Russian Navy CinC: New aircraft carrier, 2017

Garry I fully agree.

For vessels in the size of Gorshkov a cat is not a good solution.

Not for the Americans though. If you already have steam catapaults in your inventory and it is a mature technology then using them even on smaller carriers makes sense even if they are only used for AEW aircraft.
It is when you need to develop cat technology from scratch that the benefits don’t outweigh the cost or time involved to get it right.

While Kutznetsov an only use Position 3 if Position 2 is empty.

It could if the launch sequence was 2 + 1 + 3.

can the Mods shift this thread to Navy section??

am posting the news ‘broken’ by turboshaft this year,in the Navy section with the link .

Russia developing new aircraft carrier

MOSCOW. May 15 (Interfax) – The Russian Navy is launching a project to develop a new aircraft carrier, the navy’s commander Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov told Interfax.

“We are beginning work to develop a new aircraft carrier in 2005. Construction is to begin after 2010,” Kuroyedov said.

“We are launching this development project and will involve leading experts to find out which materials and weapons we’ll need and how many aircraft carriers should be built,” he said.

Kuroyedov earlier told journalists that the navy is planning to put the new carrier into service in the Northern Fleet by 2016-17. Another carrier will be built for the Pacific Fleet, he said. “Deck aviation has a good future. A new multi-purpose aircraft will be created in a few years,” Kuroyedov said.

The Russian Navy currently has only one aircraft-carrying cruiser, the Admiral Kuznetsov.

and some good pic of the Kuzentzov & her a/c in this link

Would a EM cat be only possible on nuclear aircraft carriers?

An EM cat would require large ammounts of electrical power on demand… that means large capacitor banks, an energy source and lots of electrical cabling. It also require electromagnets which must be tested with all the electronic gear and weapons that are goining on the vessel concerned. It might turn out that all aircraft might need EM shielding before they could be used… we just don’t know yet.

Garry , thanks for clearing up the powder confusion i had. just one more question. would it not be simpler to employ a Rocket assisted take of system? i mean just have rocket pellets instead of explosives..

Rockets would have to be fitted to the aircraft being launched and generally by design they are angled down and sideways to avoid damaging the aircraft they are fitted to. When they are empty the usually fall away from the aircraft, which in this case would mean lots of things going into the water in front of the ship.

It would be dangerous for people on the deck, but then an arrestor cable breaking on deck, or ordinance detaching from landing aircraft are just two other things that make a carrier deck dangerous.

You are all assuming that an AWACS is a ‘heavy’ aircraft !!

I’ve just looked up the stats – and an E-2C is actually LIGHTER than a Su-33 !!!

The MTOW for the E-2C is 24,687 kg, the Su-33 is 30,000kg

I think you’ll find power to weight ratio come into things here… Remeber all a cat does is add thrust and acceleration at an early stage of takeoff. A 1 ton aircraft might have trouble getting airborne from a STOBAR deck if its engine only puts out 20hp.

For me this leaves two possibilities:

For me it leaves three… either it was unsuitable, it was successful but killed politically as you mention or was successful but didn’t offer a large enough performance increase to warrant its use and it made Cat launches off the bow awkward in trying to make the steam catapault piston curve with the ramp.
If the choice was a Ramp or Cats I think the investment in Cats and the fact that the F-14 with its old underpowered engines needing full AB to get airborne with cat assistance would hold more weight than a nice simple way to get AEW aircraft airborne but you can’t launch Tomcats from it.

I guess it wud be based on the Gorshkov, but with a bit more chubbier in the front , with the three take-off position like the Kuzentzov, and also the longer one having a steam catapult too(?) but only if it is N-powered ………

I think the changes made to the Gorshkov might influence it but I think it will look more like Kuznestov than Gorshkov.

Y is it that the Yak-44 (don expect wired ans like its not flyiny) cant be made to take off like h the fighter do……..

The same reason you can’t make a Boeing take off like a Mig-29.

A fighter is like a race car… very high power to weight ratio. An AEW aircraft needs to loiter for long periods and doesn’t need to fly very fast at all, so it has much less power.

– y cant it use the 3 position like on the Kuzentzov for a take-off, will it make any problem for the dome above coz of the jumb , is that Y its not being considerd for a ski-jump?

The Dome radar should not be adversely effected by the ski ramp… the radar in the nose of the Mig-29s and Su-33s are basically the same thing and are not effected. Structurally the AEW needs to be quite strong to withstand such a takeoff, but the landing would be far worse than the takeoff.

I can’t believe that getting slingshotted off a carrier deck by a catapault is any easier on the aircraft than flying up a ramp on takeoff.

grrr8 news and hope its true and see the light by 2017,

I guess it wud be based on the Gorshkov, but with a bit more chubbier in the front , with the three take-off position like the Kuzentzov, and also the longer one having a steam catapult too(?) but only if it is N-powered ………

and a couple of questions –

– Y is it that the Yak-44 (don expect wired ans like its not flyiny) cant be made to take off like h the fighter do…….. like making a take-off position at the extreme end of the landing strip so that it gets the entire landing strip for take-off ……….

– y cant it use the 3 position like on the Kuzentzov for a take-off, will it make any problem for the dome above coz of the jumb , is that Y its not being considerd for a ski-jump?

Flanker_man , if u don mind can u pm me?……. as i can’t pm u …..

E-2C was trialled for ramp launches back in the early 80’s, IIRC, as part of the USN Sea Control Ship (SCS) studies. No information I’ve ever been able to uncover exists as to the outcome of those trials though.

For me this leaves two possibilities:

a) The trials were unsuccessful and quietly terminated by US DoD.

or

b) The trials were successful and quietly terminated by the USN for fear of jeopardising future large CVN acquisitions!

I know several authoritative people who believe that the latter is the case and the persistent presence of the E-2D in the UK MoD’s MASC project would seem, anecdotally, to support the viewpoint!. After all why would a CATOBAR aircraft be in consideration for a vessel that is highly unlikely to see a steam catapult and currently isnt looking to have an arresting engine or wires fitted if it isnt adaptable to some degree!.

My own view is that Hawkeye probably can do a skijump launch but, seeings its land-based takeoff run is on the order of 2000ft, would require quite a flightdeck to perform it from – more than that likely to be on offer from a 40k ton carrier at least.

One final point – is the AVMF (Russian Naval Aviation) the only user of a ski-jump/hold-back system for conventional aircraft ??

Yep, there are the sole users of the technique. The USN looked at it a few years after the RN pioneered ski-jump for the original SHAR FRS1 in the late 70’s and then more recently under the CVX project and rejected it. The RN looked at it for CVF and it was the first concept discarded! Other than the interest the Indians are now showing in the technique no-one else has seemingly been persuaded!. So the Russians are indeed the undisputed champs of STOBAR – when they have their carrier working that is of course!:cool:

Originally posted by Flanker_man
You are all assuming that an AWACS is a ‘heavy’ aircraft !!

I’ve just looked up the stats – and an E-2C is actually LIGHTER than a Su-33 !!!

The MTOW for the E-2C is 24,687 kg, the Su-33 is 30,000kg

The next question is – could an E-2C/Yak-44 type AWACS platform take off from a ski-jump – given that it can be ‘held back’ while it runs up to full power the same as the naval Flanker.

The Su-25UTG takes off from the Kuznetsov – and it isn’t exactly a sprightly performer!!

The Russians regularly demo a bog-standard MiG-21UM off a ski-jump from the runway at Zhukovsky – so you don’t need any special airframe to use a ski-jump – and if it is designed properly, it has a gently increasing slope anyway.

One final point – is the AVMF (Russian Naval Aviation) the only user of a ski-jump/hold-back system for conventional aircraft ??

Does this mean that they have the most experience in operational CTOL STOBAR ???

Ken

Is there any problem of prop interference with the ski-jump? Has it been tried by anyone yet? (prop using ski-jump, that is.):confused:

Originally posted by GarryB
As far as I know only VSTOL aircraft can take off simultaneously on a carrier… even if the way is clear you usually have a brief delay between takeoffs even if they don’t interfere with each other and could theoretically be simultaneous… the unlikely event that both hit the water would result in problems for the rescue helo team as two two seat fighters in the water would mean 4 rescues of aircraft in the water potentially directly in front of a carrier that could be doing up to 30+knots.

The only reason you put steam catapaults on any vessel is to get the heavy aircraft up… in the Kuznetsovs case that would be AWACS aircraft.

Snipped….

You are all assuming that an AWACS is a ‘heavy’ aircraft !!

I’ve just looked up the stats – and an E-2C is actually LIGHTER than a Su-33 !!!

The MTOW for the E-2C is 24,687 kg, the Su-33 is 30,000kg

The next question is – could an E-2C/Yak-44 type AWACS platform take off from a ski-jump – given that it can be ‘held back’ while it runs up to full power the same as the naval Flanker.

The Su-25UTG takes off from the Kuznetsov – and it isn’t exactly a sprightly performer!!

The Russians regularly demo a bog-standard MiG-21UM off a ski-jump from the runway at Zhukovsky – so you don’t need any special airframe to use a ski-jump – and if it is designed properly, it has a gently increasing slope anyway.

One final point – is the AVMF (Russian Naval Aviation) the only user of a ski-jump/hold-back system for conventional aircraft ??

Does this mean that they have the most experience in operational CTOL STOBAR ???

Ken

Garry I fully agree.

For vessels in the size of Gorshkov a cat is not a good solution.

And I did not mean to that a carrier with catapults could launch 3 aircraft simulataneously. But they can launch from Cat 1 + 2+ 3.

While Kutznetsov an only use Pistion 3 if Position 2 is empty.

Originally posted by GarryB

That same investment in time and money and focus would be better spent on developing an EM system or a simpler powder based system.

That is a cool Idea, and not strange either, since the technology is sooo different, you do not really need to develope a steam cat then a EM cat. no point in it.

Would a EM cat be only possible on nuclear aircraft carriers?

Garry , thanks for clearing up the powder confusion i had. just one more question. would it not be simpler to employ a Rocket assisted take of system? i mean just have rocket pellets instead of explosives..

And at the moment it can not use spot 1 + 2+ 3 together.

As far as I know only VSTOL aircraft can take off simultaneously on a carrier… even if the way is clear you usually have a brief delay between takeoffs even if they don’t interfere with each other and could theoretically be simultaneous… the unlikely event that both hit the water would result in problems for the rescue helo team as two two seat fighters in the water would mean 4 rescues of aircraft in the water potentially directly in front of a carrier that could be doing up to 30+knots.

I doubt adding steam catapults would make any difference.

The only reason you put steam catapaults on any vessel is to get the heavy aircraft up… in the Kuznetsovs case that would be AWACS aircraft.

But I´m a catapult believer. So don´t take this post too serious.

Don’t get me wrong… I am not a catapault hater, but I think I appreciate that they weren’t designed and built and perfected overnight. If the Russians and Indians were to design and build such a system, which is not beyond either of them if they set their minds to it, I don’t think they could perfect it quicker than in 5-10 years. It is a very complex thing that they would pretty much be starting from scratch with (assuming no outside help).
That same investment in time and money and focus would be better spent on developing an EM system or a simpler powder based system.

It is like building a gun. Even if your country has never designed a gun before, if you decide to design one you don’t start by making a matchlock and then a flintlock etc etc. You look around and try to see what is best and what also suits your needs. On the Gorshkov none of the aircraft would need a cat to launch them. Some have suggested that adding an AEW aircraft would greatly improve its capabilities… which I agree. The large weight of such an aircraft means that STOBAR is not a viable choice so alternatives are needed. Designing a steam cat system would be a very extreme and expensive answer to such a question. The Mig-29s could be reinforced to allow cat launch which would probably allow increases in their fuel, structure and weapon weights, but R-77s aren’t heavy and in these days of one or two GPS guided bombs being enough for most targets then huge weights might not be that important any more.

All very nice. Yet if conducting landing operations the ship still can only use the right front spot for takeoff.

And at the moment it can not use spot 1 + 2+ 3 together.

And Kuzentsov is pretty big. I doubt adding steam catapults would make any difference. You coulkd propably move the front left spot out of the way of the landing area. Which would mean you can launch 2 aircrafts while conducting landing operations.

Add the third catapult and the carrier can launch 3 planes – regardless of type and weight.

But I´m a catapult believer. 😉 So don´t take this post too serious.

@ Flanker : Your idea is also pretty good, if you would really use apowder catapult, then you caould launch heavy aircrafts without having to built a complex steam system.

thanks for the heads up Garry 🙂

Originally posted by Flanker_man
Couldn’t the waist one be converted to have a catapult?? That way you could get the best of both worlds – CATOBAR from the waist, STOBAR over the bow !!

Ken

That’s a viable idea for the next carrier. You can still throw two jets off the bow at a time with limited time between waves, and use the waist cat for heavy aircraft such as an AEW platform.

Originally posted by SOC
An Su-27K can’t get off the deck with 10 AAMs? I find that hard to believe :confused:

From ‘Flankers The New Generation’ by Yefim Gordon………

“Even using the the station which afforded the shortest takeoff run of only 105m (344ft), the Su-27K could take of easily with a full fuel and weapons load.The ski jump was inclined 15deg; the normal glideslope angle during final approach was 4deg.”

and….

” The naval Flanker had 12 hardpoints instead of 10; still, the ordnance load was limited to 6,500 kg (14,329 lb) – just 500 kg (1,102 lb) above that of the land-based version – because of the fighter’s higher MTOW”.

Don’t forget that the Flanker is held back by retractable ‘fingers’ in front of the mainwheels. The a/c is run up to full power, then the fingers are retracted – and then it accelerates up the ramp……

The Kuznetsov has 3 takeoff postions – two on the bow, one on the waist…..

Couldn’t the waist one be converted to have a catapult?? That way you could get the best of both worlds – CATOBAR from the waist, STOBAR over the bow !!

Ken

An Su-27K can’t get off the deck with 10 AAMs? I find that hard to believe :confused:

Originally posted by SOC
Can’t Kuznetsov do the latter, launch and recover simultaneously? Might not have been tried yet, but then again not that much has when the ship’s been in port most of its career 😀 And it can launch two aircraft nearly at once, offset by a few seconds.

I said fully loaded aircraft 😀

Q regarding powder cats and EM cats

IIRC previous incarnations of the powder launch system were used pre-WWII to launch observation planes off battleships. AFAIK the shuttle was ejected during launch. ie It was not a closed system. A fresh shuttle/powder load was used to launch another/recovered plane again.

The modern steam powered version of cats use water brakes to decelerate and stop the shuttle. What is the Russian proposal in this regard – eject the shuttle or a waterbrake?

Would waterbrakes be used for EM cats too or would they decelerate and stop using EM?

Two differences I can see between the two systems

1.
Steam – near constant pressure/velocity maintained troughout the launch cycle.

Powder – pressure/velocity decrease after initial impetus.

2.
Steam – easier cleaning and maintanence

Powder – Would require more frequent cleaning due to powder residue. More maintanance intensive.

Originally posted by seahawk
And Garry plz show me a desing of a STOBAR carrier that can launch as many fully ladden aircraft as a carrier with 2 cats. And that still can launch fully ladden planes when conducting landing operations. 😀

Can’t Kuznetsov do the latter, launch and recover simultaneously? Might not have been tried yet, but then again not that much has when the ship’s been in port most of its career 😀 And it can launch two aircraft nearly at once, offset by a few seconds.

That is my idea. Brazil should get their own design, but use parts and some systems developed for the joined French / Britain carrier project. Btw if I´m talking about that project, I´m thinking about the french version – not the british.

And Garry plz show me a desing of a STOBAR carrier that can launch as many fully ladden aircraft as a carrier with 2 cats. And that still can launch fully ladden planes when conducting landing operations. 😀

First question, does any one have details on the Russian powder cat? And could a bit more acuracy be used in describing the system? is it explosive? (which i doubt) or is it a similar system to the Rocket Assisted Take off used on heavy cargo planes?

A powder system would work in a similar way to a steam system except the steam system required a steam generation plant and high pressure steam filled pipes that take the steam from where it is generated to where it is needed. It is quite complex and has to be handled carefully. It is used for all aircraft on the carrier which have a wide variety of weights from light transports to heavy and medium weight fighters and AEW aircraft. The pressure setting is crucial otherwise the plane will have its nose gear ripped off or it will no get enough push and hit the water due to lack of speed.

A powder catapault would work similarly to a gun and what equates to the bullet will be attached to the front wheel of the aircraft being launched. Unlike a steam cat it would only be likely be used to launch aircraft at max weight or one type of aircraft… ie an AEW aircraft and probably a Strike aircraft at max or near max weight. Not using a cat at all speeds up launches and reset times for launches so if it doesn’t need help it doesn’t use help to get up.
Very simply a powder charge would be ignited to push a piston attached to the aircraft to be launched down and off the deck. It requires quite a bit of power to move an aircraft in the weight range it would be launching at the speed it needs to get them to to let them fly rather than swim.

Unlike with a steam catapault the pressures involved would only occur inside the piston system at launch and there would be no pressurised pipes anywhere. I would expect the charges would be kept in an armoured bulkheaded magazine and that loading would be automated. I would also expect a venting system (as used on early 50mm Soviet WWII mortars) would be used for the different aircraft types and weights, though this would be helped by the fact that it would be largely used for the AEW aircraft alone.

(i am figuring that people mean some type of rocket system?)

There would be no where to vent the exhaust…

Why not just develop an efficient steam powered system? It’s proven effective and stream on a warship is hardly a novelty.

How long did it take the west to develop such a system? It is heavy, expensive and complicated. It was needed at the time by the US and Britain and their global reach ambitions led to nuclear powered carriers and armed convoys of resupply vessels to support it anywhere. Steam cats made them slightly more independant. The reasons they didn’t go down other avenues was the specific situation they had… ie all aircraft required assisted takeoffs, Strike missions would be carried out as a matter of course… the purpose of a carrier group was to strike the enemy where they thought they were safe and to sabre rattle around the world. High sortie rates with all the support aircraft like fighters, tankers, AEW, strike aircraft, would have used quite a few charges. For the Indians and most other navies matching Nimitz classes in performance would require Nimitz class expenditure… and they could spend their money more wisely than that when they don’t need that level of performance.

Yes, Garry neither Russia nor India has experience in operating CTOL aircraft from a carrier. Brazil on the other hand is operating CTOL aircraft from a carrier.

When is the next time Britain will operate a CTOL carrier? And see above regarding India. More recent experience than Britain…

But at the moment India is STOVL and STOBAR in the future.

So is Britain… and with the advent of STOVL F-35s how long will CTOL last outside the US navy?

A STOBAR carrier with a cat would imo always be limited to use the cat rarely, which means for AWCS only. Or can you design a carrier that could operate STOBAR and CATOBAR fighters with out huge disadvantages to a full CATOBAR carrier ??

The only reason to accept the weight, cost, and size expense of Steam cats is that it gives you decent AWACS. Otherwise STOBAR is better as long as the deck is designed well for parking and launching. If you could put a single powder cat on a STOBAR carrier to allow a heavy long range AWACS aircraft to be carried, and launched off the angled deck then you enjoy the advantages of AWACs coverage plus a huge reduction in cost, complexity, size, weight. Sounds like a great option to me.

If Steam was so great why bother designing an EM cat? On a nuclear powered vessel it would have the advantages of the steam cat with other advantages being no added steam pipes, and reduced weight plus unlimited (theoretically) launches and a much shorter reset time.

I´m just no friend of a one size fits all carrier design. Imo a new built carrier is so expensive that is it always worth to invest the extra money and buy a tailor made design.

So why are you suggesting that Brazil get together with Britain and France to build a carrier… why not suggest they design and build their own?