verbatimJonesy, it seems to me you are reading in indian words something is not actually there.
India thrust to Indian Ocean is performed mostly on the paradigm of engagement and collaboration.
Confrontation is a matter restricted mostly to Pakistan and just in a limited way to China.
Plainly speaking there is no real need, in most scenarios, for such kind of naval power projection as envisaged in your posts.
Just for the records, italian carrier Cavour was paid 1,3 billion Euros just for the ship alone, with all the electronics cost is estimated at almost 2 billion euros, i.e. far more usually stated.
That price for a ship with the very same constraints you are referring to, just smaller and with no suitable aircraft bar the JSF.
The only suitable alternative, would have been a Charles de Gaulle derivative, but I believe it would have dictated much more politic, diplomatic and financial hurdles.
verbatimI don’t see any actual need for another fighter type in VVS.
Nor I see it for export as well.
At the right moment they could develop bespoke, degraded versions of PAK-FA for any possibile foreign customers, provided there would be a market for LO or VLO fighters large enough.
For anybody else, SU-30 and SU-35 would and should still suffice for a couple of decades.
Many Countries are purchasing now 20+ years old F-16s or operating 30+ years old F-5s, Su-22s and the likes, no way they will ask for 5th gen fighters any time soon, rhe heavy as the light ones.
verbatimSure enough, there will be a good streamlining of the support chain when all MiG-29, old Su-27, Su-24 and the likes will be phased out.
In a perfect world, RuAF would have inducted in service Su-34 several Years earlier, developed/picked up once between Su-30 iterations only, even avoided Su-35 at all.
On the real world, there have been almost 20 years of missing re capitalization to be counted for, and they should make do with what they have.
I doubt all the Su variants actually share all the same electrical systems, idraulic actuators and so on, so yes, I would put my bet that there will still be a logistical burden behind so many variants, maybe less than in the past but still far from an optimal balance between operational requirements and logistical overhead.
verbatimFirst and foremost Russia has around half the population of the Soviet Union, there has never been a country able to field larger armed forces after being halved AND improving technological level.
Second, until now 90% and more of RuAF is made of iron bombs, dumb rockets or obsolete smart weapons. They could start tomorrow a tenfold increase both in output and R&D and it still would only help catching up with the desired recapitalization and shift toward a wideaspread sue of smart weapons even reducing the present combat line.
In a 30 Years timeframe, starting from actual T-50 IOC, I would put around 600 airframes procured as the best case scenario.
That would be consistent with russian long term population and GDP grows forecasts (the more optimistic ones, I would add).
verbatimVerbatim
If it is alterted to the attack in progress!. This is the whole point I’m making.
…and all you have done there is to detail, thoroughly, why you do not want to attack a fully alerted naval target set. Again, as you say, all the supersonic does it to shorten the response time for defensive weapons. To counter that all that is needed is for those defensive weapons to be able to react faster…which is exactly what has happened. Supersonic is no longer the advantage it was because, even twice as fast, is no longer fast enough.
Let me try and explain this a different way. You are the PWO(A) of an anti-air escort. You are going to sail through defended waters escorting a group of amphibs…you need to perform a threat reduction exercise to see what you can do to minimise risk of a missile hit on the heavies. What would you rather face:
1, A large supersonic missile threat. One that you know can only be deployed by the larger strikefighters the opposition possess. Which intelligence tells you are only based at two specific airfields. One that needs the opposition to have to develop very solid target data before they can fire…that you can look for them trying to develop. Its a missile that you know will hurt you if it hits, but, you are pretty confident that you will get warning of from your IR and ESM sensors if it comes in…allowing you to keep your MFR/VSR in standby…not broadcasting your position. Also one that you know your hardkill and softkill will be effective against.
2, A small subsonic passive missile threat. One that you know your ship will survive hits from, unless there is a big fire, and one you know your hardkill will be able to cope with, provided its a modest streaming attack. One that the opposition can launch from any fastjet in its inventory and from some of its chopper force. One you know you are going to get no warning of on its approach and, from organic systems, one you are going to have to radiate to pick up…and then chances are you arent going to pick up until it crosses your horizon. Its also a weapon that the softkill in your decoy tubes isnt going to do much for.
Maybe its counter-intuitive to most, but, that latter scenario scares the hell out of me a lot more than the former. If I couldnt get reliable permanent, high quality, airborne radar cover for the second scenario I’d say dont try it and choose a route away from the threat. The first one I’d consider giving it a go…if the risk was warranted.
Swap out the manoevering RV for a bus stage holding 12-14 SDB-II clones and fire 2 or 3 at a carrier. 30-40 250lb warheads with 30-40nm cross-range glide for evasion/zone saturation seekers targetted on elevators, island/sensor masts, fueling pits, ordnance hoists, catapult tracks. Good luck defending that one!.
If you want to attack an unalerted task force, first and foremost you could not mount a saturation attacck, for the same very reason that intelligence gathering will alert about preparatory work, at least.
And there will be at least periodically some kind of EM emission to check the actual task force’s position, either from within the attacking detachment or some other supporting aircraft or ship. Task Force will hardly be unaware an attack is either coming or likely, and will mantain everything else than LRR, from ESM to IR seekers and even bait vessels with their sensors suites, active and on alert status.
And the bus concept, while interesting and sound, could only be related to a land based installation, making such a weapon a strictly access deny weapon, requiring large supporting infrastructure. Definitly not suitable for anything else than defend some bastion.
Kh-31 is the closest to the concept I’m supporting, and still it’s not to be used as a reference.
Still it packs in a small airframe Mach 2 speed, impressive agility and proven sea skimming ability.
In its ARM variant, could be even be accredited with a passive ASh capability.
The real constraint was the lacking of critical thermal imaging and imaging processing capabilities, at least russian bureau are still striving to reach such performances in really small packages.
What would be essential by my point of view, and requiring almost a clean sheet design, would be a LO airframe and an effective thermal signature reduction.
By the way, if you could not spot the thermal signature of the incoming strike aircraft there is little chance you can spot the missile’s one until it has significantly closed distances. There nothing forbidding an efficient engine giving a far little thermal image to a weapon weighting around one ton, compared to the thermal signature released by engine(s) powering an aircraft weighting tenfold or more.
I cannot see anything making a supersonic, seaskimming weapon really less discrete than classical subsonic and seaskimming weapons. Maybe designing the engine and related thermal signature suppression would cost significantly more than subsonic engines, still would cost 1/1000 of their targets and far far less than the assets the weapons are defending defeating the enemy task force.
verbatimBecause there is not such a thing as a saturation attack suitable against a full fledged task force.
Even a couple of dozen incoming weapons could be dealed of, starting with multiple engagements up to 50 km away from the outer layer of the task force defence by AAW DDG or CG, following with multple engaments under 20 Km away both from AAW ships and other surface combatants, following with at least multiple engagements by either CIWS on likely targets or even nearby AAW ships.
On top of that, chaffs, flares, ECM…
Of course Mach 4 weapons are not a likely answer, but still any weapon able to travel at speeds under or around Mach 2 won’t weight or cost dramatically more than a subsonic design, still exposing themselves less than half the time a subsonic weapo would do, and able to fly from a practical point of view as low as a subsonic weapon.
auncing
And if DEWs would actually make their debut in the foreseeable future, time of exposure to their action would be critical to grant chances to survive them.
The point could be western navies don’t see now and in the few coming decades a need for such kind of weapons, on the opposite side any other large navy as the russian, indian or chinese, would require such a weapon.
What I do not see as really relevant is any emphasis on very long range: until you are deploying very smart and complex weapons, with related supporting infrastructure as for the P-700, practical launch distances will stay around or (better well) under 100 Km anyway.
A weapon weighting under 1.000 Kg, would still be carried in pairs by any decent fighter and to some extent it is possibile even from long range MPA, while on board of a ship would not impact dramaticallly more than harpoon or Exocet et similia.
verbatimI’m still not convinced that small and subsonic
weapons are the answer.
Any AShM require a huge effort both to develop and to deploy, there are two distinct different requirements for a lightweight weapon to pur out of service small or medium surface combatants, and for a heavier weapon to engage targets well within a comprehensive, layered and long range EW/AD system.
The latter scenario do not mandate a huge weapon a la AS-2, bit require dell tought performances and capabilities to try to overcome such defences.
And no, being small do not grant any advantage against incoming SA missiles.
At least, not since modern systems have become able even to perform hit to kill engagements against very small and very fast moving targets.
verbatimI do not see the proposed advantages of subsonic AShM ad valuable when confronting 1st class navies.
I would take as granted some form of airborn EW, denying most if not all of the aforementioned pros to subsonic missiles.
Multiples submunitions design apart, I think speed, LO and some form of autonomous countermeasures would be the only ways to grant some chance to the attacking weapon.
verbatimI assume we’re looking at the water leaks / mold stains on the canvas covering? Not a pleasant site to see at BA’s flagship, granted.
EDIT: I see it, it’s the dust haha. Perhaps their budget doesn’t extend to portable hoovers and wet wipes 😉 If you want action perhaps a friendly email to BA’s customer complaints will get you further than a topic on a forum.
Nope, it should be the abysmal absence of any barrier stopping maintenance workers from spitting upon passengers’ heads… 😮
verbatimHi Tenthije
Nothing to do with the industrial look which is common now in many places where transport is involved.
The problem I have given visual evidence of is seen clearly from normal customer/passenger and staff access areas and is so simple to resolve, yet obviously oblivious to most eyes that pass by every day.
I would say those railings are almost natural ladders for unattended children, and it could result in some nasty situation.
verbatimHaving not followed Su-30SM development history, I have to ask a pretty trivial question:
Is it sporting an holographic HUD similar to the one on PAK-FA? (so it seems to be from some pictures I looked at in this forum)
If so I find quite unusual finding a narrow field of view HUD installed on Su-35.
OK, I know the Su-35 is almost a response to an urgent operational requirement to recapitalize RuAF, still its HUD seems quite a legacy.
verbatimEven with the Ka-65, there would be the need for a clearance about couple of meters on top of tje rotor head.
There is no turnaround when it comes to practical hangar size, the more when it comes about ceiling height.
Adding the need to overhead rails for cranes and so on, I bet it’s not practical to have anything short of 7 or 8 meters height.
verbatimPlacing the aircraft in a hangar with a low ceiling. The Russian aircraft carrier can have double decker hangar height of 5 meters.
It’s higly unlikely for any aircraft carrier around the world to have such a low ceiling in the hangar.
No suitable helicopter’s maintenance coud be accomplished without the ability to pull out the main rotor shaft, and usually it needs clearances between main rotor’s head and ceiling in the order of meters.
By the way, as it happens the Kamov 27 and derivatives are more than 5 meters tall, so they would not be able to enter such an hangar at all.
RCS reduction and aerodynamics requirement should have been the only drivers designing the PAK-FA’s tail.
verbatimIt does! I’ll believe it when I see it though – looks like one of those classic panic-mode ideas to salvage completion of 3 freighters (originally destined for Polet, who no longer want them due to a slump in their business) on the government’s dime, rather than a coherent, well-thought out plan to move away from the inadequate Il-476 tanker. One can only hope this plan survives long enough for the airframes to enter service and convince the Russian air force by its superior performance to order Il-96 tankers in more than token numbers.
EDIT: There’s also the question of whether such a decision could still come in time to save the Il-96 supply chain, the painfully slow production rate of the past decade might have starved parts of it to death already, as happened with the Il-76 a few years earlier. As I said – it smacks of a haphazard fire-fighting approach rather than methodical industrial development policy.
There is hardly any chance at all an Il-96 tanker would replace the Il-76 based one.
Even taking out the long term support issue, it’s a too large platform in most of the tactical scenarios, likely hard to deploy on most of the air bases and lacking a widespread support infrastructure.
The logical role would be the same of american KC-10, a true strategic tanker, tasked to sustain long range deployments.
Aimed to support more long ferry runs of organic air detatchments or VDV, than strike or CAP missions the last being better suited to the Il-78.
verbatimNeed?
What you need depends greatly on what you intend to do around the rest of the world!
Whatever Russia intends to do around the world, if the northern ices keep melting, Russia will turn from a semi landlocked country to a country with one of the longest shoreline in the world.
Even barring the chance the northern seas could become free of ice all the year long, if Russia recognize the need to send ships almost 30 years old on so called anti piracy cruises, it means Russia recognize expediency and usefulness in showing the rest of the world that western countries still have not exclusivity in exerting naval diplomacy.
And a carrier battle group with its inherent versatility is a far more convincing statement about it than any other kind of military asset.
Sign In
