Heavy Aircraft Carrying Cruiser Concept (TAVKR), useful?

It isn’t just the footprint that needs to be considered. The motors used on some missiles produce “stuff” that is not good if sucked into a jet. Thus before firing such a missile you have to either stop all aircraft engines still on deck, or risk trashing them.

The launch trajectory has also to be carefully considered vs launch and recovery paths of aiircraft.

So personally I feel that missile systems on board carriers should be minimised to at most self-defence. And even then it is not always appropriate

Outstanding pics Wasan!!! Looks like the Italians just removed the missiles without expanding the flight deck too much………..which says something about their opinion of their operational need for them.

but is that really a useful feature of the ship or the helicopter?
meaning, a Cavour or Kiev could carry the same helicopters?

Nominal 16 Harriers or 18 SH-3D Sea Kings but a mix of 13 helicoppters plus 10Harriers is possible. Not bad for a ship with 10,000 t standard and 13,850 t fulload displacement.

Kiev: 12 or 13 Yak-38 Forger VSTOL and 14 to 17 Ka-25 Hormone or Ka-27/29 Helix. Some more helicopters and STOVL jets and way heavier, offensive armement. 36,000 standard, 43,500 full load.

Moskva: 14 Ka-25 Hormone helicopters, with heavier armament on 11,200 tons standard to 19,200 tons full load.

I saw in last months “Air Forces Monthly” that the Italians have removed the Otomats from the Garibaldi in order to expand the flight deck.

How much larger are the EH-101 compared to Sea King and how much larger J-35B compared to AV-8B plus Harrier? Maybe they need more space with new aircraft.

But looking at the pic below, it seems not much deck area expansion (new dome)

http://www.acus.org/content/italy-has-withdrawn-its-aircraft-carrier-giuseppe-garibaldi-natos-libya-operation

http://www.navyphotos.net/details.php?image_id=2222

http://www.navyphotos.net/details.php?image_id=2222

As compare to the orinal situation:

A useful future of the ships was their helicopter ASW ability, both in number carried and simultaneous deployment.

but is that really a useful feature of the ship or the helicopter?
meaning, a Cavour or Kiev could carry the same helicopters?

A useful future of the ships was their helicopter ASW ability, both in number carried and simultaneous deployment.

isn’t longer better? :diablo:

Nah its girth that counts!:diablo:

However, I don’t recall the Italians removing Otomat AShM, Aspide SAMs, Dardo’s, or triple asw tubes from the Garibaldi to make room for more AC.

The scrapping of the Kievs is more a result of CCCP collapse than a reflection on the design. The Indian Navy needed a carrier replacement, which could fly something other than Harrier – which would eventually phase out with at that time no guarantee of a suitable VSTOL jet replacement coming available, hence the need for a flight deck modification on the Gorshkov.

With the Kuz, noticed the planned switch to Mig29K, a smaller AC? They want more wings on board, which means also more support. What modern replacement would there be for the installed AShM? Would it need to be smack in the center of the flight deck?

I saw in last months “Air Forces Monthly” that the Italians have removed the Otomats from the Garibaldi in order to expand the flight deck.

So its width vs length then.

isn’t longer better? :diablo:

So its width vs length then.

Yep. Still, the Sukhoi is about 4m longer.

Has anybody got an overlay of the Mig29K vs the Su33, its just I’m curious how a larger aircraft like the Su33 has a smaller deck footprint then the Mig29K.

Su-33 has wing folds really close to the fuselage and folding horizontal stabilizers. That being said, because of this, the majority of the pylons are restricted air to air missiles.

Has anybody got an overlay of the Mig29K vs the Su33, its just I’m curious how a larger aircraft like the Su33 has a smaller deck footprint then the Mig29K.

I think that Ken should have it. I’m not quite sure but I think he posted it several times on these boards.

Has anybody got an overlay of the Mig29K vs the Su33, its just I’m curious how a larger aircraft like the Su33 has a smaller deck footprint then the Mig29K.

The Kiev class – and also the Invincible class – was designed for hunting submarines. The aircraft should have been used only for defence.

The big carriers of the USN are designed as attack carriers and their aircraft are the primary offensive weapon – comparing apples and oranges.

The Russian and British ships were converted, because they were later used for different purposes than designed, because the main tasks of their navies switched from antisubmarine warfare to power projection – and therefore the aircraft were needed as offensive weapon system.

Agree, also ‘explains’ Kuz & Varyag

The ‘switch’ to the MiG-29K has nothing to do with it being a smaller aircraft.

In fact, as I have pointed out over and over again, the Su-33 actually has a smaller deck footprint than the MiG-29K.

Way back, Sukhoi proved that it would take 50 MiG-29K’s to do the job of 30 Su-33’s – one of the reasons that the latter was chosen.

The latest Russian Navy MiG-29K is simply a new airframe with improved radar and avionics procured on the back of the Indian Navy purchase/R&D.

Had the Su-33 been given the same funding & upgrades as the MiG-29K, it would, no doubt, still be the preferred option.

But then I am slightly biased……. :rolleyes:

Ken

I’m not talking about the foot print (wether ‘folded’ or launch ready). And I’m not looking at relative effectiveness. There will be more Mig29 than Su33 boarded. And more aircraft means more space is needed for support, be it personnel, ordnance, maintenance/repair, etc.

They’re in positions that do not affect the flight deck.

Balony

Not having Aspide launcher with associated automatic reloading systems in superstructure below the launcers would free deck space at the front and rear of the flight deck.

Not having Otomat launchers on the port and starboard side of the stern would allow for expansion of the flight deck area.

^ let’s keep aircraft similar across both decks, F-35B, for argument’s sake. i’ll take the carrier that gives me more aircraft, more deck space to operate those aircraft, more hanger space to maintain those aircraft, and a ski-jump that puts more take-off weight into those aircraft (or better yet, CATOBAR).

primary SAMs and anti-ship missiles should go in an escort hull.

apples and oranges.

let’s try to keep hull size consistent.

i would prefer a STOBAR (w/ ski jump) Vikramaditya with 24 mig-29’s to a STOVL (no ski jump) Gorshkov with 12 yak-38’s.

Try

Vikramaditya
+ 24 MiG-29s
+ 10 Helicopters

or

Gorshkov
+ 12 Sea Harriers FA2 or 12 F-35B
+ 16 Helicopters (Sea King, KA-28, EH-101, whatever India will use)
+ Brahmos launchers where ski jump is
+ S-300 launchers where ski jump is

The problem with the Russian design was not the fact per se that they tried doing two things on one hull rather the problem was that the V/STOL air complement assigned was so dreadfully useless.

The Kiev class – and also the Invincible class – was designed for hunting submarines. The aircraft should have been used only for defence.

The big carriers of the USN are designed as attack carriers and their aircraft are the primary offensive weapon – comparing apples and oranges.

The Russian and British ships were converted, because they were later used for different purposes than designed, because the main tasks of their navies switched from antisubmarine warfare to power projection – and therefore the aircraft were needed as offensive weapon system.