a supply of fuel, which, during vertical takeoff, eats as if not into itself. How it is possible to transport the deflectable nozzle and the fan separately - I can't even imagine.

You are confusing a "fork with a bottle"! You hear: "Drone" - and imagine a jet plane with a fan, a deflected nozzle, a "gas jet system" and a "huge" fuel supply! But this is not the case! The idea looks very different!

[Avior]

The idea looks very different!

well, describe what the idea looks like, the author did not advance further than general words

You hear: "Drone" - and imagine a jet plane

I wrote

I can not even imagine

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Avior

well, describe what the idea looks like

I'll try ! But maybe a little later? Today was a difficult day ... tired ... and interest in the topic "somehow" does not "burn" ... and it was not I who "threw out" the idea on the page ... although I was familiar with a similar idea earlier and because "butted"!

[Bogatyrev]

A good idea.
Shared system.
Landing an unmanned launch complex will save fuel during takeoff.
The unmanned complex itself can be a rotary-wing system.
And landing with the air finishers will save fuel on the final leg.
As a result, we get the optimal use of the carrying capacity and the increased radius, all other things being equal.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Bogatyrev

The unmanned complex itself can be a rotary-wing system

Can you imagine a helicopter capable of lifting 20-25 tons or more?
And how will the plane unhook from it, just fall down? To what height should the plane be raised so that it has time to accelerate in the fall, and it has enough altitude to take it out of the dive?
Or does it still need to be at least a little progressively dispersed before the separation, so that the ailerons and rudders begin to operate?
Where on the aircraft carrier do you propose to store such a "miniature" crap? And do not forget that any platform is at the expense of the air wing, it will have to be taken away from it by an airplane or a helicopter.
Still think this is a good idea?

[Bogatyrev]

Yes, there are problems. But the benefits are much greater and worth it.
1. "a helicopter capable of lifting 20-25 tons or more" - but for a short period without fuel, crew and other cargo. And it should not be a helicopter, but a specialized complex.
2. "And how will the plane unhook from it, just fall down?" - no, acceleration must be unambiguous before uncoupling.
3. "Where on the aircraft carrier do you propose to store such a" miniature "crap?" - not one, but a few crap. I think that for a group of 30 cars, 10 of them will be needed. But its dimensions will definitely be much smaller than that of an airplane, + folding blades.
And there should also be the possibility of a shortened take-off from the deck without a rotorcraft.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Bogatyrev

2. "And how will the plane unhook from it, just fall down?" - no, acceleration must be unambiguous before uncoupling.

right. It is necessary not only to raise, but also to disperse.

Quote: Bogatyrev

not one, but a few crap.

it is truth too. This further aggravates the situation.

Quote: Bogatyrev

But its dimensions will definitely be much smaller than that of an airplane.

alas, they won't. Firstly, if it is a helicopter, then it will be able to attach the plane only "for itself" - which means that it must be at least one dimension larger than the plane, otherwise it will not rise above the plane. Something like a crane helicopter in the image and likeness of the Mi-10 or CH-54.
Folding blades are good, of course. But during takeoff, they will have to be decomposed! And even if there will be not one, but two or four screws, these are not small dimensions. This means a large take-off area (larger than that of a platform on jet engines) and, probably, the impossibility of simultaneously launching several of these pieces (the deck is not rubber, and even on a small ship)
You see, this is already a logical and technical mistake, to consider that the launch platform (carrier) in the take-off configuration may be less cargo. Yes, it has several times less fuel on board - but it has powerful engines (after all, not only to raise, but also to accelerate to at least 300 kilometers per hour) (propellers) and the need to attach a load (aircraft).

If it is difficult with the plane, then imagine the bus, and the required to raise its platform. Learn to make it smaller (in terms of) than a bus? (You don’t suggest dragging the plane on an external sling, on cables, right? You need a rigid hitch, moreover, such that the platform could stand on the deck. How is this possible - the dimensions are less than the load under it, but leaning on the runway?)

And let's estimate the mass. Even if the weight return is 100% (which is very cool), such a platform will weigh at least 10-12 tons. Somehow you are not attracted to something light?

Quote: Bogatyrev

I think for a group of 30 cars, you need 10 of them

those. a third of the wing can be safely deleted from the combat strength. Is the price too big?

[Bogatyrev]

technical error, considering that the launch platform (carrier) in the take-off configuration may be less cargo

And the engines that lift the F-35 are heavier than the aircraft? )))

after all, not only to raise, but also to disperse up to 300 kilometers per hour at least

What for? What prevents the aircraft from accelerating?

a third of the wing can be safely deleted from the combat strength. Is the price too big?

not a third, but a quarter.

But do not forget why everything is being done. For the sake of not taking off from a not too large aircraft carrier without a catapult, not a Yak-38 type mock-up, but a fully functional IS with a normal flight range and without the need to burn a third of the fuel on a springboard.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Bogatyrev

And the engines that lift the F-35 are heavier than the aircraft? )))

an engine is just an engine, besides, I wrote like this:

Quote: Bond James Bond

error, considering that the launch platform (carrier) in the takeoff configuration can be less cargo

speech for dimensions, not weight... The mass was mentioned below

Quote: Bogatyrev

not a third, but a quarter

Quote: Bogatyrev

I think for a group of 30 cars, you need 10 of them

10 from 30 is one third.
Each plane in an already small air group is worth its weight in gold, and you propose to cut it down even more - and to cut it down quite seriously and deliberately.

Quote: Bogatyrev

did not take off the layout of the Yak-38 type

Nowadays, Russia still does not have a VTOL aircraft, and if they create it, it is unlikely that a copy of the Yak-38 in terms of characteristics. Now it makes sense to focus not on him or Harrier, cars of the last century, but on the F-35B

[Bogatyrev]

speech for dimensions, not weight

Dimensions. The frame can be telescopic, the blades are folding, this is not a problem now.

10 from 30

quarter ))
not 10 from 30, but 10 units. for 30 LA

Each plane in an already small air group is worth its weight in gold, and you propose to cut it down even more - and to cut it down quite seriously and deliberately.

1. Not so serious, considering the point about dimensions.
2. But the goal of all this is worth - increasing the range, load and functions of information security. It is better to have 30 full-fledged vehicles than 40 aircraft with a radius of 300 km and a payload of less than 5 tons.

Nowadays, Russia still does not have a VTOL aircraft, and if they create it, it is unlikely that a copy of the Yak-38 in terms of characteristics. Now it makes sense to focus not on him or Harrier, cars of the last century, but on the F-35B

Absolutely agree. In addition, in this scheme, a clean VTOL aircraft will not be needed - a shortened take-off / landing is enough.

And by the way - the air wing will still have to be reduced for the sake of introducing AWACS and PLO drones into the group.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: riwas

Use of a vertical take-off and landing drone to ensure take-off and landing of horizontal flight aircraft

the idea of ​​using an airplane to lift an airplane is, of course, original and interesting, but I think it is unrealistic on a ship. At least because of the cost. This is a hangar for two sets of aircraft and ... well, everything else.
In general, in my opinion, one should not be perverted and look for tricks to reduce the ship's displacement, shifting their inability to operate aircraft onto the aircraft themselves. It is possible that someday vertical take-off and landing, which do not degrade the characteristics of the aircraft, will return to normal, but so far we are not particularly close to this. Yes. The Yak-141 and F-35 are much more serious than the Harrier and the Yak-38, but they are still far from the planes of the normal scheme.

Your idea is clear - getting rid of the aircraft from the most energy-consuming section, vertical takeoff. It is technically feasible, and, of course, has the right to life (for example, in the event of a breakdown of the runways of airfields - as an analogue of the once used point launch system), but how much cheaper is this additional thousand tons of displacement and normal deck length?

[Avior]

Sorry, but by what criteria did you determine that, for example, the F-35 is up to horizontal aircraft. Take off too far?

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Avior

Take off too far?

ah how witty) But in no way?
- the existing American 90-meter catapult understands aircraft with a take-off weight of up to 36 tons. These are the combat load and fuel. I want to know the max. take-off weight of VTOL aircraft, even if with strc
- bring the range and combat load of a normal aircraft and VTOL
- with the same takeoff weight, which aircraft will take the larger BC? Here you don't even need to go far, for correctness, take the same F-35, with a takeoff from the concrete of a decent size (almost equal to a catapult launch) and with a short mileage and remaining fuel for a vertical landing when performing the same task and with the same the same flight profile.
I would be very surprised if you say that a VTOL aircraft covers a normal plane like a bull a sheep. Apparently, the Americans were completely stupefied, which, together with the F-35В, is also being done by the F-35С.

[Avior]

by what criteria did you determine that, for example, F-35 to aircraft with horizontal. Take off very far?

Excuse me, I asked you what criteria you used to determine this, and you answered me with instructions that I should give you and write to you who has more takeoff weight and so on.
I did this a long time ago and compared the same F35V with other aircraft that actually exist in operation and did not see that it was fundamentally inferior.
For example, I compare it with the American Hornet, and I do not see any fundamental difference according to the indicated criteria.
With regard to the range and weight of the combat load. Don't you know that conventional horizontal take-off aircraft have these parameters, which differ significantly in values? And how do you rate this parameter? If it takes a ton of less combat load, then definitely it is far inferior to the other? Do you not consider other criteria?

[911sx]

VTOL aircraft always spends fuel on takeoff categorically more than a horizontal takeoff aircraft, even if it takes off from a springboard. And if with the help of a catapult, then even more so. This is an axiom. You will not argue that the car is more economical and more wasteful than any tracked analogue. Look at the run-out of both in neutral upon reaching an equal (at least 60 km / h). Nobody can cancel physics, not even your desire.

[911sx]

A VTOL aircraft still need to land the same fuel or we will cancel gravity?

[Avior]

During landing, fuel consumption is much lower than during takeoff.

[Avior]

You can forget about the catapult, except for the Americans, no one was able to make a really combat-ready one over the past at least fifty years, and even in general in the post-war period. The USSR did not succeed, not a single plane took off from it. Horizontal aircraft without a catapult is a gamble, Kuznetsov's campaign clearly showed this, and the USSR and China considered and are considering them either as training or as transitional to ejection, but not full-fledged aircraft carriers.
The catapult will provide the most important parameter - the relative stability of the aircraft's behavior during takeoff, regardless of the load and weather conditions. A similar property is provided in VTOL aircraft.
Without this, takeoff turns into a risky attraction and is really only suitable for polygon conditions.
During takeoff, VTOL aircraft spends as much fuel as is specifically necessary in the given conditions; during takeoff from a takeoff run, fuel consumption is incomparably less than during a purely vertical takeoff, even if a partially vertical mode is used. Pay attention at what moment during such a takeoff the lift fan flap closes and at what moment the engine jet is transferred to a horizontal position - almost immediately after takeoff.
But in general, the question was completely different - not in theoretical reasoning, but in specific figures - write down the range of the existing fighters and compare with the F-35v. You can start with the MiG-29 and Hornet's proven combat experience over the years.

[A. h. 52]

I read somewhere that taking off from a springboard creates such a load on the landing gear that the plane always takes off with an incomplete load (so that the legs do not break).

[Avior]

And from the catapult too. Unless, of course, this was not taken into account in advance when designing the aircraft.
In fact, in most cases, aircraft take off with an incomplete load - in addition to the general limitation, there is a limitation on each of the suspension points, and the weapons are suspended based on the task, and in fact, the weight of the weapons at the attachment point is usually lower than the allowable one.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Bond James Bond

on the ship is unreal. At least because of the cost. This is a hangar for two sets of aircraft and ... well, everything else.

1. "Hangar for two aircraft ..." And why did you decide that each aircraft needs its own drone, and even the size of an aircraft?
2. "Well, everything else ..." And what about the rest? Are you sure the "rest" should be "everything, in the kit"? What if it’s not so? It can be seen that you have a bad idea of ​​\ uXNUMXb \ uXNUMXbthe idea!

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

It can be seen that you have a bad idea of ​​\ uXNUMXb \ uXNUMXbthe idea!

state it so that it is clear and beautiful)
And explain, please, how your answer relates to my comment.

Quote: Bond James Bond

the idea of ​​using an airplane to lift an airplane is, of course, original and interesting, but I think it is unrealistic on a ship. At least because of the cost. This is a hangar for two sets of aircraft and ... well, everything else.
In general, in my opinion, one should not be perverted and look for tricks to reduce the ship's displacement, shifting their inability to operate aircraft onto the aircraft themselves. It is possible that someday vertical take-off and landing, which do not degrade the characteristics of the aircraft, will return to normal, but so far we are not particularly close to this. Yes. The Yak-141 and F-35 are much more serious than the Harrier and the Yak-38, but they are still far from the planes of the normal scheme.

Your idea is clear - getting rid of the aircraft from the most energy-consuming section, vertical takeoff. It is technically feasible, and, of course, has the right to life (for example, in the event of a breakdown of the runways of airfields - as an analogue of the once used point launch system), but how much cheaper is this additional thousand tons of displacement and normal deck length?

you answered exactly to it.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

It can be seen that you have a bad idea of ​​\ uXNUMXb \ uXNUMXbthe idea!

I perfectly understood the idea, you could understand it if you read all the comments
.

Quote: Nikolaevich I

1. "Hangar for two aircraft ..." And why did you decide that each aircraft needs its own drone, and even the size of an aircraft?

this gizmo, let's call it the launch platform, is supposed to lift the plane into the air. to a certain height (obviously not 10 meters), move away from the ship at some distance, have the ability to stabilize at the start of the aircraft, etc. Those. be quite large, almost the size of a fighter jet. To facilitate the separation of the aircraft from it, it should accelerate with it to a speed when it is possible to effectively control the fighter's own aerodynamic surfaces, preferably one and a half to two times more, i.e. up to 300-400 km / h. Well, how do you imagine this flying mortar, the size of a scooter, which will lift, retract and accelerate a 25-ton aircraft?

Quote: Nikolaevich I

And why did you decide that each aircraft needs its own drone

not for everyone, but for everyone taking off at once. If you lift a group of 4 planes into the air, it means 4 platforms, out of 10 - ten, twenty - means 20. Because taking it back, refueling, attaching a new plane to it and launching it - it takes too long.
There must be as many (or more) platforms ready to launch than planes taking off. And all of these platforms have to be stored and maintained somewhere.

If AV has two or three types of aircraft, and even different manufacturers, then it may turn out that each needs its own platform. Not a fact, but there is a risk.

Quote: Nikolaevich I

"Well, everything else ..." And what about the rest?

but think critically. I said something, try and you act as a "devil's advocate", sometimes it is useful

[Doccor18]

Quote: Bond James Bond

When you lift a group of 4 planes into the air, this means 4 platforms, out of 10 - ten, twenty - means 20.

Well, it is unlikely to lift 10-20 cars at the same time, but 6-8 is probably real. Plus 2-4 in reserve, in case of accidents / destruction, total: a whole squadron ... Doubtful idea. And so the air group is "worth its weight in gold", and then take on board 10-12 practically useless (in combat terms) vehicles.

Quote: Bond James Bond

If AB has two or three types of aircraft

Even if it is possible to make the air group as uniform as possible (in terms of mass and dimensions), it is still a dubious idea ...

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

and even the size of an airplane?

a large platform will also be necessary because it will be necessary to ensure the operation of the lifting motors. They have to receive air from somewhere, and this from somewhere should not be shadowed by the load aircraft. Whatever one may say, but a small platform does not work. Yes, and the motors on it should not be weak - this is to lift not only your own weight, but also the loaded aircraft-load.

The idea, of course, has the right to exist, for example, as already mentioned, as a point launch system from an airfield, where there are no strict restrictions on the location of these platforms. At least stack them along the runway.

[Orca]

Whose research - who theoretically seeks it? Tell me straight - just banal fantasies? So far, in Russia, no one is looking for anything in this regard, there are more mundane / splashed (submerged) tasks where you can and should spend money and what to dream about

[zwlad]

Interesting opinion.
Let's see if it is true over time.

[Serge-667]

Wrong. You don't have to look.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Serge-667

Wrong. You don't need to look

I agree. Light aircraft carriers are not a substitute for "normal" aircraft carriers (let's call them that)

[Serge-667]

Moreover, it is not clear what functions he will perform in such an ugly form and for what?
There were already Gyrfalcons, Condors. And, if the latter, with a displacement of 16 thousand tons, at least somehow met the ideas about the PLO DMZ cruiser, then the Krechety's are generally an anomaly with an aircraft wing incapable of anything. Even if you revive the Yak-141, modernize everything that is possible, it will not save the project and will not give any goodies in modern reality.
And there it was, for a second, 45 thousand tons.
No. To sculpt another analogue from the UDC, thank you. Better to revive the modernized Baton. More benefit will be.

[Bond, James Bond]

I agree. It's one thing when you're going to plant your VTOL aircraft on a ready-made UDC in order to somehow expand its capabilities, and it's completely different when you offer this craft instead of a normal aircraft carrier. If we had VTOL and UDC and there was a question - and let's put them on paratroopers, then, I think, few questions would have arisen. But making an initially flawed ship, and under the auspices of "this is in our interests" - is already too much.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Bond James Bond

Quote: Serge-667

Wrong. You don't need to look

I agree. Light aircraft carriers are not a substitute for "normal" aircraft carriers (let's call them that)

The idea of ​​"light aircraft carriers" makes sense only when preparing for a global naval war with a strong rival. There are too few nuclear-powered ships, it is unrealistic to build them quickly. Therefore, the solution will be the massive construction of inexpensive and as simple as possible aircraft-carrying ships based on 10-12 isters. or explosive bombs.
But this venture is very expensive, complex, requiring huge experience, organization, gigantic production capacity and trained personnel with a margin. Such opportunities (and even then with some reservations) quickly build 20-30 kt. ships, now only the United States and China have. Such massive "escort aircraft carriers" will solve combat missions on secondary fronts, guard important convoys, overseas bases, and support the landing of the marines. The inevitable losses of such ships will not seriously affect the ability of the Navy in the war of destruction. If American or Chinese "hawks" engage in this practice, I will understand, but why they are in our country is completely unclear ...

[Yuri V.A]

We say an aircraft carrier, we mean a catapult, the French understood this long ago, installing a pair of devices on relatively small Foches and de Gaulle. The author's light ersatz variant is better than nothing, but the Navy is not in a position to experiment.

[Barberry25]

to work well, a concept coordinated by the fleets and the industry is needed. In principle, the idea of ​​creating light escort aircraft carriers based on the UDC is good because first the construction scheme on the UDC is worked out, then, as I think, it is necessary to create an PLO cruiser based on the UDC, in fact the same UDC, but completely sharpened for the helicopter group i.e. more lifts, fuel, helicopter weapons, and then we make an aircraft carrier, if necessary, you can lengthen the ship to obtain an acceptable runway, and if you develop a tiltrotor like an AWACS aircraft, then there will be no problems with radar cover, BUT you need to clearly set the task, draw up a plan and go to the goal, and not how the MO is now rushing from one to another and wants "outstanding performance" .. It is more profitable now to take a step back and get an advantage due to the number

[Yuri V.A]

It will not be possible to resolve the issue at the expense of quantity, an aircraft carrier, even a light one, is not an PLO corvette, a thing too costly. T-14 and Su-57 are a prime example of this. It is clear that by restoring competencies, building a full-fledged aircraft carrier will not work right away, but it is foolish to give up someone else's experience and your own past mistakes.

[Barberry25]

someone else's experience is just not there. Before building, you need to understand the goals and objectives of the aircraft carrier .. at this stage, it is not profitable for Russia to build aircraft carriers a la "Russian Ford", because it is very expensive .. The minimum prices for an aircraft carrier are announced at 400 billion rubles, we are talking about an aircraft carrier with 60- 70 LA .. The price of two UDCs was announced at 100 billion rubles, even if we assume that the price of an aircraft carrier based on the UDC will be around 75 billion, then we are talking about a light aircraft carrier with an air wing of 25 aircraft. Moreover, construction will be based on proven solutions, less costly per unit of time, and moreover, a number of current tasks do not require a huge air wing, and in the event of an aggravation, you can always combine several aircraft carriers in the AUG. aviki can be designed

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Barberry25

The minimum prices for an aircraft carrier are announced at 400 billion rubles, we are talking about an aircraft carrier with 60-70 aircraft. The price of two UDCs is announced at 100 billion

some heresy has been voiced. AB for 60-70 aircraft is 65-80 thousand tons. UDC capable of receiving and operating 25-30 aircraft is 40-45 thousand tons. How is a ship half the size of its displacement worth 4 times cheaper?

[Doccor18]

Quote: Bond James Bond

some heresy has been voiced. AB for 60-70 aircraft is 65-80 thousand tons. UDC capable of receiving and operating 25-30 aircraft is 40-45 thousand tons. How...

The point is not so much about military equipment as about the fact that both the atomic classic and the "UDC-light aircraft carrier" will be a new project for us that has never been implemented yet. It will be long, difficult and expensive. More expensive (certainly not cheaper for the lead ship), more complicated and longer than that of the "partners". To believe that two domestic UDCs will be handed over to the Navy within 100 yards is simply naive and incredible.
45 ct. UDC America costs US taxpayers about $ 3 yards apiece. Provided that the process of building such ships in the United States has been debugged for a long time, the Wasps are being exploited with might and main ...

[Avior]

How is a ship half the size of its displacement worth 4 times cheaper?

The complexity of the creation and maintenance of ships is completely different.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Avior

The complexity of the creation and maintenance of ships is completely different.

Naturally, two at 50 will cost more than one at 100, both in construction and during the life cycle. About that and speech.
The impression that the people either do not understand at all what they are talking about, or have not yet sobered up. Well, and Mr. Barberry25 even more so.

[Avior]

Naturally, two 50 will cost more than one 100

about the content ....
The catapult Charles de Gaulle - the ship's crew is about 1200 people + 100 command (I do not take into account the air group), Nimitz 3200 teams, the UDK Juan Carlos - the crew of 240 people, the English Queen Elizabeth under the VTOL aircraft (almost twice the French with a displacement) - 600 people in the team, izumo udk - 470 people,
More crew - more mechanisms for maintenance - more expensive is the maintenance of the ship. Catapult aircraft carriers are very expensive to maintain, and the technical complexity is high.
About the cost of construction
It depends on what kind of ships. If the UDC is two 50 each against a catapult aircraft carrier and 100 - then 2 UDC will be cheaper, it is easy to trace the Americans

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Avior

ship crew

a bit of a strange indicator. On ships of different classes and dimensions, its composition and number are completely different, and this depends on many factors. From the availability of weapons systems, the degree of automation, etc. This is not at all an indicator of the "size" of the ship.
There are 1980 people on Kuznetsovo, although it is smaller than "Elizaveta" with its 600. There were only 705 people on the Project 32 nuclear submarine, on a similar-sized diesel-electric submarine of Project 877 - 57 people, although it is not nuclear and is much newer. You are comparing some horses in a vacuum.

the cost of UDC "America" ​​was 3,4 billion dollars, Nimitz - about 5 billion. Probably you yourself know how to count.

Can't you just figure it out logically? Two ships (even smaller in displacement) are a double set of electronics (now one of the most expensive parts of the ship), two power plants (also very expensive), albeit not so powerful, a double set of equipment for flight support (not cheap), etc. .. Are you looking forward to the corps? So "iron" is the cheapest item in the construction of a ship. The filling is expensive.

I have already mentioned the conventional cost of a conventional ton. So, the smaller the ship, the more its conditional ton is worth. Because the share of "hardware" is less, and the share of equipment and weapons - more. There is no direct relationship that "two by 50" is equal to "100", "two by 50" in shipbuilding is always greater than "100". But nothing less. Such arithmetic.

Unconvincing.

[Avior]

There are 1980 people on Kuznetsov, although he is smaller than "Elizaveta" with her 600

On Kuznetsov, horizontal take-off aircraft are used and there is a large complex of missile weapons, you take incomparable examples.
The closest comparison with the French is two clean aircraft carriers, the Englishman is almost twice as large, and the crew is half that of the French.
It's not serious about the nuclear submarine at all.

the cost of UDC "America" ​​was 3,4 billion dollars, Nimitz - about 5 billion.

So you haven't heard about dollar inflation? Why are you comparing America with 1975 Nimitz? You would also compare the buildings of the Second World War with Forrestal of the 50s for 217 million or with Midway.
Compare with Ford, which is more expensive - two for 3,4 billion or one for 14 billion.
And compare Nimitz with Tarawa, if you want.

I have already mentioned the conventional cost of a conventional ton. So, the smaller the ship, the more its conditional ton is worth.

This is if the ships are of exactly the same type.
The Frenchman can be compared to the Americans, for example.
And if the ships are of different types, then it makes no sense to compare.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Avior

Compare with Ford

oh what a young man, to compare the first ship of the series, and even stuffed with advanced systems. These ships are always "golden"

I have already written the rest, I see no reason to repeat it.

[Avior]

Nimitz and America, which you undertook to compare, are also the first ships of the series.
But this did not bother you.

[antivirus]

the question is not how much the construction costs - but SKKKO WORKS THE MAINTENANCE AND MODERNIZATION-REPAIRS FOR 50-60 YEARS OF OPERATION.
IT IS CONFIDENCE IN FINANCE AND STABILITY OF POLICY, INTERNAL FIRST OF ALL, THEN EXTERNAL
brains must first be corrected in ministries and federal agencies.
the question has never been about money for construction - only about the use and content (financing) for 50 years in advance ...
in my opinion...

[ermak124.0]

Regarding the throwing of the MO from one to another, could you please clarify? Very interesting.

[Barberry25]

But what can I say .. everything starts with a small one, first an attempt to get into the jet with modular ships, and the ships themselves were built, and the modules will only be adopted in a year or two, and that is, there are certain doubts that the Ministry of Defense will hold out on this topic. BDK, which was altered several times during the construction phase as the Ministry of Defense changed the technical specification. The story with the corvettes, which began as "take everything that has been tested and put it into production", and eventually resulted in an attempt to squeeze out all the juices and stretch the deadlines ... Yes, even take the MRK, first there was an idea of ​​Buyans as rocket gunboats, then the Karakurt appeared, since it turned out that the Buyans, imprisoned for rivers and calm seas, cannot feel confident in the Mediterranean / Baltic because of the flat bottom. Now they want to make an IPC / light corvette from Karakurt and again try to squeeze out all the juices by installing the Redoubt air defense system .. Everyone is scolding the shipyards why they propose projects oversaturated UVP, although in fact this is a response to a request from the Ministry of Defense. once show that any quality can be outweighed by quantity. So it will be with aircraft carriers, the Moremans will not agree to light aircraft carriers and will lick their lips at atomic Fords and ask for the same .. Yes, even here, with a simple proposal not to suffer from giganootomania and transfer the Karakurt to Kolomna diesel engines with the installation of an anti-aircraft gun and keeping the Armor as the base air defense I caught a bunch of minuses and stories about "well, you don't understand"

[ermak124.0]

I read it. Thanks!

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Yuri V.A.

We say an aircraft carrier, we mean a catapult, the French understood this long ago, installing a pair of devices on relatively small Foches and de Gaulle. The author's light ersatz variant is better than nothing, but the Navy is not in a position to experiment.

PMSM French experience just proves the opposite. They made a permanently breaking missile carrier with American catapults. The same British did not follow their path, although their aircraft carrier is larger. There is nothing to say about the rest - look how many people want to put the F-35B on the deck.

[Yuri V.A]

How are the reliability of systems and mechanisms related to the choice of the ship concept? All other countries wishing to put Lights on the deck of ships solve auxiliary tasks, in contrast to our flagships.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Yuri V.A.

How are the reliability of systems and mechanisms related to the choice of the ship concept?

Associated with the lack of experience in their construction. Incl. catapults, which, despite their apparent simplicity, are quite complex devices.

Quote: Yuri V.A.

All other countries wishing to put Lights on the deck of ships solve auxiliary tasks, in contrast to our flagships.

Actually, I have a similar opinion on this matter. Our light aircraft carriers also have to solve auxiliary tasks:
- to ensure the deployment of SSBNs;
- to work against the countries of the second and third echelons;
- to solve expeditionary tasks.

And the fight against the US Navy PMSM is possible only with long-range anti-ship missiles with target designation from space. Moreover, most likely only from a special warhead.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: AVM

And the fight against the US Navy PMSM is only possible with long-range anti-ship missiles

in the absence of carrier-based aircraft - of course. There are no alternatives. If there were aviation, these tasks, among other things, would be entrusted to it. In addition, aviation is good not only in attack, but also in defense. If we turn to history. then it can be noted that the ships covered by aviation suffered relatively small losses, without air cover, no matter how powerful those ships were. they usually went to the bottom.

Quote: AVM

Moreover, most likely only from a special warhead

wow, how you swung - immediately throw vigorous bombs. Not cool? All over the world, they are moving away from the waste immediately to start wetting each other with nuclear weapons. Even in Russian doctrine, it is given the place of a weapon of the last order, when all potential for struggle has been exhausted.

[Alex777]

Andrew!
The pictures that you used in the article are the BDK Priboy project.
He also has a ramp on the tank.
UDC 23900 looks different and much more in terms of VI.

And 23900 have two pipes.

[tralflot1832]

It is necessary to constantly monitor the "Zaliv". In the circles covering shipbuilding, there are persistent rumors that the UDC of the Priboy type has added in tonnage, now it is already 30 tons. Yes, and Putin's words when laying the groundwork brought intrigue.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: AVM

see how many are willing to put the F-35B on the deck.

because except for VTOL aircraft on the UDC from the aircraft you will not plant anything! There is a UDC, and he wants more opportunities - so he "sits" on them "verticals". It was only the British with their AB who went the "unique" way and made a huge trough under the VTOL aircraft, which they already regretted - they were going to finish building the "Welsk" for "ordinary" aircraft

Quote: AVM

the French experience just proves the opposite. They made a permanently breaking aircraft carrier.

in what connection is technical reliability and concept? Not in any. The catapult is needed, at least to ensure the basing of AWACS aircraft and support transport personnel. Alas, helicopters in this role are so-so replacement. AB should be with a catapult, everyone in the world has already understood this.

[nks]

Quote: AVM

They made a permanently breaking aircraft carrier.

This is not true. SdH breaks down no more often (and in the last 10 years, even less often) than the average American superABMA. For example, in the Russian Navy there are no ships at all that can compete with the SDG in surfacing.

Quote: AVM

The same British did not follow their path, although their aircraft carrier is larger.

So he has fewer opportunities, despite the fact that it is larger than SDH. Actually, although not 100% (but close to 100% - for the first and only such ship in the series this is a brilliant result), but the French completed the task at ~ 40% VI and ~ 30% of the cost from Nimitz to have ~ 60 % of his combat potential.
And if completely on the topic, then firstly it would be necessary to decide what the aircraft carrier is for and to calculate well how much the program for its creation and operation will cost (including the aircraft wing), but in general, to begin with, at least just an ordinary UDC can be built - there it is really possible and a balanced UAV to develop it.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: AVM

The same British did not follow their path, although their aircraft carrier is larger.

Among the British, the refusal of the catapult was caused not by tactical, but by financial considerations. The admirals just wanted an ejection AB, but the Treasury decided to save money. However, they have the same story with the power plant for Korolev.
The funny thing is that the abandonment of the catapult did not give the planned savings, since after that the new AB RN turned out to be tied to the only SCVVP in the world, which was steadily growing in price.

The British AB concept is "we design a complete AB and then chop the tail in parts we make regular budgetary circumcisions on it, resulting in not a mouse, not a frog, but an unknown animal". Only Britain can in the XXI century build an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 65 tons (almost" Forrestal "), carrying 000 SCVVP and not even in theory having the possibility of basing AWACS aircraft.

Insanity with budget savings in Britain generally went off scale beyond reason. For example, David Cameron, after he decided to abandon the construction of the second "Queen" for the sake of economy, had to be reassured by the forces of a group of party comrades. Who, after paying him a personal visit, asked if the respected prime minister knew how many thousands of voters would lose their jobs after that and how many votes their party would lose in the elections after that, and in the most problematic fluctuating regions.

[bayard]

Quote: Yuri V.A

We say an aircraft carrier, we mean a catapult

This is if for horizontal take-off and landing aircraft, including AWACS.
And if we take as a basis the concept proposed by the author - UDC as carriers of VTOL aircraft and AWACS helicopters and use them as air defense aircraft carriers KUG, escort aircraft carriers and aircraft carriers supporting the amphibious forces, then everything looks very logical.
Such a UDC / aircraft carrier will be much simpler structurally, cheaper and will be built faster (due to less complexity. gas turbines, will cost $ 22350 million.
Yes, its capabilities will be somewhat lower, after all, an AWACS helicopter, this is not a Yak-44 in a new look, but on the same money and in less time, 3-4 AB with VTOL aircraft can be built. And the Zaliv shipyard in Kerch will be able to build them. And if necessary, the "Star" in Bolshoy Kamen will also cope with this task.
And if Ukraine also returns to its native harbor (willy-nilly, it still has to be done), then the Nikolaev shipyards will also eventually be able to join this good cause.

But the whole thing is not in AB for VTOL aircraft, but in VTOL aircraft itself.
And for this you need an ENGINE.
There is no confidence in the successful completion of the "Product-30" epic alas, is it possible to resume work on the P279-300 or the promising P579-300 ... it is written with a pitchfork on the water.
But if there is such an opportunity, then it is better to spend several billion ($) on the development and launch of production of VTOL aircraft, but save on:
- development and construction of AV even in VI 50 tons with a catapult, aerofinishers and all the complexities of this venture,
- development and construction of AWACS aircraft, which in itself is also a very difficult task, especially for our RAC,
- to create production facilities for the construction of classic aircraft carriers, their maintenance, repair and basing. For the UDC there will be enough available capacities, their maintenance and repair will be easier, and the basing ... so the UDC is already being built and the places for their basing will have to be created anyway.
But after all, the choice of this concept will reduce the costs of the program for the creation of an aircraft carrier fleet ... multiple.
Let me remind you that the UDC for VTOL aircraft will cost 3-4 times cheaper than the classic AB, which is approximately equal to it in VI.

And the author is also right that the export potential of both VTOL aircraft and UDC as their platform is quite large.
And the Su-75 glider as a basis for the development of VTOL aircraft is quite suitable.
Therefore, for success, it is urgently necessary to tackle the P579-300 engine for the future VTOL aircraft.

[Yuri V.A]

If there is no catapult, what load will the fighter take, for what tasks? Yes, he alone will need three refuelers for an acceptable radius, that is, the task will be performed by three or four cars, then why such an economy.
Pilot projects, and even with an inconceivable pace of construction, have zero export potential. Even the mastered corvettes are not willing.

[bayard]

Quote: Yuri V.A

If there is no catapult, what load will the fighter take, for what tasks?

And what tasks can the AV VTOL aircraft have?
Providing air defense KUG in DM and OZ, aerial reconnaissance (there will be enough UAVs here), participation in PLO KUG by PLO deck helicopters, air support for amphibious assault forces. For these tasks, their combat load is sufficient.
And to fight the fleets of the enemy, these are tasks for the escort ships, since they have anti-ship missiles, GZUR and KRBD in the UKSK. But to repulse an air raid under the control of AWACS helicopters is the very thing for them. Against the CD on PMV, fighters are better, but under the control of airborne AWACS, there is no money - at a decent distance from the order, you can intercept all or most of the CD, and if something breaks through, the ship's air defense systems will be finalized, since they will know where to wait.

Quote: Yuri V.A

Yes, he alone will need three refuelers for an acceptable radius,

What's wrong with the radius of the VTOL aircraft?
The same Yak-141 had a radius of 800 km. And this is with a standard combat load - more than that of its peer MiG-29. And the F-35V is about the same.
And why does he need a radius beyond the limit, if his main tasks are air defense. And it takes much less time to take off than a catapult one or when starting from a springboard. There is less fuel from the springboard for takeoff and acceleration, but with a vertical takeoff, you can take off even from a parking place, and very quickly lift all refueled aircraft on the deck into the air.

Quote: Yuri V.A

Pilot projects, and even with an inconceivable pace of construction, have zero export potential. Even the mastered corvettes are not willing.

Here we can rather talk about the export potential of VTOL aircraft. If one appears and works out, there will definitely be buyers.
And about "those who want to use corvettes" ... their concept is too intricate, the price is high, the design is complex, and the submarine's capabilities ... are limited (in 20380). And why a helicopter with such a flea? In the sea, he will not be able to launch it - a wave.
But about the labor deeds and accomplishments of the ever-memorable USC ... if ALL the leadership of this shalman is not removed and competent and responsible ones are not supplied, we will not have any ships - the last Soviet ones will rot.

[Yuri V.A]

The radius of the Yak-141 with a standard load of 800 km is possible only with a normal takeoff and an optimal flight profile. With a vertical takeoff and a variable airfoil, even with a minimum load, the combat radius is unlikely to exceed 350-400 km, which, given the small number of a light aircraft carrier's air group, will be unacceptable.

[bayard]

The calculation of the radius of the Yak-141 was standard - takeoff with a run (but not "horizontal), vertical landing, normal payload, optimal flight profile. In terms of radius it even then surpassed the MiG-29, and decently, and approximately equal to its peer - F -18. And in this matter, I more trust its test pilots and the official data of its characteristics.
In the USSR, they very rarely overestimated the characteristics of their technique (more often they underestimated), so that a surprise came out in singing. Unlike the USA.
One example from their F-111 was worth what !! The maximum reference speed was given .... 2650 km \ h !!! And more or less truthful characteristics were named only after removal from service.

Quote: Yuri V.A

With vertical takeoff and variable airfoil, even with a minimum load, the combat radius is unlikely to exceed 350-400 km

But even if it were so (and this is not so), then such a radius is quite enough to provide an air defense order. Namely, such a task was before him.

[Yarhann]

With a combat radius of 350-400 km, this is how many half an hour of duty at a distance of 200-250 km, then to the base, how many sides can an aircraft carrier launch at such a time in the air? I am afraid that the enemy will have a stupid quantitative superiority and significant. At the same time, the same Su27K has a combat radius of about 1200 km and is capable of being on duty for about 2 hours at a similar distance.
Yak141 and previous VTOL aircraft that shoved on 1143 is garbage (especially Yak38), and thank God that they put an end to them by placing full-fledged Su27K and Mig29K hawks on the aircraft carrier. If we cannot ensure quantitative superiority in the air (by launching a mass of garbage hawks of the Yak141 type), then we need to ensure qualitative superiority by means of heavy machines like the Su33.

[bayard]

The USSR had four "Krechet" of the "Kiev" type, two types of "Kuznetsov" and one of the "Ulyanovsk" type were built. It was for these four "Krechet" that the Yak-141 was created to supplement the Yak-38M (Yak-39) attack aircraft as an STATE Fighter (the first of the deck VTOL aircraft) to provide air defense. And its creation (Yak-141) was late.
If the USSR had not sunk into oblivion, then the armament of these 4 "Krechetov" would have been Yak-141 and AWACS helicopters. It was impossible to base other aircraft there.
And the fact that the Yak-141 was equivalent to the first versions of the MiG-29 (and had a similar radar and armament), while having a larger radius, is true.

Quote: Yarhann

With a combat radius of 350-400 km

Where did you get this from? When taking off with a run and four missiles, its radius is about 800 km. When taking off vertically, it will certainly be less, but I assume a radius of 500 - 600 km.

Quote: Yarhann

how much is half an hour of duty at a distance of 200-250 km

To provide an air defense order, it is not at all necessary to keep fighters (constantly) in the air. It is enough for the AWACS helicopter to fly off 100 - 150 km. from AB, and fighters are on duty on deck with warm engines. When an enemy is detected, take off and intercept.
So their capabilities were quite enough to fulfill the tasks they had defined - they would not have let aviation and CD to the warrant. In addition, VTOL takeoff is carried out much faster than from a catapult and a springboard, and in an emergency situation it can be carried out even from a parking place by the whole group. It was possible to lift 8 or even 12 VTOL aircraft into the air for 3-4 minutes maximum. In this case, the vehicles on duty at the starting position take off immediately.

Quote: Yarhann

... At the same time, the same Su27K has a combat radius of about 1200 km and is capable of being on duty for about 2 hours at a similar distance.

From the deck ??
Do you know that it takes off from a springboard with half the fuel and a minimum of weapons? (The same 4 missiles)
And this is certainly very good without a catapult, but you still give up your fantasies.

Quote: Yarhann

it's rubbish (especially Yak38)

It's just that it was the very first domestic VTOL aircraft, in fact they studied on it. But the Yak-38M with the new engine was no longer bad as an attack aircraft, and was much better than the Harrier (which are still in service with the US ILC in small numbers).
But he was not a fighter. By definition and terms of reference.
This is a stormtrooper.
And the Yak-141 is a fighter, equivalent in capabilities to its counterpart, the MiG-29.

Quote: Yarhann

and thank God that they put an end to them

Oh, glory, is it?
I'm not talking about the Yak-38 (they were already removed from service before the collapse of the Soviet Union), but about the VTOL aircraft - the Yak-39 and Yak-141. They just had to make up the air wings of the first 4 "Krechetov". And even on the "Kukhnetsov" and "Varyag" their basing was planned - for them even a special landing site was provided at the stern.

Quote: Yarhann

by placing the full-fledged Su27K and Mig29K hawks on the aircraft carrier.

It was possible to place a leash on ONE (!) Unfinished (unfinished) aircraft carrier. And the basing of the Su-33 on it (and others like it) was recognized as irrational - both by us and by the Chinese. there was simply no other, the MiG-29K \ KUB was not yet ready, and they took what it was. As a result, we received a vehicle on board that was not capable of striking land and sea targets - only interception and air combat. And the MiG-29K \ KUB were delivered to Kuznetsov only 10 years ago. And they will have to replace the Su-33 after they have exhausted their resource. The Chinese are also dissatisfied with the copy of our Su-33 - too cool for such an AV.
And the Americans abandoned their heavy F-14 in favor of the light F-18.

Today the Russian Federation has no aircraft carriers at all. "Kuznetsov" may not come out of repair, but in Kerch they are very slowly building (? Are they building?) Two UDCs.
Do you dream of "heavy carrier-based fighters with AWACS aircraft on the deck of atomic 100 ton monsters ??
There will be no these monsters - there is nowhere and no one to build.
There will be no deck-based AWACS aircraft - the UAC is not able to even put a simple Il-112 on the wing, the UEC is not able to create a reliable engine for them ... even the An-2 "Kukuruznik" will repeat and restart production (!!!) not capable.
And in the case of the development of VTOL aircraft (which is also a question, but there is a groundwork, developments and work have been going on since 2015), neither giant atomic AB, nor steam or electromagnetic catapults, nor AWACS aircraft, nor heavy carrier-based fighters (and they are not available for the future either) ... And money - monstrous amounts of money, will not be needed either. UDC (even of such size as "America") will cost 700 - 800 million dollars. , and not 7 billion (atomic 100 tons) or 000 billion dollars (gas turbine VI 2,5 tons).
And for the construction of such AV VTOL aircraft, we only need to complete work on VTOL aircraft, which have been going on for almost 7 years ... well, a new AWACS helicopter - it can be on the same base as the previous one.
The air defense of the KUG will provide such AV, and the escort ships will have shock functions, for which they have missiles in the UKSK.
So you can build a fleet and not get frustrated. At the same time, without puzzling the industry with unsolvable tasks for it.

[Osipov9391]

The Su-33 is an excellent fighter and it was deliberately chosen as a heavy aircraft with a huge range and a 12-point load.
On land and on water, it works well in its class - unguided missiles are his, they wanted anti-ship missiles, but the military did not want to remake the SUV.
then they installed the Hephaestus SVP for accurate hitting with bombs.
And everything is fine with him with work on ground / surface targets.

And do not forget that the Su-33, fueled and armed to the maximum, can take off from the shore, burn fuel after completing the task and board the ship relieved. Already because of this, the military in the early 90s chose him - there a man from the plane's test brigade told me.

[bayard]

Quote: Osipov9391

Su-33 is an excellent fighter and was deliberately chosen as a heavy aircraft

Who would doubt that the Navy would want a deck version of such a wonderful aircraft as the Su-27. Another thing is that he did not take off from the springboard in full load (fuel, BC), which is why he could not realize all his capabilities. And they decided not to install the catapult on Kuznetsov, although it was created, tested and even delivered to the plant in Nikolaev.
And the fact that it was possible to get out of the situation was a combination of takeoffs from the ground and landing on AB, but this is from "no fish".
Moreover, the "Kuznetsov" was built as a transitional AV - AV air defense, on which pilots were supposed to study for the already full-fledged aircraft of the "Ulyanovsk" type.

Quote: Osipov9391

On land and on water, it performs well in its class

These are later options, but I was talking about the pristine appearance of the Su-33. In terms of avionics and weapons, they corresponded to the land Su-27. And the Su-27 do not work on the ground.
No, of course they tried to make them "multifunctional" simply by forcing the pilots to bomb and beat with NURSAMS ... they tried so hard in Primorye ... They shot such a shot that they immediately decided to end up foolishly.
Firstly, fighter pilots trained in interceptions and air battles simply do not know how to work on the ground, and secondly, their avionics did not correspond to such tasks.
Su-33 was taught to work on the ground much later, and "Hephaestus" was screwed to them shortly before the trip to Syria.
At the same time, the MiG-29K was originally created as a multifunctional and could not only conduct air battles, but also strike ships and the earth's surface. And he could carry missile weapons, including anti-ship missiles, incl. X-31 and X-35. And the Su-33 can't do that.
Perhaps, over time, they would have taught both the Su-33 and others who were trained for the Ulyanovsk ships. Including the Su-47 "Berkut", which was ordered by the Fleet for the "Ulyanovsk".
But there was not enough time.
Heavy aircraft could reveal and realize all their capabilities only on heavy ejection AB.
But the MiG-29K was suitable for "Kuznetsov" and in general for deck-based operations much better. And had he been ready a little earlier, it would have been he who would have been adopted.

[Osipov9391]

It is pertinent to note that already in 1992-93, the military department completely abandoned the purchase of the MiG-29 of all modifications, even the modernized ones that appeared. They have only been exported since then.
A few orders were for the Su-27 and Su-33 from the Ministry of Defense.
And then the Su-27 began to be modernized in the SM. At that time, no one remembered about the MiG-29, most of it simply rotted away and was written off.
Only in the year 2009 did it become possible to take export MiG-29SMT from which Algeria refused. And they were delivered to Kursk.
Then 10 years ago there was an order for two and a half dozen MiG-29K and later limited orders for the MiG-29SMT.
In general, they did not take anything else, ordinary SMTs were only forced when foreign customers refused them.
There are no new ones and will not be, only the MiG-35 is in the testing stage.
There was simply no interest in light fighters for over 20 years. Due to financial constraints, we decided that the heavy ones were better.

[bayard]

What purchases of the MiG-29K could we talk about when Kuzyu was almost scrapped in the 90s? And in the 00s, they were torn all the time. No repairs, no normal technical support.
Yes, and no one particularly modernized the Su-33, because the fate of the last AV constantly hung in the balance. Only after "Vikromaditya" and the batch of MiG-29K for India, did they decide to order for themselves.
And in the 90s they just took what was already there. Because it was simple.
If we return Ukraine to ourselves (and apparently we will return it all the same), then it will be possible to talk about normal aircraft carriers.
If not, then UDC with VTOL aircraft (on which they are still working) will be for happiness.

[Yarhann]

Kuznetsov is an extreme full-fledged aircraft carrier for air defense support, with full-fledged hawks on board, and not with freaks like yak38 and yak141. Strikes on the surface are not included in his tasks, although they did something there in Syria.
Building an aircraft carrier for strikes on the ground is an unrealistically expensive pleasure - it is much easier to send a Tu22m3 + tanker to the ends of the earth than to build a self-propelled deck for a hundred other lard to throw cast iron.
Any modern conflict, first of all, is the destruction of air defense - that is, the conquest of air superiority - this is exactly what a full-fledged aircraft carrier with full-fledged hawks is needed for. And already when the air defense is cleared, even UAVs can fly and throw gifts on their heads, even the guards, even YES sowing cast iron.
Combat radius of Su27k 1200 km is with a full body kit (2/6) for air combat and full tanks. A pair of patrol hawks can also start from the deck. If a strike group is going to gather, then of course the radius will decrease, so that the whole group would rise into the air.
With a full combat load of 6500 kg, it will not fly far, the air resistance is very high and the fuel tank will not be full - that is, this is support for amphibious operations. And from the version with the load reduced to 4000 kg and full tanks will work quite well in the depths of the enemy's territory.
And yes, the F14 and F18 superhornet are very close in terms of flight characteristics, while the F14 was sharpened to provide air defense / missile defense - this is its main task, like the Su 27k.
A superhornet is just a further evolution of carrier-based aircraft with new characteristics, for example, they did a very good job on stealth. And according to the maximum take-off weight, the Su27k F14 is 33 tons, the F18 - 30 tons - just so lightweight) At the same time, the designers saved on the glider itself, it is 3 tons lighter than the F14 - but the fuel and combat load are the same. That is, this is just a new round in the evolution of carrier-based aviation, and not a transition to something light. By the way, the F35S is also about 30 tons (also a baby), with a similar combat radius to the Su27K.
By the way, the US carrier-based aviation still consists of the F35s, but the ILC uses the poorer F35b - an analogue of the yak141.

[Osipov9391]

That is, the Su-33 (T-10K) is quite an acceptable carrier-based fighter and can it even be compared with the F-35 in the same class in terms of weight and thrust-to-weight ratio?
The Chinese are producing it, and they have created a two-seater version. We have closed all programs on it.

[Yarhann]

The Su35 can only be compared with the F35S in terms of weight - it is already old, and they have not been modernized and they will not be. Rather, they will create something on the basis of the Su 57, because for the future aircraft carrier a modern hawk is needed - unobtrusive, excellent thrust-armed, strong and lightweight.

[bayard]

Yes, you must understand that in the next 10 years the Russian Federation will have, at best, only one old AB, the wing of which consists of the very same aircraft. And no one is going to modernize them, they will serve together until they are written off. And that's all.
And if new aircraft are laid down (not earlier than in 3 - 5 years the first one), then new aircraft will be prepared for them, not Su-33. And most likely not even the MiG-35K \ KUB. And what these ABs will be is completely unclear. I will only say one thing - if they lay atomic monsters, they will be killed about long-term construction and cost. And they will torture for 15 years.
If, within 10 years, there is a chance to get a VTOL aircraft, then they will need AV much easier structurally, cheaper, and can be built on the basis of the UDC project in Kerch.
And there is nowhere else to build them.

[Yarhann]

the aircraft will be based on the Su57, God forbid that would be full-fledged, and not freaks VTOL. In any case, without a carrier-based aircraft, AWACS is also missing - this whole design will be meaningless. A self-propelled runway can be created on the basis of the same project 1143.5.
And the UDC without an AWACS aircraft and full-fledged hawks will be quite enough for the Ka-52 shock guards - why fence a garden if there is no full-fledged air defense aircraft carriers.

[bayard]

Quote: Yarhann

the planes will be based on the Su57, God forbid that they are full-fledged,

This is possible only in the case of laying down the NUCLEAR AV VI 80 - 000 tons and nothing else.

Quote: Yarhann

not freaks VTOL.

Neither the Yak-141 nor the F-35V are freaks, they are equivalent to their modern MFIs. The difference is perhaps in less than 15 - 20 percent of the radius. True, in the case of the Yak-141, its combat radius was greater than that of its peer and classmate in weight - the MiG-29.
But they are really more expensive and more complicated. But they are less demanding on the carrier - a converted tanker or container ship, as well as any UDC with a heat-resistant deck, is quite suitable for them.

Quote: Yarhann

In any case, without a carrier-based aircraft, AWACS is also missing - this whole design will be meaningless.

The meaning will return, and quite common, when using AWACS helicopters, which, moreover, are much more compact.
The same British built two rather rather large AB, but they did not foresee AWACS aircraft. They provided for AWACS helicopters.
And on our "Kuznetsov" also AWACS helicopters.
And on Indian aircraft carriers.
And in Chinese. , although for their first flat-deck they are developing an AWACS aircraft.
Here the French bought from the USA for their AV catapults and "Hookai" ... but only two. And two AWACS aircraft cannot provide constant watch in the air. But instead of two "Hokai" helicopters, 4 would fit in and everything would be fine.
The AWACS deck aircraft is a rather large vehicle that takes up a lot of space and requires a powerful catapult.

Quote: Yarhann

A self-propelled runway can be created on the basis of the same project 1143.5.

So he is with only one springboard !! With such a "Hawkeye" or Yak-44 will not take off.
Yes, and we will not have a Yak-44, although the drawings remain - there are no engines ... The engines remained in Ukraine.

Quote: Yarhann

And the UDC without the AWACS aircraft and full-fledged hawks will be quite enough for the Ka-52 shock turntables.

For the landing and fire support of the assault force - quite.
But how will they get to the landing site?
If anti-ship missiles with a low-altitude flight profile are attacked?
To rely on the SAM of the escort?
And if the raid is massive?
And if enemy aircraft appears at the time of landing?
Anyway, it turns out that there can be no combat stability of the fleet in the DMZ without AV. But to drag an aircraft carrier with you on an amphibious operation (if there is one), or to put a couple of VTOL units on the UDC for cover ... I would really like to have such a choice when making decisions.
And if so far there is nothing at all (!), Then I would prefer to start with something simpler and more accessible, with less risk of failure and with the possibility of getting what you are looking for as soon as possible.
With what you offer you will definitely not work out quickly.
And if you have your own VTOL aircraft, then, if necessary, you can equip mobilization aircraft carriers from civilian ships in a short time.
In the USSR, such experiments were carried out on the Black Sea.

[Osipov9391]

In order. The Su-57 is large and heavy even for the new American carriers. It is not suitable as a carrier plane.
All Su-33s in service have undergone modernization at KnaaPO regularly over the past 20-25 years.
Some cars have been there twice, changed engines to new Al-31F-M1, modified avionics and RTR.
There are no worse means for performing their tasks like PLO and AWACS helicopters! This is a utopia. Their capabilities are negligible and completely depend on the classic AWACS and PLO aircraft, the S-3 "Viking" aircraft performed on American aircraft carriers. But they were written off.
As an addition, helicopters can of course be, but no more. Their radius is negligible, so are the possibilities. No radius and no flight time.
They do not replace classical means. There was information that the Americans are trying to reactivate the Vikings and return them to service. For there is no substitute. As a deck means PLO.
The same applies to AWACS on the ship.

[Yarhann]

The Su-57 is even now better in flight performance than the Su 33 - in terms of empty mass, fuel supply, wing area, engine power. He will be able to rise into the air with a greater load due to a larger wing area and more powerful engines, while due to the same wing he will have a lower landing speed. And in terms of geometrical dimensions, it is even less than Su33 in stock.
So the deck version of the Su57 is calm and parked on an aircraft carrier of the A. Kuznetsov type, there are no problems with takeoff at all - there is simply an abyss in comparison with the Su33.
There is only one AWACS - the guards are trash, they are small and slowly hanging in the air, in fact, they are useless as from a goat of milk. A pair of hawks may well replace this misunderstanding - and quickly and at a great distance from the aircraft carrier. And the guard, having flown another hundred, will go in the opposite direction because the tanks will be half-empty - and what's the use of such a patrol, they are just as awesome as anti-aircraft weapons - especially with our search equipment.
As for me, this is a UAV, or, on the basis of a two-seater hawk, to create something powerful in terms of radar coverage and RTR, possibly suspended containers RTR and radar for hawks, etc. The only question is at what distance and how many hours he can be on duty.

[Osipov9391]

Note that the American carrier's ASW was provided by a special carrier-based Viking anti-submarine aircraft. Even the Americans with their electronics did not trust helicopters with this role.
We have no such thing. The helicopter has no radius.
And then an AWACS helicopter, if the fighters go far beyond the horizon, will not give them any function in fact - due to the low ceiling and flight duration.
There was a Su-33UB. It was possible to stick some kind of good radar there.

[bayard]

Quote: Osipov9391

Note that the ASW of American aircraft carriers was provided by a special carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft "Viking"

"It's better to be rich, but healthy
And it's better to drink chacha ... "
The Russian Federation does not have anti-submarine aircraft AT ALL. At least in relatively modern designs. Ancient Tu-142, which submarine acoustics can hear over the floor of the ocean, but they themselves are sharp-sighted as a mole ... IL-38, the modernization of which has failed, and now they are no more sense than from any patrolman. Well, at least in this capacity ... and only for peacetime ... I don't even want to remember the modernization of anti-submarine helicopters ... and WHO is to blame for all these wonderful accomplishments?
No, of course, the unfortunate monopolist Vega is also to blame ... she has all the programs she can't handle - fail ...
But WHO determines the policy of military development in the Country?
Who is obliged to form an order and formulate an order? AND WHO should control the implementation of the state defense order ??

The modern RF is not capable of having aircraft carriers, carrier-based AWACS and PLO-aviation ... and there are many other things it IS NOT ABLE TO DO.
But virtually - capable of anything.
All the dreams of aircraft carrier armadas with AWACS planes, heavy stealth fighters, long-range anti-aircraft missile aircraft, watch flocks of carriers of "Zircons off the American coast ..." are dreams of an unrealizable "beautiful".
The authorities are not capable of this.
Industry is not capable of this.
Science (applied - KB) is not capable of this.
Human material suitable for state and industrial construction is exhausted, and there is no reserve.
Until recently, all this disgrace could still be overcome by the quality of management ... but even it is below any reasonable limits of criticism ... although higher than in the collective West.

All these conversations and dreams can ONLY be empirical. They have no chance of implementation.
Only gymnastics of the mind.
Just look at HOW the task of restarting the serial production of the Il-76 is being solved !!!
It has been decided for 15 years !!!
And he CANNOT decide !!!!!
And he will not dare!
They will lay down bones, but they will not give a decision.
And the unpretentious Il-112 ??
An airplane for one or two, but with such a backlog and an example of the An-26 ??
IL-114?
An-2 ??? Ku-ku-ruz-nick !!
Look at HOW they build RTOs and corvettes (!!!), AT HOW pace !!
If the power plant for corvettes being built at three shipyards of the Russian Federation, the entire industry of the Russian Federation produces in the amount of ... ONE SET PER YEAR (!!!) ... then WHAT Fleet CAN YOU TALK ABOUT ??
And THIS is the quality of management.
All over the vertical.

And the AWACS helicopter, if you tighten the range of its radar at least (!!) to 250 - 300 km. , will be able to solve the issue of detecting surface and air targets at low altitudes, organizing a constant watch of one such helicopter in the air, and providing target designation and guidance of fighters to targets.
This is much better than nothing.
Let's talk about the duty time.
The flight range of the Ka-31 is 680 km. Therefore, if he is on duty from the hover / follow mode / over the order, then the time of his duty will be from 3 to 4 hours. We take 3 hours as a basis - the time of watch in the air of the AWACS helicopter.
There are 4 such helicopters on the bot.
Therefore, with consecutive duty during the day, each helicopter must take off 2 (two) times.
2 times for 3 hours = 6 hours. I do not observe overwork, and the flight shift at 3 o'clock cannot be too tiring.
And this is on older types of helicopters.
The new engines will be more powerful, and the equipment is lighter, therefore, it will be able to take more fuel and stay on duty longer.

Quote: Osipov9391

And then an AWACS helicopter if the fighters go far beyond the horizon

They will be perfectly seen and guided to their entire maximum detection range. They can see EVERYTHING from the top.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: bayard

The USSR had four "Krechet" of the "Kiev" type, two types of "Kuznetsov" and one of the "Ulyanovsk" type were built. It was for these four "Krechet" that the Yak-141 was created to supplement the Yak-38M (Yak-39) attack aircraft as an STATE Fighter (the first of the deck VTOL aircraft) to provide air defense.

Nope. Yak-141 was created for all future TAVKR. Even 11435, originally designed as a classic catapult AV, had to be redesigned for Yakovlev's toys. The Ustinov-Amelko tandem was relentless.

In early 1980, the Minister of Defense signed the directive prepared by the General Staff, which set the Navy, Air Force, SMEs and MAP tasks to reduce the displacement of TAKR pr. 11435 and reorient its air group, mainly to aircraft of vertical and short take-off and landing (NE / UVP) . To ensure the takeoff of short-run aircraft, it was proposed to provide a springboard instead of catapults on the ship. This was followed by instructions to ensure the take-off of VTOL Yak-41 with a short take-off.

© Maureen
The irony of fate, but the plans to arm "Kuznetsov" with vertical arms were buried by a design that was originally created just for them. It was the springboard introduced into the AB design, which was originally intended to facilitate a short takeoff for the Yaks, that provided the possibility of taking off from the deck of the new Su and MiGs - which finally determined the composition of the 11435 aviation armament.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Alexey RA

The Ustinov-Amelko tandem was relentless.

And yet, we should be grateful to Ustinov, because, in the end, he had enough intelligence and determination to implement the 5. Amelko and his Halzan would have buried all national aircraft carrier ambitions. And the long-suffering Kuznetsov would not exist now ...

[bayard]

Quote: Alexey RA

Nope. Yak-141 was created for all future TAVKR. Even 11435

The Yak-141 was born for too long, and it was Yakovlev's promises to make a supersonic vertical aircraft that gave Ustinov a reason to insist on this type of ships ... Had he (Yak-141) appeared even a few years earlier and entered service, all TAKRs would have received it and perhaps some of them would have survived to this day.
And from the very beginning, the Navy wanted to get a normal aircraft carrier - "like that of the United States" ... And yes - they made a catapult for Kuznetsov and even put it on the Nikolaev Shipyard. But they didn’t put it.
But with the thrust-to-weight ratio of the MiG-29 and Su-27, they did not even need a catapult for takeoff.
But nevertheless, the Yak-141, albeit with a delay, turned out. And at least the first four aircraft carrier could receive it, as well as AWACS helicopters. And it would be completely different ships in terms of combat capabilities and a completely different Fleet. By the early 2000s, the USSR would have 10 aircraft carriers with a full-fledged composition of air wings, capable of conducting air combat and providing air defense in the DMZ at a great distance.
Did not work out .

[Alexey RA]

Quote: bayard

But nevertheless, the Yak-141, albeit with a delay, turned out. And at least the first four aircraft carrier could receive it, as well as AWACS helicopters. And it would be completely different ships in terms of combat capabilities and a completely different Fleet. By the early 2000s, the USSR would have 10 aircraft carriers with a full-fledged composition of air wings, capable of conducting air combat and providing air defense in the DMZ at a great distance.

He-he-he ... I've found in the archives an ancient post uv. Exeter - what could the Soviet Navy have by the 90s, if our leadership would overcome their ideological intolerance to aircraft carriers and love for asymmetric responses.

Were there possibilities for building large aircraft carriers in the USSR? There were. This is the ChSZ, this is the Baltic shipyard (the main building berth of which allows the construction of ships with a st. Displacement of up to 55-60 thousand tons), this is the well-known NSR workshop with a boathouse, introduced in 1976 (the capabilities of which were specially limited by the length of the docking chamber, "fitted" to the length of the Typhoons - but if we are going to build aircraft carriers, this limit will not be).
In other words, suppose we have been building large AB (such as LAV or Project 1160) since 1970 in Nikolaev instead of the Kievs, and since 1976 - on the NSR instead of Project 941 and 949. The average construction period is conditionally 6 years, 3 years on the slipway or in the shop, 3 years afloat. After the descent, in the vacant place, we immediately lay a new one (as usual with us).

In total, we have theoretically for 1991 11 aircraft carriers, plus two in construction. The total purchase costs are approximately 9,6 billion rubles, and including the purchase price of air groups - approximately 14 billion rubles over 22 years. Thus, the aircraft carrier procurement program is approximately 700 million rubles per year, i.e. no more than 10, maximum 15 percent of the total costs of naval equipment.

About air groups. The cost of the Ulyanovsk air group is 400 million rubles. This is roughly the cost of an MPA regiment, of which we had, as I recall, 13 by the end of the 80s.

About escort ships. Quite a ridiculous argument. Let me remind you that for over 20 years (1970-1991), 6 missile cruisers (3 Project 1144 and 3 Project 1164), 43 surface warships of the 1st rank (10 Project 1134A, 7 Project 1134B, 12 Project 1155, 14 Project 956) and 44 surface warships of the 2nd rank (32 Project 1135 / 1135M, 4 Project 61 / 61M, 1 Project 11540 plus 7 border projects 11351 / 11355). Those. 8-9 pennants for each hypothetical AB! Moreover, aggravated by the diversity and construction of monsters such as "Kirov", the cost is little inferior to the "Kuza". And you can instead build a fairly uniform type of escort ship.
At the same time, "Zaliv" is generally released for peaceful products. For example, refueling tankers.

PLA. The construction of a submarine in general does not intersect with the construction of an AB - in SMP AB would be built instead of SSBN pr.941 and SSBN pr.949 / 949A.

The cost of the SSGN pr.949 / 949A in Soviet prices until 1990 was 350-400 million rubles. For comparison: the cost of TARKR pr.11442 ("Kalinin") - about 500 million rubles, TAKR pr. 11435 ("Kuznetsov") - 550 million rubles, ATAKR pr. 11437 ("Ulyanovsk") - 800 million rubles, cost of submarine pr. 671RTM - 150-200 million rubles.

© http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/0/archive/353/353473.htm

[bayard]

Quote: Alexey RA

He-he-he ... I've found in the archives an ancient post uv. Exeter - what could the Soviet Navy have by the 90s, if our leadership would overcome their ideological intolerance to aircraft carriers and love for asymmetric responses.

Well, an alternative development of the Fleet from 1970 to 1990 is being considered here. I just figured out what would have happened if the USSR had lived for another 10-15 years. After all, they had just approached the construction of classic aircraft carriers, they began to build the first ranks in large series (Sarychi and 1155).
And if we consider the alternative from the moment when aircraft carriers first caught fire in the Navy - the second half of the 40s, when Kuznetsov was worn about it, and the industry was pushed aside.
Remember the famous Stalinist battle cruisers?
That even Kuznetsov, having returned to his post, did not understand "why such ships"? But this was the development of the power plant and the corps (with mine protection) for future aircraft carriers. And the aircraft carriers themselves were already designing, moreover, classic and large ones. And the planes for them too - an attack aircraft with a coaxial engine with an engine layout like the "Aircobra" ...
If the Father of Nations had lived for another 10 years, we would have had aircraft carriers.
And battlecruisers VI as battleships firing at 60 km. nuclear shells (a good alternative to the then primitive anti-ship missiles), escort to aircraft carriers.
Historically, we have never been able to bring the construction of the Fleet to logical perfection. Every time we started, something happened to us. That was an unsuccessful war, then a revolution ... then a counter-revolution ... And each time it was necessary to start from the beginning.

[IC]

Countries named as potential buyers, if necessary and financial, can build such a ship themselves faster and cheaper.

[bayard]

If a miracle happens and we have a VTOL aircraft, then I am afraid that all suitable shipbuilding capacities will be engaged in the construction of AV VTOL aircraft for our Fleet, but we could well supply the aircraft ourselves. So really, if we have a VTOL aircraft, the customers of AV and UDC will build for them themselves.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: bayard

If a miracle happens and we have a VTOL aircraft, then I am afraid that all suitable shipbuilding facilities will be engaged in the construction of AV VTOL aircraft for our Fleet.

I'm afraid not. reality proves otherwise. But to throw the existing VTOL aircraft into the market is yes, it would be an instant. And you know, we would have had a situation when these very VTOL aircraft would have been on the Chinese aircraft carrier much earlier than the same verticals ... at least in the RF Air Force. Do you really think that building an aircraft carrier is an overwhelming task for us? I don't think so. If the conditions are met: there will be a clear understanding for what tasks it is needed and in what quantity. There will be strict and actually effective control over design and construction. Then we will keep within 10 years, a modest sum by world standards. But I wrote "if" from the realm of fantasy ... The absence of aircraft carriers in our country is determined not by economic considerations. but systemic.
And the presence or absence of VTOL aircraft is not a factor here at all.
We have helicopters, why didn't they build helicopter carriers (UDC)?

[bayard]

Quote: Bond James Bond

Our absence of aircraft carriers is not determined by economic considerations. but systemic.

It's right . There is no concept of building up the Armed Forces, there is no clear program for building the Navy and the very understanding of "what we want." Therefore, all conversations about opportunities, needs and desires are purely empirical.

Quote: Bond James Bond

Then we will meet the sum, modest by world standards, and in 10 years.

Yes, it does not matter if the construction of one-pair of AB "chёb bulo" is important, only the creation of a grouping of 6 AB groups in two fleets - 3 AUG on each, can matter. And this is possible only when choosing AV of moderate VI (45 - 000 tons) on gas turbines with catapults and AWACS aircraft (like the French). And even if construction begins at two shipyards at once (in Kerch and Bolshoy Kamen), when they are ready, it will take 50 to 000 years to create such a grouping. And about 15 billion dollars. if they don't steal.
Moreover, the industry will need to master the production of catapults, AWACS aircraft, power plant of appropriate power and aircraft for their air wings.
And if it fails in even one of these delicate places, then the whole program will fail.
And if they steal (and they know how to steal from us and love), then nothing will come of it. As is the case in today's USC.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: bayard

This is if for horizontal take-off and landing aircraft, including AWACS.
And if we take as a basis the concept proposed by the author - UDC as carriers of VTOL aircraft and AWACS helicopters and use them as air defense aircraft carriers KUG, escort aircraft carriers and aircraft carriers supporting the amphibious forces, then everything looks very logical.

logical. But subject to the availability of "normal" aircraft carriers. After all, how did these very light (escort) aircraft carriers come about? This is an American idea (we do not take the times of WWII), when they were preparing for a great confrontation with the USSR. They reasonably believed that there would not be enough regular AB for all, and that it would be necessary to cover the convoys to Europe. Therefore, the idea arose of a light ship with reduced capabilities, for a couple of dozen VTOL aircraft. They also planted light VTOL aircraft, darkness, with characteristics from which the Air Force would simply be horrified, but yes, they would go down to repel attacks by bombers. But - very important - they never considered these ships as a replacement for a full-fledged aircraft carrier... Only as an addition. In cases where a normal aircraft carrier is unavailable (busy on a more important operation, being repaired, sunk, etc.) or based on the situation, you can get by with an easy one. And what does the author offer us? He poses a dilemma - easy or normal. So the question was never in the Western concept. Yes, he cannot stand, for a light vessel in everything will yield to its heavier brother and will not be able to replace him from the word in general. Change sometimes - yes, but not replace.

[bayard]

Quote: Bond James Bond

logical. But subject to the availability of "normal" aircraft carriers.

The trouble is that the Russian Federation does not and will not have normal aircraft carriers - the industry is not ready for such feats, it will not be ready soon, and it will take a lot of money and time to build. Total:
- not today ,
- in the short term - no ("Kuznetsov" does not count if a miracle returns),
- in the medium term - no,
- in the long term - foggy ...
So why crush water in a mortar?
And the author proposed the concept of acquiring VTOL aircraft carriers - yes, escort ones (providing air defense for the KUG in the DMZ and supporting amphibious assault forces). Isn't this a way out when there is simply no other alternative.
Rather, it seems to exist, and I myself have formulated it more than once, but this is an AV medium VI with catapults, fighters of the class (not necessarily of the type) MiG-29K \ KUB and AWACS aircraft. On gas turbines.
But this program has a number of subtle points, and therefore risks.
In the concept of risks proposed by the author, there are fewer risks and the main condition for success is a high-quality VTOL aircraft. And if we take into account that the task of working out this issue, the terms of reference and financing were allocated already in 2015, then there are chances that such an aircraft may appear in 10 years. And then those UDCs that are currently being built in Kerch (and possibly the series will continue) will be able to become those very "light escort aircraft carriers."
Our Navy is not faced with the task of waging war at sea using carrier-based aircraft. The task is to ensure the combat stability of the Fleet forces in the far sea zone, to provide air defense and protection from low-flying missile launchers at the lines far from the order. For the air defense system of ships will see and be able to hit such targets only at a distance of 15 - 25 km. And for fighters, such CDs are an easy target.
So our Fleet does not need multifunctional (according to the American classification) or shock AB. He needs exactly the ESCORT AB to provide air defense of the Fleet forces. And as carriers of submarine helicopters too.

[Yuri V.A]

As a specialist, will you be able to imagine a little more concretely the solution to the problem of providing air defense of a ship group with GDP aircraft from a light aircraft carrier?

[Doccor18]

An illustrative example of Italian ships: 27 kt. Cavour and 33 ct. Trieste. Yes, they also decided to "feel" there (they crossed everything that is possible in them), but we are interested in their capabilities as aircraft-carrying platforms of the corresponding sizes. From the deck of Cavour, theoretically, eight VTOL aircraft will be able to take off simultaneously, with a purely vertical takeoff. How long can this eight be in the air, how far from the ship can it provide an interception zone, how many weapons will be on the sides ??? The answers are unequivocal: not far, not for long, at least. Cavour can take up to two dozen VTOL aircraft, Trieste - up to three. But, if you "kick out" with eights, then nothing will work, because after 1,5 hours you will need to raise the second ... and then the third. Such a regime would be unattainable by personnel. Therefore, at most, fours, but in reality, in pairs, because there must always be helicopters on board. And that there can provide a pair of VTOL aircraft in 400 km. from the ship, it's hard to say ...

[Yarhann]

the correct answer will reach the milestone and turn home)

[Yuri V.A]

The microradius of such "interceptors" is still half the trouble, the main thing is who will carry out their guidance, that is, they will have to use the onboard radars at full capacity to search for them in active mode, which is obviously a losing situation.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: bayard

In the concept of risks proposed by the author, there are fewer risks and the main condition for success is a high-quality VTOL aircraft

I am afraid that much more and with dubious results. What does he offer? Soviet "Minsk", only worse. If he was loaded with shock weapons, then in the case of the UDC, he was loaded with a landing party. And in order to turn it into a LAV, you will need to throw out almost all the troops (and its helicopters to boot) and instead organize cellars and storage of aviation fuel. workshops, etc. The basing of VTOL aircraft on foreign UDC has its own characteristics. This is not an air wing of the Navy, the aircraft belong to the ILC and their role is to support the landing, after occupying the coast, they will operate from ground airfields. Since the supplies of fuel and amphibious aircraft at the UDC are very, very limited, VTOL aircraft from it can only make a very limited number of sorties. The whole point is that VTOL aircraft on foreign UDCs are an appendage of the landing force, and not the main striking force. For an aircraft carrier, the opposite is true. From the UDC (keeping its original functions), you can never get a more or less decent LOV. Somehow such a ship does not pull on the role of an air defense and anti-aircraft defense ship

Well, the main risk. of course, the VTOL itself. A very complex and expensive aircraft, which will be required in limited quantities. Who needs a motor that is unique for the current realities. If we have an airplane of a normal scheme and engines torment it for 15 years, then it's scary to think how much effort, money and time will be spent on a vertical

[bayard]

Quote: Bond James Bond

What does he offer? Soviet "Minsk", only worse.

And what was bad about "Minsk", except for its planes?
Then VTOL aircraft were very imperfect. But re-equip it on the Yak-141 and its combat capabilities will sparkle with completely different colors. And as a platform, it was not at all so bad, especially in combination with heavy anti-ship missiles and 12 PLO helicopters.
Of course, if you just take a standard UDC and use it as a light AV, then this will not be the best option. But if we take the UDC project as the basis for a light / medium AV, but provide for large reserves of fuel, arsenals for the aircraft wing's BC, workshops ... Why is such an AV bad?
Especially if there is simply no other, and if you order, then the USC will fail such an order with a 95% probability. It will be long-term construction, cut and waste of funds.
If there really was confidence that in 10 years a VTOL aircraft with the characteristics of a conventional MFI would appear, then it would be wiser to build UDC and AV on their basis (at the same time unification). For the task of OUR AB is fundamentally different from the AB USA. Ours will not have to inflict strikes with an air wing, but to cover from the air their KUG in the DMZ and protect the "bastions" from enemy submarines and aircraft submarines of aviation. And to build monsters for such a range of tasks the height of waste and irrationalism. For these tasks, an AB with an air wing of 12 - 24 VTOL aircraft and a group of helicopters, the composition of which can be changed depending on the task at hand, is enough. Radar illumination of the situation will be provided by escort ships and AWACS helicopters. They still do not seize the coast of California.
In any case, this will be more than enough for the first stage of the revival of carrier-based aviation. And if in a few years, by some miracle, a new Union (let's say the Eurasian one) gathers within the borders of the USSR / RI, then it is possible to build classical AV.
Moreover, earlier than in 3 - 5 years our industry will not be able to take on such a thing.
And the UDC is already under construction.
And work on VTOL aircraft is underway.
Since 2015
And understanding the psychology of the modern government and the leadership of the USC and the UAC, it will really be easier for them to build the UDC and VTOL aircraft - here at least the export potential is visible.
And now grab the USC ha an aircraft carrier ... one shame ... otherwise they do not know how.
And perhaps the UDC will be built.
And maybe very soon both Nikolaev shipyards and Zorya-Mashproekt will return to their native harbor ... Then it will be possible to build anything.

[Nemchinov Vl]

Quote: Yuri V.A

The light ersatz variant proposed by the author is better than nothing, but the fleet is not in a position to experiment.

If we recalculate ships in motion[i] [/ i] first rank (fr. 22350, BOD 1155, EM 056, Kr. 1164 ...), in all dangerous directions ... Pacific Fleet, Northern Fleet, Black Sea Fleet, then this becomes especially clear !!.

On the other hand, light aircraft carriers are quite capable of covering the deployment of strategic missile submarine cruisers, solving expeditionary missions and fighting against the countries of the "second echelon", the same Turkey or Japan (of course, not alone).

How is it, forgive Andrey to understand ?!
We have enough ships (BNK) of the first rank in the ranks, in all three main fleets ...? !!! Closed Baltic, sorry, I don’t think ...

[Doccor18]

How we like to rush into the same pool ... Errors 1143 Gyrfalcon did not seem to have taught anyone that crossing "a hedgehog and a rhinoceros will not produce a spiny rhino" ...
Author, why should all classic aircraft carriers be with Gerald Ford? Why do we have to arithmetically fight the US Navy? It's not real now, and it is not necessary, in principle. Russia is not the USSR ...

The problem is that, as we said above, Russia does not have a VTOL aircraft ...

And when will it be? In 20 years?

Separately, it is necessary to mention the export potential of light aircraft carriers. If Russia can create a high-quality light aircraft carrier / UDC, then many countries will want to purchase it ...

Hmm ... The ship is still "in my head", and we are for export ...
A classic aircraft carrier (of comparable displacement) will always be a cut higher in combat characteristics than any converted UDC, and the cost will differ slightly. But many abroad would very much like that if Russia began to revive its aircraft carrier program, it would again go into the same dead-end branch, from which there is no way out.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Doccor18

How we like to rush into the same pool ... Errors 1143 Gyrfalcon did not seem to have taught anyone that crossing "a hedgehog and a rhinoceros will not produce a spiny rhino" ...

What are the critical errors? Excellent ships, but the fact that they were ditched due to the lack of infrastructure and the collapse of the USSR is not an indicator.

Perhaps the strike weapons are superfluous on them, but this could be solved in the course of modernization, much like they did for the Indians. Such ships are not 50 years old - with proper care they could serve for 70-80 years.

The USSR did not collapse, could make 4 light aircraft carriers from them with the MiG-29K and VTOL Yak-141.

Quote: Doccor18

Author, why should all classic aircraft carriers be with Gerald Ford?

Not necessarily, but there are still no "intermediate" options. An aircraft carrier or a large one with catapults, most likely nuclear (we have problems with engines), or without catapults.

Without catapults, the AWACS aircraft cannot be lifted anyway. Then what is the point of building a garden if you can get a relatively inexpensive solution based on the UDC?

Quote: Doccor18

Why do we have to arithmetically fight the US Navy? It's not real now, and it is not necessary, in principle. Russia is not the USSR ...

They shouldn't, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Quote: Doccor18

The problem is that, as we said above, Russia does not have a VTOL aircraft ...

And when will it be? In 20 years?

This is very optimistic and perfectly acceptable. It only seems that 20 years is a long time.

Quote: Doccor18

Separately, it is necessary to mention the export potential of light aircraft carriers. If Russia can create a high-quality light aircraft carrier / UDC, then many countries will want to purchase it ...

Hmm ... The ship is still "in my head", and we are for export ...

Everyone wants to eat, and thinking about it in advance is not shameful, but useful. We have a huge outflow of currency - we buy everything abroad, and this currency must somehow be earned. We know how to make weapons and armaments, and they buy them. It is not for nothing that the United States began to put pressure on our arms segment with sanctions - they know how to count money, they "signed" half of the world for the F-35.

Quote: Doccor18

A classic aircraft carrier (of comparable displacement) will always be a cut higher in combat characteristics than any converted UDC, and the cost will differ slightly. But many abroad would very much like that if Russia began to revive its aircraft carrier program, it would again go into the same dead-end branch, from which there is no way out.

If you look at the previous articles, for example, the Aircraft Carrier Bestiary https://topwar.ru/189349-avianosnyj-bestiarij.html, you will see that almost all developed countries have entered this "dead-end program".

[Doccor18]

Quote: AVM

what are the critical errors? Excellent ships

Worse than a cruiser (huge, expensive and unarmed) and no aircraft carrier.

Quote: AVM

The USSR did not collapse, could make 4 light aircraft carriers from them with the MiG-29K and VTOL Yak-141.

Throw in a lot of money in the construction of ships, in the creation of flawed VTOL aircraft, so that later everything will be redone again (again, gigantic costs), what turned out to be an ordinary aircraft carrier with MIGs on board ... Not too expensive, long and difficult to come out?

Quote: AVM

but there are still no "intermediate" options. Aircraft carrier or large

... or the one that Russia needs, which means its Navy. We don't need the Nimitzes or the Fords. They are redundant and expensive. We just need that very "intermediate", 50-60 thousand, in three dozen fighters, four AWACS aircraft and search and rescue helicopters.

Quote: AVM

They shouldn't, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Cost / efficiency
If the creation of a supercarrier is an almost impossible task for our country ...

Once again, let's compare different types of aircraft carriers and UDC:

- supercarrier Gerald R. Ford - about 10-14 billion dollars ...

Why don't you compare with Chinese or Indian projects? Yes, they do not shine with novelty design ideas, but these are "working ships", without conjectures and fantasies.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Doccor18

Quote: AVM

what are the critical errors? Excellent ships

Worse than a cruiser (huge, expensive and unarmed) and no aircraft carrier.

Perhaps the case is just in the Montreux convention? Otherwise, they would have sat in the Black Sea.

Quote: Doccor18

Quote: AVM

The USSR did not collapse, could make 4 light aircraft carriers from them with the MiG-29K and VTOL Yak-141.

Throw in a lot of money in the construction of ships, in the creation of flawed VTOL aircraft, so that later everything will be redone again (again, gigantic costs), what turned out to be an ordinary aircraft carrier with MIGs on board ... Not too expensive, long and difficult to come out?

VTOL aircraft are not defective. They just hadn't "matured" at that time. Everything is different now.

Quote: Doccor18

Quote: AVM

but there are still no "intermediate" options. Aircraft carrier or large

... or the one that Russia needs, which means its Navy. We don't need the Nimitzes or the Fords. They are redundant and expensive. We just need that very "intermediate", 50-60 thousand, in three dozen fighters, four AWACS aircraft and search and rescue helicopters.

Something tells me that the cost will be the same "Nimitz" or "Ford". All the same, catapults are needed, since AWACS planes. This means that nuclear reactors on board are also desirable.

Quote: Doccor18

Why don't you compare with Chinese or Indian projects? Yes, they do not shine with novelty design ideas, but these are "working ships", without conjectures and fantasies.

Didn't find cost data. And what can you compare? Redesigned Soviet TARKR - Chinese aircraft carrier? Converted (by us) Indian TARKR?

The Chinese Type 003 is still a "dark horse". When will it be completed? How much does it cost, not by chance like the same "Ford"? Will everything work out with catapults or will they attach a springboard?

Or the new Indian Vikrant? What are its global advantages over a hypothetical aircraft-carrying ship of projection of force - the same small air group, the same springboard. How will he be better than Izumo?

[Doccor18]

Quote: AVM

Perhaps the case is just in the Montreux convention? Otherwise, they would have sat in the Black Sea.

No. The problem was in the heads of some top officials. "An aircraft carrier is a weapon of aggression, and cannot be created in the most peaceful country in the world" - it was necessary to come up with such a thing ... As for Montreux, this convention did not interfere with the birth of 1143.5, 1143.6 and, especially, 1143.7. They just called it "aircraft-carrying cruiser" and off you go ...

Quote: AVM

VTOL aircraft are not defective. They just hadn't "matured" at that time. Everything is different now.

I agree. It's different now. And the F35 is far from Yak38, but half a century separates them. The only problem is that we don't have our own F35 ...

Quote: AVM

Something tells me that the cost will be the same "Nimitz" or "Ford".

The first, with all the R&D, with the development of AWACS, catapult and infrastructure, perhaps so. The second one will already be three times cheaper. But, whatever one may say, we still need a small AWACS aircraft, and the Aerospace Forces also need it. A-100 Premier is expensive, and there won't be many of them. The MiG-35 has long been asking to become our main carrier-based fighter. It already exists, it is not as far from reality as the Su-57K / Su-75K, VTOL aircraft and all sorts of UAVs ...

[Yarhann]

I agree with you on the last paragraph. If you build a garden here and now, then from what is in real life, and this is the construction of an aircraft carrier of the Kuznetsov type with Mig35k hawks on board, and make additional RTR and radar facilities of a container type for double Mig35 (pilot / operator of the RTR / radar complex).

[AAK]

Dear Andrey! The article as a whole is a plus. The majority also agree with the conclusions. But there are several "BUT":
- even with all our desire to exclude a direct confrontation with the US Navy, the word "in any way" will not work. Even if there is a conflict of any degree of intensity (like a street-punky type) with the Euro-NATO members in the Baltic or in the Norwegian Sea, or with samurai in the Far East Military District, the "older boys" will fit in for the insolent, Deutsche and Japs right away and in full;
- the proposed aircraft-carrying ship of the projection of force in the dimensions of UDC 23900 with a minimal alteration of the project still, in my opinion, will not work:
a) we need such ships only for 2 TMD - North and Pacific. The types of light AVs of Spain and Italy that you indicated are suitable only for Mediterranean, Britta with the Invincible and its brother-thorns, the only Europeans who retreated for a long time in the North Atlantic and clearly recognized the limited operation of aviation from these ships due to the flooding of the flight deck due to small sizes AB with frequent strong waves in the area. Therefore, their new "queen" and "prince", despite the continued operation of VTOL aircraft, have more than twice the displacement. The oceanic regions, where our AV is to operate on the basis of the UDC, have an even more complex wave situation, to which, in winter, not a simple ice situation will be added. Yes, and 8-12 aircraft on small AB, this is still, pardon the unintentional pun, very little to complete the minimum necessary tasks. Therefore, the proposed type of light AV-KPS can be based on the design of UDC 23900, but its displacement should not be 22-25 tons, but 40-45 tons. to ensure the necessary seaworthiness, the presence of an air group of 24-30 aircraft on board, as well as other forces and means of their landing in the amount of at least BTGs for "power projection" (which, in my opinion, will be most relevant for the Pacific Fleet). In addition, it is necessary to initially decide what exactly will fly - an aircraft of a conventional scheme or a VTOL aircraft:
- if we make an AV-KPS under a VTOL aircraft, then despite the fact that the Yak-35 scheme was largely used for the design of the F-141B SU, now Russia will not be able to technically reproduce the Yak-141 even in the original version 30 years ago. Yes, the new Russian VTOL aircraft should be built approximately according to the proven technical scheme of the Yak-141, but around the new engine, with a new hull and airframe (already variations on the F-35 and Checkmate), with a new radar with AFAR, new avionics and weapons.
- if there is an AV-KPS with conventional aircraft, then it is necessary to speed up the work on "Checkmate", because The MiG-29K / MiG-35 is already yesterday in every sense, and the Su-57 is too big for a light and even medium AV. Plus urgent work on a new helicopter or UAV as an AWACS. The Ka-31 is just creepy.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: AVM

Perhaps the case is just in the Montreux convention? Otherwise, they would have sat in the Black Sea.

Not at all. The same "Ulyanovsk" was a clean aircraft carrier (and a nuclear one!), Although it was listed as a TAVKR. But whatever you want and christen the ship. Look at the Italians, if memory does not fail, the same "Giuseppe Garibildi" went in aircraft-carrying cruisers, having no strike weapons other than aviation (40-mm Bofors does not count, does it?)
And the TAVKR is then, in order to distinguish from aircraft carriers, they are weapons of aggression of the damned imperialists.

[AAK]

On "Garibaldi", colleague, EMNIP 4 PU anti-ship missiles "Otomat" were installed

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: AAK

On "Garibaldi", colleague, EMNIP 4 PU anti-ship missiles "Otomat" were installed

yes, it was, here is my mistake. But it was classified as an aircraft carrier for political reasons (due to the prohibition of Italy after WWII to have aircraft carriers). Although in air wing Garibaldi was almost as good as the Spanish Prince of Asturias

[911sx]

The author proposes to step on the same rake. Only with the UDC. How many VTOL aircraft (of which there are none) will this ship be armed with in addition to helicopters and amphibious assault vehicles, and possibly armored vehicles? Until it is normal, with a catapult, there will be no aircraft carrier and AWACS aircraft. And there are no problems with either the catapult or the aircraft finishers. The Proletarian Plant produced them and, if desired, will make more (everyone wants money) - there is competence. The question is in the heads ... of those in the General Staff and the Fleet leadership. The author is trying to find an application for ships that are not entirely appropriate at the moment, and having made an analysis, he probably himself realized that the output turns out to be incomprehensible. Not really an aircraft carrier is obtained or UDC (for example, where to store fuel for aircraft, at the expense of the landing?). And the conclusion is simple - until this "UDC" grows in size by 40 meters in length and at the expense of sponsors acquires a deck at least 60 meters wide, then it will be possible to talk about aviation.

[911sx]

With the advent (construction) of a catapult aircraft carrier, it will be possible to resume work on the AWACS aircraft. Su 75 is being developed as possible for the slope. So these UDCs should either be brought up to 60 thousand tons (well, at least 50) with a corresponding increase in size, or left as they are.

[Avior]

And there are no problems with either the catapult or the aircraft finishers. Proletarskiy Zavod made them and, if desired, will make more.

I will upset you.
The project of the catapult was not completed, not a single plane took off from it even experimentally, not a single working sample of a catapult for taking off aircraft was created. The catapult is the most complicated device, no one except the Americans has done it over the past 50 years, so the Chinese are now trying with an unclear result.
It's no secret about the problems with aerofinishers, the Syrian campaign of Kuznetsov clearly showed this

[911sx]

chrome-extension: //efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html? pdfurl = https% 3A% 2F% 2F for testing Svetlana (aerofinisher). the second catapult was installed to launch the aircraft towards the sea. but it was dismantled by order of the Ministry of Defense. The third one has been tested and is ready for delivery to Ulyanovsk. Link above. I'm not upset, it's your turn.

[911sx]

The aerofinisher at Kuznetsovo is normal, the cables of the appropriate quality must be used and the regulations must be observed. Have amers they are torn the same and that. By the way, they have time to replace the cable in the region of 5 minutes for a reason. Yeah.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: AVM

How much does it cost, not by chance like the same "Ford"?

it is incorrect from the word to completely compare the price tags for the pre-production ship and serial ones. We also, you know, the first "pancakes" come out gold. In my opinion, you, as an author, are pretty much going overboard in your judgments.

Quote: AVM

All the same, catapults are needed, since AWACS planes. This means that nuclear reactors on board are also desirable.

catapults work without nuclear reactors. Although, of course, they are preferable, but not critical

Quote: AVM

indian Vikrant? What are its global advantages over a hypothetical aircraft-carrying ship of projection of force - the same small air group, the same springboard. How will he be better than Izumo?

at least in that:
- theoretically less susceptible to weather conditions, nevertheless, the displacement is almost twice as high. have you ever seen how the flight deck moves on a wave? Try to land the plane.
- Vikrant can lift and receive planes at the same time. Izumo - no.
- Vikrant's air group is indicated based on the capacity of the hangar, and not only (probably just a real air group is indicated - so the Nimitz rarely go with full speed, let alone Kuznetsov ....). What sources do you use, share ?. When some aircraft are parked on deck, their number can easily be increased to 25 or more - twice as many. than Izumo.
- what have we got with the ammunition for the air wing?
I'm not trying to humiliate the Japanese UDC, just a rework of the UDC and a full-fledged, albeit small, AB - these are two big differences.

The point is that AB should:
- have a sufficient displacement, at least 50-60 thousand tons to ensure the placement of the air group and the required seaworthiness. Small ships, alas, cannot boast of it, especially in northern latitudes.
- an air group of at least 30-40 aircraft. Some of them will always be either incapacitated or perform auxiliary tasks. Fewer than 20 aircraft is not at all.
- auxiliary aircraft carriers have the right to life, but only as an addition to the already existing normal ones, but not in any way as their replacement.

[Doccor18]

Quote: AVM

This is very optimistic and perfectly acceptable. It only seems that 20 years is a long time.

This is very optimistic, you are right. In fact, it will be released even longer ...
20 years for history is a trifle, for the creation of an airplane it is the norm, for a ship it is half of the life cycle. Even the largest aircraft carriers take ten years, maximum. UDC is much faster. For a long time, aircraft carrying ships will have to wait for what, in fact, they were built for ...

Quote: AVM

Everyone wants to eat, and thinking about it in advance is not shameful, but useful. We have a huge outflow of currency ...

I absolutely agree with you. But as a rule, they buy well already what has seriously shown itself in business, or, at least, is in service with their own army ...
As for the UDC, Russia has very little experience, and there are a lot of competitors ... Plus - the gigantic political and economic pressure of "partners". I don’t want to be a pessimist, but it’s unlikely, in such a scenario, our military trade will be able to sell at least one such a huge and expensive ship.

Quote: AVM

you will see that almost all developed countries have gone into this "dead-end program".

Well, who left there? The United States, China, France and India have or are building classic aircraft carriers. The example of Great Britain is, of course, but ... Behind the shoulders of the cunning Anglo-Saxons is NATO and a dozen atomic allied giants, so they decided to save a little. The example of Japan is not indicative, because they are not independent. All other states would be happy to have something really combat-ready, but either do not have the means, or competencies, and more often neither one nor the other ...

[Avior]

Perhaps the strike weapons are superfluous on them, but this could be solved in the course of modernization, much like they did for the Indians.

Do you know how much it cost, this upgrade?
Slightly cheaper than a French aircraft carrier built from scratch. But the amount is quite comparable

[bayard]

Quote: Doccor18

A classic aircraft carrier (of comparable displacement) will always be a cut higher in combat characteristics than any converted UDC, and the cost will differ slightly.

You are wrong in your estimates. UDC is much cheaper than the classical AV of the same VI, moreover, it is multiple. Thus, the classic AV VI 50 tons with catapults and aerofinishers will cost about $ 000 billion. (in the Russian Federation), and close to it by VI UDC of about 2,5 - 650 million dollars.
For comparison, the Soviet "Krechet" cost about 500 million rubles, and the nuclear cruisers "Orlan" about 1 billion rubles. But at the same time, the Gyrechets carried powerful missile weapons.
So compare $ 2. and 500 dollars. today . The cost of the UDC is equal to the estimated cost of the frigate 000M!
How many such frigates do we plan to build?
20 - 24 pcs.
Such an UDC will be one and a half times cheaper than the Yasen-M submarine.
Yes, the capabilities of such an AB for VTOL aircraft will be slightly lower than that of the classic, yet instead of AWACS aircraft there will be helicopters, the capabilities of which are lower ... But such AB for the same amount (2,5 billion dollars) can be built as much as 3 - 4 things. ! And with their combined capabilities they will cover one classic, like a bull, a sheep.
Moreover, if we rely on the classic AB, then, in addition to the development and construction of a ship so difficult for our industry, we will have to solve another extremely scrupulous task - the development and organization of the construction of a carrier-based AWACS aircraft ... 44, NOTHING AT ALL. As there are no engines for this aircraft. The engine for it was created in Zaporozhye and was also used for installation on the An-70. Russia has no such thing.
And it won't.
But for the construction of the UDC, in principle, there is everything you need. They are already being built in Kerch! As a result, for the implementation of everything proposed by the author, only ... VTOL aircraft are needed. For which the glider has already been proposed in the form of the Su-75.
It remains to be done with the engine.
And if we are to choose an engine, then only P579-300.
Better to spend money on a VTOL aircraft and an engine for it (and there is already a project and a demonstrator for it), then there are no more fundamental problems left. The AWACS helicopter is not a big problem, they were produced by us, incl. for the needs of the fleets of India and China.
With the provision of air defense KUG, reconnaissance and support of amphibious forces, such ABs will quite cope, and the attack functions on enemy ships and deep into enemy territory will be taken over by escort ships. That's why they and the CD in the UKSC.

And it really can turn out to be an asymmetric move - with lower costs and sufficient effect and efficiency.
And yes - the export potential of such VTOL aircraft and their carriers (UDC) also promises to be considerable.

But if we deal with classic AB, then we can slip. Weak points can be:
- catapults,
- AWACS aircraft,
- carrier-based fighters (MiG-29K are already outdated, Su-75 may not be quite suitable, and it will be expensive and time-consuming to develop a new one ... Su-57 is better not to even mention - not the same weight category and dimensions),
- funding interruptions in the midst of the program (it will not be cheap for sure).
But the concept proposed by the author allows you to get by with much smaller amounts, it will be less complicated in terms of engineering and more accessible and comfortable for the industry.
But the key problem is the very possibility of creating a VTOL aircraft in 10 years.
In principle, relying on the Soviet groundwork and existing proposals, the task is solvable. But it will require vigilant control and support from the Ministry of Defense and the Presidential Administration.

[Doccor18]

Quote: bayard

Thus, the classic AV VI 50 tons with catapults and aerofinishers will cost about $ 000 billion. (in the Russian Federation), and close to it by VI UDC of about 2,5 - 650 million dollars.

I would very much like to know where you got such data from.
UDC has a much smaller i.i. than 50 kt.

Quote: bayard

For comparison, the Soviet "Krechet" cost about 500 million rubles, and the nuclear cruisers "Orlan" about 1 billion rubles.

I have slightly different information, 1144 Kirov - 450 million rubles, nuclear 1143.7 would cost about 650 million rubles. (without air group).
Or are you talking about the 1160 Eagle project?

Quote: bayard

The cost of the UDC is equal to the estimated cost of the frigate 22350M!

But this is hard to believe. So that warships with a difference in V.I. At six o'clock! once they cost the same ... It is very doubtful. For the same Americans, the UDC America is about 30% more expensive than the Arley Burke 2a series destroyer. And this despite the fact that they have been building landing giants for decades, and our only experience is Ivan Rogov ...

Quote: bayard

Yes, the capabilities of such an AB for VTOL aircraft will be slightly lower than that of the classic

"Several" is very diplomatic. The same Izumo will be able to take on board 19-20 F35Bs, and De Gaulle will be twice as many Rafals and a couple of Hokaevs. To reduce everything to a hypothetical conflict of two ships "in a vacuum" is silly, but Izumo simply would not have had a chance in this battle.
What you wrote below, I also think it is reasonable, but all this will run into the same 20 years. For the same time, with twice the budget, you can give the Fleet a couple of classic ships. The country has money. Thinking people while they are. It takes work and tight control.

[bayard]

Quote: Doccor18

I would very much like to know where you got such data from.
UDC has a much smaller i.i. than 50 kt.

I previously described the calculation of the cost of AB on gas turbines VI 45 - 000 tons with catapults, under an air wing in 50 MiG-000K \ 24K, 29 AWACS helicopters and 35 PSS helicopters. The calculation was based on the proposed USC "light aircraft carrier" "Varan" estimated at $ 4 billion. I threw on the increased VI and contingencies, with a margin, it turned out $ 2 billion.
UDCs under construction in Kerch are estimated (2 pcs.) At 100 billion rubles. , taking into account that the shipyard still had to prepare the lead ships for such work. The full VI of these UDCs was called 40 tons. That's where the numbers come from.

Quote: Doccor18

I have slightly different information, 1144 Kirov - 450 million rubles, nuclear 1143.7 would cost about 650 million rubles. (without air group).

Well, you compared - the cruiser VI 25 tons and the nuclear-powered "Ulyanovsk" VI 000 tons, which itself is a cruiser, because it has heavy anti-ship missiles.
I took (from memory, which could fail, perhaps the price of the "Orlan" was given along with the weapons) for comparing the cost of the first four. VI 40 tons, in service with anti-ship missiles, but the price is 000 - 1,5 times lower than "Orlan".
Your price for "Kirov" may be given without weapons, but it costs a lot. The cost of the case is about 15% of the total cost. The rest is weapons and combat / general ship saturation. One ship's air defense system is 40 to 50%. And now it is exactly the same. That is why frigate 22350 costs 550 million dollars. , the same as the nuclear-powered submarine "Borey-A". "Borey" simply does not have air defense.
I still remember the cost of the first 4 "Krechetov" about 500 million rubles. , and the cost of "Eagles" is about a billion. Because of this, the program for their construction was limited to only 4 pieces (for a set in the AUG for the future "Ulyanovsk", and instead of the remaining 6 "Orlans" they laid a series of 10 "Atlant" pr. 1164.

Quote: Doccor18

For the same Americans, the UDC America is about 30% more expensive than the Arley Burke 2a series destroyer.

Americans have their own pricing system. And not a single UDC has been built in our country, just as not even a single 22350M has been laid. The price of 22350M is 650 million dollars. - estimated, preliminary. But quite realistic.
In any case, if there was a hope of getting a VTOL aircraft in 10 years (and the order for the development of such a project was issued in the spring of 2015), then it would be better to build a UDC. Moreover, starting from the 3rd in a row - in an increased size and VI, in order to be able to base a sufficient air wing. Moreover, it is no longer to build a UDC, but on the basis of this project of an AV VTOL aircraft in the dimensions of "Krechet", with an air wing of 20 - 24 VTOL aircraft, 4 AWACS helicopters, 2 PSS helicopters and up to 6 PLO helicopters. We get AV dimension "Vikramaditya" but with VTOL.
Moreover, if the stake is made on VTOL aircraft, then it will be possible to build UDC \ AV VTOL aircraft both on the "Zaliv" and on the "Zvezda" Nikolaev.
And it will be possible to build such ships, oddly enough, A LOT. For the price will be like the destroyer / frigate 22350M ... give or take. And the combat value of such a light AB with sufficient numbers will be high, because the combat stability of the Fleet will be ensured in the DMZ, it will be possible to form a sufficient number of AUG (and not go bankrupt), to form combat groups of expeditionary forces for "force projection" ... and having an advantage in Anti-ship missiles on escort ships, to put up a worthy counterbalance to the enemy's AUG ... for almost an order of magnitude less money.
Such a move could fully be called asymmetric, but sufficient.

But the whole catch is that for this "move" we need a VTOL aircraft in 10 years ... and about how the Yakovlev design bureau has advanced in this matter ... almost nothing is known. It's just that several times over the years the high-ranking officials have mentioned in a short phrase that work on the domestic VTOL aircraft ... is underway.
But you need an engine!
"Product-30" ... most likely not an option, and they did not count on it for such tasks.
And Р579-300 is a project of unknown degree of readiness.

But if we take on the classic AB, albeit a moderate VI (which I have always stood for, in the absence of a decent VTOL aircraft), then we will immediately have SO MANY pitfalls that we will definitely stumble on one of them. Yes, even on a carrier-based AWACS aircraft. Or on a catapult.

[Grits]

Quote: bayard

But the whole catch is that for this "move" we need a VTOL aircraft in 10 years ... and about how the Yakovlev design bureau has advanced in this matter ... almost nothing is known. It's just that several times over the years the high-ranking officials have mentioned in a short phrase that work on the domestic VTOL aircraft ... is underway.

Again - why reinvent the wheel and create a new VTOL aircraft? After all, it has already been created - Yak-141. It is not in the hardware, but it is in the drawings, in the "purges", in the preliminary tests carried out. Or is it outdated for some? How? Perfectly designed glider, ready-made design. For those for whom it is outdated - we put modern avionics, the figure, where necessary - we stick in composites, we use modern technologies for processing materials, computers (which was not there before). The plane will be ready in a few years. There would be a desire.

[bk0010]

Quote: Gritsa

It is not in the hardware, but it is in the drawings, in the "purges", in the preliminary tests carried out.

He's gone. To build it, you need to revive the cooperation of the Soviet era. In order to build it based on the existing enterprises and details, everything will have to be redesigned.

[Grits]

Quote: bk0010

In order to build it based on the existing enterprises and details, everything will have to be redesigned.

Do you think that if some of the parts were produced somewhere in Tashkent or Tbilisi, then at the plant in Komsomolsk or Saratov they will not be able to grind this part and master their serial production? Moreover, there are ready-made drawings, materials, manufacturing technologies for this part.
And it is always easier and cheaper to redesign than to create a new one.

[bayard]

Quote: Gritsa

Again - why reinvent the wheel and create a new VTOL aircraft?

Yak-141 is outdated morally. Another thing is that by the beginning of the 90s a project was prepared, known as the Yak-201 - the development of this concept, where there were already stealth lines and the internal placement of weapons ... The problem with VTOL aircraft is in the absence of an ENGINE. R-79-300 has not been produced for a long time and does not meet the requirements. The R-270V-300 was prepared for the Yak-201, but it was not completed, did not fly, was bought by the Chinese in the late 90s and to this day they are trying to create / repeat it for their own VTOL aircraft and for their J-20.
To date, the next iteration of this engine is offered - Р579-300 with simply remarkable characteristics and promising prospects. The trouble is that it is only in the project and the layout.
It is difficult to rely on the "Product-30" - it is created for something completely different and may not be suitable for VTOL aircraft.
How and where the work in the Russian Federation on VTOL aircraft is progressing ... is not clear. I would very much like a positive surprise, but recently, the fate of those like us has been making us happy less and less.

[Hot Dyusha]

About "the country has money" - it is very doubtful. Especially in light of the inside information that exists at the moment. For there is no money. And the next steps of the government itself .... the main and the great, this will clearly be said.

[Doccor18]

Quote: Hot Dyusha

For there is no money.

Amazingly, it was in the apocalyptic year 2020 that the volume of the NWF reached its absolute maximum. Over the past five years, the fund has swelled more than three times - from 3,9 trillion rubles in 2017 to the current value of 13,5 trillion rubles. At the end of 2018, the NWF accumulated 4,5 trillion rubles, at the end of 2019 - 7,9 trillion. These are the data of the Ministry of Finance.

No, you say ...

[Doghor]

Maybe a helicopter with wings (retractable or rotary) needs to be developed, special for AWACS, so that the wings hold more at loitering speed and can stay on duty longer in the air. From the main rotor he needs only takeoff and landing. Damn, Osprey is perfect :)

[bayard]

The AWACS helicopter appeared to us from the impossibility of placing a normal carrier-based AWACS aircraft on the Krechet. And since we had 4 gyrfalcons of the Kiev type, and 2 of the Kuznetsov type. , then the development and deployment of such a helicopter was more than justified. After all, before that, the Ka-25RTs was used for target designation and guidance.
We need such helicopters both on the modernized Kuznetsov, and on the UDC, and even just as part of the KUG, it is desirable to have one or two such helicopters so as not to be blind at low altitudes and for target designation on surface targets.
And no special carriers (except perhaps the reincarnation of the Yak-44 for the classic AB) should be developed. And no one now.
And we need to work on the new / updated AWACS helicopter now, it will come in handy in many places.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Doccor18

A classic aircraft carrier (of comparable displacement) will always be a cut higher in combat characteristics than any converted UDC, and the cost will differ slightly.

it's true. The Americans in the 70s, when they were working on the concept of a light AB (SCS, Sea Control Ship, and they had Admiral Zamvolt (yeah, after whom the eponymous one was named ...) generally advocated the creation of a fleet consisting of cheap ships) with jet VTOL aircraft, believed that instead of one nuclear one, you can build 8 (!) Escorts. And you know, their drawings of those years are very reminiscent of the current "projects".

What's the bottom line? There is no VTOL aircraft, the cost was not so low, and ... everything was closed. now they (and they have a trump card - their VTOL aircraft) are only remaking the existing ships.
What do we have? There is no VTOL aircraft, and there will not be any in the near future. So what is it all about? It can only be about building AB or not building. Everything else is from the evil one. the author, I think, unconsciously or deliberately introduces the audience into a wrong understanding of the situation.

Quote: Doccor18

A classic aircraft carrier (of comparable displacement) will always be a cut higher in combat characteristics than any converted UDC, and the cost will differ slightly

[sleeve]

In general, this is the correct message of the article. The UDC is capable of solving problems that appear or are already facing the Russian Navy. So far, there is no doctrine of confrontation between our AUG and "theirs". Maybe not, who knows how the paradigm of naval warfare will change. Air support for the landing is available. We're not going to break through some "top-notch" coasts, are we? Some kind of "expedition" with opposition to bandit groups or armies of non-"first order" can be provided by Ka-52 and UAVs. UAVs will resolve the issue of AWACS. In principle, UAVs of the C-70 category may well fit into the dimensions of 23900 and increase the effectiveness of the impact along the coast. Air defense support? Three frigates 22350 will fully provide it, but we are not talking about the air defense aviation segment. However, if we consider the Pacific theater of operations, then the Japanese Navy there may well become "non-partners". Yes, they have the F-35. But what is their effectiveness against ship groups? And the emphasis is correctly set on the availability of new developments in the field of VTOL and UAVs. Perhaps this is one of the options for the air group. The terms of development and deployment are quite comparable to themselves. They started talking about VTOL aircraft since 2015. If you think about the "finishing work", then just in parallel with the entry into service, something may appear. The S-70 will definitely appear. Will he be able to fully "play" air defense? Maybe. But in general, the UDC is an excellent addition to both amphibious forces and expeditionary and operational capabilities of the fleet.

[strannik1985]

Previously, the 23900 air group has up to 16 helicopters, how many planes the author proposes to shove? 4-5? And what will they provide? Will there be room for helicopters, for example, for AWACS?

[SVD68]

That's it! The aviation group at the UDC will be quantitatively unsuitable for anything.

[strannik1985]

And also the space on the deck, the springboard reduces the number of areas for the helicopter, i.e. to the detriment of its main function.

[Grits]

Quote: strannik1985

And also the space on the deck, the springboard reduces the number of areas for the helicopter, i.e. to the detriment of its main function.

Personally, I do not understand at all why it was necessary to make a narrowing nose on this UDC? To further reduce the already precious deck space?

[FRoman1984]

The author, the most realistic option is the MiG-29K and its further modernization to the level of the MiG-35 (with the AFAR Zhuk-A radar). There are no other options, since there is no VTOL aircraft and an engine for it. And it won't be already. Everything about bano is irreversible.
Look at the "product 30" for the Su-57. In work in the mid-2000s, that is, for about 17 years already. Recently said it will be ready for the series in 2027, if not shifted again. How do you like the timing? 22 years old!!!!!! And it will not work to put it on the VTOL aircraft without revision. That is, by 2027 it will be launched, God forbid, for the Su-57 and then how many years will it take to refine it for a VTOL aircraft (which is not even in the sketch)?
Utopia. It's not even about money, after all, but about the absence of people. Therefore, the terms for all projects are calculated in a couple of decades.
I am deeply convinced that we do not need the UDC with our doctrine, but this is not for me to decide.

[Thrifty]

We need to build classic, clean aircraft carriers, but with a displacement of 50000 tons, to build them at Sevmash, for which we need to build an additional closed hull, in which all the work will take place, cutting metal on the ship's hull, before painting the finished aircraft carrier. And, in aviation, a single-engine version with a shortened take-off run will be exactly what you need. We must go our own way, and build up to seven units of such aircraft carriers for two fleets - the Northern and the Pacific Fleet.

[alone]

Quote: Thrifty

We must go our own way, and build up to seven units of such aircraft carriers for two fleets - the Northern and the Pacific Fleet.

1) To build it, you first need to create infrastructure for the construction of such a huge ship ..
2) To build up to seven aircraft carriers, at least, huge costs are needed .. If you take into account the degree of theft, then more than a dozen billion.
3) Considering that 1 corvette was built for 8 years and in the end it burned down, then at such a rate it will take at least 7 years to build 70 aircraft carriers ... because they are unlikely to create 7 identical sites for creating aircraft carriers in one fell swoop ..

[Thrifty]

Alone - So, water does not flow under the lying stone! We need to build, we have only tears of the fleet, and the same Far East in the water is dominated by the Chinese and the Japanese, and we only have something on paper. We need not only aircraft carriers, we need escort ships, an info-structure ... but it’s easy to lose a country behind a talking shop ...

[alone]

Quote: Thrifty

We need to build a fleet, we only have tears, and the same Far East in the water there is dominance of the Chinese and the Japanese, and we only have something on paper. We need not only aircraft carriers, we need escort ships, an info-structure ... but it’s easy to lose a country behind a talking shop ...

Nobody argues that everything you say should be done .. The only question is where and for what time frame?
If 1 corvette was built in 8 years and it burned out in a fire, how long will it take to build 1 aircraft carrier? And how much will this 1 aircraft carrier cost the country?

[yuriy55]

Separately, it is necessary to mention the export potential of light aircraft carriers.

Author! Forgive me for my tactlessness, but I want to highlight exactly this:

Quote: Doccor18

Why do we have to arithmetically fight the US Navy? It's not real now, and it is not necessary, in principle. Russia is not the USSR ...

Additionally,

If the creation of a supercarrier is almost impossible task for our country at the current level of development of the Russian shipbuilding industry

does not sound convincing with:

The volume of the National Wealth Fund (NWF) as of December 1, 2021 amounted to RUB 13,886 trillion, or $ 185,2 billion, the Finance Ministry said yesterday.

Which equates to the cost of thirteen Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers. and if you take into account the $ 101 billion that saturated Russians from the Forbes list in 2021, then ...
It is necessary to chase not for the simple and the small, but for the efficient and high-tech. There is such a fable:

 Show / Hide text

[faiver]

Separately, it is necessary to mention the export potential of light aircraft carriers. If Russia can create a high-quality light aircraft carrier / UDC, then many countries will want to purchase it, for example, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, Vietnam, Brazil - what a slap in the face for the United States, which considers Latin America its "backyard".

- I beg your pardon, are you not funny yourself? what is the export potential with our build speeds? And the author somehow forgot to mention China, which even now can calmly build for export even a UDC, even an aircraft carrier, much faster and cheaper ...

[Pavel57]

MAKS had a mock-up of a deck-mounted twin-engined MiG, what would it be for.

[agond]

It does not matter which aircraft carriers for the hundredth time they propose to build, super or, light, all the same non-freezing places for their basing once or twice, and missed. By the way, who are these people, who so persistently slips it to us. ?

[SVD68]

By the end of the "Kuznetsov" renovation.

[Graz]

Now we need to think and design in layouts new generation aircraft carriers for unmanned aerial vehicles, it's time to forget about the classic ones.

[jonht]

As I already wrote, in my opinion, what does the fleet need first of all now? The answer is target designation and reconnaissance, we have a long arm in the form of missiles (onyx, caliber-pkr, zircon). But the possibilities to quickly find and give guidance to missiles at the target are very small.
Manned carrier-based aircraft is an expensive pleasure in itself, and taking into account how quickly unmanned technologies have grown, I consider it necessary to develop them and go to UAVs with their deadening and the development of an aircraft carrier for them. Now Kronstadt is working on a UAV with a radar, scouts with strike capabilities already exist (the same Orion), and there are already half of the UAV of the air wing. Development of purely strike drones is underway.
So my opinion is that you need to take a new path and not try to catch up with the departed train.

[Firelake]

Under them, you still need a drlo plane. And the second question:
How to keep in touch with the UAV? We do not have as many satellites as the United States. And even so, in the same Libya, the KMP used balloons to contact the air group and request support.

[jonht]

So I wrote about what UAVs with a radar are doing, and it's easier to make a repeater UAV, although the satellite constellation is slowly being built up too.

[Firelake]

I probably missed this part. Sorry... )

[jonht]

Not at all.
Admins, what nonsense. The text is short .... Sufficient to answer the previous comment .....

[Owl]

There will be an airplane - there will be an aircraft carrier. While there is no VTOL aircraft, it makes no sense to talk about "processing" (by installing a springboard) of the UDC into an aircraft-carrying ship, when an aircraft with vertical / short take-off appears, then it makes sense to build a ship based on the UDC, carrying aircraft, attack and transport helicopters, and so same battalion of marines. This will be the "force projection" ship. Only after this ship is accepted into the Navy's forces, it will be possible to talk about some kind of "export potential".

[Non-fighter]

VTOL aircraft up to F35V were made according to the scheme with two engines, sustainer and lifting, and 90% of the flight time the lifting engine is an unnecessary expensive piece of iron, eating up space and weight, which are not superfluous on the plane !!!
The Americans showed that VTOL aircraft can do with one engine + fan. Our VTOL aircraft should be made in the same way. Until we have a normal engine, all VTOL aircraft projects will be categorized as "a nuclear reactor is not conventionally shown in the diagram."
So first the engine, at least in the sketch, at least after 10 years, and only then for it is the design of VTOL aircraft.

[Avior]

VTOL aircraft up to F35V were made according to the scheme with two engines

Harrier had one engine

[Bez 310]

I apologize, but could the author clarify what "needs of the Russian Navy in aircraft-carrying ships" are? Many people talk about the need to have aircraft carriers as part of the Russian Navy, but I still do not understand - why? And I would like to learn more about the "force projection" ...

[CommanderDIVA]

Now it is much more important for us to build URO and nuclear submarines frigates, which, in fact, we are doing, the need for the existence of our carrier-based aviation is supported by the repaired Admiral Kuznetsov and THREAD, we do not need to be a world gendarme, like the Americans, and demonstrate our strength to everything and everyone using 11 aircraft carriers, there is no need to ensure the security of its economic communications around the world like China, there are no overseas territories and former colonies in Africa in order to control them like the French with "De Golem" the airfield is not rational and not practical, in my opinion, taking into account the development of hypersonic weapons systems, aircraft carriers in their current form are yesterday

[Sahalinets]

It's worth starting with a simple question - why is it needed?
Spain, Australia, Italy, etc. start these ships for intervention in different Papuans. Are we going to invade some Angola too? I doubt something. Our Papuans are at our borders and are completely within the reach of the Aerospace Forces from permanent airfields. Therefore, such a ship will simply not be in demand.
For a big war, it is simply useless. We will not even have to think about any landing operations in the event of a war with a serious enemy, to defend our shores. And in a collision with NATO fleets, he will be helpless. They won't even let him out into the sea!
Well, the Spaniards and others in a big war will rely on American aircraft carriers, they themselves will be in the wings and there their ships will be moderately useful.
I will not even grovel about the cost of the issue. The author thinks that it is so easy and cheap to develop an engine for VTOL aircraft? Not to mention the plane itself. The USSR, with its resources, fought over this for 25 years, but did not bring it to mind. And if you consider that even if successful, the series will amount to 50 pieces ... Why?
Hike, the whole logic of the speaker's reasoning comes down to one thing - but I want aircraft carriers!

[strannik1985]

Are we going to invade some Angola too?

We are already at war in Syria, and in order to support the "Syrian Express", since 2013 we have been holding a grouping of Russian Navy ships in the Mediterranean Sea.
There is a need, money is needed, a lot of money.

[Sahalinets]

For the Syrian Express, we need used rollers. Are inexpensive, raised the flag of the Navy and forward. And they will take away an order of magnitude more.

[SVD68]

Quote: Sahalinets

Spain, Australia, Italy, etc. start these ships for intervention in different Papuans.

No, these countries built light aircraft carriers for a different purpose. According to the thoughts of the American Admiral Zamwalt, light aircraft carriers were supposed to provide air defense / anti-aircraft defense convoys against single Tu-142 or Tu-22M and single Soviet submarines.
What is the point in light aircraft carriers is currently unclear.

[Sahalinets]

It was built during the Cold War years. Invincibles, Garibaldi. And now it is the UDC for interventions in banana republics.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: SVD68

What is the point in light aircraft carriers is currently unclear

I think it's the same as in the time of Zamwalt (for the West at least). free up "real" aircraft carriers for "serious" work, and provide them with sea communications. If something happens. Satellite fleets - for auxiliary work, one for ASW, the second for air defense, and the third for mine work, and at this time the "main" fleet has free hands.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Sahalinets

start these ships for intervention in different Papuans

Not certainly in that way. What are their own interventions? No, these are ships in peacetime for the projection of force, in wartime - part of the general collective fleet. Which will have their own specific task, and thus make real aircraft carriers more special from the need to be distracted by secondary tasks such as escorting convoys, small amphibious operations, etc.

Quote: Sahalinets

Are we going to invade some Angola too?

why do you always think about invading? Russia now has a foreign logistics, at least in Syria. and it is necessary to provide it with something. There is little hope for one air corridor. The tasks of the AUG are to cover the forces of the fleet and ensure the deployment of SSBNs. You can't get off with coastal aviation alone ...

Quote: Sahalinets

For a big war, he is simply useless.

a big war in your understanding. as I understand it, with the use of nuclear weapons? Firstly, most likely nuclear weapons will not be used, and even if they are used, an "extra" ship is never superfluous, especially one capable of carrying aviation. Such will be snapped up.

Quote: Sahalinets

I will not even grovel about the cost of the issue. The author thinks that it is so easy and cheap to develop an engine for VTOL aircraft? Not to mention the plane itself. The USSR, with its resources, fought over this for 25 years, but did not bring it to mind. And if you consider that even if successful, the series will amount to 50 pieces ... Why?

this is to the point. This is the "subtle" argument of the author.

Quote: Sahalinets

but I want aircraft carriers!

well, the desire is understandable. It all comes down to ... first, the concept. And while it is not, clear, you can write a hundred flocks a day and prepare a dozen reports, there will be no sense. But we do not yet have an understanding of what the fleet is for us and what we need it for. Individuals can and do have this understanding, I'm talking about heads in caps.

[dreamshake]

The range of the newest supersonic stealth drone S-70 Okhotnik is 6000 km. This is all you need to know about the prospects for the development of any aircraft carrier fleet of any country at the moment.

[agond]

Quote: Bez 310

I apologize, but could the author clarify what "needs of the Russian Navy in aircraft-carrying ships" are? Many people talk about the need to have aircraft carriers as part of the Russian Navy, but I still do not understand - why? And I would like to learn more about the "force projection" ...

I join your questions.

[Pavel57]

Author: And no Montreux conventions - the UDC in the format of an aircraft-carrying ship, the projection forces can freely walk through the straits.

What is it like? Montreux can be turned in any direction.

[fiberboard]

If you take away and sell all the yachts of our thieves-oligarchs, you can build a whole bunch of different aircraft carriers. Our government now has no time for the fleet, now we really need a rapid reaction force to crush protests against druzhbanov and potential allies (whose language patrols spread like mice in a granary).

[vervolk]

aircraft carriers are now like super battleships before WWII. They always have a bunch of adherents and always have an opinion that it is necessary to build, otherwise we have no neighbors ...

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: vervolk

need to build

it is necessary to build what meets the realities and needs, and not what the neighbors have. If neighbors jump from the roof, do not follow their example?
With battleships it was clear that at that time the concept of a general engagement prevailed, in which the one with the greatest firepower and protection would inflict the only and decisive defeat on the enemy. Does this exist now, with the amendment that other weapons systems have taken the place of battleships? Probably eating. At least the same ICBMs - we can concretely and forever knock each other out with nuclear cudgels. But then there were no nuclear clubs, and their role was played by conventional weapons. Fleet and long-range bombers.
What do we have now? In World War II, aviation showed its strength, I would even say power. It was she who sent the battleships to retire (although, probably prematurely). Is there now a force capable of sweeping aviation off its pedestal? I think not yet. And if not, then aircraft carriers are also in demand. For there is simply no other opportunity for the fleet to have "its" aviation here and now. An aircraft carrier is not just a weapon, it is an airfield for weapons. The weapon is just aviation.

And the question should be whether we do not need aircraft carriers, but do we need naval aviation. If yes, then an airfield is also needed for it (this is still an aircraft carrier), if not, then it is not needed either. But one must try hard to justify the unnecessary need for aviation. I'd rather have my own planes and helicopters overhead.

[Diverter]

And again a discussion on aircraft carriers!))))
When performing some tasks by the fleet, the presence of its own aviation in the air would be very useful.
But. Maybe you should look to the future? If you build a light aircraft carrier, then I propose to equip it with C 70 and something similar and not the Mig 29/35 from the last century. As an argument, manned aircraft are more expensive (a cool pilot is very expensive and time-consuming).

[SVD68]

First of all, we need an aircraft carrier to fight for air supremacy over the sea. For strike targets, we have excellent rockets.
Is the S-70 capable of fighting for air supremacy?

[Genry]

Quote: SVD68

Is the S-70 capable of fighting for air supremacy?

Since UAVs are still fundamentally unable to conduct shunting combat of the "dog dump" type (although it occurs at subsonic speed), it will be inferior to piloted fighters in terms of reaction speed, although its maneuverability is possibly higher due to its shorter length and, accordingly, lower longitudinal sustainability. BUT! As a platform for air defense systems, it can be used: to be on duty or to be put forward to intercept ...

The S-70 is beneficial for airborne ships. The large wing area allows to reduce the length of the take-off run and use the deck without catapults. The flat shape of the fuselage allows these aircraft to be placed very tightly in the hold / hangar using a girder crane for placement and delivery ...

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Genry

The flat shape of the fuselage allows for very tight placement of these aircraft in the hold / hangar

sorry, how is that? What matters is the projected area of ​​the top view, i.e. wingspan and length. This is if the accommodation is in a common hangar. Or do you suggest stacking them somewhere separately?

[Genry]

Quote: Bond James Bond

What matters is the projected area of ​​the top view, i.e. wingspan and length. This is if the accommodation is in a common hangar. Or do you suggest stacking them somewhere separately?

Are you talking in stacks?
I meant that when the C-70 is located, with the landing gear retracted, on the floor with soft stands and the additional space required above for transportation, the hangar height is slightly more than double the height of this UAV. And without an elongated fuselage and a shape close to a triangle, which allows the aircraft to be tightly positioned, the used hangar volume will be much less than that of traditional aircraft with the same mass.
And the engine is likely to be serviced from above, i.e. most of the routine maintenance can be done at the storage site.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Genry

the hangar volume will be much smaller than that of traditional aircraft with the same mass.

but the area is much higher. On a ship, this is the more important parameter. And to have a specialized hangar ... everything is the same as for the manned, only once again. I understand that your own idea seems beautiful to you, but try to draw it at least in "Kuznetsov", and you will see everything.

[Genry]

Quote: Bond James Bond

but the area is much higher.

Not higher. The shape is different and without large white spots.

Quote: Bond James Bond

try to draw it though in "Kuznetsov"

At Kuzi, in general, the hangar can be divided in half in height (or more for different types ..).

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Genry

At Kuzi, in general, the hangar can be divided in half in height

Where's the MiG and Sushki? On deck?

[Genry]

Manned naval aviation must be abandoned. Here the human pilot is a weak link and an extra load (for both the aircraft and the ship).
When using a finisher, in order not to go blind (peeling of the retina from a rush of blood), a strict regime must be observed: one flight every three days. You need to have a bunch of pilots, feed them, cherish and entertain. A couple of operators and tactics are needed to fly multiple S-70 drones. There can be two or three shifts, depending on the intensity of the flights. Plus: there is no need to lift the rescue helicopter to belay the start and finish.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Genry

From manned naval aviation, it is necessary to abandon

hmm ... give up right now? Are drones able to replace a manned aircraft? Even at the same shtatovites, a tanker-UAV is just getting ready for trial operation, and there may be a transporter next. The rest of the types are not yet planned to be replaced, perhaps there are reasons, what do you think?

Quote: Genry

You need to have a bunch of pilots, feed them, cherish and entertain

the sailors and officers of the ship also need to be fed, entertained, and provided with places for their accommodation. An unmanned ship is the way out! And if anything, then you don't need to save anyone! He turned on such a ship at the pier, and let him defend the interests of the state, right?

[Genry]

Quote: Bond James Bond

And drones are able to replace a manned aircraft

What tasks are relevant? Reconnaissance and delivery / launch of missiles. It seems like it's not necessary to twist beautiful aerobatics. Although, play some fun, in the style of Boston Dynamics - you can:
https://www.youtube.com/user/BostonDynamics/videos

Quote: Bond James Bond

the sailors and officers of the ship also need to be fed, entertained, and provided with places for their accommodation.

Are you coveted by the service staff?
And what? Immediately what kind of economy of living space is reduced, 90 percent. Well, avatars may soon appear, on four legs - like minotaurs. It is tasty to feed, gently treat, safely entertain and service is not necessary - a solid profit.

But the jokes are sideways. The ship is too complex a machine and without specialists it will stall. And the pilots simply turn into the guise of operators and without harm to their health, there may be few of them.

[Bond, James Bond]

I understood what he was talking about. Here are just the air group on the aircraft carrier is diverse in composition and types. Fighters, attack aircraft, tankers, helicopters, transport aircraft, and AWACS are based together. And the height of the hangar will be determined by the placement of the tallest aircraft. Or, for each type, you need to have its own hangar. What was written above.

Quote: FireLake

One is on the chassis and the other hangs on a notebook crane above it

nothing should hang on the ship, everything should be rigidly moored. These are either some platform-boxes, or a conveyor belt, or several hangars on floors. Again, the aircraft must be serviced, the hangar must be equipped with auxiliary systems and security systems. You can, of course, stuff an aircraft like herring into a barrel and not touch them, but this will already be air transport, not AB.

[Firelake]

It is clear that pitching can break everything)

[Bond, James Bond]

On Kuznetsov, the height of the hangar was determined by the height of the helicopters; the coaxial Ka-27 has 5,5 meters. Therefore, they did not begin to make folding keels on the Su-33, because in height it only slightly surpasses it. Well, the Yak-44 is generally under 6 meters, should you keep it on the deck?
The height of the hangar on Kuznetsov is 7,2 meters, we divided it in half - and nothing but “flat” and small UAVs will fit there.

[Firelake]

Kuzya is done. We must send for scrap and not torture either the ship or ourselves.

[AAK]

The option of an "additional shelf" on a part of the Kuznetsov hangar was being worked out when the question of its possible equipping with aircraft of the C-54 - C-56 projects was considered, which, when the landing gear was "crouched", had a height of no more than 3 meters

[Diverter]

The question is actually not entirely simple. To fight with whom? If with the "west", then rather yes than no. Because in recent times "zapad" has shown that he plans to fight in the air, as a rule, by launching long-range missiles. Although, of course, I do not exclude dog dumps. And here it should be borne in mind that while the aircraft carrier is built, the infrastructure for it, and the necessary quantity of aircraft are manufactured, then by that time it is possible that the C 70 / his follower will be able to conduct an air battle.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: SVD68

For strike targets, we have excellent rockets.

excellent rockets are heavy and their number is limited. And they tend to end. One volley - and the ship is empty. The aircraft can carry lighter, and in greater numbers, and the short range of lighter missiles is compensated by the radius of the aircraft. And quantity sometimes develops into quality, and not every missile defense system can cope with a massive strike (and even from different directions and heights). Not enough times - they sat down, replenished the bookmaker and repeated. Moreover, an aviation attack can be much more flexible than a purely rocket attack. Therefore, I would not discount the shock capabilities. Offense is one form of defense. The best enemy missiles are those that went to the bottom with his ship, the best enemy aircraft are those that did not take off.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Saboteur

I propose to arm it with 70 and something similar and not the Mig 29/35 from the last century. As an argument, manned aircraft are more expensive (a cool pilot is very expensive and time-consuming).

and the S-70 is at least close to a manned MiG or Sushka in terms of the tasks being solved and the quality of their performance? Let's take a look at the reality. UAVs are now capable of solving a limited range of tasks. Reconnaissance, tanker, transport, limited strike and limited interceptor. As a fighter, the UAV has not yet taken place at all. The operator will not be able to fight the pilot in the cockpit of the fighter. Not at all. Even if the drone is superior in performance to the manned aircraft. Situational awareness is not right ... Try turning on the flight simulator, fixing the camera, not using views and prompts, and engage in close combat. You won't even know who will hit you.
As soon as appears high-grade artificial intelligence, then we'll see. Until this is a matter of the near future

[Diverter]

I wrote above that this is all true. But for today. In terms of timing, you yourself will understand how long it takes to develop and build a light aircraft carrier? Infrastructure for him? I think about 20 years from now. What will happen in 20 years? Remind me of what happened 20 years ago? Cellular communications had just appeared and everyone was walking around with bricks - phones in their bags. And now what is the content of the phone? And the size?
You need to look ahead and think, and not cling to the past.

[Bond, James Bond]

Well, if you dream, then yes. Although, I'm not sure that something will change in the next 50 years. Yes, I understand what you want to say - progress is striding by leaps and bounds. Alas, but not in the field of AI. They say about him given, but they did not come one iota. It doesn't add a more powerful engine and go to Mach 2. This task is fundamental. Besides. let's be objective in our assessment of the present time. After all, at what time did the sharp jump take place? Or when it really is ripe, or in times of tough confrontation. There will be a new hot or cold war - and immediately the ideas that were feared or postponed in peacetime will go into action. Although, to be honest, I would not want the hot phase to come ... Progress will somehow cope without it.

Quote: Saboteur

What will happen in 20 years?

at the current rate, nothing. Think, more than 30 years have passed since the collapse of the USSR. And it seemed as if yesterday they were shooting. What have we done during this time? Just don’t think that I’m starting a hurdy-gurdy. No, I mean that during the time of relative calm, no one does anything, they are poking around in the past - there, the Americans, for example, are going to modernize the B-52. And then only recently.
there is no enemy - no need and costs.
And 20 years ago I used a cellular connection. Yes, there were no smartphones, but in 20 years this is not a great achievement, given that there were already electronic tablets in the armies.
It’s a matter of time, don’t you agree?

[Firelake]

Alas, but not in the field of AI

You're not right. AI is developing very actively. Look at the games of a person with an AI in strategy on a computer. You will be very surprised:
Top players in the world lose 10: 1

[Soldatov V.]

If in the photo there is a model 23900, then I do not see anything special about the ship. Even Moscow and Leningrad were better from my point of view. They had more or less both defensive and offensive weapons. The good thing about UDC 23900 is the presence of a through hold from bow to stern, if I'm not mistaken.
How many troops can you really take on board? An infantry regiment and a tank battalion is a desirable minimum. How long can it take for a helicopter group to land troops behind enemy lines? These are questions without compromise.
It would be nice in the design of the UDC would be the ability to merge both ships stern to form a good floating airfield. Then the take-off deck will be 450 meters long. The superstructure should be made on ships of the right and left design so that when docking the superstructure would be from one side.
And all UDCs must have air defense and anti-aircraft weapons.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: V.

If the photo is 23900

this is the UDC model for the Priboy project from the Krylov State Scientific Center, but it was abandoned. Characteristic features are the presence of a bow ramp and a deck narrowed in the bow because of this.
They laid another ship, 23900 - this is it:

Quote: V.

It would be nice in the design of the UDC would be the ability to merge both ships stern to form a good floating airfield. Then the take-off deck will be 450 meters long.

this is not provided. And this is not necessary for at least two reasons:
- do not provide the rigidity of the docking to create a single deck, without displacements in roll, height, etc.
- Why is this necessary? Ok, we succeeded, we connected it, without gaps and distortions, an airplane of a normal scheme with such a plane will take off, but how to land it? There are no finishers

[Undecim]

The author's articles about aircraft carriers are very similar to O. Bender's speech to the Vasyukin chess players.

Dazzling prospects unfolded in front of Vasyukin lovers.

[Stas1973]

One thing is not clear to me. Why is there such a deck bow on the UDC? Can't you do something rectangular? Religion does not allow? Or are they again saving on a penny instead of allowing them to accommodate a couple more helicopters? Or make a springboard on one side.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Stas1973

One thing is not clear to me. Why is there such a deck bow on the UDC? Can't you do something rectangular? Religion does not allow? Or are they again saving on a penny instead of allowing them to accommodate a couple more helicopters? Or make a springboard on one side.

The fact is that the model in the photographs in the article is not the intended 23900. This is one of the options from the Krylovites. As far as I know, his nose was straightened, although not as uncompromisingly as on the American and Chinese UDCs.

The springboard makes sense if there are planes.
And so - the remark is absolutely reasonable. There are no extra meters on a ship, all the more so they cut it off for the sake of "air". It's strange that for reasonable questions they threw minuses at you ...

[Stas1973]

Thanks for the answer. Very grateful

[TermNachTer]

The article is interesting and detailed. Although the Kerch UDC will be built for another 5 years, well, there may be shifts in any direction, most likely to the right. And a lot of things can change in five years.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: TermNachTER

And a lot of things can change in five years.

like what? That the ship will be re-laid in the light of the sudden appearance of VTOL aircraft? What is being built is being built.
And the article is frankly unprofessional. Alas....

[TermNachTer]

In five years, weapons may appear that will render the aircraft carrier useless. However, it is already there. And who are you by education? Admiral of the fleet or chief designer of aircraft carriers?)))

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: TermNachTER

In five years, a weapon may appear that will make an aircraft carrier useless

for example, which one? What weapons can render planes useless?

Quote: TermNachTER

And who are you by education?

And who are you?

[TermNachTer]

First, the Chinese have ballistic missiles "sharpened" for mattress AUGs and a satellite guidance system for them. Secondly, Russia has Zircon. He graduated from the Kherson Maritime School, where he studied such subjects - TUS "Theory of ship design", VMP EGS - "Naval training of civilian crews". Many teachers were retired officers of the Navy, they told a lot of interesting and informative things.

[Bond, James Bond]

That is

Quote: TermNachTER

Ballistic missiles

и

Quote: TermNachTER

"Zircon"

made aviation useless? Are you seriously saying that ballistic missiles and anti-ship missiles are capable of making naval aviation useless? Didn't they make the fleets in general useless?
Yes, you are a noble dreamer) With the advent of anti-aircraft missiles, you probably said that airplanes have become useless. With the advent of anti-tank systems, tanks became useless. And tanks and planes are more alive than all living things and they laugh at you ...)

[TermNachTer]

Do you see the difference between aviation and an aircraft carrier (do you understand)?))) Aviation is needed, aircraft carriers are a big question.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: TermNachTER

aviation is needed, aircraft carriers are a big question.

an aircraft carrier is just a floating airfield. Since it is useless, then carrier-based aviation is also useless, for it cannot operate without an airfield.

You did not explain why aircraft carriers suddenly became useless, but I suppose (since you mention missiles) that it is due to the fact that more advanced weapons appear that can affect them. Then let's continue your logic. Since anti-ship missiles can affect AB, they can also affect other ships. right? Or faith will not allow missiles to sink ships of other classes? I think that the electronic god will not forbid them, they will sink a destroyer, a frigate, and a corvette - any surface ship. This means that ships and the fleet in general (following your logic) are useless. Right?
Anti-aircraft missiles can "bring down" planes in batches. So planes and aviation in general are useless?
ATGMs can "burn" tanks. So armored vehicles are also useless?
Small arms (especially machine guns) can crumble a lot of manpower. So the soldier as such is also useless?
Now do you understand your logical error?

[TermNachTer]

Let me tell you a terrible military secret))) aviation, in addition to deck aviation, is also coastal. Any weapon is a tool for a specific job. ATGMs, like MANPADS, are good under certain circumstances and not very good under others. There is no perfect weapon. You need to be able to use it and get the most out of it.

[Bond, James Bond]

Please answer the questions raised in the commentary.

[Mustached Kok]

The idea is good and the proposal to focus on an already developed project is good. But in fact, more changes are needed. All the same, it would be worthwhile to increase the length of the ship and bring it to at least 260-280 meters. And if the total length of the deck is enough for takeoff, then it is better not to save money for landing. Landing on an aircraft carrier is incredibly difficult, and landing on a short aircraft carrier is even more difficult.
I also agree with the idea that they will have to be built using a springboard. But only for the first models. After all, the springboard limiting factor is that the plane loses too much fuel to take off from the springboard. So in parallel, I would think about how to create a catapult.
And so that the development of the catapult does not slow down the project and I propose to make springboards on them until the catapult is developed for. In the future, some of the ships with a springboard can be converted into a catapult.
Hope for VTOL aircraft, I would not. We have just started talking about how it might be worth creating. And this means that, at best, we will get the plane only in the 40s.
As they once said, "You don't need better, you need to do the same." Therefore, I would not design these aircraft carriers for VTOL aircraft. Therefore, I propose, in parallel with the creation, to design a catapult. A group of ships with an aircraft carrier is always stronger than a group without. And an aircraft carrier's wing with a catapult always has the initiative against an aircraft carrier with a springboard.

[TermNachTer]

Aft and bow overhangs have been around for a long time. That will lengthen the length of the flight deck by 30 - 40 meters. But apparently, for a helicopter carrier, this does not really matter.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Mustachioed Kok

"it is not necessary better, it is necessary the same." Therefore, I would not design these aircraft carriers for VTOL aircraft. Therefore, I propose, in parallel with the creation, to design a catapult. A group of ships with an aircraft carrier is always stronger than a group without. And an aircraft carrier's wing with a catapult always has the initiative against an aircraft carrier with a springboard.

gold words. Especially when there is a shortage of time and money, then it is not necessary to invent a bicycle, but to do it "as they do"

Although, here I would add and correct:

Quote: Mustachioed Kok

All the same, it would be worthwhile to increase the length of the ship and bring it to at least 260-280 meters. And if the total length of the deck is enough for takeoff, then it is better not to save money for landing. Landing on an aircraft carrier is incredibly difficult, and landing on a short aircraft carrier is even more difficult.

in fact, it doesn't matter if you land the plane on a 250-meter or 400-meter aircraft carrier. If you hooked on the finisher cable, then both there and there gut, and if not, then in any case for the second round, because even 400 meters is not enough. Is that for the morale of the pilots, well, so experienced all the same know everything. But all the same, adding 100-150 meters to the ship and the corner deck is not superfluous due to the fact that there is a possibility of simultaneous landing and takeoff of aircraft. And this is already a huge plus. Here the French saved on their "de Gaulle", and do not have such an opportunity. They are either landing or taking off the plane. But the Americans have, and so do Kuznetsov.

[Ole G]

Excellent article and I will fully support the author! There is a sense, moreover, there are opportunities and infrastructure for this.

[Evgeny Seleznev]

At the moment, the use of the anti-submarine functions of the UDC when changing the composition of the wing as the flagships of the ship group is more realistic and necessary, also less expensive. And the use of the UDC in the role of light aircraft carriers is expensive and unpromising, look at the experience of using the UDC America in the role of an LAV in bombing in Afghanistan. It seems on this forum there was such an article.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Evgeny Seleznev

At the moment, the use of the anti-submarine functions of the UDC when changing the composition of the wing as the flagships of the ship group is more realistic and necessary, also less expensive. And the use of the UDC in the role of light aircraft carriers is expensive and unpromising, look at the experience of using the UDC America in the role of an LAV in bombing in Afghanistan. It seems on this forum there was such an article.

For the bombing of Afghanistan, any aircraft is "expensive and unpromising." What are the goals, in this shit?

They need a specific aviation with an ultra-low cost of a flight hour - some kind of propeller-driven UAVs or something like attack aircraft from the Second World War, or light UAVs on board an airship capable of providing them with operation for months in a certain region.

[Avior]

In Afghanistan, Harrier was effectively used due to basing close to the zone of operations and short flight time

[vtiper]

on the phrase at the end of the 20th century we were leaders in verticals to read finished.
An airplane with a top-mast Yak-38 without a radar and a parasitic engine for takeoff against the Harier that passed the Falklands War ... somehow it's not even funny.

[Maks1995]

In principle, right.
BUT:
Money???
Terms of project implementation ???

Will SU75 M and power be ready on time?

[Sergey Tankist]

The author's fantasies. If they decide to build something, they will not ask him. Just like us ...

[TatarinSSSR]

Dear author, you forgot that we are in Russia. And the cost of one power projection ship will end up as the cost of a supercarrier. But even with such expenses, the construction time, as usual, will constantly shift, and after 11 years after the start of construction, you will receive your mini-aircraft carrier, which will need to be redone again for several billion more, since it has already become obsolete during construction.

[gvozdan]

If the author dug deeper into the topic, he would understand that a normal aircraft carrier starts from 70-80 kt. And there are two reasons for this: pitching and supplies of fuel and ammunition. The hull is the cheapest part of an aircraft carrier. Therefore, two ABs of 50 kt each are 1,5 times more expensive than one at 100 kt. 3 to 33 who are twice as expensive as one to 100 kt. If we take into account all the nuances, then the aircraft carrier should be 70-100 kt or it should not be at all. Believe us, the USA has been building AB for 80 years and not from scratch came to 100 kt

[Taoist]

Not for nothing ... But the Russian Federation is not the United States either, and we simply do not have tasks for such ships. But there is a need for aviation weapons when solving local problems. Tonnage is not a "pitching problem" it is a problem of the placement and size of the air wing being carried ... but it comes from the task ...

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: gvozdan

The hull is the cheapest part of an aircraft carrier. Therefore, two ABs of 50 kt each are 1,5 times more expensive than one at 100 kt. 3 by 33 who are twice as expensive as one by 100 kt.

absolutely right! The larger the ship, the cheaper its conditional ton. Two ships are a double set of electronics and weapons, a power plant, etc. And the hull - you are absolutely right, the cheapest part of a modern ship.

[IC]

In reality, UDCs can be built on the Gulf by the end of the decade. So the discussion is about the issues of the 30s. This is under the condition of stable high economic growth (see China, India), which is not yet visible.

[Taoist]

It is a rare case when I completely agree with the author ... By and large, the reincarnation of the aircraft carrier covers 95% of the tasks possible for our fleet ... "And if you don't see the difference, why pay more?" there is.

[Overlock]

Dreams, all dreams!

2. The force projection aircraft carrier can potentially be implemented in a variant capable of providing the operation of both "classic" deck-based aircraft for horizontal take-off and landing, as well as for vertical take-off and landing aircraft.

The possibilities and timing of the aircraft carrier's construction are realistic, what kind of aircraft now corresponds to the planned tasks and what will it be for the launch of the aircraft carrier?

3. The cost of building force projection aircraft carriers will be 4-6 times less than the cost of building supercarriers, they are quite "affordable" for the Russian Navy not in single quantities, but in a series of four to eight ships

Seriously?

4. The export potential of force projection aircraft carriers will create thousands and support hundreds of thousands of jobs.

We haven't built it yet, but we are already selling it! But!

5. The most important and one of the most difficult tasks in the context of the creation of aircraft-carrying force projection ships is the development of a modern vertical take-off and landing aircraft, comparable or superior in performance characteristics to the American VTOL F-35B.

In response to

... but did it retain the competence to create VTOL aircraft and create modern combat aircraft?
Another option is the creation of a heavy VTOL aircraft based on the Su-57 using a lifting fan and promising turbojet engines "Izdeliye-30" or turbojet engines P579-300, but here the question arises whether such a project is feasible in principle.

All that remains is to dream

[Bond, James Bond]

Alternative to "supercarriers"

After reading the article, one might get the impression that the author is unconditionally right. However, he forgets about one essential detail - light aircraft carriers are not built to replace, but to complement "normal" aircraft carriers... Both China and the United States have an AB fleet, and in addition to them there are LAV (UDC). Spain, you say? So the US ally has the AB fleet, and the Spanish fleet in the event of a conflict will carry out its tasks auxiliary to the "center" fleet. The author raises the question bluntly - which is better for Russia, a normal aircraft carrier or a light one (UDC). In my opinion, this is not the way to put the question. At least for the above reason.

Second. The cost of a ship with a displacement of, for example, 60 thousand tons is not equal to the cost of two ships of 30 thousand each. The latter together will cost more than one for 60. There is no linear dependence on the displacement. In general, there is a tendency - the larger the ship, the cheaper its conditional ton of displacement. For example, a conditional ton of displacement of a destroyer will cost (conditionally) 10 thousand dollars, an aircraft carrier - 6 thousand. As a result, for a higher cost than could be spent on a full-fledged aircraft, you can get two half-aircraft carriers, and much more expensive. Do we need this? The same States can afford this - they already have 11 AB, and they will be helped by simpler ships, but more in number. You can spend money on this - because the number of ships is at the forefront.

Well, in general, all the conversations about a Russian light aircraft carrier are still empty and meaningless, because we do not have our own VTOL aircraft. And without it, there can be no light aircraft carrier... When can our vertical structure appear? In 25-30 years ... And what to do all this time? To talk about light aircraft carriers, or to build? And to build - there is no alternative, so far - only aircraft carriers for aircraft of normal takeoff and landing.

[bk0010]

But it is VTOL aircraft that can make the intensity of flights of carrier-based aircraft from a light aircraft carrier comparable to that provided by supercarriers, or even surpass it.

They won't. There will be nothing to fill them with.

As for AWACS aircraft, at the first stage they can be partially replaced by AWACS helicopters

The AWACS helicopter is not even close to replacing the AWACS aircraft, it is better than nothing, but nothing more. Their presence does not negate the need for AWACS aircraft.
The author does not understand that the presence of a heat-resistant coating and a springboard will not turn the UDC into an AWACS aircraft carrier. In order for the UDC to become an AWACS aircraft carrier, it is necessary to expel from it all the landing troops, landing craft, part of the helicopters, build new lifts and refueling points, place containers for aviation fuel inside, a protected ASP storage facility associated with the very new lifts, deploy an aircraft workshop on board to service the air group , replace on-board radio-electronic means (not only communications, which are incompatible with sailors, pilots and landowners, but also radars for the task of controlling an air group), drive aircraft technicians and pilots inside the ship (the existing naval officers are poorly compatible with aviation, even in the states) and solve a bunch of problems. As a result, we lose the UDC and get a kind of platform for the operation of VTOL aircraft, which provides not too many sorties (you do not want to go out to a displacement of 70-120 thousand tons?).
What can give us VTOL. Classic - attack aircraft (suicide bomber in modern times). Short-range attack aircraft - possibly with radar. A short-range fighter - only if it has a very good radar (the plane will turn out to be expensive, which is especially bad, since VTOL aircraft are expensive in themselves, and even fought constantly before). What else is needed? Planes PLO, electronic warfare (no, it will not work from VTOL aircraft, it is too small), AWACS, reconnaissance target designator (no, it will not work from VTOL aircraft: short range and there is nowhere to cram equipment too much), control and relay aircraft, tanker, deck transporter, rescuer. All this is not and will not be. Can we do without it? Only by replacing with other means. But with the same success it is possible to abandon the attack aircraft, using ship-based cruise missiles to solve its problems. And then "what for goat button accordion"?

[eehnie]

The first two findings underestimate the serious gap between carrier-carried air groups and light aircraft carriers. Absolutely obvious.

But the worst part of the article is in the next part:

3. The cost of building force projection aircraft carriers will be 4-6 times less than the cost of building supercarriers, they are quite "affordable" for the Russian Navy not in single quantities, but in a series of four to eight ships.
4. The export potential of force projection aircraft carriers will create thousands and support hundreds of thousands of jobs.
5. The most important and one of the most difficult tasks in the context of the creation of aircraft-carrying force projection ships is the development of a modern vertical take-off and landing aircraft, comparable or superior in performance characteristics to the American VTOL F-35B.

]

This is wrong, totally wrong.

Obviously, an aircraft carrier is more expensive than a light aircraft carrier. But in order to compare, the correct comparison would not be in a 1 versus 1 scheme. The main role of aircraft carriers is to have a landing pad at sea to operate aircraft in areas that cannot be reached by the same aircraft from ground positions. The correct way to ensure economic balance is through the strength of the aircraft transported on a case-by-case basis. How many light aircraft carriers are needed to achieve the combat power of aircraft carried by one large aircraft carrier? The article does not answer this question. This is a big gap in the analysis.

In some cases of light aircraft carriers included in the economic data items, there are limitations that prevent the power of aircraft carried by large aircraft carriers from reaching the capacity. This means there is no way to compare.

In other cases, to achieve the same level, it is necessary to develop a VTOL fighter that can achieve the characteristics of fighters carried by a large aircraft carrier. I'm not talking about the payload, it's about other specifications.

The main advantage of large aircraft carriers is the ability to use versatile aircraft. Russia actually has a modern, versatile Su-57 fighter that has been completed because it was needed for purposes other than aircraft carriers. The prospect of producing the Su-57 is much stronger than the prospect of producing specific aircraft, which means that the costs of developing it will be much better shared.

And this is the reason for the added benefit. Large aircraft carriers can be used by the land-based versatile Su-57 fighters to increase their range.

But the requirement to develop a VTOL fighter jet has a very large impact on the economic balance between light aircraft carriers and large aircraft carriers. And the article does not say a word about the development costs of the VTOL fighter used as an example, the F-35B. We all know that the development of the F-35B was very costly, and the technical characteristics of the F-35B are significantly inferior to those of the Su-57. This is the second big mistake in the economic balance disclosed in the article.

The United States actually claims that the F-35B VTOL aircraft achieved the same performance as the regular F-35, but this was achieved at the expense of the overall performance of the F-35, which is significantly inferior to that of the Su-57. Now they need others to follow their mistake, but this is unlikely.

Considering that China and India are the main potential consumers of Russia, the conclusion about the prospects of export is also incorrect. China is clearly heading towards larger aircraft carriers, and India is likely to follow suit.

(Automatically translated from English. Below is the original commentary in English)

The first two conclusions are understimulating the serious gap between the air groups carried by aircraft carriers and light aircraft carriers. Certanly evident.

But the worst part of the ariticle is in the following part:

3. The cost of building force projection aircraft carriers will be 4-6 times less than the cost of building supercarriers, they are quite "affordable" for the Russian Navy not in single quantities, but in a series of four to eight ships.
4. The export potential of force projection aircraft carriers will create thousands and support hundreds of thousands of jobs.
5. The most important and one of the most difficult tasks in the context of the creation of aircraft-carrying force projection ships is the development of a modern vertical take-off and landing aircraft, comparable or superior in performance characteristics to the American VTOL F -35B.

This is wrong, completely wrong.

Obviously an aircraft carrier is more expensive than a light aircraft carrier. But in order to compare, the right comparison would not be in a 1 versus 1 scheme. The main role of aircraft carriers is to have on sea a landing plaform in order to operate aircrafts in areas that can not be reached by the same aircrafts from land positions. The right way to make the conomic ballance is by the strength of the aircrafts carried in every case. How many light aircraft carriers are necessary to reach the combat strenght of the aircraft carried by one big aircraft carrier? This question is not answered in the article. It is a big failure in the analysis.

In some cases of the light caircraft carriers included in the economic data of the article, there are limitations that do not allow to reach the strength of the aircraft carried by a big aircraft carrier. It means there is not a way to compare.

In other cases in order to reach the same level is necessary the development of a VTOL fighter that can be able to reach the performance of the fighters carried by a big aircraft carrier. I'm not talking about payload, it is about other specifications.

The main adavantage of big aircraft carriers is to allow the use of generic aircraft. Russia has actually a modern generic fighter, the Su-57, which development has been completed, because it was necessary for other purposes not related to the aircraft carriers. The prospect for the production of the Su-57 is much stronger than the prospect of production of specific aircraft, and it means the cost of its development will be much better divided.

And this is the cause of an additional advantage. The big aircraft carriers can be used by generic Su-57 figthers based on land in order to enlarge its range.

But the requirement of the development of a VTOL fighter has a very big impact in the economic ballance between light aircraft carriers and large aircraft carriers. And the article does not include any word about the costs of development of the VTOL fighter used as example, the F-35B. We all know the development of the F-35B has been very expensive, and the specifications of the F-35B are significantly inferior to the specifications of the Su-57. This is the second big mistake in the economic balance exposed in the article.

The United States is actually claiming the achieved with the VTOL F-35B the same performance than with generic F-35, but it has been achieved at the cost of the overall performance of the F-35, that is significantly inferior to the performance of the su-57. Now they need others to follow their mistake, but this is unlikely.

With China and India being the main potential customers of Russia, the conclusion about the export prospect is also wrong.

[911sx]

Thanks to the author for the brief analysis - reflections

[ramzay21]

The initial task of our Navy should be to understand what kind of fleet we need and what kind of ships we need, and then it will become clear that with our resources we need cheap and massive ASW corvettes and frigates 22350 in large quantities, as well as modern minesweepers. It is better not to build other ships for now, so as not to scatter already meager finances, limiting ourselves to bringing to mind our TAVKR

[hostel]

Something tells me that the cost of maintaining four light aircraft carriers, the projection force will be 1,5-2 times higher than for a "supercarrier". The Yankees are not fools for a long time already considered all this and abandoned these "wonderful ships". Moreover, the author does not take into account that all these "light aircraft carriers" are being built by the NATO countries as an addition to classic aircraft carriers. Firstly, because nobody canceled the idea of ​​an "escort" aircraft carrier. WWII experience. Second, these "light aircraft carriers" will be used where strike aircraft carriers are not needed. This will allow you to focus Nimitz where it is needed and create a decisive advantage in their favor.
The Russian Navy, for a start, needs to focus on a small classic aircraft carrier, based on the Charles de Gaulle.

[3danimal]

Even if we, having undermined the economy, build 2-4 supercarriers, the United States will easily increase its number of its own by the same 2-4 units. No, confrontation with the US Navy is possible only in asymmetric ways.

It makes no sense to strain anything, you need to develop. Attract investments, create a "climate", etc.
IMHO, it makes no sense to expect that with the help of aircraft carriers UDC a'la "America" ​​with the F-35V it is possible to "challenge" or oppose the US Navy in the ocean. A quantitative advantage will always play here, which is unattainable (and meaningless) in the foreseeable future.
But, such an aircraft-carrying UDC will be able to support the order of its ships, especially when a tiltrotor-AWACS appears (I understand, it sounds fantastic, but still).
Plus - it will be possible to maintain the experience of using carrier-based aircraft and finally send the long-suffering Kuznetsov to rest (instead of him - a couple of UDCs with a dozen SCVVPs).

[Serge-667]

Here you go. Again an attempt to hammer in nails with a microscope, and, moreover, from a pure heart.

Global question: On Fi Ga?
Let's make a normal UDC first. That it was UDC with a Capital Letter. With attack and transport helicopters, capable of transferring a combat unit in a complete set where it is necessary and how it should be!
To be able to perform the functions of a control ship and be completely self-sufficient.
Then we’ll think about how to sew the fifth wheel to the dog.

The MiG-29s and from Admiral Kuznetsov are not able to take off with a full load, let's build one more hemorrhoids, with which we will then pop up, the difference in the deck length is almost XNUMX meters from the TAVKR.
Neither the weaponry nor the architecture itself is molded with an aircraft carrier, but we will stick a rhinoceros. SCHOB BULLO ..

Z. the helicopter AWACS is also such itself. The maximum altitude is 3000 m. What is this, AWACS? I'm not even saying how much to cram there for a full-fledged AWACS.
THIS IS NOT AWACS:

[3danimal]

Need a tiltrotor AWACS and something similar to the F-35B

[Baikal57]

Taashchi! The promising high-speed helicopter was forgotten, there the drygatel is simpler and the PSV is suitable for the infantry. New GG under 4000hp we will not wait 10 years. To dance from the VK-2500, but the helicopter itself must be made of plastic, all over. Torpedo "Answer" is enough for him to carry.

[Samuil marshak]

A sensible article, it feels like they picked up pieces from serious publications and they poured here they say they eat couch, the author is a pro

[Cosmemedic]

Ships with subtle swarms of drones of various types are needed. Classic aircraft carriers are not.
We simply have nowhere to base them and bring them out into the ocean.

[3danimal]

nowhere to base and take out into the ocean.

We need infrastructure in the Far East
And the significant development of the territory, its transport connectivity.

[Ryusei]

Stupid article.

[= VolodeY =]

Our Navy currently has 1,5 Project 22350 ships, and we dream of spaceships!

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: = VolodeY =

Our Navy currently has 1,5 Project 22350 ships, and we dream of spaceships!

Nevertheless, two UDCs are laid down. Their creation has been officially announced.

[Bond, James Bond]

it is a pity that the author avoids responding to some (moreover, addressed to him) comments. But at the same time he answers some "shouts from the audience." Is he afraid to give an answer?

[storm]

By the way, the possibility of acquiring the F-35B is being considered by the Israeli Air Force,

So Israel purchases weapons at the expense of the US budget.
It’s no secret to anyone the amount of US military assistance to Israel, here you can ask for an F-35 and whatever the “Jewish soul” desires...

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: assault

By the way, the possibility of acquiring the F-35B is being considered by the Israeli Air Force,

So Israel purchases weapons at the expense of the US budget.
It’s no secret to anyone the amount of US military assistance to Israel, here you can ask for an F-35 and whatever the “Jewish soul” desires...

So you can ask for another F-35I, but the interest is in the F-35B VTOL aircraft.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

How long can this topic be discussed? Well, the time of aircraft carriers has passed. Their heyday was the Second World War, when ships could not shoot far and planes could not fly far.
Now this is just a bugbear for waging colonial wars. Is the Russian Federation going to do something similar? Of course not.
What remains, coastal protection? It’s not even funny, considering the conditions in which our coastlines lie. So why build them? No place to put the money? And indulge the admiral's ambitions? Well, maybe then we can also set up battleships, with armor, as expected, and a bunch of guns of exorbitant calibers. They look cool too.
Well, for that matter, now any ship with missile weapons is already an aircraft carrier. With shock, disposable UAVs.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

...Now this is just a bogeyman for waging colonial wars. Is the Russian Federation going to do something similar? Of course not.

Why do you think so? We are already building one of these. In Syria.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Yes, because we are not at war with Syria, we are at war together with Syria. Therefore, we are there quite officially and on hired bases, which are an order of magnitude better than all these floating sub-airfields. Kuznetsov’s campaign demonstrated this very clearly.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

and mercenary bases, which are an order of magnitude better than all these floating sub-airfields

what if there is no ground base? What then? Don’t you understand that an airfield is not a replacement for a ground airfield if there is one, it is an airfield where there is none otherwise.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Hmmm, arguing with schoolchildren about pounding water in a mortar. Against yours, I like it, no strategic calculations can be made.
However, I’ll try again - can you name at least one military conflict, including the USSR, where there was a NEED for aircraft carriers?
When it comes to your heads, there is no need for the Russian Federation to fight for resources. There are enough of our own who need to be retained. And the coastline there is such that these troughs don’t dance there.

[Special opinion]

One of these students is a Navy officer.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Then it’s all the more shameful not to understand real things.

[Special opinion]

Well, try to hold on to the Kuril Islands without your own AB, for example.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

You probably don’t know, but there are military airfields on the Kuril Islands.

[Special opinion]

You probably don’t know that an airfield can be easily destroyed?

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Aren't you tired of showing your ignorance? But what am I talking about, in our country now, what is not a manager, a taxi driver, a hairdresser, is a great strategist.
A land airfield is many times more difficult to destroy. It doesn't sink like a floating trough. Yes, and to restore after damage is enough strength of the battalion. While the aircraft carrier needs lengthy factory repairs.

[Special opinion]

If you immediately set out to completely destroy it, then yes. But if you disable it and then destroy it, it will turn out that the AB is tens of times more stable.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Resilience due to your ignorance?)

[3danimal]

Kuznetsov’s campaign demonstrated this very clearly.

It’s just that “Kuznetsov” is in a deplorable state, but I really wanted to “show everyone” that it exists.
Problematic power plant, boiler-turbine. The same as on the quietly dying EM pr 956..

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Well, the time of aircraft carriers has passed, gone

who told you such heresy? an aircraft carrier - nothing more. than a floating airfield. It should be perceived this way. By saying that their time has passed, you are saying that the time of aviation has passed. So, aviation is not needed anymore, yok? You have very bold ideas! What do you offer in return for aviation?

[vovochkarzhevsky]

This is not just an airfield, but a very bad airfield, with a short runway, low capacity and a bunch of other restrictions.
Now try to rack your brains and think about why they built these bad but expensive floating airfields?
The answer is simple, aviation of those years did not have enough range when operating from coastal airfields, and for naval artillery 50 km was the ultimate dream.
And under these conditions, an aircraft carrier, even hastily converted from a civilian ship and armed with biplanes, had an undeniable advantage over the most sophisticated battleship. Since the biplane could easily deliver its bombs or torpedoes 200 km or more. That is, they beat the enemy remotely and with impunity. And from that time on, the decline of battleships and the flourishing of aircraft carriers began.
But now the situation is completely different. Even relatively small ships have missile weapons with a range that makes such an intermediate delivery vehicle as a carrier-based aircraft unnecessary.

And stop lying and attributing to others what they did not say. I never spoke about the uselessness of aviation. It is exactly what is needed, but not deck-based, but coastal, with a decent load and radius. It was this, long-range aviation, plus satellite constellations and missile weapons that wrote off aircraft carriers to the tactical level.

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Well, maybe then we can also set up battleships, with armor, as expected, and a bunch of guns of exorbitant calibers. They look cool too.

you know, the ideas of constructive protection of ships are returning to the fleet. Somehow, cardboard ships that can be sent to the bottom by one unexploded rocket don’t look very good. Of course, there won’t be anything close to battleship armor, but the idea will be there - protection is needed, not only active (guns, electronic warfare, etc.) but also bluntly “hardware” capable of resisting the spread of damage. Didn't the latest incident with "Agile" mean anything to you? Well, or deeper into history, 1982, the destroyer Sheffield. If these ships were metal, with some kind of structural protection, they would not have died. The passion for lightweight materials and disposable ships is passing.

Even the author of the article does not ask the question whether aircraft-carrying ships are needed or not. He says that they are needed, he simply offers his “approach to the projectile”

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Well, for that matter, now any ship with missile weapons is already an aircraft carrier. With shock, disposable UAVs

a rocket is not a replacement for an airplane.

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Money nowhere to go?

so the fact of the matter is that ships without air cover are money down the drain. And a bunch more funerals. Because such ships are not residents. And their crews. Whether you consciously or not, you are signing those sailors’ death warrant by sending them into battle without air support. And only an aircraft carrier can provide it at sea, no matter how you treat it. I understand that propaganda has done its job, but do you have your own mind? This is the same as leaving, for example, ground troops without air support. Would you come up with such a “sound” idea? So why is it wrong with sailors?

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Quote: Bond James Bond

you know, the ideas of constructive protection of ships are returning to the fleet. Somehow, cardboard ships that can be sent to the bottom by one unexploded rocket don’t look very good. Of course, there won’t be anything close to battleship armor, but the idea will be there - protection is needed, not only active (guns, electronic warfare, etc.) but also bluntly “hardware” capable of resisting the spread of damage. Didn't the latest incident with "Agile" mean anything to you? Well, or deeper into history, 1982, the destroyer Sheffield. If these ships were metal, with some kind of structural protection, they would not have died. The passion for lightweight materials and disposable ships is passing.

This is sarcasm, we were talking about the armor belt of battleships and their main calibers.

so the fact of the matter is that ships without air cover are money down the drain. And a bunch more funerals. Because such ships are not residents. And their crews. Whether you consciously or not, you are signing those sailors’ death warrant by sending them into battle without air support. And only an aircraft carrier can provide it at sea, no matter how you treat it. I understand that propaganda has done its job, but do you have your own mind? This is the same as leaving, for example, ground troops without air support. Would you come up with such a “sound” idea? So why is it wrong with sailors?

In order not to be unfounded, propose the option of a military clash of the Russian fleet where aircraft carriers will be needed. Otherwise this is just empty hot air.

[Special opinion]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

In order not to be unfounded, propose the option of a military clash of the Russian fleet where aircraft carriers will be needed. Otherwise this is just empty hot air.

Any conflict involving carrier-based or base aircraft from the opposite side.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Let's go without spherocones in a vacuum, using specific examples.

[Special opinion]

American AUG. You can't defeat them without your AB.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

You have to be completely... a visionary, to put it mildly, to propose such scenarios. Because the conflict with the United States will quickly move into the phase of exchanging nuclear strikes. And when strategic aviation and the Strategic Missile Forces come into play, there is no time for troughs with airplanes.

[Special opinion]

This nonsense about nuclear strikes perfectly shows that in essence you have nothing to object to. But in fact, it makes no difference whose aircraft, the Japanese basic ones or the F-35B, are capable of the same thing.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Again you are not in the know. It is precisely the “nonsense” about the possibility of receiving nuclear strikes in response that serves as a guarantee that no one risks starting a war.
As for the Japanese, in any case, nothing will happen to them. There are military airfields in the Kuril Islands.
Your horizons are somewhat limited.

[Special opinion]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

It is precisely the “nonsense” about the possibility of receiving nuclear strikes in response that serves as a guarantee that no one risks starting a war.

How many wars and conflicts have there been between countries with nuclear weapons?

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Your horizons are somewhat limited.

Judge for yourself. Is the airfield absolutely invulnerable to any weapon?

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Quote: Minority Opinion

How many wars and conflicts have there been between countries with nuclear weapons?

That's why they don't exist, because there are nuclear weapons.

Judge for yourself. Is the airfield absolutely invulnerable to any weapon?

Well, I can’t judge by you. In order to inflict such significant damage on an airfield, you need ammunition many times more powerful than to sink an aircraft carrier.

[Special opinion]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Quote: Minority Opinion

How many wars and conflicts have there been between countries with nuclear weapons?

That's why they don't exist, because there are nuclear weapons...

Lies. Was there a conflict in Damansky? Was.

Well, I can’t judge by you. In order to inflict such significant damage on an airfield, you need ammunition many times more powerful than to sink an aircraft carrier.

What enchanting nonsense. The airfield is an object with pre-known coordinates and is disabled by two missile launchers or 4 commandos.
Any AB has tens of times greater combat stability due to its mobility.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

The answer is below.

[3danimal]

If these ships were metal, with some kind of structural protection, they would not have died. The passion for lightweight materials and disposable ships is passing.

I somehow calculated: a Kevlar belt 5x100m on each side, 10cm thick, will weigh only 150t (despite being 2-4 times heavier than armored steel and 6 times lighter).
The cost of the material is about $4,8 million, which is quite a bit.

[3danimal]

Their heyday is the second world war

During the second Mtrovaya there were no carrier-based jet aircraft with precision weapons and AWACS aircraft.
When away from your airfields, it is very useful to have an airfield close at hand.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

The ship is not designed just like that. It is initially designed for a specific type of aircraft. The original helicopter carrier is not at all ready for VTOL operation; it needs to be very, very seriously modernized for them. If VTOL aircraft were not specified in the technical specifications for the UDC, then there is nothing to talk about. ...

The creators of the Izumo-type UDC will not agree with you. The only limitation is the load capacity and dimensions of lifts and hangars. If they were initially taken with a reserve, then there are no problems with basing the UDC.

The heat-resistant coating is installed.

In addition, I’m not sure that our UDC project will be completed

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: AVM

The creators of the Izumo-type UDC will not agree with you

and what? Or do you sincerely think that just install a heat-resistant coating and that’s it, the lightweight AB is ready?
Yes, there are a lot of nuances here, and, in my opinion, Mr.

Quote: bk0010

The AWACS helicopter is not even close to replacing the AWACS aircraft, it is better than nothing, but nothing more. Their presence does not negate the need for AWACS aircraft.
The author does not understand that the presence of a heat-resistant coating and a springboard will not turn the UDC into an AWACS aircraft carrier. In order for the UDC to become an AWACS aircraft carrier, it is necessary to expel from it the entire landing force, landing craft, some helicopters, install new lifts and refueling points, place inside tanks for aviation fuel, a protected ASP storage facility linked to those very new lifts, deploy an aircraft workshop on board to service the air group , replace onboard radio-electronic equipment (not only communications, which are incompatible among sailors, pilots and landmen, but also radars for the task of controlling an air group), drive aircraft technicians and pilots inside the ship (the existing ones will not fit, it is necessary to train the naval ones), replace the entire command of the ship (the existing ones naval officers are poorly compatible with aviation, even in the states) and solve a bunch of other problems. As a result, we lose the UDC and get some kind of platform for operating VTOL aircraft, providing not too many sorties

Quote: AVM

In addition, I’m not sure that our UDC project will be completed

Holy shit... i.e. Are you sure that the ship was laid down, but you don’t understand under what project? Do you even understand what laying a ship is???

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

The ship is not designed just like that. It is initially designed for a specific type of aircraft. The original helicopter carrier is not at all ready for VTOL operation; it needs to be very, very seriously modernized for them

absolutely right. Many people have the illusion that it is very easy to “register” a plane on the deck.

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

But they are unlikely to be registered there, because such VTOL aircraft are not even in the draft.

Naturally, because you need to start from something. Weight, dimensions, special systems, etc. And when there is no task... And why should a developer take on an extra headache on his own initiative?

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

The creation of a modern combat aircraft is a very long and very expensive story.

especially VTOL aircraft, the competencies for which, alas, have probably been lost. And there’s nothing to say about the engine; the power plant needs to be created from scratch.

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

For another grandiose project with a potential serial production of a couple of dozen units. They just won’t give you money.

and yes, the plane turns out to be extremely highly specialized. No, you can, of course, initially aim at exporting (the article boldly says so), but this will not help. Today we do not have investors who would help as in the case of the Su-30. Therefore, the plane will a priori be very expensive and is unlikely to have a high priority (again, if only because there are no ships for it - this is a vicious circle, no ship - no plane, no plane - no ship. And only a strong-willed decision can cut this knot. But you shouldn’t count on it for anything, if it were - it would be much easier to build, although not outstanding, but just an average aircraft carrier of a normal design and worry about replacing the Su-33)

[Sancho_SP]

I didn’t find it in the article, but who are we going to fight with?

[Bond, James Bond]

Quote: Sancho_SP

and who will we fight with?

Do you have to fight with someone? There must be interests and opportunities to realize these interests. Hence the requirements for technology.

[bovi]

It would be good to compare possibilities with reality. In your logic, the Russian Federation should, simply must, at the current stage of development take on the imperial role in full and behave like a hegemon, projecting military force wherever there are interests.
Life is more complicated and now the Russian Federation does not even have its own investment currency and institutions with appropriate practices. Yes, there are great prospects for the next half a hundred years, but in the near future the task will be to control what is there and what is slowly growing, and not to go to restore order in the Horn of Africa... All because global problems will disintegrate into local conflicts. There is not only no strength, but also no need for global ones. Maintaining hegemony is impossible for economic reasons in the first place, and then comes the ideological demarcation and political games of Nanai boys among themselves.

[bovi]

no wonder they don't understand you

[Special opinion]

The author is in some kind of parallel reality. Project AB from UDC without a power plant, a VTOL aircraft that does not exist at all. Not to mention that an AB without a catapult is basically of little use.

[mvg]

- Spanish aircraft carrier/UDC “Juan Carlos I” – about 360 million euros

I don’t believe that corvettes or Varshavyanka cost that much.

The export potential of aircraft-carrying power projection ships will create thousands and support hundreds of thousands of jobs.

I don’t believe it, how long has it been since we sold ships? Not counting 11356 without engines.. Where do we get the technology and how to compete with China, Korea or Japan... or good old Europe. again an article that is far-fetched. Mythical planes, plans, assumptions, conclusions.

[Zaurbek]

In fact, the answer to this question is quite simple. If Russia is able to create a VTOL aircraft that is not inferior or even superior in its characteristics to the F-35B VTOL aircraft, then the choice will definitely be in favor of the VTOL aircraft

The Russian Federation does not have dominance in tactical aviation and has just begun (if it has begun) the transition to the 5th generation.....so it is better to spend money and effort on land aviation. Moreover, if you look at the USA, the Marine Corps is armed with them...

[Konnick]

The Russian Federation does not have dominance in tactical aviation and has just begun (if it has begun) the transition to the 5th generation.....so it’s better to spend money and effort on land aviation

You are right, spending money on aircraft carriers that are not yet clear for what purpose. To dominate the Indian Ocean?
Even instead of funding tank construction, it is necessary to increase spending on aviation, no matter manned or unmanned. Aviation is the main force capable of quickly repelling, in conjunction with air defense, and delivering decisive blows when attacked by the enemy. Not to mention videoconferencing.

[Zaurbek]

Building an aircraft carrier and adapting a land fighter to it is easier than spending money on a VTOL aircraft.....which will eat up a lot of money and will be built in the amount of 20.....that's what I'm getting at. and the United States has specific expeditionary forces for landing on the shore and VTOL aircraft are specifically needed for this. The Russian Federation does not have such tasks.

[Konnick]

First of all, we need aircraft with short takeoff and landing, without excessive maneuverability, with high cruising speed and universal purpose, depending on the weapons used. A VTOL aircraft is too complex and expensive with limited functionality.

[Zaurbek]

Modern Sushki are just that: Su35 and Su57......they have powerful Al41s and will be even more powerful than 30s......+ a mandatory catapult. Without it, you can forget about auxiliary AWACS or tanker or UAV....

[3danimal]

It's easier to build an aircraft carrier and adapt a land fighter to it

An aircraft carrier is always expensive.
Slowly develop the topic of turboprop aircraft AWACS a la E-2. (And finally finish the long-term construction of the A-100)
And adapt the same Su-30 as a naval aviation (IMHO, the Su-34 is an erroneous project, what is one armored cabin worth), which can be used with conformal and external fuel tanks.

[Zaurbek]

It is much more important to even just make a land-based AWACS in this weight.....

[likas]

By and large, we do not need aircraft carriers with our military doctrine, unless of course we have plans to “promote democracy”, for example in Thailand.

[vadim1]

I completely share your opinion about the usefulness of a series of small aircraft carriers for the Russian fleet. The main problem, as you correctly write, is the lack of suitable VTOL aircraft, since the use of a classic fighter like the Mig 29 from them will, although possible, be very difficult due to their performance characteristics. But creating a VTOL aircraft from scratch is a difficult task, and the aircraft will be expensive, and training pilots is not an easy task. Wouldn't it be easier to create for them a small, light subsonic fighter-attack aircraft with flight data that allows them to successfully use a short runway on a small aircraft carrier? It will cope with most of the expected tasks quite successfully and will cost much less, which is also important from the point of view of export...
It is clear that such an aircraft will certainly be worse than a classic supersonic fighter, but it is also certainly better than nothing..)
Moreover, for the fleet it is better to have an average aircraft that flies well in any weather than a super-duper, but only on holidays... But for starters, something similar to our training jet aircraft such as the Yak-130 would be suitable...

[grumbler]

It is clear that an aircraft carrier and its aircraft cannot be considered separately; this system.
Just as there is no independent combat unit “aircraft carrier”, but only AUG with air defense, anti-aircraft defense and other “...O”.

As for the VTOL aircraft. In my opinion, while there are no energy sources and economical multi-mode engines “based on new physical principles” that could provide both GDP and economical flight in cruising mode, the VTOL turns out to be such a compromise that it must be “unrealistically ideal” fit into the system applications: carrier (aircraft carrier, aircraft launch/landing system); external target designation systems and weapons of the VTOL aircraft itself; aircraft assisting him (AWACS, refuelers, cover fighters, etc.). Otherwise, it is very vulnerable to criticism: over-heavy - and therefore poorly maneuverable and carrying few weapons; consuming a lot of fuel - and therefore having a very limited combat radius.

Therefore, to implement VTOL aircraft you need radically rid the aircraft itself of excess GDP energy and shift these tasks to auxiliary equipment. And there is nothing new in this: a deck catapult, an aerofinisher, a springboard, equipping aircraft with jettisonable powder accelerators...
Apply the same approach at a new stage of technology development - using mooring UAV tugs. The solution seems attractive to me, first of all, because the principles of “specialization” of functions are observed (each does one thing, but does it well) and “abstraction” - an intermediate “interface layer” in the form of assistant UAVs decouples the carrier and wearable aircraft. Fewer “compatibility points” will be required, and it will be easier to assemble the system.

Then aircraft carriers will finally be able to degenerate into some kind of medium-sized “inferior aircraft carriers,” as A. Timokhin dubbed them in (2), which can be built on the platform of “modular unicursal expeditionary transport ships.” On the basis of which you can create ships for various purposes: transports, tankers, hospitals, rescue ships, helicopter/UAV carriers, etc.).
It is a large batch, greatly reducing the cost of creating a fleet. The ability to build/repair ships at a larger number of enterprises.

Mooring assistant UAVs can be used not only in the navy, but in mountainous conditions, in the Arctic - wherever the runway length is insufficient and the weather conditions are difficult.

I wrote about this in the following topics:
1) https://vpk-news.ru/articles/49658 (grumpy June 19, 2019);
2) https://topwar.ru/170925-nepolnocennye-avianoscy-i-ih-cena-dlja-obschestva.html (grumbler May 10, 2020 17:44; grumbler May 11, 2020 10:18)
3) https://topwar.ru/184608-modernizacija-tavkr-admiral-kuznecov-chto-poluchit-rossija.html (grumbler July 4, 2021 13:03).

[grumbler]

I apologize, “unicursal” is the result of inattentive use of the auto-corrector, it was planned to be “universal”.

[AC130 Gunship]

1. Mig29 is an aircraft developed in the early 70s and is morally outdated and there is no point in designing a new ship for it. 2. The Yak-141 has not flown much and no one knows much about it. Its predecessor, the serial Yak38, spent 2/3 of all fuel on takeoff and landing and was also more of a technology demonstrator. 3. There is no carrier-based aircraft for Dlro even on paper. That. If we are to start designing an aircraft carrier, then the projects for strike, tanker and aircraft carriers should be included in the same program. And the Navy and VKS are different budgets...

[SoloD]

Interestingly, it can be used as a mother for UAVs, less space for aircraft, less maintenance problems, easier to launch... and many such advantages.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Quote: Minority Opinion

Lies. Was there a conflict in Damansky? Was.

What kind of ignoramus are you? Firstly, it was a border conflict in which the Chinese scooped up and quickly crawled away.
Secondly, China carried out its first test only in 1965 and did not have a sufficient number of ammunition or delivery vehicles capable of breaking through the air defense of the USSR. Therefore, the USSR was in no hurry to launch nuclear strikes.

What enchanting nonsense. The airfield is an object with pre-known coordinates and is disabled by two missile launchers or 4 commandos.
Any AB has tens of times greater combat stability due to its mobility.

Exactly, you have enchanting shkolota delirium, there’s no other way to put it. Especially about the four commandos.
Do you get your tactical knowledge from movies?
Firstly, the Kyrgyz Republic still needs to overcome the air defense system, that’s it.
Secondly, even if these same missiles hit the runway, the damage is repaired in less than a day.
Thirdly, the speed of aircraft carrier groups is such that it is a worthwhile target for aviation. Despite the fact that naval air defense is not capable of withstanding the combat stress that is on the ground.
Fourthly, aircraft carrier groups could only get lost in the vastness of the ocean during the Second World War.
Fifthly, what are you planning to attack the Kuril Islands with? If by carrier-based aircraft, then this is at least a 600 km distance. And this is a verdict on the troughs.

[Special opinion]

What kind of ignoramus are you? Firstly, it was a border conflict in which the Chinese scooped up and quickly crawled away.
Secondly, China carried out its first test only in 1965 and did not have a sufficient number of ammunition or delivery vehicles capable of breaking through the air defense of the USSR. Therefore, the USSR was in no hurry to launch nuclear strikes.

Lies again. The Chinese had ballistic missiles and TU 1969 in 16. TU 16 is certainly not the B52, but it also had a chance.

Exactly, you have enchanting shkolota delirium, there’s no other way to put it. Especially about the four commandos. laughing
Do you get your tactical knowledge from movies?

And it’s no longer your business where it comes from. Justify that it's nonsense. 4 saboteurs are quite capable of disabling some run-of-the-mill airfield on the island.

Firstly, the Kyrgyz Republic still needs to overcome the air defense system, that’s it.

Doesn't the anti-ship missile system need to overcome the air defense system?

Secondly, even if these same missiles hit the runway, the damage is repaired in less than a day.

Your airfield will be plowed with high explosives within a couple of hours after the missile strike, so no repairs will help.

Thirdly, the speed of aircraft carrier groups is such that it is a worthwhile target for aviation. Despite the fact that naval air defense is not capable of withstanding the combat stress that is on the ground.

Again a lie. The ship's air defense has its own AWACS aircraft and fighters. A ship, in principle, is a more difficult target than an airfield due to the fact that it moves and can masquerade as civilian ships.

Fourthly, aircraft carrier groups could only get lost in the vastness of the ocean during the Second World War.

Again, either blatant ignorance or blatant lies. Nor Pac FleetEx Ops'82 says hello.

Fifthly, what are you planning to attack the Kuril Islands with? If by carrier-based aircraft, then this is at least a 600 km distance. And this is a verdict on the troughs.

What are you going to do to them with broken-down tomahawks and jassm airfields?

[Butchcassidy]

Good article.

As for opportunities, Russia can do everything. The only question is timing and funding. Well, who will be entrusted with it, of course. The issue of design competencies for VTOL aircraft, I think, has been retained; here there are more questions for production.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Quote: Minority Opinion

Lies again. The Chinese had ballistic missiles and TU 1969 in 16. TU 16 is certainly not the B52, but it also had a chance.

China had no chance to overcome the air defense of the USSR.

And it’s no longer your business where it comes from. Justify that it's nonsense. 4 saboteurs are quite capable of disabling some run-of-the-mill airfield on the island.

No, young man. Now you will tell how 4 saboteurs will disable a well-guarded military airfield with several defense rings, an air defense system, anti-sabotage groups, mining, motion sensors and other joys.

Doesn't the anti-ship missile system need to overcome the air defense system?

Of course it is necessary. That is why I spoke about combat tension. Although how do you know what it is?
In short, especially for you. The ship's air defense group has limitations both in the number of firing points and in terms of ammunition. While ground-based air defenses do not have such problems. Therefore, the air defense of an airfield is much more difficult to hack than a ship’s.

Your airfield will be plowed with high explosives within a couple of hours after the missile strike, so no repairs will help.

To plow, you still need to break through the air defense. And who, when the trough sinks, the ship group will no longer take off.

Again a lie. The ship's air defense has its own AWACS aircraft and fighters.

Again your ignorance, young man. The AWACS aircraft first of all unmasks the AUG itself. And shipborne fighters are not good against missiles.

The ship is, in principle, a more difficult target than an airfield due to the fact that it moves and can masquerade as civilian ships

.

Young man, at least google what satellite images of the AUG look like, then you will rave about masquerading as merchant ships.

Again, either blatant ignorance or blatant lies. Nor Pac FleetEx Ops'82 says hello.

Are you out of your mind? To refer to the technical level of 1982, you have to go crazy, and I congratulate you on that.
Do you even imagine the difference between dropping film in containers from orbit and transmitting data online?

What are you going to do to them with broken-down tomahawks and jassm airfields?

What tomahawks, young man? The AUG will be detected long before it moves to its original position. And then, at the slightest sign of aggression, it will be destroyed by a massive missile strike. And if it releases anything, the air defense will destroy it.

[Special opinion]

China had no chance to overcome the air defense of the USSR.

Again a lie. I won’t even comment on the interception of the IRBM in the late 60s. And the B52s that completely bombed Hanoi from Soviet air defense will not agree with you.

No, young man. Now you will tell how 4 saboteurs will disable a well-guarded military airfield with several defense rings, an air defense system, anti-sabotage groups, mining, motion sensors and other joys.

Old man, even in this case, something can be done. But first answer the question. Where will ALL this come from at the jump airfield in peacetime?

Of course it is necessary. That is why I spoke about combat tension. Although how do you know what it is?
In short, especially for you. The ship's air defense group has limitations both in the number of firing points and in terms of ammunition. While ground-based air defenses do not have such problems. Therefore, the air defense of an airfield is much more difficult to hack than a ship’s.

In theory, yes. In practice, no. Because hacking air defense is not a goal, but a means to achieve it. It is enough to overload the air defense of a guarded airfield with the number of attacking LCs and missile launchers and it will be penetrated. The execution of Shayrat in 17 is an example of this. This won't work with ships.

To plow, you still need to break through the air defense. And who, when the trough sinks, the ship group will no longer take off.

He'll drown, yeah. Because of fear.

Again your ignorance, young man. The AWACS aircraft first of all unmasks the AUG itself. And shipborne fighters are not good against missiles.

Hawkeye does not always work in active mode. Especially when a sneak attack is needed. Shipborne fighters destroy not missiles, but their carriers.

Young man, at least google what satellite images of the AUG look like, then you will rave about masquerading as merchant ships.

Sputniks are simply not serious. Cloud cover, windows between satellite flights.

Are you out of your mind? To refer to the technical level of 1982, you have to go crazy, and I congratulate you on that.
Do you even imagine the difference between dropping film in containers from orbit and transmitting data online?

Old man, don't disgrace yourself. During Nor Pac FleetEx Ops'82, the Americans carried out training strikes on Petropavlovsk and boat bases for 4 DAYS. So how could online help you?

What tomahawks, young man? The AUG will be detected long before it moves to its original position.

How will AUG be detected?

And then, at the slightest sign of aggression

And how will you find out and what will you do to Virginia, who will strike the first blow with Tomahawks on the highest priority targets?

[Awaz]

Lord. Well, Russia doesn’t need aircraft carriers, literally at all. I don't see a single reasonable argument for building them. It would be better to build large ocean-going ships with high-precision missile weapons, capable of delivering massive precision strikes on any targets from beyond their reach.
Russia does not need to attack anyone. The main task is to protect its territory. Therefore, this territory should have enough airfields and aircraft to defend itself.
Even if you build two or three for parades and to please the admirals. In the event of a conflict, they will become the primary targets and will be destroyed in the first days of the conflict. Why immediately throw away so much money and sacrifice people and planes, too, and not very cheap ships ..?

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Quote: Minority Opinion

Grandfather, you're delusional.
Dongfeng 2 is the first Chinese medium-range ballistic missile, put into service in the mid-to-late 60s.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D1%83%D0%BD%D1%84%D1%8D%D0%BD_(%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0)#%D0%94%D1%83%D0%BD%D1%84%D1%8D%D0%BD_2_(CSS-1)

Granddaughters, how many of those missiles did China have? And the range of action is laughter. Despite the fact that the answer was guaranteed to be given by all of China.

This is what?

However, the available military power. Moreover, even that modest military assistance from the USSR in the form of an air defense system was enough for the Americans to run away with their tail between their legs.

So what? And why did you decide that I don’t know?

According to you, it turns out that you don’t know.

But in different ways. Maybe from a boat, maybe from a helicopter, or maybe they’ll come as tourists.

Enchanting nonsense. Do you have any idea how the security and defense of airfields is carried out? It looks like all your knowledge of their Bond movies.

It will work, but it will require many times more missiles.

What are you saying? Can you provide calculations for calculating the required forces and means, according to tactics?

And they also need a control center. And even this is not a guarantee of success. Because instead of an AB, a UDC or a tanker may be placed under attack.

Well, well, what holy naivety. Do you have any idea about modern reconnaissance means?

Which ones will come from?

Ground forces, aviation, navy. Did not know?

Grandfather, you are fantasizing. The fact that an AWACS aircraft can operate in passive mode is a harsh reality

Granddaughters, you can’t scout out much in direction finding mode. In addition, the AWACS aircraft itself is perfectly detectable by early warning radar.

Carriers out of range of F18 and F35. What arrogant nonsense.

No, this is your blatant ignorance, the X-55SM has a range of 3500 km.

What are these?

Aviation, including UAVs, radar, sonar, and so on.

Grandfather, you are blatantly lying.
Here's another source for you.
Summary:
The Soviet fleet missed the deployment of aircraft carrier strike groups in close proximity to its coast, could neither detect them, much less track them. Two huge aircraft carriers calmly walked past Kamchatka, entered the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and maneuvered 500-600 km from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. Conducted a number of violations of the air border. Successfully avoided meeting with the MRA strike forces. And calmly reached the Sea of ​​Japan.
I ask a question: in the event of a real war, if a similar "incident" happened - how many Pacific Fleet ships would remain afloat by the end of the day? One? Two?

Granddaughter, I am simply amazed at your enchanting ignorance.
Firstly, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky is located on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, not the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.
Secondly, American AUGs never enter the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. For the simple reason that, with the exception of a tiny piece, it was the inland sea of ​​the USSR. Entering it is tantamount to declaring war. In addition, the straits through which the AUG could enter can be counted on one hand and they were all under control. And the entry of an AUG into such a body of water is tantamount to suicide.
Thirdly, there were no violations of the air border. Such experiments always ended badly for Americans.
Fifthly, study geography, not read fairy tales on the Internet.

Lies.

It’s clear that you don’t have an answer and you’re lost.

Grandfather, you completely screwed up with these technical means. Admit it when you're wrong and don't embarrass yourself. There's nothing you can do to find Virginia in the ocean.

Why, you didn’t ask for mercy for your granddaughters. This is in vain, people like you need to be taught.

[Special opinion]

Granddaughters, how many of those missiles did China have? And the range of action is laughter. Despite the fact that the answer was guaranteed to be given by all of China.

And this is no longer significant. For the USSR, the guaranteed destruction of several cities in the east by China was no longer acceptable. So you are wrong, this is a historical fact.

However, the available military power. Moreover, even that modest military assistance from the USSR in the form of an air defense system was enough for the Americans to run away with their tail between their legs.

Nonsense. Hanoi's air defense consisted of 4 anti-aircraft missile regiments of 4 divisions each. + fighters at airfields. and yet Hanoi was completely bombed. Air defense always loses to aircraft.

According to you, it turns out that you don’t know.

Justify.

Enchanting nonsense. Do you have any idea how the security and defense of airfields is carried out? It looks like all your knowledge is about Bond movies

My grandfather's question was where will the commandos come from? Don't overdo it.

What are you saying? Can you provide calculations for calculating the required forces and means, according to tactics?

You need to bring it. It’s just that more missiles with seekers will be needed than strike missiles because they can be deceived by LC and electronic warfare, this is a well-known fact.

Well, well, what holy naivety. Do you have any idea about modern reconnaissance means?

Is there anything to actually object to?

Ground forces, aviation, navy. Did not know?

Dead people and burning carcasses don't fire rockets.

Granddaughters, you can’t scout out much in direction finding mode. In addition, the AWACS aircraft itself is perfectly detectable by early warning radar.

The earth is round.

No, this is your blatant ignorance, the X-55SM has a range of 3500 km.

Ahahahahahahaha. Grandfather, are you by any chance speaking from Kashchenko? Explain how an impact missile will hit a moving target.

Aviation, including UAVs, radar, sonar, and so on.

None of them give a 100% guarantee and they can be deceived.
https://topwar.ru/176082-morskaja-vojna-dlja-nachinajuschih-vyvodim-avianosec-na-udar.html

Grandson, read it.

No, read this, and don’t talk nonsense.
https://www.vesvks.ru/vks/article/russkiy-perl-harbor-16399

It’s clear that you don’t have an answer and you’re lost.

So justify it, this is pure balabolism.

Why, you didn’t ask for mercy for your granddaughters. This is in vain, people like you need to be taught.

Grandfather, you've shit yourself and you're distorting. What means will detect the submarine? How? Come on, tell me. There is no PLO aviation anymore.

[Ingvar 72]

Of course, it’s interesting to read your squabble, but it would be more interesting without mutual rudeness. Emotions are also not alien to me, but I’m afraid the moderators and admins won’t understand your fervor.
And they will be banned, just like the previous account.
Peace, only peace, as the great Carlson bequeathed!

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Quote: Minority Opinion

And this is no longer significant. For the USSR, the guaranteed destruction of several cities in the east by China was no longer acceptable. So you are wrong, this is a historical fact.

China did not have enough forces and means to even guarantee the destruction of even one city. And this is a historical fact proven by the fact that China did not dare to use its nuclear weapons.

Nonsense. Hanoi's air defense consisted of 4 anti-aircraft missile regiments of 4 divisions each. + fighters at airfields. and yet Hanoi was completely bombed. Air defense always loses to aircraft.

You're talking nonsense. The United States shamefully fled Vietnam and that is a fact.
According to you, it turns out that you don’t know.

Justify.

Already substantiated.

My grandfather's question was where will the commandos come from? Don't overdo it.

Your commando delivery methods are just stupid. Moreover, four people simply cannot carry the required amount of explosives. You don’t have to talk about how they famously defeat everyone. There will be better specialists guarding the airfield.

You need to bring it. It’s just that more missiles with seekers will be needed than strike missiles because they can be deceived by LC and electronic warfare, this is a well-known fact.

It's clear, you're lost. But just in case, the AUG against the background of the sea is a more contrasting target. And not only the attacking side has ways to deceive LC and electronic warfare.

Is there anything to actually object to?

Namely, in fact you have nothing to object to.

Dead people and burning carcasses don't fire rockets.

That is, in your opinion, the AUG in one fell swoop destroys the island group, the fleet, and the missile forces and aviation based on the continent? I have to disappoint you, they will not destroy anything, they will go to the bottom at the first sign of aggression. And drowned people don’t shoot.

The earth is round.

An AWACS aircraft cannot be over the horizon.

Ahahahahahahaha. Grandfather, are you by any chance speaking from Kashchenko? Explain how an impact missile will hit a moving target.

Exactly the same as when stationary. Did not know?

None of them give a 100% guarantee and they can be deceived.
https://topwar.ru/176082-morskaja-vojna-dlja-nachinajuschih-vyvodim-avianosec-na-udar.html

That is why reconnaissance means are used comprehensively.

No, read this, and don’t talk nonsense.
https://www.vesvks.ru/vks/article/russkiy-perl-harbor-16399

So you didn’t answer when the American AUG entered the Sea of ​​Okhotsk?

So justify it, this is pure balabolism.

However, you are repeating yourself.

Grandfather, you've shit yourself and you're distorting.

Who should I be offended by, you? And stop sending me tearful messages in PM.

What means will detect the submarine? How? Come on, tell me. There is no PLO aviation anymore.

Hey, we were actually talking about AUG. Forgot already?

[Special opinion]

My friend, with your stream of consciousness you give the impression of a Kashchenko patient. No seriously. Take the trouble to explain in detail how the X 55 with an inertial seeker can hit a moving ship in the ocean. Until you explain in detail and popularly and convince me that you are right, you are a psychiatric patient for me and all your other maxims are just nonsense.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5-55

[Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev]

The United States and NATO are now conducting research and development to increase the mobility of new warships being developed, including aircraft carriers. Existing aircraft-carrying warships are many times inferior in mobility to other combat assets of the Russian Armed Forces. By the time the current aircraft carriers reach the battlefields, there will be nothing left to do there. In addition, due to their low mobility, aircraft carriers can be considered slow-moving targets that can be easily destroyed by modern combat weapons. It is necessary to look for fundamentally new technical solutions when designing aircraft-carrying warships. But Russian design bureaus are still working according to old stereotypes. There are now ekranoplanes, ships with dynamic technical means of keeping them afloat. It is possible to adapt existing ships as drone carriers. There are options, and they are quite sufficient. We must try to look for new solutions and not get hung up on the old.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Quote: Minority Opinion

My friend, with your stream of consciousness you give the impression of a Kashchenko patient. No seriously. Take the trouble to explain in detail how the X 55 with an inertial seeker can hit a moving ship in the ocean. Until you explain in detail and popularly and convince me that you are right, you are a psychiatric patient for me and all your other maxims are just nonsense.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5-55

At least you read your own link.
Firstly, there is a comprehensive guidance system.
Secondly, during the rocket’s flight the troughs will not float far.
Thirdly, for a nuclear warhead, plus or minus a kilometer is not significant.

[hostel]

A force projection ship will never have the capabilities of a conventional aircraft carrier. If we build it, it will be an aircraft carrier like Charles de Gaulle. This is the best option for our fleet. But we persistently spend money on all sorts of experiments, master budgets and waste invaluable time. And then we shake our snot on our fists, we don’t have this, we don’t have that.

[abc_alex]

Su-57 aircraft should have even better takeoff and landing characteristics... if they are implemented in the ship-based version

Why suddenly? Now the Su-57's take-off run is 350 m, and the MiG-29K's is 195 m. In afterburner, the Su-57 "catches up" with the MiG-29K - for both, the take-off run is reduced to about 100 m. BUT! The MiG-29K is already a damaged aircraft, with a reinforced airframe, landing gear and aero arresting rod. Similar measures for the Su-57 will increase its weight by approximately 2-2,5 tons (similar to the Su-27 upgraded to the Su-33). So it’s not clear from where the author took his conviction.

Can Russia create a vertical take-off and landing aircraft, and is it needed?

What is it for? For 2-3 aircraft carriers? In quantities of 20-30 pieces? NOBODY will mess with this car. Just like no one messes with Kamov’s ship’s helicopters. Not because the cars are bad, but because the series is small, and today both design bureaus and enterprises need large series.
An aircraft with GDP will appear on ships only then and only on a platform that can become interspecies. Why do the Air Force and Army need VTOL aircraft?

If Russia is able to create a VTOL aircraft that is not inferior or even superior in its characteristics to the F-35B VTOL aircraft, then the choice will definitely be in favor of the VTOL aircraft

This is also a conviction taken out of thin air. I repeat, no one in modern Russia will undertake to make an aircraft specifically for the fleet. The fleet is an extremely lousy customer, it has an insignificant series and even these series it does not order every year. Well, who in their right mind would maintain an aircraft assembly line with GDP, for the sake of producing 20-30 aircraft every 5-7 years. Best case scenario.

If not, then the simplest option would be to use the existing MiG29K, and then the “spoilt” MiG-35 or the promising Su-75 Checkmate.

Not “the simplest”, but the only possible one. And it would be nice for the author to know that there is not and cannot be a “spoilt” MiG-35. The MiG-35 is the “land version” of the MiG-29M2 platform, which is the MiG-29K.
And I wonder how many times and to whom else it needs to be repeated that the Russian Air Force and Navy have unequivocally established that aircraft must be TWO-engine. The much-hyped “checkmate” is nothing more than a fantasy of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, which it will certainly try to impose on the Russian Defense Ministry. Although so far none of the responsible persons have even hinted at the prospects of this concept in our army and navy.

we will get the most universal light aircraft carrier/UDC or aircraft-carrying force projection ship

Projecting where? Why does a ship of such a “projection” have a MiG-29K aircraft with a flight range of 700 kilometers, but only a couple of sides? Why are the Ka-52K bad for this? Is 400 km range not enough for someone to project? And to support the landing, I think it is better to have an air vehicle capable of operating equally effectively in a wide range of altitudes and, if necessary, landing on an unprepared strip on the shore.

a modern highly automated vertical take-off and landing aircraft places significantly lower requirements on the pilot’s qualifications (landing can be almost completely automated).

??? Is it true? Does this logic apply to helicopters? If yes, then why are the take-off and landing of these machines still not automated? NOWHERE. :)

Returning to economic issues - instead of building one supercarrier, you can build four aircraft-carrying force projection ships.

Which will require a four times larger basing system. :) And further. Soviet aircraft and helicopter carriers of Project 1143 were built at the largest Nikolaev shipyard in the country for 5 years. Their air force consisted of 12 VTOL aircraft and 12 helicopters. The author seriously thinks that someone in Russia today will make a new aircraft with the prospect of producing 12 units every 5 years? And since the author himself states:

A key element of the capability of ... aircraft-carrying power projection ships is the creation of VTOL aircraft

then it’s completely understandable, I again read the “economic efficiency” of such a car project somewhere on the ceiling.
Hence the conclusion: the project of a ship with a combined air wing and small displacement is interesting, but not viable. Neither from the point of view of application, nor from the point of view of creation.

[Orca]

Quote: Doccor18

Therefore, the solution will be the mass construction of inexpensive and extremely simple aircraft-carrying ships based on 10-12 isters. or ist.-bombs.

“Kuzya” the smoker can easily cope with such a task (if he ever gets out of the remdock). And regarding “there will be a way out” - there is not even a hint that someone, somewhere in Russia, was going to build something even remotely reminiscent of a “kuzya”. There are only projects of pre-graduation “students” and cartoons.

[Yarhann]

Zhosky nonsense)) compare UDC and AUG))) this is a clinic. The whole point of the AUG is that thanks to the air wing, it can provide a greater depth of defense of the order of the order of 600-700 km (and the depth is constantly growing - not much, but there is growth). AUG in the open sea is God, but near the coastline - where coastal aviation can be used, it is, of course, an outsider.
This is why we need to dance - we will pirate in the seas (where is the AUG God!), or on the shores we will develop the success of military operations through UDC.
The Soviets, developing 1143.5 and throwing out the garbage with vertical take-off and landing, set a bold point of dominance in the world. If the AUG must ensure dominance in the world's oceans - its primary task is to provide air defense - that is, kakahi with vertical take-off and without radar are unsuitable. The development of the Su33 was logical - as the best heavy means of providing air defense at sea. And the logic is simple - by displacing enemy aircraft of the order, pressing it against the aircraft carrier, you can attack the ships of the order and the aircraft carrier RCC - the end of the line. Because to remove the protection of the AUG in the form of an air wing - you need excellent aviation - and these are the heavy hawks at that time Su33.
If you want to build an AUG, first of all you need a business plan - how this machine will fight off itself (like the amers). And if you don’t know how the AUG will earn money, then you don’t even need the AUG!

[AC130 Gunship]

The Yak141 aircraft is more than 30 years old, and progress, as we know, does not stand still. This means that there is no modern engine for VTOL aircraft.

[hostel]

Did the author deliberately exclude Nimitz-class aircraft carriers from the list? This is already a manipulation of facts. Their cost is much lower, they perform their tasks. In Russia it is necessary to build ships with a total displacement of 60000 tons. It's enough. A comfortable opportunity to base full-fledged fighters will be provided and, most importantly, this will ensure the basing of AWACS aircraft. No AWACS helicopters can outperform similar aircraft in efficiency. In addition, a VTOL aircraft is an aircraft that does not have a sufficient combat radius and does not have a proper combat load. Why? Because it carries the weight of lift engines, which are not used in flight, but burn 25% of the fuel during ascent or landing, and this is the radius. The mass of lifting engines is the consumed lifting capacity, which is expressed in limiting the weight of ammunition or fuel. Therefore, you need to build a normal aircraft carrier with catapults and normal aircraft. Experiments in this matter will cost even more than the aircraft carrier itself.

[hostel]

How many incomprehensible projects of “force projection ships” can you create? This is a surrogate. For a war at sea, you need AWACS aircraft, Growlers and a sufficient number of fighter wings. So much money was spent on development and construction on projects of an incomprehensible nature that more than one full-fledged Charles de Gaulle-type aircraft carrier could be built.

[Mustached Kok]

I was thinking about what to make from UDCs or helicopter carriers; aircraft carriers are reasonable only in case of war. And then, if we have a UDC, then it would be better for him to be busy with his direct responsibilities - conducting amphibious landing operations. But a helicopter carrier with a flat deck can be used in peacetime to patrol and protect strategic sea communications and bases. And in case of war, integrate a springboard in the bow so that it can be converted into an escort aircraft carrier. In this case, arresting brakes can either be installed in advance, or installed in the same way in case of failure. But in this case, the ship must initially be designed with the expectation of quickly installing a springboard and arresting devices in the event of war.

[Alexey Karpenko]

Optimistic articles discussing even aircraft-carrying ships that are not our own are the only alternative to the Russian Navy.