Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

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

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.

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??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We used two which are much much less powerful then today's versions and those things have plagued the Japanese for over 50 years.

When I first visited Japan I visited one of the sites the older Japanese people there looked at me with utter disgust.

We also used nukes not knowing the kind of damage they could cause, Long story short drop the nuke argument you show little understanding on the costs of such an action.

I have seen the costs and it's not with it to any degree.

Nevertheless in foreseeable future neither US not UK nor France relay on tomahawk missiles only still keep investing in good old fighters.
You may of course disagree but then all clients of F-35B and Russian future (budgeted) VTOL fighter disagree with you. I guess must be a valid reason.

For the US the aircraft is everything.... the Soviet and Russian Army both have/had the means to defend themselves from air interference... the US Army relies on the USAF. The USN has its own air force that it relies on for its real attack strength.

The simple fact is that the USN does not see the VTOL fighter as useful... the VTOL model of the F-35 is used by the Marines which have to use VTOL aircraft because of the size of their carriers. The USN has cat assisted take off and arrested landing F-35s and will rely on them in the future.

The only countries buying the VTOL model of the F-35 do so because they don't want anything much bigger than a helicopter carrier...

Vertical landing and take off has its important features like little space for storing, landing fighters. With short take off and vertical landing you can use virtually any of LHD ships to have 12-20 fighters' aircraft carrier.

If they don't have ski jumps then performance from them will be very limited.

Also for the US having some VTOl aircraft for the Marines is OK because to support their operations they have 13 super carriers with real fighters to do the actual job of dealing with enemy aircraft.

If you only have VTOL aircraft then there are not that many forces you could take on safely.

LHD ships would be better loaded with helicopters to properly support landings instead of half fighters.

Short take off amid scarcity airfields has its value as well. My educated guess is one more reason why Russians are going in this direction.

If that 20-25 ton thrust engine is being pointed downwards then no conventional road or runway will remain undamaged on take off and will offer no chance of a vertical landing because all the fragments of asphalt that are blasted up into the air will cripple the engines in seconds and the damn thing will crash.

There are motorways everywhere that could take a conventional fighter aircraft and easily allow them to take off.

The idea a VTOL aircraft can just operate from anywhere is BS. It is actually much more limited than a conventional 5th gen fighter. The high thrust to weight ratio means short takeoffs are normal and internal weapons in a low drag high tech low weight configuration means and air to air load of 2 tons or less most of the time... a CTOL aircraft would have no problems with that even without a cat assisted take off. A VTOL aircraft would struggle with full fuel and a 2 ton payload most of the time.

what ISIS has to do with this? this started about US crippling who e Russian fleet and you suggest no nukes should be used then huh?

ISIS and other unconventional threats need to be countered by all countries including those with and without nuclear weapons.

Having nukes assures your safety in some cases but it is not as flexible or as useful as also having a conventional force.

We used two which are much much less powerful then today's versions and those things have plagued the Japanese for over 50 years.

When I first visited Japan I visited one of the sites the older Japanese people there looked at me with utter disgust.

We also used nukes not knowing the kind of damage they could cause, Long story short drop the nuke argument you show little understanding on the costs of such an action.

I have seen the costs and it's not with it to any degree.

Nuclear weapons only make sense if under what ever circumstances you are prepared to actually use them.

They have no other practical purpose.

There are plenty of other different cases where they have no use at all, for which conventional forces are necessary.

BTW despite all the dribble about saving lives the whole point of Nagasaki and Hiroshima being nuked was all about a message to the Soviet Union.

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.

But then it becomes a gamble... when you actually use nukes to deal with a problem what happens if that results in you crossing someone elses red line and leading to them using their nukes against you in what they think might be a more symbolic way, though you of course will think differently.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:We used two which are much much less powerful then today's versions and those things have plagued the Japanese for over 50 years.

When I first visited Japan I visited one of the sites the older Japanese people there looked at me with utter disgust....

And have Japanese been giving you any problems since? I seem to remember that before Hiroshima and Nagasaki they were trying to kick you out of entire Pacific in quite a brutal litlle armed conflict that you guys didn't even start.

Today they give stink eye at best but otherwise they would not even dream of crossing you ever again.

Look at it from Russian perspective: they get looked at with utter disgust either way due to some perceived bullshit that pales in comparison to whatever happened in Japan. More than several countries are outright trying to initiate armed conflict with Russia with you guys as muscle in order to finish what they think should have been done back in the 40's.

If you have choice between someone giving you attitude and trying to get you invaded and destroyed and that same someone giving you attitude and being peaceful and cooperative neighbor at the price of a single nuclear firecracker dropped at their MoD building in their capital city (a valid military target, rest of it is collateral damage) what would be better bargain?

SeigSoloyvov wrote:...We also used nukes not knowing the kind of damage they could cause, Long story short drop the nuke argument you show little understanding on the costs of such an action.

I have seen the costs and it's not with it to any degree.

I understand it quite well. Much better than you. I also understand benefits even more. Unless your country and civilians were on the receiving end of massive unprovoked foreign military assault recently, in which case I take back what I said.

GarryB wrote:....Nuclear weapons only make sense if under what ever circumstances you are prepared to actually use them.

They have no other practical purpose....

That is why you should always be prepared to use them and make sure everyone knows it. It's what gives them practical purpose.

GarryB wrote:...But then it becomes a gamble... when you actually use nukes to deal with a problem what happens if that results in you crossing someone elses red line and leading to them using their nukes against you in what they think might be a more symbolic way, though you of course will think differently....

That is what East European volunteers are for. You don't nuke your primary enemy's mainland straight away, that's needless escalation.

If your own mainland territory get's nuked as a result of primary enemy's unprovoked needless escalation then it's on them and it's MAD situation. Their choice, their fault.

In Cold War this was well understood. It would be wise to listen to some proven wisdom instead of this liberal environmentalist tree-hugging idiocy that permiates modern politics.

They were not kicking us out of the Pacific who destroyed the IJN? that's right we did, who assaulted their main military locations side china (Russians did that one).

We did, rarely was we ever pushed back, so on this papa, I am not sure what you are talking about.

I can see it from a military perspective, I can see it from a practical one, however, none of that justifies's it in the end.

We could have taken mainland Japan without nukes but it would have been a very bloody affair and then we risked the russians getting a foothold in there also.

Still nukes are never intended to be used they are bluff tools by nature, it's just no one is willing to try that bluff.



I have to disagree you do not understand the cost of nuclear weapons better than me. If you did you would not be saying what you are, Alias that is your right to say but me I am not willing to sign the death warrant of millions and millions over such a thing. I am not that bloodthirsty.



If you are saying "Nukes got used on us so it's fair to use them back" sure that's fine my words, however, are against the initial release of them at all. Basicly they aren't worth using even if you are firing the first shot. Russia would merely ended up killing it's self if it fired the first shot since nukes would be coming flying straight back at it. Same for the US.

So unless you want assured mutual destruction then sorry Papa you'd have to be insane to use nuclear weapons.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

We could have taken mainland Japan without nukes but it would have been a very bloody affair and then we risked the russians getting a foothold in there also.

Still nukes are never intended to be used they are bluff tools by nature, it's just no one is willing to try that bluff.

So, the main reason of nuking was to avoid the occupation of Japan by the Soviet forces.

Not to decrease the causalities, or anything else.


An to think that no one will use nuclear weapons is absolute nativity,and showing complete lack of understanding of the work of politics.

The usage of any nuclear weapons carry extremely high risk for the population of the attacking/targeted country, so the naive approach saying that it has low probability.

BUT the usage of nuclear weapons compared to other outcomes for the politician/military leadership can have lower cost than for the population.

Say the president of the US happy to be in the presidential bunker as the leader of the country in a nuclear war than to be in a prison or hanged .

http://www.38north.org/2017/12/jbaron120717/

Why not developing a VTOL aircraft? Ok, clear a VTOL aircraft have only 80 - 90 % perfomance compared to normal aircraft, that's why a "replacement" would be very specific.

But another idea...
For me the evolution of helicopters is coming to a dead point! They are planning new "high speed helicopters" with speeds above 400 km/h per hour, but they are investing from my view too much for only achieving a few more km/h. Why not using VTOL for the role of the ordinary helicopter!? A new AH-64 Longbow has a system price of 65 million US-$, a F-35B is NOW available for 120 million US-$. A VTOL aircraft can easy have 5 times and more the speed of a helicopter and even the payload and range is greater. It is nearly better in every characteristic. The main problems would be the costs and the complexity of the system...but let's see what the future brings

Why not developing a VTOL aircraft? Ok, clear a VTOL aircraft have only 80 - 90 % perfomance compared to normal aircraft, that's why a "replacement" would be very specific.

If a VTOL aircraft only had 80-90% the performance of a fixed wing fighter then that would not be so bad... the problem is that a VTOL is a very short range aircraft with very limited payload. Those problems can be reduced with a rolling or short take off but pretty soon you end up needing a runway so you might as well use cats and a real fighter than spending a small fortune to make a jet fighter float in the air at airshows.

Operating at full engine thrust is draining... you burn a lot of fuel very very quickly.... that is why most modern planes like the Flanker family and the Fulcrum family can fly at mach 2 but rarely ever actually do because it is a waste. A VTOL aircraft has to do that every time it lands or takes off vertically.

A VTOL aircraft also need puffer jets at its wing tips and its tail so it can control itself in the hover... this creates high pressure pipes through the wings and the fuselage structure which makes the aircraft vulnerable to battle damage and adds weight and reduces internal volume for other things like fuel etc.

The only advantage they have is being able to operate from slightly cheaper small carriers like helicopter carriers, but you start putting one on a helicopter carrier and that is not really much use in terms of air defence but at least it is still a helicopter carrier. Put a dozen on a Mistral sized carrier and there is no room for helicopters so you have a helicopter landing ship with no helicopters and a dozen fairly ordinary short range slow attack fighters.

In terms of supporting ground forces a Ka-52K would be vastly more useful.

If you want fighter defence for ships then build a decent medium sized carrier and adapt a land based fighter for the carrier... a bit of structural strengthening and a tail hook and folding wings don't cost that much and you can have parts and spares commonality between your navy and air force.

For me the evolution of helicopters is coming to a dead point! They are planning new "high speed helicopters" with speeds above 400 km/h per hour, but they are investing from my view too much for only achieving a few more km/h. Why not using VTOL for the role of the ordinary helicopter!? A new AH-64 Longbow has a system price of 65 million US-$, a F-35B is NOW available for 120 million US-$. A VTOL aircraft can easy have 5 times and more the speed of a helicopter and even the payload and range is greater. It is nearly better in every characteristic. The main problems would be the costs and the complexity of the system...but let's see what the future brings Wink

The main advantages of helicopters is that they can operate from any clearing on the ground without preparation... if you want to land a huge VTOL transport fixed wing aircraft the amount of thrust needed to land vertically would be enormous and rip the ground to shreds... shreds blown into the air and sucked in intakes readily.... = crashed aircraft.

A Ka-52K being slow does not matter because the troop carrying Ka-29s they are supporting are also slow too... landing ship delivered troops are even slower.

I am not convinced that V-22 aircraft are ready to take over from helos... certainly the disk area of a V-22 means they take up a lot more space on board ship than a medium helicopter would and even medium helos can fold back their rotors for a compact footprint onboard a ship.

Regardless if one likes it (me) or not (GarryB at fist place Smile this is already budgeted in the new Goszakazplan so we'll see it live in less then 10 years. :-)

In the 1990s the Yak-41 was in the budget too until it was cancelled. Now that they have no Kiev class carriers it all comes down to what size carriers they want to make.

As for VTOL qualities, landing space is I guess first requirement (Arctic, fleet, short runways in case of war). As for radar or speed. Who needs now speed? look at Rafale, Hornet or F-35 they are not even 2Ma. Range of speed same as in Yak-141 frm 80s. Radar? who told you that now VTOL has to have worse radar? vide F-35B.

The Yak-41 was inferior in every way to the MiG-29K... speed, radar... except ability to damage a runway....

For any given design a fixed wing Cat assisted takeoff or conventional take off and assisted landing aircraft will always be simpler and cheaper than any VTOL equivalent. You could spend a lot more money to make the VTOL almost as good but it still needs a lifting mechanism and puffer jets so it will always be heavier and more vulnerable to damage or failure... and for what? So it can operate from carriers that are too small to be useful, or these magic 200m strips of highway that can't be cratered or mined by the enemy. The amusing thing is that a MiG-29K could probably operate from a 200m strip if you had a portable ski jump to assist in takeoffs.

The light 5th gen fighter will probably have a high enough power to weight ratio with all internal weapons and low enough drag to get airborne in a very short strip of ground even without a cat.

By the way...

It's simply not true that a VTOL aircraft like Harrier or F-35B will melt the asphalt of streets away! It's a fact that in high summer in addition the heat of the fans will make the asphalt like warm wax, so maybe the aircraft will sink in partially a bit and of course damaging the street.

Here is a video of a vertical landing of a Harrier on a ordinary street...
Harrier landing on street

The thrust of engines itself will clear the landing place from small stones and other dangerous little things, so if the aircraft starts the space would be more or less "clean". Thrust downwards is by the way very similar to a helicopter. Thrust is splitted through many nozzles by the way in a VTOl aircraft. For a F-35B it's of course a NO GO, because this Baby is too sensible for dirt and and dust

Uhm, Garry, this is from the Afghanistan history thread by archangelski.
http://www.russiadefence.net/t1835p175-soviet-afghanistan-war

VTOL would be great for naval drones. They weight far less than fighter and they don't need payload just a small radar or a camera.