Russia to develop VTOL fighter

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post30 Jul 2017, 00:49

mixelflick wrote:It's not going to happen IMO. I still question the need for VTOL aircraft. Can't think of a single conflict in recent memory where an airbase was cratered so bad they couldn't patch it and get on with things.


That's probably not the main impetus for VSTOL for F-35B, for example. More to do with Marine requirements.

Same for the Russians, if they decide to go this route (which probably won't happen. lots of these brochure weapons advertised out there which don't amount to much in the end). It's about operating from non-conventional carriers.
Offline

flateric

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 89
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2006, 21:56
  • Location: Moscow/Russia

Unread post19 Aug 2017, 11:04

citanon wrote:Did Lockheed learn anything useful? Who knows. But they did help Yakovlev out to the tune of $400 million way back in the day. Time for the YAK to pay back. Amiright? :D


$400 mln? LOLD. They barely paid 400 kilobucks to Yak.
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post19 Aug 2017, 15:18

arian wrote:
They're very different things. Nuclear ice-breakers are hardly the same as nuclear aircraft carriers. To explain it simply, the nuclear ice breakers the Russians are building are powered by reactors that offer about the same level of power as submarine nuclear reactors. The latest Russian reactors for these icebreakers have a power output of about 170 MWt (the t is for thermal, ie the overall heat generated to create steam for the steam turbines).

The Kirov's reactor is about twice that at about 300 MWt. So right there you can see the difference between a civilian icebreaker and a warship.

The Nimitz's reactors by comparison are at about 550MWt each. The Ford's are estimated at over 700 MWt. The Russians have never produced anything of that power (the Kirov's reactors were the most powerful they developed). So making nuclear reactors for aircraft carriers is a different ball game.

You can use smaller reactors for smaller carriers, like the French did. But it's a different thing from CVNs of the size or capability of the USN. Or alternatively you could use more reactors of smaller size, but the space they take up in a ship goes up quickly.



260 000/550+550 = 236.36
140 000/171+171 = 409.3567
So whose rectors are more effective ?
Attachments
1dec34453c683c963263c6ffccaf21f7.png
e426e2b53e621703b8dd9aab05e0a15d.png
40874f3d1ae6752bba93e0bd56731527.png
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post19 Aug 2017, 23:27

terrygedran wrote:[260 000/550+550 = 236.36
140 000/171+171 = 409.3567
So whose rectors are more effective ?


Yes because aircraft carriers do nothing else with the energy created by their nuclear reactors other than drive their screws.

:roll:
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 808
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post19 Aug 2017, 23:45

arian wrote:
terrygedran wrote:[260 000/550+550 = 236.36
140 000/171+171 = 409.3567
So whose rectors are more effective ?


Yes because aircraft carriers do nothing else with the energy created by their nuclear reactors other than drive their screws.

:roll:

LOL, this terrygedran guy is even too simple to look at his own tail.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post20 Aug 2017, 04:31

arian wrote:"So right there you can see the difference between a civilian icebreaker and a warship."


As can be seen from the above there is no difference.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 808
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post20 Aug 2017, 04:33

terrygedran wrote:
arian wrote:"So right there you can see the difference between a civilian icebreaker and a warship."


As can be seen from the above there is no difference.

Would you care to elaborate? Show us the numbers please?

Show us why there is no difference.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post20 Aug 2017, 06:17

terrygedran wrote:
arian wrote:"So right there you can see the difference between a civilian icebreaker and a warship."


As can be seen from the above there is no difference.


Where do these geniuses come from?

1) First off, what the hell is shp/MWt supposed to imply? And, why does it matter? Be specific.

2) "Effective"? Is that a technical term? LOL :wink: I think you're looking for some efficiency term.

3) You realize you did the wrong calculation there genius. :roll: Kirov has 2x 300Mwt reactors producing 140k shp, so that's 233 shp/MWt. So I guess you lose. Again.

4) The correct calculation you were looking for is 2x 175MWt (which is the latest Russian icebreaker reactor) for about 81,000 shp (for the latest icebreaker). So that's 231 shp/MWt. So again, you lose.

5) The above numbers of course are correctly interpreted in terms of efficiency as about 17.59% efficiency for Nimitz and about 17.37% for Kirov and about 17.22% efficiency for latest icebreaker.

6) Except that in none of these cases is that information interesting or relevant at all since all three ships use energy from the reactors to do lots of other things other than run their propellers.

7) And finally, it's scale that matters here. Not efficiency.
Offline

tincansailor

Banned

  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2015, 20:06

Unread post20 Aug 2017, 08:39

terrygedran wrote:
arian wrote:"So right there you can see the difference between a civilian icebreaker and a warship."


As can be seen from the above there is no difference.



terrygedran the mistake your making is your just comparing the SHP vs. MWT ratio, on your chart and seeing their about the same. The American reactors are much smaller, and lighter for their output. It's like comparing aircraft engines, and not factoring T/W ratios, or engine size into the equation. Your also not considering other factors such as safety, reliability, serviceability, and core life.

Comparing the speed of ships isn't much help ether. My old ship had 80,000 SHP, and was about 7% the displacement of a Ford Class Carrier; so the SHP vs. displacement ratio was about 4 X better, yet the Ford is as least as fast, and most likely faster. Speed has more to do with hull shape, draft, and the limits of shaft, and screw efficiency then just raw power.
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 458
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post21 Aug 2017, 00:25

In a nimitiz carrier, there are, alone,well over a 100K KMs of elecrical wires to supplement power for all the systems.

That should make you ring a bell or two on ho much power a super carrier needs besides powering their engines.

The more you can produce the better. That's why Ford CVNs will be the first in line to host future direct energy weapons and who knows, something based on railgun tech.

Damn, you got s F*ING Gigawatt at your disposal, that thing would be enough to power Florence or heck, the whole Tuscany for all i know.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7691
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post21 Aug 2017, 01:03

...
Attachments
giphy (4).gif
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

sdkf251

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 11:02

Unread post21 Aug 2017, 04:35

"3) You realize you did the wrong calculation there genius. :roll: Kirov has 2x 300Mwt reactors producing 140k shp, so that's 233 shp/MWt. So I guess you lose. Again."

Hmmm.... that is a valid point, but it is actually much worse than that if I recall the old information about the Kirov. I remember to have read in the old days that the Kirov is powered by a combined nuclear and oil fired power system. (CONAS) The nuclear side is only able to give 24 knots by nuclear power itself and top speed can only be achieved if you
burn fuel oil to create higher steam pressures to get to higher speeds like 30+ knots.

However, I must admit, the Kirov class ships look very nice. I do not know what the aesthetics standards are today, but the literal forest of antennas and sensors and clutter on the old USSR ships seem to make the ships look more purposeful. (Emphasis on the word look) I guess after the greying of all modern aircraft, the new necessity of doing clean designs
is the future of military ship design. (Look at the zumwalt )
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post21 Aug 2017, 05:49

sdkf251 wrote:Hmmm.... that is a valid point, but it is actually much worse than that if I recall the old information about the Kirov. I remember to have read in the old days that the Kirov is powered by a combined nuclear and oil fired power system. (CONAS) The nuclear side is only able to give 24 knots by nuclear power itself and top speed can only be achieved if you
burn fuel oil to create higher steam pressures to get to higher speeds like 30+ knots.


Could be. Those things have sailed so few times in their entire lifetime, it's hard to say if they are even reliable enough in the first place.

The funny part of terrygedran's post is that he doesn't understand what he posted in his first two tables. Since he's so fluent in Russian, he should have figured out that one of the rows is the actual output power in MWt (which can be converted to shp). 54MWt is the highest output on that list (for 2x 171 MWt reactors), which is equivalent to about 72k shp.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 644
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post21 Aug 2017, 05:57

sdkf251 wrote:However, I must admit, the Kirov class ships look very nice. I do not know what the aesthetics standards are today, but the literal forest of antennas and sensors and clutter on the old USSR ships seem to make the ships look more purposeful.


That antenna forest is also a giant "SHIP HERE -- SHOOT ME" sign.

With the speed that modern kill chains operate at, LO is necessary to have a chance of survival should we ever get into a conventional war again. Even unconventional, e.g. the "Houthis" (read: Iranians) taking out some of the gulf states' vessels with ASMs.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5340
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post21 Aug 2017, 18:13

rheonomic wrote:
sdkf251 wrote:However, I must admit, the Kirov class ships look very nice. I do not know what the aesthetics standards are today, but the literal forest of antennas and sensors and clutter on the old USSR ships seem to make the ships look more purposeful.


That antenna forest is also a giant "SHIP HERE -- SHOOT ME" sign.


Back in the day (late 70s) conceptual artwork for the HARM missile showed it attacking a Kresta II class cruiser. The idea was to use the hard-to-hit HARM to disable its weapon systems then finish it off with bombs or PGMs.
"There I was. . ."
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests