Good work! I took the liberty of cross-posting your screenshots for you.Triton said:Frame grabs of the Russian cruiser concept shown earlier in the video. I'm certain we had a topic devoted to a Russian Federation Kirov-class battlecruiser replacement program, but for the life of me, I can't seem to find it.
Moose said:The E-2Dski model is cute, but so far we've not seen much indication of a real CV AEWC program.
If that is a ski ramp on the angled deck, how do they do a "bolter"? How fast can you take a vertical ramp before your gear collapses?Triton said:Magazine illustration of the aircraft carrier concept?
Dunno if I would call it "one of the smartest" because there are other major developments that were more important, starting with the angled deck.pedrospe said:One of the smartest concepts in naval aircraft carriers, was the skyjump deck,since all russian naval aircraft fighters tend to be big,they are already thinking on a navalised t-50,the future russian carrier design will most likely to retain this feature.
Significant difference in the bow configuration. This photo shows two ski jumps near the bow, whereas the other shows the angled deck edge farther back. The islands on the model are also smaller.Triton said:
If you have a catapult you don't need the ski jump.blackstar said:But can a ski jump be used with a catapult? The ski jump is a compromise, and it comes at a cost of performance. It limits the range and payload of aircraft that can be launched.
Not sure where it was stated, I think in Robert Jacksons book about the Sea Harrier: An advantage of theblackstar said:...The ski jump is a compromise, and it comes at a cost of performance. It limits the range and payload of aircraft that can be launched.
It actually helps with a bolter. If you miss the wire or the wire/hook breaks the ski jump at the end of the landing deck gives the bolting aircraft an additional boost of altitude. This can be quite important if you have been slowed down a bit by the gear before a failure or if your aircraft has lost an engine. Also in the case of a failure in which the aircraft has been slowed right down but not to a stop the ramp will likely stop you from going over the edge of a deck and into the water.fredymac said:If that is a ski ramp on the angled deck, how do they do a "bolter"?
You obviously don’t fit a ramp to your ship if the jump incline is too steep for the gear to survive at landing speeds. This is likely not to be a problem as the gear on naval CTOL and V/STOL aircraft are designed to survive the very strong forces of high sink rates at landing.fredymac said:How fast can you take a vertical ramp before your gear collapses?
Yes it can. As long as the means of attaching the aircraft to the catapult is compatible. The old method of using wire strops that are flung off the end (or caught by bow horns) is not compatible as it will collide with the ramp and aircraft. But fixed attachment points like the USN’s standard nose gear set up will have no problem as long as the jump incline isn't so steep it will plough into the ramp.blackstar said:But can a ski jump be used with a catapult?
No the ski jump isn’t a compromise. It is for ships that can’t have catapults. In which case it’s much better than just a flat deck. I don’t think anyone choses ski jumps over catapults. But if you can’t build the later the ski jump is a free gift of altitude to the launching aircraft and slight cost to the ship.blackstar said:The ski jump is a compromise, and it comes at a cost of performance. It limits the range and payload of aircraft that can be launched.
You can have both. An aircraft with the added velocity of a catapult and the added altitude of a ski jump can take-off with more weight and/or less engine power than one without one (or two) of these boosts.sferrin said:If you have a catapult you don't need the ski jump.
No this is not true. If the ship is in waves that are coming over the bow no one is launching aircraft. And in a pitching ship without a ski jump the crew just wait until the ship is pitched up to launch the aircraft. It can actually help the launch dynamics but of course make it far harder to land.Jemiba said:Not sure where it was stated, I think in Robert Jacksons book about the Sea Harrier: An advantage of the ski jump is, that aircraft are launched in a steeper upward trajectory, useful in very heavy seas, that may limit carriers with catapults, because the launched aircraft would hit the waves.
This isn’t true. The advantage of the Sea Harrier in heavy seas was they could land much easier on pitching decks. Because the aircraft could land straight down in the centre of the deck and not suffer from the deck pitch at the rear of the flight deck.JohnR said:Somewhere in the recesses of my mind, I recall an article that stated that during the Falklands the Ski Jump allowed the Harriers; with the upward trajectory imparted on them, to be operated in much worse sea conditions than would have been possible with a US carrier. I would be very interested to hear how you gents would regard this.
ouroboros said:EMALS catapults in theory could follow the curve of a ski jump to the end, as curved linear motor track is not new engineering. I suppose in theory a steam catapult could too (it is basically a slotted cylinder with a riding piston), but that's a lot harder compared to EMALS.
At least they only have one.JohnR said:Appears to even have the three shaft machinery. Any specs available on it?
Also seems to be an appropriate point to ask a somewhat related question. Why do Soviet/Russian carriers always have such massive islands?
Good day gentlemen,stashandr said:Project 1153 is 1977 year design.
You forget light aircraft carrier (1968) - nuclear or conventionally powered, 50000 t, 280x60 m, 38 aircrafts (attached).
but what about the twin engined aircraft with foldable straight wings (parked on the fantail f.e.), is it completely fictious or it has some basis in a real project, and if that's so, anyone knows who designed it and what is it called?
Source: http://www.janes.com/article/51452/russia-developing-shtorm-supercarrierRussia developing Shtorm supercarrier
Nikolai Novichkov, Moscow - IHS Jane's Defence WeeklyRussia's Krylovsky State Research Center (KRSC) has developed a new multipurpose heavy aircraft carrier design called Project 23000E or Shtorm (Storm).
The model features a split air wing comprising navalised T-50 PAKFAs and MiG-29Ks, as well as jet-powered naval early warning aircraft and Ka-27 naval helicopters.
A scale model of the ship is going to be demonstrated for the first time at the International Maritime Defence Show 2015 in St Petersburg from 1-5 July, Valery Polyakov, the deputy director of KSC, told IHS Jane's .
"The Project 23000E multipurpose aircraft carrier is designed to conduct operations in remote and oceanic areas, engage land-based and sea-borne enemy targets, ensure the operational stability of naval forces, protect landing troops, and provide the anti-aircraft defence," Polyakov said.
The design has a displacement of 90-100,000 tons, is 330 m in length, 40 m wide, and has a draft of 11 m. It has a top speed of 30 kt, cruising speed of 20 kt, a 120-day endurance, a crew of 4-5,000, and designed to withstand sea state 6-7. Currently it has been designed with a conventional power plant, although this could be replaced by a nuclear one, according to potential customers' requirements.
The ship carries a powerful air group of 80-90 deck-based aircraft for various combat missions. The model features a split air wing comprising navalised T-50 PAKFAs and MiG-29Ks, as well as jet-powered naval early warning aircraft, and Ka-27 naval helicopters.
The carrier's flight deck is of a dual design, features an angled flight deck, and four launching positions: two via ski-jump ramps and two via electromagnetic catapults. One set of arrestor gear is included in the design. The design also features two islands; a feature only previously seen on the latest UK design.
Protection against air threats will be provided by four anti-aircraft missile system combat modules. An anti-torpedo armament suite is available.
The electronic support complex includes integrated sensors, including a multifunction phased array radar, electronic warfare system, and communications suite.
Polyakov pointed out that these specifications are subject to change, correction, and modification during the ship's design and development at every stage of work, once potential customers come up with a demand to change the weapons package and equipment.
And to be honest, a Mistral analog would be better than a single big CV. The Russian's don't have the logistics network to support long range deployments and they can't beat the USN (at all). A ship like a mistral, say with knock off Harriers or even just helicopters is a lot more useful in the day to day term than a single super carrier would be.sferrin said:They can't even build their own Mistral analog and they think they're going to turn out one of these anytime soon? ???