Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

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

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 411
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post22 Jun 2019, 23:24

milosh wrote:This.

Plus they lost two aircrafts becuase Su-33 is simple too big for Kuzne.

48 Zircons are lot more dangerous then Kuzne air wing. If I am Vlad I would remove fighters at all, increase number of missiles, and put couple of advanced AEW on deck. For example some kind of UAV, Hunter UCAV/UAV could be that especially if it have afterburner, demonstrator have one but final will not have. For carrier operation AB would be must have because they don't have catapult on Kuzne.

But because of PR they will not do that. They are so fond to have carrier even though it doesn't work, in fact Chinese one which is lot better (new modern variant) has similar problems becuase it use Su-33 clone. You can't fix physics, Su-33 is excellent for super carrier but smaller carrier nope. And USSR didn't consider Kuzne as capable carrier that is why they put missiles on it as they did on earlier carriers (helicopter nad Jak-38 ones), they build Su-33 for first soviet super carrier which had same fate as USSR.

Wasn't one of the aircraft lost a MiG-29(K?)
Russia stronk
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 241
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post23 Jun 2019, 02:03

milosh wrote:This.

Plus they lost two aircrafts becuase Su-33 is simple too big for Kuzne.

48 Zircons are lot more dangerous then Kuzne air wing. If I am Vlad I would remove fighters at all, increase number of missiles, and put couple of advanced AEW on deck. For example some kind of UAV, Hunter UCAV/UAV could be that especially if it have afterburner, demonstrator have one but final will not have. For carrier operation AB would be must have because they don't have catapult on Kuzne.

But because of PR they will not do that. They are so fond to have carrier even though it doesn't work, in fact Chinese one which is lot better (new modern variant) has similar problems becuase it use Su-33 clone. You can't fix physics, Su-33 is excellent for super carrier but smaller carrier nope. And USSR didn't consider Kuzne as capable carrier that is why they put missiles on it as they did on earlier carriers (helicopter nad Jak-38 ones), they build Su-33 for first soviet super carrier which had same fate as USSR.


Without the ability to project a combat air patrol, the ship, missiles and it's AEW are limited to the protection provided by ground based air cover.
That prevents most offensive deployments for the ship, as it will be too vulnerable to enemy aircraft attack even if it has long range SAMs.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 785
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post23 Jun 2019, 07:45

juretrn wrote:Wasn't one of the aircraft lost a MiG-29(K?)


They lost one Su-33 after MiG-29K.

@knowan


Yes but Kuzne air wing is very problematic (combination of Su-33 and Kuzne design) so I don't see point of air cover. Something like arsenal ship would be lot more useful role for Kuzne. Problem is lack of decent AEW. UAV AEW would allow them to have AEW in air non stop during missions and if it is based on Hunter its RCS would be lot smaller then E-2 or JAK-44.
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 241
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post23 Jun 2019, 10:27

milosh wrote:They lost one Su-33 after MiG-29K.

@knowan


Yes but Kuzne air wing is very problematic (combination of Su-33 and Kuzne design) so I don't see point of air cover. Something like arsenal ship would be lot more useful role for Kuzne. Problem is lack of decent AEW. UAV AEW would allow them to have AEW in air non stop during missions and if it is based on Hunter its RCS would be lot smaller then E-2 or JAK-44.


RCS isn't an important consideration for AEW, as they'll be emitting so much radiation they'll be detected by RWR at long range even if they have an advanced AESA radar.

The question is if even a UAV AEW will be able to provide both sufficient radar capabilities and loiter time at altitude when launched from the Kuznetsov.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8385
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post23 Jun 2019, 21:00

RCS is important in EW for several reasons.
1. In combination with AESA based EW, it ensures that only the target can get a clue of what direction you are coming from.
2. Turning off the EW lets you go dark.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5639
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post24 Jun 2019, 01:05

Another reason why Russia may have to adopt the J-31. As what will equip the Admiral Kuznetsov post 2030??? (or possible replacement)
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 785
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post24 Jun 2019, 09:43

Corsair1963 wrote:Another reason why Russia may have to adopt the J-31. As what will equip the Admiral Kuznetsov post 2030??? (or possible replacement)


Naval J-31 will be heavier then MiG-29K and use similar (right now less powerful engines) so without catapult it would be pointless.

Best option for Kuzne is Hunter AEW with Type-30 engine. Battle group armed with Zircons and LO Klubs support by such AEW would have much higher efficiency then with J-31 on deck.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5639
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post24 Jun 2019, 09:59

milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Another reason why Russia may have to adopt the J-31. As what will equip the Admiral Kuznetsov post 2030??? (or possible replacement)


Naval J-31 will be heavier then MiG-29K and use similar (right now less powerful engines) so without catapult it would be pointless.

Best option for Kuzne is Hunter AEW with Type-30 engine. Battle group armed with Zircons and LO Klubs support by such AEW would have much higher efficiency then with J-31 on deck.



Absurd the RD-93's would be "adequate". Yet, production J-31's are planned for the more powerful WS-13's. (22,000 lbs vs 19,000 lbs) Which, would provide more thrust than the F135 in the F-35A/B/C.

Clearly, the J-31 would be a better option than a Naval J-20. Nonetheless, both are the only option available to the PLAN Carrier Fleet.
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 241
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post24 Jun 2019, 10:16

milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Another reason why Russia may have to adopt the J-31. As what will equip the Admiral Kuznetsov post 2030??? (or possible replacement)


Naval J-31 will be heavier then MiG-29K and use similar (right now less powerful engines) so without catapult it would be pointless.

Best option for Kuzne is Hunter AEW with Type-30 engine. Battle group armed with Zircons and LO Klubs support by such AEW would have much higher efficiency then with J-31 on deck.


The Hunter UAV likely has a similar or greater empty weight to the Su-33, which combined with only having a single engine (even if it it's something in the 180 kN thrust range) it would have far inferior T/W ratio and struggle to have any sort of decent fuel load when taking off from the Kuznetsov.

Best option for the Russian Navy would be to retire the Kuznetsov, saving money they could eventually put towards a CATOBAR carrier.
I don't think Russia will do that though, because of pride.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3349
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post24 Jun 2019, 12:48

So if they do build this super-carrier, it gets equipped with... Mig-29K's?

I don't see them continuing on with the SU-33, and I've heard nothing of a navalised SU-35. I have heard about plans for a carrier capable SU-57, and while that's not impossible - It'll be for sure very difficult. Asking more of that program than what it currently is could tank it.

I really think they should get out of the carrier business altogether, and focus instead on battle cruisers and subs. They'd need at least 3 super-carriers to make a credible force, and just building one is proving to be a struggle. But they are nothing if not persistent. Look how they refined the T-10 over decades into the SU-35. One super-carrier might actually happen, although I still don't see a credible air wing to compliment it...
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 785
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post24 Jun 2019, 21:19

knowan wrote:The Hunter UAV likely has a similar or greater empty weight to the Su-33, which combined with only having a single engine (even if it it's something in the 180 kN thrust range) it would have far inferior T/W ratio and struggle to have any sort of decent fuel load when taking off from the Kuznetsov.


Empty weight of S-70 Hunter is unknown but if you look its dimensions it is similar to X-47B. It is little wider and longer (engine with afterburner) two weapon bays, 2tons of weapons.

X-47B empty weight is 6.3tons (if wiki data is right) how S-70 could be more then 3times heavier then? Simply, 20tons is take off weight of S-70 probable maximum take off weight, and that data is used as empty weight.

If we compare it with MiG-29K, it have ~176kN thrust so pretty similar to AL-51, and its take off weight is 18.5tons from carrier without catapult.

So Hunter without 2tons of bombs/missiles is 18tons and with similar thrust as MiG-29K have (afterburners) I don't see reason why it can take off from Kuzne.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5639
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post25 Jun 2019, 00:19

mixelflick wrote:So if they do build this super-carrier, it gets equipped with... Mig-29K's?

I don't see them continuing on with the SU-33, and I've heard nothing of a navalised SU-35. I have heard about plans for a carrier capable SU-57, and while that's not impossible - It'll be for sure very difficult. Asking more of that program than what it currently is could tank it.

I really think they should get out of the carrier business altogether, and focus instead on battle cruisers and subs. They'd need at least 3 super-carriers to make a credible force, and just building one is proving to be a struggle. But they are nothing if not persistent. Look how they refined the T-10 over decades into the SU-35. One super-carrier might actually happen, although I still don't see a credible air wing to compliment it...


This is why the J-31 is the only option. If, Russia keeps her lone Aircraft Carrier.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5639
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post25 Jun 2019, 00:21

knowan wrote:
milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Another reason why Russia may have to adopt the J-31. As what will equip the Admiral Kuznetsov post 2030??? (or possible replacement)


Naval J-31 will be heavier then MiG-29K and use similar (right now less powerful engines) so without catapult it would be pointless.

Best option for Kuzne is Hunter AEW with Type-30 engine. Battle group armed with Zircons and LO Klubs support by such AEW would have much higher efficiency then with J-31 on deck.


The Hunter UAV likely has a similar or greater empty weight to the Su-33, which combined with only having a single engine (even if it it's something in the 180 kN thrust range) it would have far inferior T/W ratio and struggle to have any sort of decent fuel load when taking off from the Kuznetsov.

Best option for the Russian Navy would be to retire the Kuznetsov, saving money they could eventually put towards a CATOBAR carrier.
I don't think Russia will do that though, because of pride.


I am surprised China hasn't tried to acquire the Admiral Kuznetsov??? (at least that we know of)
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 241
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post25 Jun 2019, 00:52

milosh wrote:
knowan wrote:The Hunter UAV likely has a similar or greater empty weight to the Su-33, which combined with only having a single engine (even if it it's something in the 180 kN thrust range) it would have far inferior T/W ratio and struggle to have any sort of decent fuel load when taking off from the Kuznetsov.


Empty weight of S-70 Hunter is unknown but if you look its dimensions it is similar to X-47B. It is little wider and longer (engine with afterburner) two weapon bays, 2tons of weapons.

X-47B empty weight is 6.3tons (if wiki data is right) how S-70 could be more then 3times heavier then? Simply, 20tons is take off weight of S-70 probable maximum take off weight, and that data is used as empty weight.

If we compare it with MiG-29K, it have ~176kN thrust so pretty similar to AL-51, and its take off weight is 18.5tons from carrier without catapult.

So Hunter without 2tons of bombs/missiles is 18tons and with similar thrust as MiG-29K have (afterburners) I don't see reason why it can take off from Kuzne.


S-70 is considerably larger than the X-47B.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... /su-70.htm
Compare the whole, the "Hunter-B" drone in overall size is not inferior to Sukhoi's "Flanker" family, It can be seen that the "Hunter-B" drone wingspan is significantly wider than the Su-57, but the length of the fuselage is shorter than the Su-57. The comprehensive landmark line and the size of the Su-57 (19.8 meters in length and 13.95 meters in wingspan) concluded that the "Hunter-B" drone should have a wingspan of 17.6 meters and a fuselage length of 13.6 meters. The satellite image is a two-dimensional plan, the height of the fuselage can not be seen, but before the aircraft test flight at Novosibirsk airport, a lot of ground taxiing photos were exposed. It can be speculated from the size of the same trailer that the height of the aircraft should be 2.8 meters. (no tail layout), height between Su-57 and Su-34. According to previous Russian media speculation, the "hunter-B" drone should have an empty weight of about 20 tons, while the Su-57 has an empty weight of 18 tons.


And if were as small and lightweight as the X-47B, then they wouldn't be able to fit a decent AEW suit to it with sufficient fuel for adequate loiter time.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1654
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post25 Jun 2019, 03:22

Article by Jamestown on the Russian CV.

https://jamestown.org/program/russia-wi ... ybe-never/

I think it heavily discounts the possibility that China can build and maintain a carrier for Russia. Since Russia contracted with DCNS for the mistrals, an external shipyard contract is not impossible. It doesn't take long for the Chinese yards to build one.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rheonomic and 17 guests