verbatimA “Su-27” fighter with one engine? Who needs it?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]255346[/ATTACH]
The same opting for Mig-29 as primary fighter aircraft, I suppose.
My point is that Mig-29 has been judged by many as intrinsecally inferior to Su-27, no matter wich upgrade could be squeezed in.
Main driver behind its selection should be ease of support, upfront costs, serviceability.
In a word, what usually identify a “light fighter”, something Mig-29 clearly is not.
Obviously, being twin engined is only part of the characteristics being not in line with “being a light fighter”.
Still, a single engined “Mig-29”, better to say a single engined multirole fighter in the class of Mig-29, could have far more appeal by potential and actual users, VVS included.
And speaking of Mig-29 performances in a single engined airframe, that means a very powerful engine, well above even Al-31 iterations used in the Su-27.
So, yes: I think that a fighter’s engine derived from NK-32 would have made sense, and any upgrade to it would have generated some backport to the original bomber’s engine variant as well.
And customers would have benefited some savings servicing one engine instead of two.
verbatim@Madrat
The engines of bombers always differ from the engines of fighters due to differences in nature mission, flight conditions and prioritized tiers. For example, the bypass ratio of modern fighter’s engines are around 0.4 while bomber engine’s are more than 1 (NK-25’s is 1.45 and NK-32’s is 1.36)
Tu-160s & its engine NK-32 were developed latter than Tu-22Ms and NK-25 engine. Soviet did plan using NK-32 engines for Tu-22M4 and one prototype was dislayed at MosAeroShow 92, MAKS 93 and Maks 95. However this version (Tu-22M4) had been stopped due to lacking of budget.
You can see the details of Tu-22M4 in Flanker_man’s post here: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?102378-Russian-Aviation-News-%26%231063%3B%26%231072%3B%26%231089%3B%26%231090%3B%26%231100%3B-3!/page7
Still I think he scored a point there.
Even with different performance and requirements, having a whole family of engines strictly related, has the potential of big benefits during the whole development and upgrade cycle.
Add to this that Mig-29/35 is a very strange beast inside VVS, with no real savings typical of light fighter and still less capable than the Su-27 family.
A clean sheet project, single engined (NK-32 sibiling, why not?) as successor of Mig-29, better again instead of Mig-29, would have made more sense.
Less support costs (one engine instead of two), development work shared with baseline NK-32, cross-porting of upgrades within the engines’ family.
verbatimF-16 is a little more expensive compared to Gripen on maintanance, and no neighbour operate them.
It they aim to pool training and mintenance with neighbours, there is little rationale with F-16.
At the moment Gripen is operated by Czech Republic and Hungary, and still could be purchased by Switzerland and Slovakia, all countries bordering with Austria and with long standing relations.
verbatimQuite obviously, Gripen C/D would be the preferred choice for the austrians.
Operating and maintenance’s costs are far less than Eurofighter’s ones, and the whole system has been developed to be serviced by a mainly conscripted ground support team.
The only other option, even it far less cheap, could be the Gripen E/F.
Pros:
More capable
Larger upgrade ‘s potential
Still on the run to become the next swiss fighter, with related training and cooperation’s opportunities
The most probable substitute of existing Gripen C/D past 2030 in the neighboring countries, with added cooperation opportunities and even a possible leading role for austrian Luftwaffe.
Cons:
far more expensive
No second hand airframe existing
Very tricky to arrange some creative leasing scheme to bring upfront costs down
No real savings to expect in comparison to the Eurofighter.
In the end, I would put all my money in the Gripen anyway.
verbatimIf displacement has grown to around 3400 tonnes, against a mere 5 meters in lenght, that would require a relevant growth in draught.
That in turn would imply far greater displacement located under the waterline, and a boost in lateral stability.
The growth in lenght could provide a greater lenght/width ratio, compensating the larger drag induced by the increase in draught, and provide greater longitudinale stability.
The lesson behind the saga, would bè an ancient one: if you need a frigate’s capabilities, you need a frigate hull.
verbatimI think one of the biggest questions is the integrated mast/phased array situation, Zaslon is new to naval radars IIRC.
I had the feeling, since early days of project 20380, the design was a frigate squeezed in a corvette hull, and as such unable to pay back the costs and complexities.
Almost all of the alleged troubles could have originated from this original sin.
Hull’s forms too streamilined at cost of lateral stability, too much crew and systems for a short endurance ship, a powerplant requested to provide high speeds and so on.
Point is: which kind of ship does Russian Navy look for?
If they need a patrol ship, I suspect the answer to 20380’s shortcomings should be a partial redesign of the hull, aiming at a greater stability, reduced weapom systems, and perhaps a reduced top Speed.
Something like South Korea’ s corvettes, built in two subclasses, one specializsd on ASW, the other on AShW and surface surveillance.
A large displacement (for a corvette) should come handy anyway in terms of spaces available to a reduced crew,. endurance and helicopter’s support.
On the other hand, if the goal is a general purpouse combatant, a larger displacement, and greater costs, are unavoidable, i.e. It will b� a frigate even when called corvette.
The only reason, this is my Hope, for the alleged 20386, is to deploy something radically innovative, in no way deplyable through Krivak’s or 22350 hull’s.
My preference would b� for a diesel Electric propulsione, getting rid of reduction Gear and perhaps transmission axels, higher degree of automation, active stabilization fins.
Even mediocre diesel engines, freed of the stresses induced by the mechanical link to the screws, could sport better performance and greater Life/dependability when required to turn Electrical generators at almost constant regime, and adding more of them to get required Total Power output would b� in no way as complex as with conventional mechanical transmission.
verbatimYes, it could be a better platform than -76 for AEW & AAR – but that ship’s sailed. The niche is filled by Il-76, & that’s what the Russian air force is buying. When it had the opportunity to switch, it didn’t.
Given that Russia has chosen NOT to buy it for those niches, & it is certainly not competitive as a commercial airliner, the Russians haven’t made a good call keeping it alive.
Il-96 has no role in commercial aviation, but it’s still the only viable long haul platform for several roles.
Nor future long haul aircrafts, with large portions of the airframe made of composites and higly optimized aerodynamics will be easily converted to military roles.
At least as tanker, command post, and similar roles, I think Russia would exploit Il-96 no matters the tiny operational base.
verbatimI suppose you meant Admiral Grigorovich?
It’s a real pity the second batch of Grigorovich could not be completed for the BSF.
Was it out of question a total rebuild of analogous turbines savaged from some dismissed vessel to provide a power plant at least for a fourth Grigorovich?
verbatimI don’t see the issue with Pella.
It’s a capable Yard, able to deliver modern vessel on schedule and with in the agreed prices.
The problem is with state owned yards, unable to employ modern technologies and often falling behind required schedule.
The choice is between old School yards, with all their constraints, and a modern and capable Yard, just lacking large enough docks.
Given the dire need of Russian Navy for a Speedy recapitalization, Pella sounds a logical choice.
verbatimThe U212A should be almost a tailored soution for Norway, if they still hold as mission coastal interdiction.
Still they could opt for some larger displacement design, switching emphasis to open sea long patrols, and projects like U216 could become a viable option, the more so if integrating core technologies from U212A.
verbatimApparently it’s reporting an event happened in 2012
https://www.rt.com/news/322278-aircraft-carrier-admiral-kuznetsov-tugboat/
verbatimSo an AAW ship must have a VSR?.
If I could ask you to direct your attention to an image of an Arleigh Burke class, an F100 or an Atago class ship and point out where the seperate VSR is please?. Thales states that a Herakles ship needs no seperate VSR just as BAE does with the T45’s Sampson set. For an AAW ship to be an AAW ship it needs an area missile and enough radar power and resolution to use it at the extent of its practical range. That doesnt demand a 956-sized hull any more let alone one Kirov sized.
Yes definetely, unless you are centering that role around a CG, or it’s about a Navy unable to operate destroyers and/or complex task forces.
De Zeeven, Horizon, Type 45, F-123 all have a capable 3d LRR with a reason: it is a must have if you want to exercise a real control on the air space around you.
Soviet Union assigned such a role to the CGs Kirov and Slava, now with barely two Kirovs and three Slavas available, real AAW capabilities and a C4I at Task Group level to the very least is in dire need.
Hence the need for a class of AAW destroyers, supplementing the cruisers in Task Forces and taking the lead in Task Groups not requiring the costs and burdens that come with the deployment of a cruiser.
Udaloys have been the real workhorse of the VMF in the last 10 to 15 years, proving to be capable ships even if getting long in the tooth.
An AAW Udaloy could be the right complement, at least until a brand new generation of destroyers and cruisers hit the water.
verbatimWell, many of the modern ‘frigates’ are basically destroyers but not called such for political reasons. And in fact, historically they’d better termed ‘cruisers’…
A ‘stopgap’ destroyer design as described by verbatim existed – project 21956 – but nothing came out of it. I’m unsure if it was based on Sovremenny or Udaloy hull.
21956 were definetely modernized Udaloy II, without doubt.
Every single part of the general arrangement coincide between proposed 21956 and Udaloy II.
Problem is, they were or are real modernized Udaloy II, specialized in ASW and AshW, not in AAW.
A long range AAW missile doesn’t suffice to make a ship an AAW ship.
Very capable LRR and specific CMS are mandatory, if a ship have to take the lead in dircting a task force AAW defence.
21956s would probably provide a boost in land attak and surface warfare, would add to AAW capabilities of a task force, but still are not specialized in AAW and that is the main single reason they cound not take over Sovremenny’s role.
About frigates posing as AAW destroyer, in the picture poted by Jonesy the ship sports a very particular large radar aerial amidship, surprise it is a LRR, the Smart-L, and its sheer size would tell anybody how much it’s relevant in the AAW’s role.
About some navy classifying such kind of ships as frigate, it is often related to the expected rank of the commanding officer, not because the ship per se is in any way different from a destroyer.
verbatimThere is no way a Frigate can replace a Destroyer in the AAW field.
If you got a long range 3D radar, long range AA missiles, a CMS designed to protect a large aerea containing several assets instead of self-protecting its own ship, a large battle management staff, able to coordinate several different ships’ AAW systems, then you have something able to replace a destroyer, an then it is a destroyer.
Or even a CG, specialized in AAW, depending on displacement and additional C4I capabilities.
Obviously there is little sense spending a lot in the Sovremenny’s.
Better to upgrade the Kirov cruisers, even maybe calling back from the deads a third Kirov wgatever it could cost, then restoring obsolete steam turbine powered destroyers.
Maybe it could even be better to design some stop gap destroyer, powered through gas turbines, broadly based on the Sovremenny as general arrangement and incorporating those updates that are readily available.
Something analogous to the choice to procure the Grigrovich and her sisters for the needs of the Black Sea fleet, i.e. choose an old proven design, update it wherever needed, and put it in line without further delays.
The hull could be the same of the Udaloy class.
Three such destroyers won’t cost a fortune, and would boost AAW and C4I capabilities of the three major russian fleets, meanwhile giving a feedback about effectiveness of new technologies deployed.
Could be even the right chance to try to step up technologically adopting variable pitch propellers, a steo long missing in soviet and russian ships and providing far greater cruise efficiency than fixed pitch ones.
verbatimDepending on the way the Su-30SM cockpit could actually be reconfigured, I would say the two crew cockpit gives the option to derive higly specialized subvariants, as antiship warfare, Wild Weasel/SEAD, long range patrolling, even search for opportuniy targets in CAS/COIN scenario.
Sign In
