Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Share
    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 497
    Points : 501
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Kimppis on Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:33 pm

    Isos wrote:
    And you pretend to look serious calling "propaganda" the Russian Maritime Doctrile of 2015?

    Do not have you the Su-57 in front of you? The first unit is done and the serial production will begin when Russia wants.

    And you are known because of?

    Yeah it got its official engines, oups I mean it got its 1 ENGINE last week and is testing it right now ... and for you Su-57 is ready. I've also never heard of testing weapons from weapon bays but it's ok if you say we see that in front of us it means it is ready.

    I assume in your head things are as easy as putting in service a 100 million $ fighter on a 10 billion $ carrier as fast as you draw it on a paper but in reality it doesn't happen like that.

    Russian Maritime Doctrile of 2015 represent what they want not what they will get. That's just bullshit made by Ministry of defence to put pressure on the government but when you want a carrier first you check with the Ministry of Economy and according to what they say (most probably in the next 10 years they will laugh at Choigu when he will ask for the money for a carrier) and then they discuss the real needs and then start studies about that and then present many concept and then chose one and then choose a shipyard ...

    You don't just ask 2 or 3 high ranked military guys and put an article on sputnik and build it.

    I agree with you 'intoxicators' for the most part (there will certainly be no supercarriers before 2030), but to be fair that is just - what kvs would call 'propaganda' - about the Su-57.

    The new engine was never supposed to be ready before 2020, right? The first 50-60 PAK-FAs (2016-20) were planned to be equipped with the current engine. So the engine program is either only minimally behind the original schedule or not at all and the fact that they already flight tested it on a Su-57 this year is actually a huge success.

    And isn't that "weapon bays have no been tested" a pure BS myth? Why would that be the case, makes no sense? They have already built many prototypes, with very considerable improvements compared to the first one and it really does seem that the plane is almost ready for production at this point, i.e. next year (2018).

    So Su-57 was never supposed to be ready earlier than 2016 and even then with the current engines, let's not exaggerate.

    I have to admit that the Russian media and Sputnik seem to have really fucked up in many ways with their overhyping, which was totally unnecessary.

    The talk about over 2,000 Armatas by 2020, which was probably a mistranslation to begin with (they meant over 2,000 'modern' tanks, not only T-14s).

    Storm carriers and Lider cruisers any day now... It was obvious from the beginning that those "projects" were never realistic before the mid-2020s at the earliest. It was always necessary to build smaller ships first before those behemoths.

    Not that most people understand that or understand military procurements and numbers in general (including many of the journalists who write those articles lol), so now it's just an embarrassment. Huge hype about Lider probably 15 years before the first ship is even LAUNCHED. Great job guys, fucking idiots...
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6406
    Points : 6508
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:06 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:................
    We will have to wait and see, but the Yak-43 is the latest we know of.
    Also, i doubt it's wing will be too big, since it might get in the way when taking off vertically, although i am no expert in aerodynamics....

    Forget any Soviet design or concept, way too much time passed for that to be reused. Su-57 was fresh platform. This one will be too (with off-the-shelf components used where possible of course).

    I am however pretty sure that it will have much bigger wings than both Yak-38 and Yak-141. Those had some hilariously tiny wings, like F-104 Starfighter tribute band...



    AlfaT8 wrote:....That depends, which ones more expensive, fuel, maintenance, pilot, all to drop some dumb bombs?...

    They'll be dropping more than just dumb bombs.

    Carrier aviation is always expensive, no going around that. But with this approach they want to end up with larger number of smaller vessels instead of small number of larger vessels.

    More flexibility and less expenditures .



    AlfaT8 wrote:........But yet again there is the Ka-52, and the question of whether such long range deep strike missions should be handled  by cruise missiles.
    IMO such capabilities can be useful, but looking at the range of the Ka-52, i wonder whether it's necessary.
    The Ka-52 has a range of around 500km so half that for RTB and we have around 250km............



    Ka-52s are great and they will definitely be using them. I mean the moment first ship with any king of flat deck is finished they will be first thing on board. And they have already been used in combat from Kuznetzov.

    But jets simply have more speed, range, payload and can fly higher than helicopters.



    kvs wrote:It would be nice to see the 2015 doctrine critics present some actual proof that the doctrine and associated development programs have been dropped..........

    Dropping or altering plans is not a bad thing. USSR was inflexible and stubborn and look what happened to them.

    As for topic of supercarriers, military just ordered design of STOVL/VTOL fighter jet. You don't do that if you plan on building a supercarrier.

    And why would they want one? They spent huge amount of time, money and effort into making entire concept of supercarrier obsolete and they finally cracked it. Ordering supercarrier now after all that hassle would be plain stupid.

    Like I just said, they want to end up with larger number of smaller vessels instead of small number of larger vessels.



    SeigSoloyvov wrote:...............
    But hey guys it seems now the Russian navy is joining the Intoxcator ranks.

    They are not sending us their best... lol1 lol1 lol1
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17696
    Points : 18292
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:26 am

    As for topic of supercarriers, military just ordered design of STOVL/VTOL fighter jet. You don't do that if you plan on building a supercarrier.

    You mean like the US who has super carriers and also AV-8II harriers and F-35B aircraft?

    VSTOL aircraft fill a very small niche... the biggest problem for the Russians is that they are generally not fast enough to be real interceptors or fighters... they are best used in small carriers that are not really the best at anything.

    Like I just said, they want to end up with larger number of smaller vessels instead of small number of larger vessels.

    They would be better off with a mix of small and large vessels than with mainly small weak vulnerable vessels.

    Or do you think they should give up on the Su-35s and PAK FAs and just have thousands of upgraded Yak-130s in a fighter version?

    In terms of cost it will be cheaper but any decent enemy would obliterate your force fairly rapidly.

    I am sure you could argue Russia does not need any better because if someone defeats their air force they can retaliate with nukes... not really practical though is it?


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17696
    Points : 18292
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:28 am

    As for topic of supercarriers, military just ordered design of STOVL/VTOL fighter jet. You don't do that if you plan on building a supercarrier.

    The military also ordered the Yak-41 and after tests it was cancelled.

    Russia does not need a super carrier.

    A kuznetsov size carrier would be all they needed with its design modernised and optimised and its propulsion and sensors and weapons completely upgraded and new aircraft it would be a much more powerful vessel.

    They do need larger ships like cruisers to support a few carriers... but not for a decade or more.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6406
    Points : 6508
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:21 am

    They would be better off with a mix of small and large vessels than with mainly small weak vulnerable vessels.

    They would be best off with dozens of huge supercarriers and hundreds of nuclear battlecruisers

    But can they build and pay for even fraction of it? Hell no, not even close.


    ...Or do you think they should give up on the Su-35s and PAK FAs and just have thousands of upgraded Yak-130s in a fighter version?....

    Nice off-topic deflection, what the fuck does this have to do with anything?


    ...I am sure you could argue Russia does not need any better because if someone defeats their air force they can retaliate with nukes... not really practical though is it?

    Not practical? Only a complete moron would say something like this.

    Nukes are THE MOST PRACTICAL tool of war ever conceived.

    They kept the peace for decades and will do so most likely for centuries.

    Nukes are only reason why Russia still exists. Nukes are what keept that country from being ripped into tiny pieces back in the 90s.

    Only absolute idiot does not see their infinite value.

    Tree-huggers may whine, liberals may squeal, but nukes are one thing you can ALWAYS rely on to get the job done and keep you safe.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1989
    Points : 2014
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  eehnie on Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:13 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Yo moron, it's been three years since 2015

    Check the fucking calendar


    Waiting about this.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1989
    Points : 2014
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  eehnie on Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:21 pm

    kvs wrote:It would be nice to see the 2015 doctrine critics present some actual proof that the doctrine and associated development
    programs have been dropped.    Russia's financial situation is very far from the state where it has "no choice but to do without".
    That is just NATO sanctions propaganda self-delusion.

    They have nothing to present. Just because the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 remains in force, valid and prevails over other official documents and statements.

    Here you can see in some comments how the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 can affect to the State Armament Program 2018-2025:

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7032p50-state-armament-program-2018-2025#211908
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7032p50-state-armament-program-2018-2025#211922
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7032p50-state-armament-program-2018-2025#211924

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7032-state-armament-program-2018-2025#204557

    Not only the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 remains, you can see in these comments, how every new project proposed in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 is generating new projects, that today (2017 still) are in early stages, but are real, for desperation of pro-US commenters.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1515
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:11 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:Forget any Soviet design or concept, way too much time passed for that to be reused. Su-57 was fresh platform. This one will be too (with off-the-shelf components used where possible of course).

    I am however pretty sure that it will have much bigger wings than both Yak-38 and Yak-141. Those had some hilariously tiny wings, like F-104 Starfighter tribute band...

    We'll see.

    They'll be dropping more than just dumb bombs.

    Carrier aviation is always expensive, no going around that. But with this approach they want to end up with larger number of smaller vessels instead of small number of larger vessels.  

    More flexibility and less expenditures .

    Flexibility?... i doubt that, literally the only job it can do is deep strikes against guys in caves.
    And coordinating with other units will be very difficult, on a lesser note, there is also the lack of relationship/comradery between pilots and sharing of flight experience.

    As for less expenditures, to start of with the development cost of this aircraft will probly be around $4 Billion (half of Pak-fa's dev costs), and each unit will without a doubt cost more then conventional aircrafts (lets say $25mill, $9mill more than the Mig-29K) and each ship will have to be equipped and manned to handle such an aircraft.
    If i am gonna be honest, cost wise, the aircraft carrier is starting to look good.

    Ka-52s are great and they will definitely be using them. I mean the moment first ship with any king of flat deck is finished they will be first thing on board. And they have already been used in combat from Kuznetzov.

    But jets simply have more speed, range, payload and can fly higher than helicopters.

    True, except maybe that payload part, we really need to wait and see what they're gonna do.
    Also everything costs extra as well.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2197
    Points : 2241
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian STOVL / VTOL fighters reborn

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:53 pm

    In todays Kommersant about vertical take off fighters in new goszakazplan:


    Trillions have two ally - the army and navy
    The president is ready to sign the arms program for 2018-2027

    https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3500710


    " At the same time, research will be conducted on the long-range aviation complex for long-range aviation and the development of a plane with vertical take-of

    Let's wait till 22nd though to be sure. If so then aircraft cruiser welcome back. I wonder how close to Yak-141 will be new fighter...
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 11372
    Points : 11855
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  George1 on Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:04 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:In todays Kommersant about vertical take off fighters in new goszakazplan:


    Trillions have two ally - the army and navy
    The president is ready to sign the arms program for 2018-2027

    https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3500710


    " At the same time, research will be conducted on the long-range aviation complex for long-range aviation and the development of a plane with vertical take-of

    Let's wait till 22nd though to be sure. If so then aircraft cruiser welcome back. I  wonder how close to Yak-141 will be new fighter...

    there is the same discussion in russian naval aviation thread


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2197
    Points : 2241
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:56 pm

    George1 wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:In todays Kommersant about vertical take off fighters in new goszakazplan:


    Trillions have two ally - the army and navy
    The president is ready to sign the arms program for 2018-2027

    https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3500710


    " At the same time, research will be conducted on the long-range aviation complex for long-range aviation and the development of a plane with vertical take-of

    Let's wait till 22nd though to be sure. If so then aircraft cruiser welcome back. I  wonder how close to Yak-141 will be new fighter...

    there is the same discussion in russian naval aviation thread

    That's not exactly - this is a new development. Implementation o new class of fighters. MiG-35, MiG-29 or even Yak-130 trainer has its own and Yak should not?
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1515
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:39 pm

    Now that i think about it, wouldn't a VTOL UCAV make more sense for bombing guys in caves, saves a lot of cash there.

    If we think of it like that, what is this VTOL for?????
    Unless you ascribe to the idea that "missiles will decide" and "the dogfight era is over" this entire VTOL venture seems foolish.

    On a more serious note, the entire idea that everything would go nuclear just because a fleet was lost is also debatable.
    I mean really, what more important your country or some ships?
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6406
    Points : 6508
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:01 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:..................
    On a more serious note, the entire idea that everything would go nuclear just because a fleet was lost is also debatable.
    I mean really, what more important your country or some ships?

    Over ships? No, of course not.

    But list of enemies that can take out entire fleet is short and war with them does not end with fleet.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 11372
    Points : 11855
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  George1 on Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:13 pm

    I made you a dedicated topic for STOVL/VTOL russian prospective aircrafts


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1515
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:39 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:..................
    On a more serious note, the entire idea that everything would go nuclear just because a fleet was lost is also debatable.
    I mean really, what more important your country or some ships?

    Over ships? No, of course not.

    But list of enemies that can take out entire fleet is short and war with them does not end with fleet.

    If the objective is only to cripple there naval forces, then a hot war may be evaded.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2197
    Points : 2241
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:11 pm

    George1 wrote:I made you a dedicated topic for STOVL/VTOL russian prospective aircrafts

    Efaristo! 22nd is official version approved then we'll see what's there Smile




    AlfaT8 wrote:
    If the objective is only to cripple there naval forces, then a hot war may be evaded.

    and crippling should stop right after Russian ships are destroyed so Russia cannot respond with anti ship missiles? I seriously doubt that such scenario is likely unless Russia wants to give up. Do you think US stops when Russia sends to bottom couple of CSGs?
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1515
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:41 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:and crippling should stop right after Russian ships are destroyed so Russia cannot respond with anti ship missiles? I seriously doubt that such scenario is likely unless Russia wants to give up. Do you think US stops when Russia sends to bottom couple of CSGs?

    The U.S has assets to respond conventionally, what's Russia got, that's right nukes, now would they use those nukes just because of they lost some ships.
    I believe we work from the belief that they will indeed do so, but would they??
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6406
    Points : 6508
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:26 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:and crippling should stop right after Russian ships are destroyed so Russia cannot respond with anti ship missiles? I seriously doubt that such scenario is likely unless Russia wants to give up. Do you think US stops when Russia sends to bottom couple of CSGs?

    The U.S has assets to respond conventionally, what's Russia got, that's right nukes, now would they use those nukes just because of they lost some ships.
    I believe we work from the belief that they will indeed do so, but would they??

    Well that's the downside of NATO membership for small countries.

    It offers cover but also turns you into perfect low priority nuclear scapegoat. Russia has option of using nukes without risking instant MAD because they dont' need to target US mainland to send a message.

    Several mushroom clouds over Europe can be powerful stimulus to swing the public opinion in USA towards more diplomatic approach.

    Cold War generation is gone and millennials who are accustomed to iPhone, Whole Foods and Twitter are in no rush to trade Boston for [insert name of European city here, preferably East European].

    In their place what would you prefer? Sitting in Starbucks sipping coffee or sitting in fallout shelter sipping irradiated water?  

    And don't even get me started on millennials in Europe, especially West one.

    Different times we live in.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1515
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:53 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:Well that's the downside of NATO membership for small countries.

    It offers cover but also turns you into perfect low priority nuclear scapegoat. Russia has option of using nukes without risking instant MAD because they dont' need to target US mainland to send a message.

    Several mushroom clouds over Europe can be powerful stimulus to swing the public opinion in USA towards more diplomatic approach.

    Cold War generation is gone and millennials who are accustomed to iPhone, Whole Foods and Twitter are in no rush to trade Boston for [insert name of European city here, preferably East European].

    In their place what would you prefer? Sitting in Starbucks sipping coffee or sitting in fallout shelter sipping irradiated water?  

    And don't even get me started on millennials in Europe, especially West one.

    Different times we live in.

    Well since this is all a "what if" situation, we just gotta hope it never happens.

    Back to VTOL, We'll have to wait and see, but generally i don't the investment paying off anywhere near as much as an actual carrier.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6406
    Points : 6508
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:13 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:................
    Back to VTOL, We'll have to wait and see, but generally i don't the investment paying off anywhere near as much as an actual carrier.

    The thing is I don't thinks it's their investment. Most likely it's UAE's money that is fueling this whole project.

    And they have one actual carrier now. One is not enough. It's the numbers game.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1515
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:39 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:The thing is I don't thinks it's their investment. Most likely it's UAE's money that is fueling this whole project.

    And they have one actual carrier now. One is not enough. It's the numbers game.

    That's another thing, to what extent is the UAE investment here, i have heard no details here whatsoever.

    I am more concerned about how dated it is, useful, but with today's tech, we can do way better.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6406
    Points : 6508
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:49 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:The thing is I don't thinks it's their investment. Most likely it's UAE's money that is fueling this whole project.
    And they have one actual carrier now. One is not enough. It's the numbers game.

    That's another thing, to what extent is the UAE investment here, i have heard no details here whatsoever.

    I am more concerned about how dated it is, useful, but with today's tech, we can do way better.

    It will be years before either Russia or UAE reveal that detail.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2197
    Points : 2241
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:25 pm

    I just wonder if VTOL will be based on Yak-141 in Tu-160M2 manner or new construction taking into account previous achievements?



    AlfaT8 wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:and crippling should stop right after Russian ships are destroyed so Russia cannot respond with anti ship missiles? I seriously doubt that such scenario is likely unless Russia wants to give up. Do you think US stops when Russia sends to bottom couple of CSGs?

    The U.S has assets to respond conventionally, what's Russia got, that's right nukes, now would they use those nukes just because of they lost some ships.
    I believe we work from the belief that they will indeed do so, but would they??

    I am sure they would and US command is well aware of this. Otherwise why F-22 didn't cripple Su-25 and Mi-28 fleet in Syria?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17696
    Points : 18292
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:03 am

    They would be best off with dozens of huge supercarriers and hundreds of nuclear battlecruisers

    But can they build and pay for even fraction of it? Hell no, not even close.

    No, that would not be attainable... I am only interested in what they could realistically manage on their budget and within the available time frame.

    An all small ship fleet or a mixed fleet with large and small ships. A single super carrier a few medium sized carriers or lots of small carriers that are like destroyers and provide their own support because they could not afford them and support vessels.

    Nice off-topic deflection, what the fuck does this have to do with anything?

    Some are suggesting all small ships could be an alternative to a mixed fleet of ships of different sizes... small, medium, and large.


    Not practical? Only a complete moron would say something like this.

    Nukes are THE MOST PRACTICAL tool of war ever conceived.

    They kept the peace for decades and will do so most likely for centuries.

    Nukes are only reason why Russia still exists. Nukes are what keept that country from being ripped into tiny pieces back in the 90s.

    Only absolute idiot does not see their infinite value.

    Tree-huggers may whine, liberals may squeal, but nukes are one thing you can ALWAYS rely on to get the job done and keep you safe.

    How about we stop referring to people as complete morons first of all.

    Second which country on the planet has said nukes are enough and have not developed a conventional military.

    Nukes work as a red line, but if you ever actually have to use them everyone dies... If Russia only actually had nukes in the 1990s then what would have stopped all those coloured revolutions?

    Do you think the Georgians would have withdrawn from South Ossetia if Russia threatened to nuke them?

    Would ISIS have backed off if Russia threatened to nuke them?

    I am however pretty sure that it will have much bigger wings than both Yak-38 and Yak-141. Those had some hilariously tiny wings, like F-104 Starfighter tribute band...

    The biggest design fault in the Yak-38M and the Yak-41 was their small wings made small to allow supersonic or high speed flight.

    Obviously the Yak-38M was not supersonic but they wanted it to go as fast as possible as a fighter.

    But even a big wing wont save these dogs.

    Any design you create could be redesigned as a CTOL fighter design of much much better performance.

    Now that i think about it, wouldn't a VTOL UCAV make more sense for bombing guys in caves, saves a lot of cash there.

    A Kalibr missile is Vertical Take Off and Impacting, has a range of 2,500km at the moment but could be extended to 5,000km fairly easily, is not that expensive and risks no pilots and can be stored until needed and is always ready to use in any weather day or night.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6406
    Points : 6508
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:....Do you think the Georgians would have withdrawn from South Ossetia if Russia threatened to nuke them?

    Would ISIS have backed off if Russia threatened to nuke them?...

    Threatening? No, most likely not.

    That is why you do not just make threats, you make good on those threats.

    Once first set of clowns and all related to them get plutonium enema rest of them will think twice before being morons ever again.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Apr 23, 2018 1:43 pm