Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

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

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.

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.

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.

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Do you think the Georgians would have withdrawn from South Ossetia if Russia threatened to nuke them?

I am sure they would but then people and ladn would be wasted. BTW US used nukes, chemical and biological weapons against civilians and somehow we still live...

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

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?

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

Azi wrote: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

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

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.

George1 wrote:Guys dont go off-topic again. This is Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development thread. If you want go on and open "USSR vs Japan in WWII" topic

or USSR vs Japan in WWII if they had  VTOL fighters

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

GunshipDemocracy wrote:


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

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.

Being budgeted doesn't mean it will be developed and inducted in service.

History is full of project that NEVER made to the operational status, some being aborted still on the drawing  boards.

Second, everybody is entitled to his own opinion on Russia's defence spending, but it is just a fact that the Kremlin and various State's bodies have an interest to keep most if not all of its military industrial base alive.

A challenging project, even if not really meant to reach serial production, could be a nice trick to both keep some bureau afloat, give him a glimp of confidence about his future and hone his technological skills.

I still do not believe we will see any, I mean any, operational combat aircraft with VTOL capabilities.

There is a simple reason behind this skepticism: a combat aircraft is supposed to survive when confronted by opponents combat aircrafts.

It require electronic on par, performances on par, pilot's training on par, tactics on par, C3I on par.

Remove one of the above, and you will struggle to maintain overall parity.

Remove two or more, and you will end on the losing side.

A VTOL aircraft has a big penalty in the hardware required for vertical take offs and landings, both on weight and in volumes.

There is no chance a VTOL could have same range, same electronics, same payload of a CTOL aircraft having same technological level and MTOW.

If that wouldn't be true, it would be like somebody carrying an Anvil on his back could have same sport performances of when free of any ballast.

It is simply not true, baĺlast is and wiĺl always be a penalty.

Moreover, Russia has not a dozen big LHD or LHA to deploy some meaningful number of VTOL aircrafts.

The U.S. have at least the excuse behind the F-35B, by the way a STOVL, not  a VTOL aircraft, of around a dozen LHD and LHA,  plus a couple of British STOVL carriers and at least one Italian pocket STOVL carrier.

With the U.S. ship's displacing around 45K tons, the British carriers more than 60K tons, and only the Italian one close to the 30k tons mark.

Russia could have, at best, three flat tops around 30K tons, neither so large nor very big.

It's debatable if a ship around 30K tons could operate more than 8 - 10 aircrafts. Actually, if an amphibious one, it will be able to operate no more than 5 or 6.

At best, there will be around a couple dozens aircrafts embarked at any time, but actually there will be more likely less than 20, because an amphibious ship has no enough space and facilities to support a meaningful number of combat aircrafts.

The British, having realized that, acted at the contrary: they have developed a purpose built STOVL carrier, centered around a requirement for around 40 STOVL fighters, then expanded the project to be able to act as a LHA when needed. That way, they ended designing two ship's displacing more than 60K tons, and still when acting as an LHA the carriers will have to get rid of most of the aircrafts, to make room to assault helicopters.

GarryB wrote:
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.

That's one of  options, the other is a ship type Queen Elisabeth II. BTW also "manned" with STOVL F-35b.  So none of navies buying F-35B know what they are doing? British, Spanish, Italian and recently Japanese? All top brass has no idea that STOVL sucks?

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/12/25/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-considering-buying-f-35b-fighters-can-operate-helicopter-carriers/
Japan considering buying F-35B fighters that can operate from helicopter carriers
KYODO
DEC 25, 2017
ARTICLE HISTORY

In what could be seen as a change in Japan’s defense posture that has banned the possession of offensive aircraft carriers, the Defense Ministry is considering buying new fighter jets that may be put on its helicopter carriers, government sources said Sunday.

The sources said the introduction of F-35Bs, which are capable of short takeoffs and vertical landings, will be useful to counter China’s growing maritime assertiveness. They are expected to bolster defenses of far-flung islands in the southwest, where only short runways exist, they said.

The move, however, is likely to trigger a backlash from China and other neighboring countries, because they could perceive it as contradicting Japan’s so-called “exclusively defense-oriented policy” under the pacifist Constitution.

GarryB wrote:

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.

le petite différence then USSR ceased to exist. Not because anything was wrong with fighters. Russia unlikely ceases to exist in 2018-2025

GarryB wrote:

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....

They MiG-29 had same radar Zhuk and  avionics so not true. Yak was to have also  HUD display in 80s...   really so bad ? pls note there is a difference of over 20 years in both fighters' design.



Never update of  Yak-141M was to be Yak-43 (just checked Yefim Gordon's book about Yak fighters) with Kuznetsow NK-32 engine... and stealth. Gordon writes looking F-22 alike (who knows maybe now time to update design :-)




Yak 41M

Flight characteristics [ edit ] | edit the code ]
Maximum speed :
at an altitude of 11 km: 1800 km / h ( M = 1.7)
at the ground: 1250 km / h (1.05 M)
Practical range:
with GDP without load:
at an altitude of 10-12 km: 1400 km
off the land: 650 km
at the OHR with a load of 1 t:
at an altitude of 10-12 km: 2100 km
At the ground: 1010 km
Practical ceiling : 15 000 m
Battle radius: up to 900 km



MiG 29k

Performance
Maximum speed:
At high altitude: Mach 2+ (2,200 km/h, 1,370 mph)
At low altitude: Mach 1.13 (1,400 km/h; 870 mph)
Cruise speed: Mach 1.21 (1,500 km/h; 930 mph)

Range:
At high altitude: 1,500 km (930 mi; 810 nmi)
At low altitude: 700 km (435 mi; 380 nmi)
Combat radius: 850 km (528 mi; 459 nmi)

Ferry range:
Clean: 2,000 km (1,240 mi; 1,080 nmi)
With 3 drop tanks: 3,000 km (1,860 mi; 1,620 nmi)
With 3 drop tanks and one aerial refueling: 5,500 km (3,420 mi; 2,970 nmi)
Service ceiling: 17,500 m (57,400 ft)

Peŕrier wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:


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

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.

Being budgeted doesn't mean it will be developed and inducted in service.
History is full of project that NEVER made to the operational status, some being aborted still on the drawing  boards.

Precisely which one? Yak-38? F-35 or Yak-141?

Peŕrier wrote:
Second, everybody is entitled to his own opinion on Russia's defence spending, but it is just a fact that the Kremlin and various State's bodies have an interest to keep most if not all of its military industrial base alive.

A challenging project, even if not really meant to reach serial production, could be a nice trick to both keep some bureau afloat, give him a glimp of confidence about his future and hone his technological skills.

Perhaps one of the reasons. Exactly the same in US France (no fighter production at all ) or Germany.

Peŕrier wrote:
I still do not believe we will see any, I mean any, operational combat aircraft with VTOL capabilities.
There is a simple reason behind this skepticism: a combat aircraft is supposed to survive when confronted by opponents combat aircrafts.

It require electronic on par, performances on par, pilot's training on par, tactics on par, C3I on par.
Remove one of the above, and you will struggle to maintain overall parity.
Remove two or more, and you will end on the losing side.
A VTOL aircraft has a big penalty in the hardware required for vertical take offs and landings, both on weight and in volumes.

We do not talk about Yak-38 or Sea Harrier but now? like which of elments F-35 is missing? is is not operational, really?

Peŕrier wrote:

There is no chance a VTOL could have same range, same electronics, same payload of a CTOL aircraft having same technological level and MTOW.

If that wouldn't be true, it would be like somebody carrying an Anvil on his back could have same sport performances of when free of any ballast.

It is simply not true, baĺlast is and wiĺl always be a penalty.
Moreover, Russia has not a dozen big LHD or LHA to deploy some meaningful number of VTOL aircrafts.

but also has many short runways in potential war zones near its borders besides who told you Russia is not planning to build one? it was stated : first fighter then ship.

Peŕrier wrote:
The U.S. have at least the excuse behind the F-35B, by the way a STOVL, not  a VTOL aircraft, of around a dozen LHD and LHA,  plus a couple of British STOVL carriers and at least one Italian pocket STOVL carrier.

With the U.S. ship's displacing around 45K tons, the British carriers more than 60K tons, and only the Italian one close to the 30k tons mark.

Russia could have, at best, three flat tops around 30K tons, neither so large nor very big.

It's debatable if a ship around 30K tons could operate more than 8 - 10 aircrafts. Actually, if an amphibious one, it will be able to operate no more than 5 or 6.

We dont know what Russia can have because there is no plan to build big or small. First is not size but function and geographical specifics. For patrolling far north to protect SSBNs, helping in local wars/cisises, landing with troops?

At best, there will be around a couple dozens aircrafts embarked at any time, but actually there will be more likely less than 20, because an amphibious ship has no enough space and facilities to support a meaningful number of combat aircrafts.

Unfortunately reality proved you're wrong compare

Spanish Juan Carlos I
Notes:
Aircraft composition: Pure combat: 25 AV-8B/F-35B + 6 flight deck parking spots (31 fighters STOVL right?)
Mix: 11 AV-8B + 12 NH90 + 6 flight deck parking spots
Pure transport: 25 NH90 + 6 flight deck parking spots

Displacement: 26,000 tonnes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_ship_Juan_Carlos_I

The British, having realized that, acted at the contrary: they have developed a purpose built STOVL carrier, centered around a requirement for around 40 STOVL fighters, then expanded the project to be able to act as a LHA when needed. That way, they ended designing two ship's displacing more than 60K tons, and still when acting as an LHA the carriers will have to get rid of most of the aircrafts, to make room to assault helicopters.

and what's wrong with that? let's not fight wars form the past. New carriers will have different ways of fighting. With Zircons, drones UAV/UCAVs and underwater, air-wing might have different tasks then in US carrier fleet.

Pls note Russia is in foreseeable future focusing on Sea Denial not Sea Control strategy. Different strategies different tools to do the job.

Isos wrote: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.

Like that? oops there is in making


The universal killer: Russian UCAV is going to surpass Western analogs


https://riafan.ru/895781-universalnyi-ubiica-udarnyi-bpla-vks-rf-zatknet-za-poyas-zapadnye-analogi

An unmanned aircraft with a variable thrust vector can appear in Russia in 2023. This in an interview with RIA Novosti said the head of the Center for Advanced Studies, deputy director of the company "Kronstadt" Vladimir Voronov . It will be a universal device capable of both destroying the enemy's living force and equipment and delivering the necessary cargoes to the battlefield, said Oleg Ponomarenko , a military expert at the Center for Strategic Situations .

It is reported that the Russian percussion UAV will be created on the basis of the already existing dredge Fregat. At the same time, the first version of the military unmanned vehicle will be a two-ton model.

"If there is an engine, we can create a two-tone first and pick it up in three years. It can be used not only as a scout and percussion, but also as a transport vehicle. In a semitone with payload, one ton range can be three thousand kilometers. For a helicopter and an incomprehensible distance. It will take another three years to produce it, "the representative of the center said.

ok ok iknow translation sucks

faboys' pic below

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Isos wrote: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.

Like that? oops there is in making


The universal killer: Russian UCAV is going to surpass Western analogs


https://riafan.ru/895781-universalnyi-ubiica-udarnyi-bpla-vks-rf-zatknet-za-poyas-zapadnye-analogi

An unmanned aircraft with a variable thrust vector can appear in Russia in 2023. This in an interview with RIA Novosti said the head of the Center for Advanced Studies, deputy director of the company "Kronstadt" Vladimir Voronov . It will be a universal device capable of both destroying the enemy's living force and equipment and delivering the necessary cargoes to the battlefield, said Oleg Ponomarenko , a military expert at the Center for Strategic Situations .

It is reported that the Russian percussion UAV will be created on the basis of the already existing dredge Fregat. At the same time, the first version of the military unmanned vehicle will be a two-ton model.

"If there is an engine, we can create a two-tone first and pick it up in three years. It can be used not only as a scout and percussion, but also as a transport vehicle. In a semitone with payload, one ton range can be three thousand kilometers. For a helicopter and an incomprehensible distance. It will take another three years to produce it, "the representative of the center said.

ok ok iknow translation sucks

faboys' pic below

Looks like a workable scaled model, but this is definitely what i was talking about for a VTOL UCAV, with this i don't see any reason for a full VTOL aircraft anymore.
The investment is just a waist at this point.
Unless one believes that dogfights are history and long range missiles will decide it all, i for one just don't see a VTOL being fitted with an Irbis class radar.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Precisely which one? Yak-38? F-35 or Yak-141?

All of the VTOL prototypes and Yak-38 as well. F-35B is NOT a VTOL fighter, whatever people would like to say. It's a STOVL, and the Harrier as well, despite being conceived as a VTOL, became a STOVL because  if employed as a VTOL had almost no useful payload.

Peŕrier wrote:
I still do not believe we will see any, I mean any, operational combat aircraft with VTOL capabilities.
There is a simple reason behind this skepticism: a combat aircraft is supposed to survive when confronted by opponents combat aircrafts.

It require electronic on par, performances on par, pilot's training on par, tactics on par, C3I on par.
Remove one of the above, and you will struggle to maintain overall parity.
Remove two or more, and you will end on the losing side.
A VTOL aircraft has a big penalty in the hardware required for vertical take offs and landings, both on weight and in volumes.

We do not talk about Yak-38 or Sea Harrier but now? like which of elments  F-35 is missing? is is not operational, really?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:


but also has many short runways in potential war zones near its borders besides who told you Russia is not planning to build one? it was stated : first fighter then ship.

So RuAF is going to induct  in service a combat aircraft it would never be able to support outside a logistic network? Highly doubtful. By the way you just switched from VTOL to speak of STOL (short take off and landing) a whole different beast.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

We dont know what Russia can have because there is no plan to build big or small. First is not size but function and geographical specifics. For patrolling far north to protect SSBNs, helping in local wars/cisises, landing with troops?

It's the Mod itself speaking of a future class of LHDs displacing around 30K tons, to be built in three exemplares, so that is at the moment what is planned for

GunshipDemocracy wrote:


Unfortunately reality proved you're wrong compare

Spanish Juan Carlos I
Notes:
Aircraft composition: Pure combat: 25 AV-8B/F-35B + 6 flight deck parking spots (31 fighters STOVL right?)
Mix: 11 AV-8B + 12 NH90 + 6 flight deck parking spots
Pure transport: 25 NH90 + 6 flight deck parking spots

Displacement: 26,000 tonnes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_ship_Juan_Carlos_I

No, you just proved yourself to not having understood reality of carrier's flight operation.

Juan Carlos I could transport, only transport 25 aircrafts, because the hangar would crowded as a truck trailer at full load. It would not possible to lift to the bridge other aircrafts than that beside the lift itself, it would not possible to bring any aircraft in the hangar other than to the parking spot right to the lift itself.

Have a look at the graphic simulations published by Spanish MoD: they are a chest thumbing exercise only, and it is plainly apparent. During actual operations, Juan Carlos would be lucky if able to operate half of those numbers, otherwise it will became a ferry, not an aircraft carrier.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

They MiG-29 had same radar Zhuk and  avionics so not true. Yak was to have also  HUD display in 80s...   really so bad ? pls note there is a difference of over 20 years in both fighters' design.



Never update of  Yak-141M was to be Yak-43 (just checked Yefim Gordon's book about Yak fighters) with Kuznetsow NK-32 engine... and stealth. Gordon writes looking F-22 alike (who knows maybe now time to update design :-)




Yak 41M

Flight characteristics [ edit ] | edit the code ]
Maximum speed :
at an altitude of 11 km: 1800 km / h ( M = 1.7)
at the ground: 1250 km / h (1.05 M)
Practical range:
with GDP without load:
at an altitude of 10-12 km: 1400 km
off the land: 650 km
at the OHR with a load of 1 t:
at an altitude of 10-12 km: 2100 km
At the ground: 1010 km
Practical ceiling : 15 000 m
Battle radius: up to 900 km



MiG 29k

Performance
Maximum speed:
At high altitude: Mach 2+ (2,200 km/h, 1,370 mph)
At low altitude: Mach 1.13 (1,400 km/h; 870 mph)
Cruise speed: Mach 1.21 (1,500 km/h; 930 mph)

Range:
At high altitude: 1,500 km (930 mi; 810 nmi)
At low altitude: 700 km (435 mi; 380 nmi)
Combat radius: 850 km (528 mi; 459 nmi)

Ferry range:
Clean: 2,000 km (1,240 mi; 1,080 nmi)
With 3 drop tanks: 3,000 km (1,860 mi; 1,620 nmi)
With 3 drop tanks and one aerial refueling: 5,500 km (3,420 mi; 2,970 nmi)
Service ceiling: 17,500 m (57,400 ft)

No, the Yak-141 had a scaled down version of Zhuk to save weight and volume (surprise!).

And MTOW was 19.500 Kg when performing short take offs with a ski jump, the same way Su-33 and Mig-29K perform take offs on-board of Kuznetsov.

If taking off vertically (as in VTOL meaning) MTOW was reduced to 15800 Kg, leaving only 4 tons available for fuel AND ordnance. Because internal fuel capacity was a little more than 4 tons, either it had no range at all and could take off vertically with a serious payload, or it had almost full range but no payload at all.

It was not able to take off vertically with full fuel load, because in such configuration it was already exceeding vertical take off's MTOW.

So to provide almost the same performances of a Mig-29K, a Yak-141 had to operate just as a Mig-29K, making the two auxiliary turbojet and the swiveling nozzle just a baĺlast.

It is not by chance that Yak-141 was ditched and Mig-29K development was pursued instead.

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.

Yak-41 damaged the airfield at Farnborough in a hover... not a vertical takeoff because they didn't even attempt one of them... it was just a low altitude hover...

The Harrier does not have an Afterburner...

A supersonic VTOL aircraft needs one.

Uhm, Garry, this is from the Afghanistan history thread by archangelski.

I know... I remember... at the time they were saying VTOL aircraft were going to be the only operational aircraft in WWIII because all the airfields will be destroyed in the first seconds of war.

The Yak-38M went up against what we now know as the Su-25 in the CAS role... the unarmoured Yak was found out... weak payload, short range, no armour, and very vulnerable to ground fire and not able to take off from most strips in real combat because of the FOD issues... they were useless and it was found out and rejected.

So none of navies buying F-35B know what they are doing? British, Spanish, Italian and recently Japanese? All top brass has no idea that STOVL sucks?

They are trying to save money by buying small ships... who cares these days of the British, Spanish, Italians or Japs have ineffectual carriers... when are they going to need them? Who would they need them against?

le petite différence then USSR ceased to exist. Not because anything was wrong with fighters. Russia unlikely ceases to exist in 2018-2025

Russia is likely to start expanding its interests and to do that it need a blue water navy with global reach... so they will need aircraft to help them do that...

They MiG-29 had same radar Zhuk and avionics so not true. Yak was to have also HUD display in 80s... Smile really so bad ? pls note there is a difference of over 20 years in both fighters' design.

The MiG-29M was an operational aircraft, The Yak-41 was a technology demonstrator with zero development of systems, equipment, or weapons.

They hadn't even tested vertical takeoffs with weapons on board.

The aircraft had one fixed 30mm cannon and four weapons hard points on the wings.

No belly positions were available because of the engine arrangement.

Note your data is wrong... the Yak-41M has a payload of two R-77s and two R-73s and that is all other than the gun.
The MiG-29K on the other hand can carry weapons on 9 pylons including external fuel tanks...

The Yak-41 was a technology demonstrator with zero development of systems, equipment, or weapons.

That's because they knew that program will not be getting funds and will be cancelled. They wanted to save money.

This time they have money. Not Yakovlev but whatever company will be getting the gig.


As for your recent comment against stationing VTOLs on helicopter carriers because then they would not be helicopter carriers anymore, that the whole point of stationing them there.

SMOTR - Yak 38 in Afghanistan - English subtitles

Very entertaining and interesting...

Azi wrote:SMOTR - Yak 38 in Afghanistan - English subtitles

Very entertaining and interesting...

At 4:06, rolling STOVL style take-off.

If it worked back then I say they can do 100 times better now.

Hell, back then Super Nintendo was still distant science-fiction...

And stick with ships, who the hell uses this on dirt?

That video just confirm that vertical take offs and landings are stunts of little usefulness.

They say, as expected, that in vertical take offs the aircraft couldn't haul any big payload, and with high temperature it got worse and worse up to the point to make the aircraft useless.

The improvised air strip took 2,5 months to build, was covered in metal, still after few weeks was rendered inoperative by the damages inflicted on vertical landings.

What were the real plus behind Yak-38?

High thrust-to-weight ratio, IMHO highly autorithative flight controls, STOL capabilities.

Nothing related with any VTOL characteristics.

At the end, phisic's laws being always the same era after era, it just prove that VTOL is not an option for high performance combat aircrafts.

My bet: if, and I still doubt it is true, there is a program envisaged for a VTOL combat aircraft, it will die while on the drawing board.

It just doesn't work.