The New Kuznetsov

[Feanor]

The Admiral Kuznetsov will be going into long term refit and modernization allegedly from 2012 to 2017. This is roughly the same time period in which the new MiG-29K are supposed to enter service with the AVMF, and the new training ground for carrier pilots in the NCMD is to be completed. The weapon systems and electronics of the ship will be replaced entirely. The air-wing is also expected to increase. However it's unclear whether this increase will simply replace the lost airframes (in terms of numbers, as the Su-33 squadron started out with 24 but is now down to 19) or whether this will mean changes to the superstructure to allow it to accommodate a larger air wing.

Lenta.ru lists it as being able to carry 26 Su-33 or MiG-29K fighters, as well as 24 helos, which is different from what it carries right now (12 Su-33, 5 Su-25UTG/UBP, and 24 helos). It's possible that a mistake was made in the numbers by the newspaper.

Lenta.ru: Îðóæèå: Åäèíñòâåííûé ðîññèéñêèé àâèàíîñåö ïðîéäåò ìîäåðíèçàöèþ

It's possible that the new systems on it will serve as prototypes for a new indigenous carrier program, which is supposed to start in 2012. Or it may be an indicator that this program has ran into trouble, and the refit is meant to keep the Kuznetsov relevant longer then originally planned.

 

[PhysicsMan]

The Admiral Kuznetsov will be going into long term refit and modernization allegedly from 2012 to 2017. This is roughly the same time period in which the new MiG-29K are supposed to enter service with the AVMF, and the new training ground for carrier pilots in the NCMD is to be completed. The weapon systems and electronics of the ship will be replaced entirely. The air-wing is also expected to increase. However it's unclear whether this increase will simply replace the lost airframes (in terms of numbers, as the Su-33 squadron started out with 24 but is now down to 19) or whether this will mean changes to the superstructure to allow it to accommodate a larger air wing.

Lenta.ru lists it as being able to carry 26 Su-33 or MiG-29K fighters, as well as 24 helos, which is different from what it carries right now (12 Su-33, 5 Su-25UTG/UBP, and 24 helos). It's possible that a mistake was made in the numbers by the newspaper.

Lenta.ru: Îðóæèå: Åäèíñòâåííûé ðîññèéñêèé àâèàíîñåö ïðîéäåò ìîäåðíèçàöèþ

It's possible that the new systems on it will serve as prototypes for a new indigenous carrier program, which is supposed to start in 2012. Or it may be an indicator that this program has ran into trouble, and the refit is meant to keep the Kuznetsov relevant longer then originally planned.

It's possible that it's not a coincidence that the Mistral purchase coincides with the timing on this refit and maybe the start of the new carrier program. They may be looking into studying the French systems before building their own for the carriers (different ships but some technology should be relevant).

 

[tphuang]

The Admiral Kuznetsov will be going into long term refit and modernization allegedly from 2012 to 2017. This is roughly the same time period in which the new MiG-29K are supposed to enter service with the AVMF, and the new training ground for carrier pilots in the NCMD is to be completed. The weapon systems and electronics of the ship will be replaced entirely. The air-wing is also expected to increase. However it's unclear whether this increase will simply replace the lost airframes (in terms of numbers, as the Su-33 squadron started out with 24 but is now down to 19) or whether this will mean changes to the superstructure to allow it to accommodate a larger air wing.

Lenta.ru lists it as being able to carry 26 Su-33 or MiG-29K fighters, as well as 24 helos, which is different from what it carries right now (12 Su-33, 5 Su-25UTG/UBP, and 24 helos). It's possible that a mistake was made in the numbers by the newspaper.

Lenta.ru: Îðóæèå: Åäèíñòâåííûé ðîññèéñêèé àâèàíîñåö ïðîéäåò ìîäåðíèçàöèþ

It's possible that the new systems on it will serve as prototypes for a new indigenous carrier program, which is supposed to start in 2012. Or it may be an indicator that this program has ran into trouble, and the refit is meant to keep the Kuznetsov relevant longer then originally planned.

it would actually make sense for China and Russia to cooperate when it comes to revamping Kuznetsov and Varyag, but obviously it's not going to happen.

 

[Feanor]

Obviously. Though in that cooperation China would be the junior partner in most areas. I suspect the Varyag will be complete befote the Kuznetsov.

 

[SkolZkiy]

Varyag won't be ready as a battleship anytime.

Some people surpose that VMF would like to put off Granit from Kuznetsov, redesign angar, put catapult (there is place for it under deck) and refresh its engines or may be put new. Of course change some board systems, may be put S-400F Fort. All these to test systems of perpective AC.

 

[Feanor]

So do something like the Gorshkov refit to the Kuznetsov? Turn it from an aircraft carrying cruiser into a small aircraft carrier? How many more aircraft do you think it could carry?

 

[Wall83]

So do something like the Gorshkov refit to the Kuznetsov? Turn it from an aircraft carrying cruiser into a small aircraft carrier? How many more aircraft do you think it could carry?

I woudnt call a refited Kuznetsov carrier for a small aircraft carrier. It would be something between a Charles de Gaulle carrier and a Queen Elizabeth class carrier.

 

[tphuang]

I woudnt call a refited Kuznetsov carrier for a small aircraft carrier. It would be something between a Charles de Gaulle carrier and a Queen Elizabeth class carrier.

problem with Kuznetsov class is that even though it is a very large carrier, it does not actually carry that many aircraft. I don't know what they will do to increase the hangar space, but we will see. As mentioned earlier, it's quite possible this will help the Russians' future carrier projects like Varyag is doing for China right now.

 

[Feanor]

The hangar is being increased. That has been confirmed. Probably by removing the Shipwrecks.

 

[SkolZkiy]

It is possible that Granit system would be withdraw from Kuznetsov. Also measures of redesign of hangar and installing more compact different systems.
Also there is a place for catapults - they were planned to be put. Also MiG-29K is smaller then Flanker.

 

[Feanor]

And it has been decided. Russia will purchase 26 MiG-29K for the VMF. The first two will arrive this year, the rest will be delivered over 2011-12. Granted that Su-33 service life expires in 2015, and that it's planned to be extended to 2025, this creates a strange situation where both types will be in service.

Lenta.ru: Îðóæèå: ÂÌÔ Ðîññèè êóïèò 26 èñòðåáèòåëåé ÌèÃ-29Ê

 

[SkolZkiy]

of course - 20+ of Su-33 and 26 MiG-29K - it is full airwing of Kuznetsov + Ka-31 and Ka-27PL\PS

 

[Feanor]

I would be very surprised if the new Kuznetsov will be able to carry 19 Su-33 and 26 MiG-29K. I suspect the 26 will be a complete airwing. Possibly a 24 airwing, with two KUB for training. The extra planes may be retained in case the carrier program does get some go-ahead.

 

[Bonza]

And it has been decided. Russia will purchase 26 MiG-29K for the VMF. The first two will arrive this year, the rest will be delivered over 2011-12. Granted that Su-33 service life expires in 2015, and that it's planned to be extended to 2025, this creates a strange situation where both types will be in service.

Lenta.ru: Îðóæèå: ÂÌÔ Ðîññèè êóïèò 26 èñòðåáèòåëåé ÌèÃ-29Ê

Good news - it seems to me that the 29K is more suited for operating off smaller carriers than the Sukhoi. Why was it decided to go with the SU-33 rather than the MiG-29K in the 1980s? I've heard quite a lot about Sukhoi's political clout having an effect on procurement, was the carrier fighter situation an example of that? From what I understand the SU-33 has problems taking off with heavy fuel/weapons loads, is this still an issue with the MiG? It seems to be an area in which the MiG would have an advantage, but I don't know enough about Russian carrier ops to say.

 

[tphuang]

Good news - it seems to me that the 29K is more suited for operating off smaller carriers than the Sukhoi. Why was it decided to go with the SU-33 rather than the MiG-29K in the 1980s? I've heard quite a lot about Sukhoi's political clout having an effect on procurement, was the carrier fighter situation an example of that? From what I understand the SU-33 has problems taking off with heavy fuel/weapons loads, is this still an issue with the MiG? It seems to be an area in which the MiG would have an advantage, but I don't know enough about Russian carrier ops to say.

I don't see how Mig-29K could ever have better range * payload than su-33. So, it's a choice between getting quantity vs quality when it comes down to equipping Mig-29K or Su-33. Of course, the other issue is that Mig-29K would be more easily maintained and cost effective for Russia, since India is also operating it. Whereas for su-33, they'd have to reopen its production line, which costs a lot of money.

 

[harryriedl]

any idea if their planning to do anything with the chronically unreliable power plant as I would consider that more important than changing the hanger is dealing with a plant thats caused no end of problems since the Moskva class. It dose use a derivative doesn't it?

 

[Feanor]

I don't see how Mig-29K could ever have better range * payload than su-33. So, it's a choice between getting quantity vs quality when it comes down to equipping Mig-29K or Su-33. Of course, the other issue is that Mig-29K would be more easily maintained and cost effective for Russia, since India is also operating it. Whereas for su-33, they'd have to reopen its production line, which costs a lot of money.

Actually all they would need to do is overhaul and modernize the existing fleet. Purchasing the MiG-29K is the more expensive solution. Politics again come into play, as MiG was basically promised the purchase, and is desperately in need of additional orders. Also if the AVMF buys it, then maybe India will choose it as the fighter for it's indigenous carrier program. It also lowers production costs, and keep production lines open for the Mig-35 (as the MiG-29K is the precursor to the MiG-35 in terms of the technology and equipment). Finally if in the long term the VMF does get more carriers like it wants to, then a production line would have to be opened, and the MiG-29K is already open.

 

[Bonza]

I don't see how Mig-29K could ever have better range * payload than su-33. So, it's a choice between getting quantity vs quality when it comes down to equipping Mig-29K or Su-33. Of course, the other issue is that Mig-29K would be more easily maintained and cost effective for Russia, since India is also operating it. Whereas for su-33, they'd have to reopen its production line, which costs a lot of money.

Sorry, I should have worded that differently. I'm sure the SU-33 retains a fuel and payload advantage over the 29K, what I meant was that, if the SU-33 can't take off from the carrier with a full load, does this advantage disappear? Or, considering the relative weights of the airframes, can an SU-33 with fuel and payload limited by maximum practical takeoff weight accomplish as much as a fully loaded 29K (assuming the MiG can take off at maximum weight)? And if there isn't much difference between them, is a load of 29Ks more practical in terms of deck/hanger space (being substantially smaller than the Sukhoi), or maintenance (being newer airframes) and so forth.

Thanks for the responses Feanor and Tphuang, Russian carrier ops are a mystery to me.

 

[SkolZkiy]

And who said that Su-33 could not take off from tramplin fully loaded?? thearetically it can. I have no proof for real flights but by math and physics it can

 

[SkolZkiy]

Расчет взлета Су-33 с взлетным весом 32000 кг с первой / второй стартовой позиции ТАКР «Кузнецов».



Взлет с трамплина делится на четыре участка:
горизонтальный участок – 60 метров (позиции 1 и 2), 150 метров (позиция 3),
трамплин – 45 м (радиус трамплина ~ 160 метров),
баллистический участок 95 - 100 метров,
пологое планирование 350 – 610 метров.


Разгон - 105 метров, ускорение – 4 м/с.кв, форсаж, 2 х 12500 кгс = 25000 кгс., сопротивление среднее ~ 6250 кгс.

Время разбега: t = кв.корень(2s / a) = кв.корень (2*105/4) = 7.25 сек.

Скорость в момент отрыва: Vt = Vo + at = 0 + 4 * 7.25 = 29 м/с (104 км/ч)

Импульс 32 т * 29 м/с = 928 т*м/с

После отрыва от трамплина на самолет действуют следующие силы, положительные (направленные вверх): тяга двигателей Рф*sin 14 град = 6 т

подъёмная сила крыла Су = 1.1 (на 10% больше Су-27), Y = 3.58 т. (скорость 29 м/с)



Отрицательные силы: вес самолета 32 т,

Отрицательный момент: 32 – (6 + 3.58) = 22,42 т/сек.



928 т*м/с : 22,42 т/с = 41,39 метров – дистанция до верхней точки горки.

Высота верхней точки «горки»: 22.2 м + (sin 14 град. * 41,39 м) = 32.2 метров над уровнем моря.

Время прихода в верхнюю точку «горки» (дистанция 105 + 41.4 = 146.4 м) - 8.55 сек., скорость – 34.22 м/с ( 123 км/ч).



Взлет считается завершенным когда Y = m взл., то есть подъемная сила крыла будет равняться 32000 кг, это произойдет на скорости 86.6 м/с (312 км/ч).

Соответственно «пологое планирование» составит: 21.65 сек (весь взлет) – 8.55 сек (горка) = 13.1 сек. Полная взлетная дистанция - 937 метров, планирование – 791 метра.



Расчет участка «планирования».

Середина участка: 60 (палуба) + 45 (трамплин) + 41.39 (горка) + 396 м = 540 м.



На горке имеем следующие «положительные» силы:

Вертикальная тяга двигателей: Pф * sin 14 град = 6 т

Подъемная сила крыла (скорость 43.3 м/с, Су = 1.1) – 8 тонн.

«Отрицательная» сила – вес самолета – 32 тонны

32 – 6 – 8 = 18 т/сек. Ускорение снижения 32 т / 14 т = 2.29 м/с.



На середине участка планирования:

Вертикальная тяга двигателей – 6 тонн,

Подъемная сила крыла (дистанция 540 м, время 16.4 сек., скорость 69.5 м/с) – 20.589 тонн.

«Отрицательная» сила – вес самолета – 32 тонны, сопротивление Сх = 0.26, Х = 4866 кг.

a = (9.81(P*cos a – X – F)) / G = (9.81 ( 25000 * cos 14 град – 4866 кг)) / 32000 = 5.94 м/с кв.

Время пролета от горки до середины участка планирования 11.5 сек, скорость – 69 м/с. Время пролета участка планирования – 13.5 сек. Ускорение снижения 32 т / (20.589 + 6) = -1.2 м/с.



Су-33 находясь на высоте «горки» (32.2 м) начинает терять высоту со средним темпом 1.2 м/с.

За время пролёта «участка планирования» он потеряет 13.5 * 1.2 = 16.2 метров. То есть взлет будет завершен на высоте 32.2 – 16.2 = 16 метров над уровнем моря.

На основании чего смею предположить что Су-33 с максимальным взлетным весом 32 тонны может уверенно взлететь с первой и второй стартовой позиции при скорости встречного ветра не менее 5 – 10 м/с.



То есть, расчет показывает что на форсаже Су-33 может взлететь с максимальным взлетным весом с первой и второй стартовой позиции, аналогичное можно сказать и про Су-33КУБ, МиГ-29 и даже Як-44. В условиях мирного времени взлет осуществляется с третьей стартовой позиции, очевидно с целью компенсировать отказ одного двигателя. В тоже время взлет Су-33 на максимальном режиме работы двигателей на основании расчета невозможен, даже нормальный выход в верхнюю точку горки не компенсирует серьезную потерю высоты на участке планирования.

I'm sorry that in Russian but I have no time to translate it properly.
here is link
Ñó-33 / Ñó-33ÊÓÁ

Here is calculations of possibility of Su-33 to start from 1 and 2 starting points