Read the forum code of contact
By: - 20th April 2004 at 20:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Like your page !
By: - 20th April 2004 at 20:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wasn't something like 60% of the Ulyanovsk completed before she was scrapped at the end of the Cold War? If so, a real pity. Would've liked to see her.
By: - 20th April 2004 at 20:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
nevermind, only 40% done according to hazegray.
By: - 20th April 2004 at 21:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
On the proposed MiG 23 K - any idea if the dual ventral fins were present - if present were they folding or fixed as shown in the naval variant redesign of the MiG 23 A?
Is that an IRST fixture forward of the redesigned 23K canopy? Any chance of a 3view line drawing of this proposed variant?
Were the catapults steam powered?
By: - 20th April 2004 at 22:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
> according to hazegray
I found hazegray to be totally out of date and unreliable wrt
indian navy, so I wouldnt trust it for anything outside of the USN.
its better to seek out people who are really interested in their
own countries' navies and see what websites they follow.
By: - 20th April 2004 at 22:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
problem with that is the possible lack of objectiveness.
interesting diagram. however, with a ship that size, would a ski-jump really be needed?
By: - 21st April 2004 at 02:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agree about Hazegray, it hasn't been updated in a while now. :(
Nice Page Ken, and I guess it is no real surprise that the ASW Beriev P-42 is nearly a carbon copy of the S-3. Much like the Yak-44 is to the E-2.
Wasn't the super carrier development for the Soviet navy part of the Brezhnev Doctrine?
By: - 21st April 2004 at 04:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
> possible lack of objectiveness.
andrew toppan imo isnt very objective about anything outside
his beloved USN. not a surprise since I believe he works at
a naval design bureau somewhere.
he usually speaks very highly of US and UK ships and treats the
rest like crap.
By: - 21st April 2004 at 12:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
is said possible. the example u gave is a good example of who someone can be biased even if he knows his stuff.
By: - 21st April 2004 at 13:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Speaking of catapults: (statement issued 05Apr2004 by GA)
General Atomics (GA) announces the award of a 5-year, $145-million contract with the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division for the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS).
GA recently completed the 4-year, $80 million Program Definition and Risk Reduction (PDRR) phase of the EMALS program, for which there were two competing contractors. After testing GA's full-scale equipment on a half-length launcher at the Naval Air Warfare Center at Lakehurst, NJ, the Navy selected GA to continue alone with the SDD phase.
EMALS will replace the existing steam-driven catapults, providing a revolutionary advance in carrier launch operations. The GA team's design will provide significant reductions in workload. It will be less stressful to the aircrew and aircraft; and will require significantly less maintenance and onboard personnel, with correspondingly greatly reduced life-cycle costs. The EMALS system's first deployment will be on the next-generation carrier, the CVN-21.
The GA team comprises GA affiliates General Atomics Electronic Systems, Inc. and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.; along with John J. McMullen Associates, Inc.; Kato Engineering; Foster-Miller, Inc.; Titan Pulse Sciences Division; STV, Inc.; and the University of Texas, Center for Electromechanics.
The EMALS Program is being carried out in GA's Electromagnetic Systems (EMS) Division, which currently has several projects aimed at increasing electrical functionality aboard Navy ships. These projects include Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG), Integrated Fight-Through Power (IFTP), Superconducting DC Homopolar Motor, and Electromagnetic Railguns. Mike Reed, Vice President, EMS Division, states, "Our team is thrilled with the award of the EMALS SDD phase contract and at having the opportunity to place this major advanced electric EMALS system on the next-generation carrier. We appreciate the significance of changing this vital aircraft launch system from steam to electric and we are fully committed to the total success of the program."
By: - 21st April 2004 at 19:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by Shalav
On the proposed MiG 23 K - any idea if the dual ventral fins were present - if present were they folding or fixed as shown in the naval variant redesign of the MiG 23 A?Is that an IRST fixture forward of the redesigned 23K canopy? Any chance of a 3view line drawing of this proposed variant?
Were the catapults steam powered?
The side profile does not appear to show any ventral fins - either fixed or folding.
It looks like an IRST ball - and that side profile is the only reference to a MiG-23K that I have seen - I can't find it in any other of my MiG books.
I think the catapults were steam powered. Andrei Fomins book on the Su-33/Su-27KUB is in Russian and is yet to be translated.
There is a photo of a catapult track - and as best I can make out with my limited Russian, it says Parovaya Katapul'ta - Steam Catapult.
Perhaps Arthur or someone else can give us a full translation of the caption ??
Ken
By: - 21st April 2004 at 19:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
so it means USSR did build a steam catapult ? I always
knew with their robust heavy engg and machinery expertise they
could put one together if need be.
By: - 21st April 2004 at 19:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Any chances of the Russian cat finding its way onto the Gorshkov?
By: - 21st April 2004 at 19:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ken,
Thanks. In that photo you posted , those 'pointy' things look very similar to the speared ends of the pistons which engage the water-brakes.
Indian,
IIRC the problem IMO was never the design of a catapult. If you can make a steam engine you can make a decent steam launcher. The problem was the design of an arresting system for the "after aircraft disengagement" braking of the pistons. The braking system has to be robust enough that so it can brake the piston along with a fully loaded aircraft from 160+ knots to zero if the aircraft fails to disengage.
In the USN and Brit carriers they use/d a horizontal chamber of filled with water. This was kept filled using centrifugal forces. Once the speared end of the pistons entered the water brake, the water pressure acted to stop the pistons. Keeping enough water under pressure to maintain safe braking ability was / is the main issue with current naval catapult design IMHO.
I suppose with the new EM cats braking will also be by means of EM power or do they still want to use waterbrakes?
By: - 23rd April 2004 at 13:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My attempt at translating the photo caption, although i'm sure Flex or anyone else will correct me later :)
Parovaya katapulta c dvumya rabochimi tsilindrami na sborke b tsekhe Proletarskogo zavoda v Leningrade. Eï tak i ne nashlos' mesta na otechestvennykh avianesushchikh korablyakh
"Steam catapult with two working cylinders during on-site construction at the Proletariat Factory in Leningrad. They never were put in place aboard the aircraft carrier"
(hope the latter sentence is OK, it's got a lot of grammar in it :p )
Here is a pic of early Soviet carrier trials: MiG-27LL bort 03 taking off at the NITKA ramp at Saki. From the Mir Aviatsii article i mentioned in the suffixes thread.
By: - 23rd April 2004 at 13:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From the same source, a not-so-clear pic of the tail with arrestor hook of that very same MiG-27LL. The markings on the tail denote the number of arrested landings.
Posts: 3,652
By: Flanker_man - 20th April 2004 at 20:20
We had a thread going a few weeks back about the Russian aircraft carrier - Admiral Kuznetsov - and the merits of ski jumps vs catapults etc.
I recently found a few drawings in Andrei Fomins excellent book on the Su-27K & Su-33 - see here :- http://www.duffeyk.fsnet.co.uk/su33book.html
These show some of the design studies for Soviet carriers - and include proposals with two and three catapults.
The final design was to be a development of Kuznetsov (to be called Ulyanovsk) that had the best of both worlds - a bow ski jump for the Su-27K fighters and two waist cats for the turboprop Yak-44AEW a/c :-
The rest of the drawings - and some photos of models - can be found on my website at :- http://www.duffeyk.fsnet.co.uk/russian_carriers.html
I have also included a few small drawings of the proposed MiG-23A & K plus the Beriev P-42 ASW a/c and the Yak-44 AEW design that were being proposed to equip these ships.
Enjoy...........
Ken