And now, for something entirely different.
First impressions: An interesting video, in that “not-quite-right” kind of way. I guess it’s what you get used to. The only thing wronger than that strange transition at the opener – did Russian archers really show that much thigh in battle? – was the flight deck crewman taxiing the Su-33 around without a float coat or cranial.
Pretty impressive pitch pulse capability with the canards. I have to wonder at all that slow speed maneuvering with the speed brake out. I’d be more impressed by the deck run capability and jump ramp if I didn’t know that the Flanker pilot has to download fuel and ordnance to make it happen. I guess you can get more fuel once airborne – the probe should be on the right side, by the way – but it’s harder to onload weapons once the wheels have left the deck.
Speaking of which, with a flight deck that small, cyclic operations are going to be a treat. Kuznetsov carries between 17 and 20 fixed wing aircraft to go with a dozen or so helicopters. Twelve to fifteen of those fixed wing are the Su-33s. Operating anywhere close to shore in a contested battle space they’ll have to run a minimum of three two-ship CAPs, six aircraft plus at least one tanker up front to give them some loiter time. Half of the ship’s outer air defense capability is airborne on the first launch, with half left on deck to replace them – this is problematical.
(This assumes that each of the 15 possible Flankers on the ship is in an up status and on the roof, which would be a marvel, airplanes break and anyway I’m not seeing room on that deck for fifteen 70,000 pound fighters.)
Let’s make a few assumptions and do some back of the napkin math: Empty weight for the Flanker is 40.6k pounds, “loaded weight” is 66k, and max take-off weight is nearly 73k. Assuming loaded weight is what’s used for the deck run, that leaves us roughly 26k worth of pilot, fuel and stores. Figure four hundred pounds for a pair of short range missiles and somewhere between a thousand and two thousand pounds of medium range missiles, another thousand pounds or so for the hanging hardware, that leaves us between 2.4 to 3.4k worth of stores on a minimally loaded air defense platform, and 23.6 – 24.6k of fuel. With a maximum load of 14.3k of external ordnance you’re down to 11.7k pounds of fuel.
Splitting the difference between the minimally loaded jet and one “loaded for bear” yields 6k of stores and roughly 20k of fuel. Each engine puts out 16k pounds of static thrust, about 60% higher than a GE F404 engine, with commensurately higher fuel flow – nothing comes for free – call it roughly 8000 pounds of jet fuel being burned per hour at max endurance. With a minimum of 4k of fuel kept in reserve for a day recovery, that’s 16,000 pounds of gas or 2 hours of flight time (20k of initial gas – 4k landing reserve / 8000 pph average).
We can extend that time by tanking, so if you’ve got a Flanker configured as a mission tanker carrying nothing but gas and the refueling store (1000 pounds at a guess), he’s got 25k to give, minus his own recovery fuel. Call it 20k, or roughly 3.5k for each fighter manning a CAP. That fuel is delivered at 290 gallons per minute, or 2000 pounds per minute, which sounds pretty high to me, but let’s take Sukhoi’s marketing at face value. That gives them another 26 minutes of flight time, and we’re up to 2.4 hours of flight time or 146 minutes.
Let’s make some more assumptions about max endurance speed and call it 280 knots. Spend ten minutes getting airborne and 15 minutes getting everyone their gas (transfer time plus rendezvous), that leaves 111 minutes of there and back time, minus 10 minutes to organize and execute the recovery, roughly 100 minutes of useful tactical time.
If all a fighter does is touch CAP and return – 50 minutes each way – that position is roughly 250 miles from the ship. If he wants to loiter for at least 30 minutes – let’s leave combat time out of the equation for simplicity’s sake – that leaves 70 minutes of transit time, 35 each way and his station is 150-170 miles from the Kuznetsov.
What does all this add up to?
Say the first launch of the day is scheduled for 1200. The six CAP aircraft and their tanker are fully airborne by 1210 and tanking complete at around 1225. They get to station at around 1300 or so, CAP for 30 minutes until 1330 when they are relieved on station by the second launch. The first wave of Flankers is back overhead Kuznetsov at 1355 or so and the recovery takes 10 minutes – 1405, or right around a 2.1 mission time.
In order to relieve them on station – otherwise they’d leave a gap in the airborne defense grid – the second sortie has the same launch, rendezvous, tank and transit constraints as did the first: 10 minutes to get airborne, 15 minutes getting gas and another 35 minutes getting to CAP – 60 minutes. That means they started launching from Kuznetsov to relieve the first sortie at 1230. The first wave’s tanker was mission complete with his package at 1225, and has to land after the second launch – he can’t get back on deck in time without disrupting the 1230 go. That means that the second launch of six has to have its own dedicated mission tanker, leaving no gas overhead for the first recovery if things go south. We’ve now accounted for 14 of the 15 possible Flankers in the air wing.
I hope the maintenance guys know their job.
The second wave of six Flankers relieved the first on CAP at 1330 and needs to head home at 1400 after their 30 minutes of loiter time is complete. Which means the first launch has to be refueled, repaired (if necessary) and re-armed (if applicable) and launched again at 1300 – an hour before they recovered from the first sortie.
And that, mes amis, is the difference between having 44 strike fighters on a ship and 15-17.
You can launch two CAPs instead of three, or leave some ordnance behind in favor of fuel to extend your on-station time, but it still ends up looking like a self-licking ice cream cone to me.
Or maybe the Russians don’t do cyclic.
Lex:
Very nice breakdown of the numbers. I remember flying collection on Minsk back in the late 70′s; which means the Soviets/Russians have been at this for roughly 30 years and thus far, with the big hiatus after the collapse of the Empire, and now the baby steps back to sea, I’m not convinced their hearts are really in this game. When I hear the PLAN is talking carrier ops “soon,” I can’t help but wonder what their learning curve will be. This stuff ain’t easy.
Permission to link to this over on AVSIG?
VR,
Comjam
Yah, sure. Prolly could use the QC on my maths.
Lex:
Posted; it we interesting to see what responses we get. Bob Heisner and Bruce Gorrell are the other two carrier bubbas there, their take will be worth looking at. There is an occasional participant from the Russian Far East. English is his third language so sometimes things are lost in translation going both ways. My first WAG is, based on the scenario posited, your numbers look about right. Tim has a point about what is the intended employment scenario of their Air Wing assets.
VR,
Comjam
Maths? With an ‘s’ on the end? Lex, all the Australians on the blog are getting to you. If this keeps up you’ll soon be in the kitchen asking La Hobbit for a tomahto or a banahna….
From my own personal observations of the Soviet, er, Russian ops, they prolly are gonna launch everything and keep 2 birds on deck for point defense. They’d depend upon their emitters and sensors to detect hostiles inbound, use their SAMs to provide the first layer of defense from the piquet boats, and launch the 2 fighters to deal with anything that got past the SAMs and guns.
Many of the old fleet were “one & done” type of vessels. No reloads on the main missile and ASW armaments. Once they launched, they either stayed around to draw fire or headed back home for more ordnance.
Lex,
Having come to my present place in commercial aviation, I read your cycle summary with a thought of comparing it to operating the air cargo superhubs. Althought the stakes are different, much of the thinking about aircraft airborne inbound, time on the ground, servicing requirements and departing with max payload on time to make final destination go hand in hand with your analysis. Fluing around with un-utlized capacity and cargo on the ground is a mortal sin in business.
There are a fixed number of available assets, fixed amount of ramp, fixed support equipment and many variables like volume of freight, weather, parallel approaches, surface connections, etc. The “network” ballet goes on 24 hours a day six days a week. The important issues in commercial air are “Fly safely, operate within 15 minutes of schedule 95% cumulative on-time including controllable delays, and do it all within budget.
A typical air hub (SDF, MEM, CVG, ONT, OAK, PHL, EWR, RFD, CMH, DFW) in the U.S. has large aircraft over 300,000 lbs max gross meeting mid and small feeder aircraft. The coreographed steps (down to the minute) are assembled by the Airline Planning Group and executed by Airline Operations. At UPS Airline Planning is a function of the Industrial Engineering Group. I.E. at UPS take thier jobs very seriously.
Bottom line, we have similar motivations to get it right, be on time and watch what our competitors do very closely as the airline that has the better mousetrap (more productive use of assets, lower unit costs, better cabin load optimization, less delays, more throughput without increased manpower) ends up making money and ultimately offers more job security.
was the flight deck crewman taxiing the Su-33 around without a float coat or cranial?
Draftees are free. Good equipment cost money.
Пожалуйста
Quick question: how does the BVR engagement capability of the Flanker compare to that of the Super Hornet? (And as a natural extension of that, which is the superior aircraft?)
Ah, the answer to that is “42.”
Gee..thanks for all the fish…
This is hardly relevant in a post-reset world. We need to know which has the smaller carbon footprint.
I’m sure if we don’t, ALBore will make sure we will.
Reading about their carrier in Wiki, it says 2 tugs normally are in trail of the mother ship in case it breaks down. Is there an airborne equivilant of “tow tugs”?
“two tugs” Capn, I miss your editing option!
pdxjim,
They’re called “plane guard” helos. Flight crew and one or two swimmers, and a hoist operator to haul them all back in.
сорок два back at you, Lex. Very good, 7.5 million years, huh? I guess we won’t be seeing your answer anytime soon then.
Geez Pete, ya make me yearn for my old cyrillic keyboard.
I would not underestimate the PLAN’s ability to operate carriers. We like to say that the USN has 80 years of carrier experience…but it would be more accurate to say that we have 20 years worth, repeated 4 times. And half of that the Chinese can pick up from watching TV, downloading unclassified manuals, and hiring consultants.
It took the USN less than ten years to go from starting air ops aboard USS Langley in the 920s to having a useful operational capability in Lexington and Saratoga. I see no reason why the PLAN can’t do it.
As to the Russians, I would not be surprised if their CONOPS was to use the Kusnetsov in concert with a Kirov or two. SA-N-6 as the primary air defense, SS-N-19 for antiship attack, the air wing for long range attack and defense. The Soviet Navy did not mirror the USN.
Is no one going to mention the CRAZY ramp at the end of the bow cats? Or the fact that the jet looks like it’s barely moving when it ran off it?
JG, that is a ‘ski jump’, helps get the right angle of attack off the deck with power available from a tethered start. RN FAA invented ‘ski jump’ for Harriers (without a tethered start runup seen in the video). Having nozzles set for the attitude off the ‘ski jump’ really helps performance compared to a level deck launch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-33
‘Nozzles set’ refers to RN Harrier ops only, it seems early on the Su-33 may have planned to have thrust vectoring but does not now. I miss ‘edit’.
It did not look to me like there were any “bow cat(apult)s” at all. It apepared that the combination of the aircraft’s high thrust to weight ratio, high angle of attack, and the vertical velocity induced by the ramp itself was sufficient to be able to sustain a climb off the end of the deck.
It’s generally considered that thrust plus lift must equal mass multiplied by gravity for an aircraft to stay airborne. The Ramp really doesn’t add a lot to this save converting some velocity to altitude. Had the ramp not been there the aircraft would have sunk below sight then been hopefully seen rising later.
Question is if there’d been enough height to recover from without the ramp.
I’ve a silly question on the ramp, though — the landing gear is going from compressed to fully-extended-no-force-on-it in about a tenth of a second. Generally when designing shock absorbers and such for a carrier plane one worries solely about compression forces, landing the thing on the deck in a controlled crash.
Wonder what that ski ramp is doing to landing gear parts that wasn’t found in other navies?
– Max
I’m guessing that the hydraulic metering tube in the strut works as effectively in reverse to provide the same kind of buffer on extension as it would on compression.
Takeoff [Ski Jump] Ramp Compatibility: “An aircraft performing a ramp-assisted STO experiences an increased normal load factor, the result of centripetal acceleration applied as the aircraft traverses the curved ramp. While the benefit to aircraft takeoff performance is predominantly a function of the inclination angle at ramp exit, the load on the aircraft is a function of the ramp’s radius of curvature, coupled with the geometry and dynamics of the aircraft landing gear…. However, changes in ramp profile that lessen its radius of curvature, such as an increase in exit angle for a fixed-length ramp, or a decrease in the length of a ramp with the same exit angle, may cause the STO ramp takeoff to become the most severe ground load contributor. Future ships incorporating ramps should account not just for takeoff performance benefits added by the ramp, but also for the impact of added ground loads on any aircraft to use the ramp. Use of high fidelity aircraft simulations would allow the ramp profile to be “tuned” for a particular launch scenario, such that the ramp design maximizes aircraft performance gain while minimizing the impact of added ground loads.”
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 (1Mb) page 6
Tests were done (Lakehurst?) with Hornets and ski jumps early on with good results. USMC does not use ski jumps because USN says no. USMC pilots like ski jumps though. Yes there is no catapult. The ‘tether’ refers to the blocks under the wheels of the Su-33 that allow it to wind up to full power before going along and up the ski jump. Ski Jumps are used in other Harrier force navies because they work so well. A lot is gained from their use. An old but interesting read here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Hancock.htm
USMC Harrier jumps for joy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:YAV-8B_Harrier_testing_a_ski_jump.jpg
Go to page: http://tiny.cc/GqjXw
Click on “See First Page” and a PDF page will open up with information about testing, I don’t have full PDF.
“CTOL Ski Jump: Analysis, Simulation, and Flight Test” John W. Clark Jr.* and Marvin M. Walterst Naval Air Development Center, Warminster, Pennsylvania “In the past several years, the ski-jump (ramp-assisted)launch concept has received considerable attention within the U.S. Navy. The specific goal was set (and achieved) to demonstrate through flight test the feasibility of, and quantify performance gains from, ski-jump launch of the T-2C, F-14A, and F/A-18A aircraft using a 100-ft ramp with variable end angles of 6 and 9 degs. The analysis, piloted simulation, performance predictions, and flight safety considerations leading to flight test, as well as a compari-son of analytical predictions with flight test results for the three aircraft, are discussed. The developed analytical capability, although somewhat conservative, proved to be highly effective in preparation for, and support of, the flight test and in successfully predicting the 40-60% reduction in takeoff distance demonstration in flight test.”
“26 September 1983 – The first takeoffs of an F/A-18 Hornet from a ski-jump ramp were conducted at NAS Patuxent River, Md. The tests were part of an evaluation of conventional jet aircraft using an upward curved ramp to shorten takeoff roll.” http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/PART11.PDF (page 10)
Admittedly these eyes ain’t what they used to be, but does anyone see an LSO platform when the end shot shows the Su-33 trapping? Come to think of it, there weren’t a lot of guys on the flight deck that seemed to be directors, etc. Did notice tilley crane in front of island tho.
Lex’ figuring leads one to think they are not really serious with this naval aviation thing and controlling a large battlespace. Maybe more akin to Marines/Harriers in the littorals. Any way, time for that old Navy tradition – cross deck pollination. “lock it, chock it, chain it, I’m off to get a slider, ugh no wait, a brat and a beer”.
Got right into it reading your analysis. Very nice. Though not bad for a “novice nation” as Mike points out.
Just to humor me- please insert Superhornet (all three varieties) for the word Flanker and it will crystalize that I’ve been using the same analysis about our own Naval Aviation of today for years in/about these pages. The same one of three rule we also live with…Nothing is more important than hoses in the air.
Thankfully though, we can still whip ‘em! Mainly, because “ours” are bigger enabling more aircraft, we have E-2s (real early warning) and 80 years of legacy learned the hard way..
b2
OT, but not. I think this has a lot to do with leadership and Naval Aviation. Take away your own lessons.
xformed/
ROTFLMAOPIMP!! I consider you a blood-brother forever for that link! And what a great, dry, slyly clinical narrative! Does the fact that I’m a rumhead who savors Barbancourt 5-Star Haitian Rum as my favorite drink mean that I and my like-minded rum-soaked friends are one step closer to the apes than the rest of you? (Don’t ans that, my wife doesn’t need ANY more ammo to confirm her already well-formed and long held opinions!)
I’m a bit partial to Pussers, myself. neat, with a splash of lime juice.
Bombay Saphirre gin, splash of tonic, sliver of lime peel, repeat as necessary, stop only when glass can no long find the target.
Thanks, coming from an AF guy (got one in the family and my dad was AAC) to a “Shoe” on a Naval Aviators forum, I consider that a high compliment! Now if can get past my 28 years of handling landings by myself to the tune of 1274 times not trusting the pilot that got me up there…
Hey, VX — your choice of rhum puts you in some pretty tall cotton:
Nuthin’ but the best for you men of wealth and taste.
SCOTT/
Tis a very good drink indeed. Always KNEW there was a reason I liked ‘ole Jimmy.
It’s double distilled in copper pots like Cognac–should really drink it that way neat in a cognac snifter–it’s a very smooth but heavy “rhum.” Although you certainly can mix it–even for cuba libras. They make a “3-Star” also, which isn’t quite as heavy, but very similar in taste. (and, obviously, somewhat easier on the bank account.) My favorite White is a Jamaican rum, Appleton White. Ron Rico used to be a cheap substitute for Bacardi taste-wise, but it’s almost as costly now. Probably the best compromise for taste and price in the whites is “Rum Matusalem” (from the Spanish) originally distilled in Cuba but now produced in the Dominican Republic. A really nice rum for the price–only trouble is that it’s not widely avail.
Bwahahahahaha!!!!!!!
No wonder guys like monkeys!
I think it’s safe to say that comparing specific aircraft performance, ie. Flanker vs. Rhino, etc., is moot in the face of tactical and operational force capabilities.
More birds in the air, more eyes on the sky, and in the end the bigger threat is information dominance and how much money we owe China.
p.s. Russians do make lovely planes though…
I hope this thread isn’t too stale – it’s a shame I rarely get online on weekends.
Interesting number crunching, Lex, and I wholly concur, IF the Russian conduct of carrier operations is predicated on the same basic assumptions as is USN CV ops.
The Russians could be planning on turning the fleet air defense role over primarily to escort ships, with limited air support. That would free up more aircraft for attack or other roles. I don’t think that’s a good plan, but, it could be what the Russians would do based on the limited air wing. They may plan on using picket ships or helicopter based AEW to try to get attack warning, and then surge part of the air group for fleet air defense – a rather high risk proposition, indeed.
It’s interesting to observe the development of Soviet/Russian aircraft carriers. The Moskva class helicopter carriers were not very successful, nor were the Kiev class. Both were very compromised designs. This first pass at a true CV is also compromised – I wonder if the Russians had a problem developing steam catapults, and so went with the ramp, despite the performance penalty?
All in all, I think the Kuznetsov is largely a ceremonial flagship with only marginal real world utility. Sort of like the single carriers various 3rd world nations keep. Having one carrier is only slightly better than having none – it’s very likely it won’t be available when you need it. The old 3:1 ratio is almost a law of nature, and is the reason I view the steady dimunition of our carrier fleet with alot of worry.
Larry/
Tell me if I’m wrong, but it seems to this AF guy that we ourselves have gone the Soviet/Russian route by standing down the fleet air defense F-14s w. their long-range Phoenix multi-track capability and leaving everything (pretty much, practically) to SAMs carried by Frigates, DDLGs and Aegis Cruisers, n’cest pas? All in an effort to get more offensive punch from the additional Super Hornets the freed-up deck space allows. Or am I wrong?
VX, you’ll get little disagreement from me. I feel comfortable stating that the fleet air defense mission has atrophied with the retirement of the Tomcats, but I am not so certain in my opinion that someone with better knowledge couldn’t argue that F-18E/Fs are up to the job.
It would take some convincing, though. The Super Hornet is too short legged. And, if you crank Lex’s numbers, including aircraft down for maintenance, tanker failures, etc., our current 40-aircraft air wings would have trouble doing much else besides defending the ship. And that’s sort of surgical logic for having a carrier.
Nice to see boys in light blue around here.
Or, circular logic. Your choice.
Larry, times change, tactics change, weapons systems change, etc. You get my point. Some things are better left unsaid. It isn’t as if your questions and/or assumptions haven’t been asked and answered. Suffice it to say the CSG today is very capable of defending itself on many fronts.
Lex, they just do not have enough pilots to man the amount of ac that will warrant concerns based on your calculations. Currently, there are only 30 pilots in the country who are capable of driving STVOL ac.
Loved the monkey video LOL