Beriev Design Bureau Patents Carrier Based AEW Aircraft

Designers of the Beriev Aircraft Scientific Center (Taganrog, Russia) have patented a deck/land-based low-signature jet equipped with round-scanning antennas and capable to ski-jump off a carrier, reports the website of the Federal Service for Intellectual Property.

The airplane is based on the V-tailed low-wing design. The wing’s central part has radar-transparent front and back edges and is narrower than wingtips.

"The wing’s central part is narrow so that antennas mounted in its front and back edges ensure round scanning", state the patent docs.

...

The scientific center’s officials refused to comment the patent information, a corresponding request has been already sent to the organization.

mil.today...


It should be noted, this may just be a paper filing and may not be an active project. The Russians often have eyes bigger than their budget, so that ought to be kept in mind. OTOH, it would make sense that the Russians would want to have an AEW on their carrier. OTGH, the budget...after all, they will not be able to overhaul the Kuznetsov for some time.

So we shall see.

a reply to: anzha

Rather have a ship's hold full of missiles than a carrier's hold filled with aircraft.

Which do we think will arrive on target first?

a reply to: intrptr

Wonder which one will get in range first? The ship or the aircraft?

Doolittle Raid anyone?

Still might need both.

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: intrptr

Wonder which one will get in range first? The ship or the aircraft?

Carriers are hi value corks bobbing on the ocean, at best they attack a few ships at a time.

Meanwhile my subs have close approached the fleet and unload, the other inbound cruise missile attack was a distraction.

30 seconds to impact.

a reply to: intrptr

When considering Carriers in naval doctrine you must consider the entire Carrier Strike Group, a la escorts.

A Carrier's strike aircraft can bring an entire SAG under fire with LRASM's, while simultaneously prosecuting inbound cruise missiles. Yes, F-18's can engage cruise missiles.

Tico's coordinate and prosecute the Air Defense, enabling the Burkes to engage air targets, aircraft and missiles, concurrently.

While prosecuting air and surface targets, Burkes can coordinate and engage in ASW while utilizing their own organic ASW assets as well as the carriers organic ASW assets.

Also, given that you are implying a cruise missile raid and a submarine strike... I would also assume friendly fast attack subs hunting your subs.

Meanwhile everyone on the USNS Sitting Duck is changing their pants.

TLDR: I would suggest considering the entire scenario and not the individual aspects that fit your predetermined conclusion. (That sounds snarky, but I don't mean for it to. Trying to deepen the conversation )

Happy to take a deep dive if anyone is interested

a reply to: The one?

When considering Carriers in naval doctrine you must consider the entire Carrier Strike Group, a la escorts.

LST (large slow target)

All it takes is one submarine.

Americas carrier doctrine is as old as Force Projection by means of Amphibious Landings. Ancient tactics from a bygone era before anti shipping missiles and nuclear warheads.

Modern tech in the form of smart mines, rocket torpedoes and sea skimming missiles are the force projection of the future.

People should study WWI and II more, especially the threat posed by submarines in all theaters of conflict.

Then have a look at what constitutes shore batteries, today.

a reply to: intrptr

So would you then advocate for a higher quantity of lower-capability surface ships? This is something I'm juggling atm.

originally posted by: The one?
a reply to: intrptr

So would you then advocate for a higher quantity of lower-capability surface ships? This is something I'm juggling atm.

I would advocate stopping projecting US force abroad.

Yankee come home.

Having said that, the notion of mobility of airpower is fine and all, in an environment where nobody is shooting back.

Reviewing deployment of Exocet missiles in the Falklands conflict, and the USS Stark Incident should be helpful.

There is limited defense against newer generations of much faster, more evasive, and smarter missiles nowadays.

Especially when several dozens of them are approaching from all corners of the compass at low, medium and high trajectories, all at once.

a reply to: intrptr

Carriers are hi value corks bobbing on the ocean, at best they attack a few ships at a time.

And that's why China is building them as fast as they can. And the Brits are building theirs. And the Russians keep claiming someday they will build their own. And why the Japanese and South Koreans want to use their amphibs as jeep carriers.

They're all fools.

Gotcha.

a reply to: anzha

Oh and India. Forgot India. The Indian Navy wants a third carrier:

www.indiatoday.in...

What Russian carrier will this operate from?

a reply to: Forensick

If the aircraft is built, the Kuznetsov. That's why it was designed for a ski jump.

These for airborne threats or anti sub?

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: intrptr

Carriers are hi value corks bobbing on the ocean, at best they attack a few ships at a time.

And that's why China is building them as fast as they can. And the Brits are building theirs. And the Russians keep claiming someday they will build their own. And why the Japanese and South Koreans want to use their amphibs as jeep carriers.

They're all fools.

Gotcha.

US is the only country still projecting foreign policy with Carrier 'Strike Groups'. Wen I say US, I mean US, EU, (NATO) et al.

The Russians used theirs one time off Syria, Big Damn Deal. The Russians defeated US foreign 'Policy' in Syria without fleets of carriers, too. Something proponents of US military Doctrine deny as casually as all those anti shipping missiles parked on trucks hidden in coastal caves.

Other countries are building defensive weapons as fast as they can, not Carriers. They remember the valuable lessons learned from WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

America defeated Japan by destroying its shipping supply lines with submarines. The greatest threat to the US fleet from Japan in the Pacific was the submarine and Kamikaze. The greatest threat to the allies in the Atlantic during WWII was the German submarine.

You will jump up and shout, what about Pearl Harbor, and all the carriers the Japs had? Four of them were sunk in one day by a few bombs from a lost, low on fuel, propeller driven bombing squadron in the "Battle of Midway". Today a few dozens of hypersonic , sea skimming, anti shipping missiles would overwhelm dreadnought fleet defensive measures, accomplishing the same thing as a few bombers and Kamikazes did in WWII, in a few hours.

How stupid is it on the part of strategy planners to omit the threat posed by todays modern submarine warfare and plethora of highly advanced anti shipping weapons; mines, torpedoes and missiles?

Stupid is as stupid does.

Interesting concept. As far as aircraft carriers go, I don't really believe in the viability of "mini" aircraft carriers, but I'm wondering how much this could improve the capability of those without catapults yet with arresting cables.

It also is yet another indicator that Russia is more likely to operate its carrier more like the US does, instead of a "heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser". Luckily, LRASM and NSM are coming online.

a reply to: Blackfinger

It's an AEW, so airborne.

a reply to: intrptr

US is the only country still projecting foreign policy with Carrier 'Strike Groups'. Wen I say US, I mean US, EU, (NATO) et al.

So why is China hell bent on building so many carriers with the fleet assets to allow them to operate overseas?

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: intrptr

US is the only country still projecting foreign policy with Carrier 'Strike Groups'. Wen I say US, I mean US, EU, (NATO) et al.

So why is China hell bent on building so many carriers with the fleet assets to allow them to operate overseas?

You got sat photos of that shipping yard where they are building "all those carriers" ?

A US shipyard...

a reply to: intrptr

They are being built at two separate shipyards:

The Dalian shipyard and the Jiangnan. The Shandong (second CV) is starting sea trials in a month. The question is whether the next carrier from Dalian will be of a new class or of the CV01 (like the Lianing and the Shandong) or the CV02 (being built now at...)

The Jiangnan shipyard is building the new CATOBAR carrier, the so-called CV02 class. It is expected to be commissioned no later than 2023.

The Chinese are looking at their type CV03, a Ford class equivalent.

In an eleven year period, the Chinese will have commissioned 3 carriers plus at least one amphibious assault ship (Type 075) of the same style as the USS Wasp or USS America classes. The US will have commissioned 2 carriers and 1 assault ship.

The Chinese are getting prepped to take their perceived place on the world stage and its as the USA's peer. And that includes in how power is projected.

Just curious, why do you dismiss the Russians attempting to do the same thing as the Americans with the Kuznetsov?

PS: Those are commissioned American ships, not ones under construction, fwiw.