Perspective for the Russian Navy aircraft carrier — fantasize?

Perspective for the Russian Navy aircraft carrier - fantasize?
Pochetaemye colleagues! In continuation of the article «Perspective for the Russian Navy destroyer — fantasize?» For you, I hasten to submit their opinions to the promising Russian aircraft carrier.
To understand what is needed RF carriers, it would be good in order to determine which tasks are assigned to this class of ships. I will not spill very mysyu on the tree, but the main call, in my opinion, puzzles Russian aircraft carrier compounds
In a nuclear conflict — cover areas of deployment areas and fly SSBN strategic missile-carrying aircraft.
In a limited nuclear or non-nuclear conflict highest intensity (which are defined as armed conflicts with one / several of strongest powers in the world, for whatever reason, does not flow in the global-nuclear Armageddon) — providing zonal naval supremacy by the liquidation of the main forces of the enemy fleet, strikes military installations on land and infrastructure.
In low-intensity conflicts (like war 08.08.08) — inhibition of the Air Force / Navy opponent, providing amphibious operations.
In peacetime — a demonstration of the flag and the projection of force.
In the online battles are very different views on how specifically to become a promising RF carrier. The main ideas are as follows:
Rf needed small carriers — 15-20 Km displacement. Maybe even remade from some lighters
RF carriers required average of 45-50 Km traditional schemes, such as construction of British «Queen Elizabeth» (but much less), or the French «Charles de Gaulle» (just a little more)
RF carriers needed nonstandard orientation .. sorry … scheme — kata or even trimarans
Rf current carriers needed a la «Nimitz», well, maybe a bit better, so kilotons 75-85 weight.
Continue unabated passion for other unrelated to the size of the ships, the issues of which are more controversial of the following:
Do I need a nuclear aircraft carrier necessarily or fairly GEM?
Do I need a catapult on an aircraft carrier, or maybe do a springboard?

Perspective for the Russian Navy aircraft carrier - fantasize?

I’ll try to start from the end.
Catapult or trampoline?
In the near future on the Web dominates the view that jump on an aircraft carrier — it catapult for the poor. I myself admit, thought so, but I made some research significantly shaken my confidence. Try to lay out the comparative advantages and shortcomings of catapults and jumping.
Vegetarian steam catapult — it’s 100 meter design for overclocking completely at least some 30 — 35-ton plane to a speed of 300 km / h It works on the principle of air rifle — piston catapults clings to special sites on the front landing gear of the aircraft, pressurized steam is — and forward to the sky!
Start Plane jumping occurs subsequent way — the plane is set at the starting point, its chassis — are fixed, the aircraft includes engines. While engines «gaining momentum», the plane is held in place, and to prevent damage to the flight deck and standing behind the aircraft which starts aircraft used special vent panels (installed on the deck) — they reject stream from the nozzles of the aircraft aloft. When the engines are located on the required speed — the clips chassis unclenched and the plane starts to move. Springboard «throws» aircraft — at this point the aircraft’s speed is in the range of 180-200 km / h — for a while the plane flies up ballistic line movement (due to the energy dialed during acceleration), well and then — Rod own engines provides it routine flight.
And that’s the lies first advantage before jumping catapult — takeoff safety. The fact is that when you start from a catapult during ejection aircraft engines did not have time to collect the necessary thrust for flight, because after leaving the flight deck aircraft «sags» — ie drops below the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, and only then rises skyward. But when you start jumping no «drawdown» is not there — and the pilot just rather wait until the aircraft attains control speed — and then start driving. With all this, keep in mind — the TAVKR «Kuznetsov» jump height — 22 m above sea level, but due to the flight line for ballistic motion plane takes off for another 18-20 meters — ie 40 meters above sea level. A flight deck of the South American AB no more than 20 meters, besides «drawdown» Plane … It is logical that the contingency on our springboard TAVKR — Su-33 due to problems pulled from the deck at a speed of 105 km / h — no disaster happened , while similar happen on a flush-AB — a plane crash right under the stem would be inevitable.
Another advantage springboard — plane accelerates at a distance of 100-200 m from 0 total only up to 200 km / h Overload with all this are relatively small, and the pilot is able to keep control of the plane constantly. But overclocking Catapult (stroke length — 90 meters) to a speed of 300 km / h to 5.5 provides overload PVCs that is very harmful for both the aircraft and for the health of the pilot.

Perspective for the Russian Navy aircraft carrier - fantasize?

Catapult — much more difficult and languid system, if arrangements for aircraft start jumping and trampoline itself. Although the print caught completely moderate weight American steam catapult — 180 tons, apparently is not talking about all the catapult, but only of the piston and guides. At the same time, other sources claim that almost 20% of the tonnage «Nimitz» falls on the catapult. This figure is in doubt, and it is likely an exaggeration, but it is closer to the truth. There was a time when the future, «Kuznetsov» — TAVKR etc. 1143.5 planned to equip catapults. So here, the estimated weight of 2 catapults with powered equipment for their work (we do not refer steam generators, but only the system to supply steam catapults) ranged from 3 to 3.5 thousand tons, ie 4 catapult Nimitz would have a lot of 6-7 tons.
It is believed that the catapult, unlike virtually all weather springboard provides the use of air. But it is not quite so. The fact is that when you run out of aircraft pairs etched booster catapult track — ie throughout the movement of the piston (90 m). This steam, for example, will take pretty good here — you can see the snow-white smoke soaring for «Hornet»?

Perspective for the Russian Navy aircraft carrier - fantasize?
 
Of course that in this cold steam very quickly «glaciation» catapult — formed frost can cause piston seizure and, accordingly, to disaster.
On the other hand, winter flight deck looks like this

Perspective for the Russian Navy aircraft carrier - fantasize?
 
But if a smooth deck is not so difficult to clean, then «put in order» springboard much harder. Here shovel can not do :)). And, of course, the icing on the trampoline is very limited use of air group our only heavy aircraft. But here’s the thing — another step design «Kuznetsov» was developed in NPKB de-icing system for springboard — but first TAVKR decided not to put her .. And whether it is placed — is still not clear, as a springboard would lose all weather catapult.
There is another argument enemies springboard — Tipo modern heavy fighter (not VTOL) are not able to take off from the springboard with the greatest load. This is a misconception — Su-33 and Su27KUB than once soared even with a 100-meter acceleration «in full battle» — ie with the greatest take-off weight. The fact that the planes of the third generation really did not have a chance to take off from the springboard with the highest take-off weight — they lacked the thrust-weight ratio. A thrust in fact at least some fighter fourth generation allows such start to run.
And that’s not all dignity springboard. South American catapult provide 200-250 starts, after that require preventive maintenance — any substitute parts. Repairs may be performed at sea, by the crew — but its duration is 60 hours. Trampoline, of course, no repair needed.
So, maybe, well, them, these catapults?

What a shame it did not sound to abandon catapults in the foreseeable future will not work. The fact that the ramp, in comparison with catapults also has important drawbacks.
1st — rocket jumping can only aircraft with the highest level of thrust-weight ratio is pretty. Fighters fourth (and even more — 5th) generation are capable of — but that’s rear ramp, for example, AWACS aircraft, which by definition can not have a thrust comparable fighter, quite unreal. True, there is an option booster engines — single powder accelerators that are suspended to the aircraft and working like boosters «Shuttle» — but calculations showed that for the usual number of flights, these accelerators have to score a half-carrier — on ammunition and fuel for aircraft seats no longer remains. Already this alone makes it necessary to catapult attribute promising RF carrier. But it is not only the dignity of catapults.
Second, start jumping puts enormous demands on where resistance aircraft — combat load should be moderately distributed on both wings. Hang under one wing of the heavy container with fuel, and under another — a pair of light-Zour not work.
Second — how to provide a tremendous catapult lifting speed air group. Hard to say why. But according to a former naval aviation pilot (known on the web as Côte Baiyun) — this indicator TAVKR «Kuznetsov» significantly loses South American aircraft carriers. On the other hand — povinet whether this particular jump, or, perhaps more leisurely ascent of our aircraft is explained by other, unrelated causes springboard?
At the theoretical level steam catapult capable of releasing 1 aircraft in 15-20 seconds. But given the time it takes in order to set the plane on the catapult this time, of course, much higher. But our pilots (again as rumored) not once watched virtually simultaneous, synchronous launches aircraft from all four South American aircraft carrier catapults.

In general, I have little data in order to draw definitive conclusions. This should be done spetsy meticulously studied the practices of our TAVKR air groups and having all the information available on the South American AB. But one thing I want to say — maybe our scheme unfinished TAVKR «Ulyanovsk», which was planned to install two catapults and springboard more optimal than purely ejection or springboard carriers. Or maybe not.
Oh yeah, forgot to specify «the most important» cause, which some comrades motivate rejection of catapults on aircraft carriers promising Russian Federation. The reason for this — a catapult, it’s just wonderful, but their Russian krivorukost can not. Too tough for them to merit such naval progress!
I hasten to disappoint you — can. Moreover, already did. Recognizable trainer thread created including in order to work out the design aerobatsplanes. So, here, during testing, the plane accelerated nothing else like a steam katapultoyJ)) As planned commissioning TAVKR «Ulyanovsk» with catapults for thread and did training for catapult takeoffs.
 
Another thing that did not install it — when it became clear that «Ulyanovsk» will never be completed.
GEM — an atom or …
That this question should give a precise and unambiguous answer. If we agree that our promising AB needed catapult — atom and atom only.
According to some reports, the rejection of the catapults on the project 1143.5 associated not with the stupidity of our control. All the matter is that the catapult «devours» unlimited amount of steam. A power plant produces steam. So, it turned out that if the available power TAVKR «Kuznetsov» on him to put the catapult, then here is one of the 2— or go somewhere or run planes. Since steam power does not suffice in order to ensure the progress and work of the ship and immediately catapults.
According to some reports (not tested) even «Nimitz», while the own four catapults are not able to move at speeds greater than 20 knots.
With electric catapults the situation is much worse. One catapult for launching the 1st plane «eats» more energy than it is able to give in the same time the entire power «Gerald Ford.»
All this says that the aircraft carrier is a huge need, no, not even so huge energy performance. And those can only provide a nuclear reactor.
And the next. Judging by the available disk imaging at me, the USSR was more successful naval reactors, if heavy-duty powered installations. According to the latest least our TARKR «Kirov» swam fully successful, while «Smith» or at least his own campaign had enduring problems with power, right up to the complete loss of turn.
And now is the time to deal with what sizes are preferred for a promising carrier of the Russian Navy
Small carriers — 15-20 Km displacement
 
Do adherents «mikroavianosnogo fleet» there are 2 main arguments:
1) Such ships fully on forces weakened the shipbuilding industry of the Russian Federation
2) Such ships much cheaper even medium carriers, not to mention the languid
With these arguments, it is difficult not to agree, but … in terms of «cost-effectiveness» small ships will categorically cede even an average aircraft carriers, and will be up against the big and quite powerless.
In order to understand this ordinary truth, it is necessary to realize subsequent — South American carriers strong power not own strike aircraft (although it also means a lot). Latin American carriers are making vast dignity through information dominance, which provide a means of distant radar detection, but in common parlance — AWACS. Specifically control the battlefield, in totality with massive use of EW provides settlement of almost all of the enemy that is called «dry.» Due to the U.S. AWACS fighter can assault the enemy aircraft, including avionics own at the last moment — and as a result 90% of downed pilots in local conflicts is not something that did not have time to do countermeasures, they even failed to realize that after all, actually speaking, they knocked. Due to the attack on the AWACS ships manage to coordinate actions and bring in the necessary time and place of the air group distraction, oppression EW, clearing the air, assault, etc. — With the same assault aviation group will be displayed in terms volley outside the radar acts attacked ships.
Wage war against such forces without their own AWACS, even owning the best fighters in the world — is simply unrealistic.
But, as I wrote above, the introduction of AWACS aircraft is impossible without a catapult, how do you want to insert a colossus 1.5 tonnes to ship in 15-20 kt?! And, importantly, what you need to put on the GEM this boat to provide work catapult? Obviously, there is nothing impracticable … That only air group space no longer remains. If you do not believe me — think for the weight of the air group of the same «Prince of Asturias» or the Italian «Garibaldi» — and refer it to 1.5 Cr + catapult weight growth GEM …
So what made arbitrarily deshevenky carriers and land on their air group consisting of some PLO fighters and helicopters — then throw money down the drain (along with the lives of the crew)
However, there is a palliative — AEW helicopters. But you must realize that it is specifically palliative and less. Comparable properties radar immediately develops first 80s of Yak-44 RLD (RLS «Quantum») and Ka-252 (future Ka-31 radar «eye»)
Range detection of air targets — 200 and 100-150 km, respectively
Range detection of surface targets — more than 300 km and 250
Number of targets — 120 and 20
But most importantly — Ka-252, in contrast to the Yak-44RLD not allowed to direct fighters to air targets.

Perspective for the Russian Navy aircraft carrier - fantasize?

Small carriers, of course, have their own niche in the fleets of foreign countries. But there is such kind of ships have long formed — it ships, which are based only VTOL and which (by jumping) provide VTOL off them at a very affordable takeoff weight. Such ships, perhaps that is enough for the admonition kakih-nibud Aboriginal edge geography, but even when confronted with such «masters of the seas» as Argentina — their abilities is not enough, and confirmed that the Falklands conflict.
But most importantly … we take the first puzzle for RF carrier — SSBN cover in areas of deployment. Most terrible enemies are multipurpose SSBN submarines and anti-submarine aircraft. Anti-submarine aircraft, for example, in the Pacific theater and the North may seem only with enemy aircraft carrier.
And if we are facing an enemy aircraft carrier — to counter the danger of air must have no less than 10 March Male fighters. Suppose, performing shamanic dance with a tambourine, we still were able to cram into a small aircraft carrier 20 Km dozen MiG-29 and a pair of helicopters AEW. How should we be useful for at least three small aircraft carrier. Oh yeah, besides from the submarine fight should … require 18 helicopters (the least annoying as it may seem, does not guarantee persistent PLO unit) — ie at least once in a helicopter 20 kt. Total — per 1 «Nimitz», weighing 100 Km carrying 90 aircraft and providing air defense / ASW squadron led by him, we derive four aircraft carriers weighing 80 Km from Air Group 54 aircraft and helicopters, while aware that the chance to fight back from the Yankees have not, so much, and that, that drown him — and there can be no … And where’s the savings?
Average aircraft carriers in the traditional scheme of 45-50 Km
 
In comparison with miniavianostsami on 20Kt it is much more promising option. But … on the condition that it is feasible at a technical level. The fact is that in real time in the world there is NO 1st successful middle carrier. French «Charles de Gaulle» just fine — but how annoying it may sound, only on paper. Of course, Air Group 40 aircraft, including Raphael and languid enough Hawk 2 steam catapults, nuclear power plant, and even (according to rumors) the opportunity to take on the 800 Marines bronetrasporterah (!) — And all this splendor in a ship with a displacement of 42 tons look uniqueness impressive. But the zeal to «push nevpihuemoe» led to the last ship of insecurity, and the cost (3.3 billion dollars for the ship, launched on the far 1994) brought him to the prices of the «Nimitz» (which in those years was worth about 4.5 billion. dollars). Spending these funds, the French, instead of this combat unit received sorokatysyachetonnuyu migraines that constantly asks funds for maintenance, repair and finishing of numerous, but with all this so far can not even slightly, or at least to act correctly in the Mediterranean Sea.

Quite another thing — good old French «Clemenceau» and «Foch» — these two spacecraft were really nice and a very successful type of secondary carrier — but here’s the thing, in those years the highest takeoff weight based on their aircraft did not exceed 12-14 tons. At the moment, even light fighter will weigh a half to two times more.
Russian heavy aircraft carrier «Admiral Kuznetsov Russian Union» did not kick just lazy. Very unreliable power plant, no catapults and AWACS aircraft, aviation group is relatively small (barely intermeddle 40 airplanes and helicopters) at full displacement under 60 tonnes. makes our TAVKR unsafe except for the Spanish «Prince of Asturias».

It is possible that the British would be more successful project — the aircraft carrier «Queen Elizabeth» and «Prince of Wales» Yes, and there are many «buts». I am willing to admit that the British did not create amaze tabular TTX, but on a technical level, sturdy ships that will vsepolnotsennymi combat units and the foundation of the English fleet of surface … But at what cost!
The project did not provide for catapults because base air group had to submit VTOL F-35B. Meanwhile the British refused and from AWACS aircraft — it was supposed that their function will take the helicopters of similar import. «Quinn» have a relatively low speed — 25 knots just means their suspension is relatively small. And at the cost of all these victims of the British succeeded in placing on the ship already ШЕСТИДЕСЯТИПЯТИТЫСЯЧЕТОННОМ 40 planes and helicopters! I swear, with such results even TAVKR «Kuznetsov» in its own current state looks rearmament.
On the second ship of the series are going to put at least one catapult — but given the weak GEMs is not quite clear where to get energy for its operation. Especially since worked out the question of equipping «Prince» electric catapult.
Maybe carriers «Queen Elizabeth», will be decent combat vehicles and the best — in the middle class aircraft carriers. But with the average aircraft carrier air group, in displacement they represent some variant of the crotch between the middle and languid aircraft carrier. 2 «Quinn» in its combat abilities and that probably correspond to the «Nimitz» — 80 aircraft compared to 90 — but their cumulative displacement on the third part of the larger (130 vs 100 kt kt).

Do we need such Russian Navy aircraft carriers? Something very very much doubt …
The most basic problem of secondary carriers — lack of universality. We consider a model of an aircraft carrier air group average of 40 cars. In order to produce high quality PLO compounds need more than 18 helicopters. But then, given the need to at least 4 planes / helicopters AEW share fighter-bomber is a total of 18 seats. On the contrary — it is possible to land on the ship is fully adequate for air combat air group (36 fighters and AWACS 4) — but then on antisubmarine defense will have to forget.
What am I doing? And the fact that already the first puzzle for Russian carriers — cover deployment sites SSBN average aircraft carrier will not be able to solve. It can solve the puzzle of just one 2-relevant — either defense or PLO connection — and for both tasks it is useful to have at least a solid size helicopter — same again, say, in 20Kt with Air Group 18 helicopters. And again we have 65 +20 = 85 Km which is based on the total number of Air Group 58 aircraft and helicopters against the «Nimitz» 100 Km and 90 aircraft.
And so — I am not a supporter of secondary carriers. Although, of course, compared with the small aircraft carriers — this is a big step forward.
Carriers custom scheme — catamarans and trimarans
 
Proponents of this view are based on the fact that the ship was similar scheme could potentially wield unimaginable for conventional aircraft carriers fighting properties. In support of these postulates are presented the results of tests of ships similar schemes — so, for example, model experiments showed that the vessels of «Trisek»
having a displacement of 10 thousand tons of matches will be able to reach a speed of 40 knots, and the military option — even up to 80 knots.
Also captivating presence of a wide deck aboard the catamaran type — aircraft carrier at the time.
What a shame it did not sound, nothing in this world is not given for free. Multihull design is very complex, and will cost much more expensive than ordinary displacement hull. Besides body experiences where huge catamaran voltage than ordinary body vessel. Accordingly, the design has to make stronger, and the means and heavier. Catamaran, other things being equal criteria in advance and very lost in the payload ordinary vessel of equal weight. At the same time the highest speed catamaran achievable only with a very strong GEM — achieve energy available, the need to develop a 40-60 knots possible, but for this it is necessary to increment power GEMs at least twice a relatively traditional craft of the same mass. Here goes — theoretically possible to make an aircraft carrier catamaran with a speed of 45-50 knots — but more weight and body more power GEM actually not leave space for the air group.
Not our choice — the latest measure for an aircraft carrier.
Languid carriers.

Perspective for the Russian Navy aircraft carrier - fantasize?

Like it or not — and it is only right decision. And we almost came to him, creating TAVKR «Ulyanovsk» Atomic ship 75 tons full displacement, filled with catapults, would vsepolnotsennuyu and universal air group of 70 aircraft — 24 Su-33, 24 MiG-29K, 4 Yak-44DRLO and 18 helicopters.
TAVKR was quite good for its time — being armed with a sufficient number of aircraft, where better than their South American counterparts (like it or not «Tomcat» is not equated with the Su-33 and F / A — 18 and even more so Intruder — with MiG-29K), he surpassed the standard air group atomic U.S. aircraft carriers. Multipurpose aircraft carrier group (AMG) as part of this TAVKR, 1-2 RRC but a pair of three BOD was fully capable of «udelat» traditional South American AUG.

What a shame it did not sound, the disintegration of the USSR put an end to the creation of this mighty ship. Immediately found a import company to offer a contract for the construction of heavy civilian courts, with so huge that they could build on a single stocks — on the course, which was built «Ulyanovsk». Of course, the benefits of performing these treaties guaranteed the independence of Ukraine the sky with diamonds … But it is surprising that after the cut «Ulyanovsk» metal for the sake of the liberation of the pile, for some reason got sick onaya company which conclude whatever agreements? I am far from being able to blame the then Office of Ukraine to the crime — in the end, the chances of completion «Ulyanovsk» were not any.
But it does not mitigate the deadly gloom fact worthy to decorate the first page of the book Guinness: TAVKR «Ulyanovsk» — the world’s only heavy aircraft carrier, destroyed a commercial offer.
Yet, like it or not, at the present time this project TAVKR somewhat outdated. It seems that neither was quite good for its time Su-33 — to replace the fourth generation fighter comes fifth, and a new and promising Russian aircraft carrier is necessary to create under the PAK FA or T-50K, rumors about the design of which already being distributed, and they believe there is no reason …
Thus, the properties of a promising exemplary RF carrier
Full displacement — 85 kt.
GEM — 2 nuclear reactor aggregate capacity of approximately 260,000 hp
Full speed — 30 knots
Length — 300 m at the waterline, 320 m — large
Width — 39 meters at the waterline, 79.5 m — large
Draft — 11 m
Armament — 4 OHR polyment-Redoute «in any 16 cells. In one cell — 4 small SAM with a range of 40-50 km (9M96E or better), or 16 SAM missiles 9M100 — with a range of 15 km.
8 Settings «Carapace M»
Air Group — consisting of 72 aircraft
40 — T-50K — «omoryachenny» PAK FA
8 — T-50KR — EW plane based on the T-50K (similar E/A-18 Grouler)
6 — AWACS aircraft
18 — ASW helicopters
Since I was never able to determine what is best — clean catapult aircraft carrier or aircraft carrier catapults and springboard, then must take resolute decision — Assume that an aircraft carrier catapult clean everything is better. In this case — 5 steam catapults.
As it is surprisingly, the network has got to me a sketch of the ship, which is almost 100% corresponds to my idea of ​​promising Russian aircraft carrier. Ask adore and favor:

Like this post? Please share to your friends: