Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

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

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.

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:

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.

PapaDragon wrote:

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.

No, they ditched both Yak-38 and Yak-141 while, on the very same timeframe, they opted to develop Mig-29K.

In the dire constraints of the 90's, they opted for what today has become the Mig-29K used both by Russian and Indian Navy.

It speaks volume about the feedback they got both from Yak-38's operational use and Yak-141's development phase.

They worked well or in a satisfactory way only when employed as STOL aircrafts, and with Mig-29K they have a STOL aircraft with good commonality with other versions of the family, good range, good payload, good electronics.

All of these without having to reinvent the wheel or to pursue insane weight saving technologies and solutions.

All you need in addition, is an angled deck with arrestors cables, i.e. a decent sized aircraft carrier.

Because size of an aircraft carrier is always function of the number and dimensions of the embarked aircrafts, as soon you start planning for something more than 20 aircrafts embarked, the minimums length and displacement required for an angled deck pop up by themself from the drawing board.

Peŕrier wrote: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.

LOL No!

They said that Yak-38 was used in STVOL mode and made a good perfomance. Other point is, that in Afghanistan runways with a few km length were seldom, so that Yak-38 was more effective, because other aircraft flew longer distance from ordinary air bases. Fuel was lower, but it didn't matter because the Yak-38 was near the frontline. So most time Yak-38 had a bigger fuel reserve, when returning as other aircraft.

The problems with airstrip were real, but it was a experiment first time they used a VTOL/STOVL aircraft in a conflict of a landlocked country. So they have now the know how, maybe they have some sufficient funds...and let's see what happens

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

if you compare available data of Zhuk model in MiG 86' and scaled down Yak version actual deection abilities are the same. surprise

Peŕrier wrote:
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.

Really you you have statement of any top brass about it? because from history Soviet Union was dissolved and many programs stopped not because they were wrong. You compare Yak from 80' with MiG from 2010. And surprisingly MiG is better. I would be surprised if not.

Besides what is the problem with short take of for VTOL fighter? you can land on any frigate if you have to. and maybe this is the value enough to justify this?


Please tell me then
1) why MiG-29K is not going to be developed further neither produced for RuN?
2) Why Royal Navy resigned from CATOBAR F-35 and gone for F-35B if this suck so much?

Azi wrote:

They said that Yak-38 was used in STVOL mode and made a good perfomance. Other point is, that in Afghanistan runways with a few km length were seldom, so that Yak-38 was more effective, because other aircraft flew longer distance from ordinary air bases. Fuel was lower, but it didn't matter because the Yak-38 was near the frontline. So most time Yak-38 had a bigger fuel reserve, when returning as other aircraft.

The problems with airstrip were real, but it was a experiment first time they used a VTOL/STOVL aircraft in a conflict of a landlocked country. So they have now the know how, maybe they have some sufficient funds...and let's see what happens

STOL is in price always, vertical landing and eventually take off especially on ships. In Soviet Times there were also projects Yak-141M (so further development of Yak-141) and Yak-43 (only STOL) .


The reason for this was ... using any short strip in war zone.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

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

if you compare available data of Zhuk model in MiG 86'  and scaled down Yak version actual deection abilities are the same. surprise

Peŕrier wrote:
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.

Really you you have statement of any top brass about it? because from history Soviet Union was dissolved and many programs stopped not because they were wrong.  You compare  Yak from 80' with MiG from 2010. And surprisingly MiG is better. I would be surprised  if not.  

Besides what is the problem with short take of for VTOL fighter? you can land on any frigate if you have to.  and maybe this is the value enough to justify this?  


Please tell me then
1) why MiG-29K is not going to be developed further neither produced for RuN?
2) Why Royal Navy resigned  from CATOBAR F-35 and gone for F-35B if this suck so much?

1) The MiG-29/35 is an aircraft design of the late 1970s, early 1980s. The MiG-29K is a late variant, and will not have further development because of the advanced age of its technological basis. By the time when new aircrafts for aircraft carriers will be needed in Russia, the design of the MiG-29 will be fairly exhausted. The same for the Su-27/30/33/35 and its naval variant, the Su-33.

At the time the MiG-29/35 and the Su-27/30/33/35 were selected as basis for fighters for the aircraft carriers over other VTOL options because of a superior performance. The main problem with the VTOL fighters, is to produce designs underperformers by nature. The addition of VTOL systems to a modern fighter is expensive, adds weight, and damages the performance.

It is not totally right to say that the Yak-141 and other VTOL variants of the 1980s were cancelled because of the fall of the Soviet Union. At the time, these designs were defeated by the naval variant of the Su-27/30/33/35, the Su-33, just produced between 1989 and 1999 (not cancelled like the VTOL options), and later also by the naval variant of the MiG-29/35, the MiG-29K.

If Russia does a bid for an new VTOL fighter, very very likely it will fall to the Su-57, like previous bids failed in the 1980s to the MiG-29/35 and the Su-27/30/33/35. The best option for Russia is to use the Su-57 for its future aircraft carriers, even, if possible, without need of a naval variant.

Besides what is the problem with short take of for VTOL fighter? you can land on any frigate if you have to. and maybe this is the value enough to justify this?

Have you not seen the video of a Yak-41 burning after a heavy vertical landing ruptured its fuel tanks and started a huge fire....

Arrested landings are rather safe and effective... if they are spending money developing EM cats it makes sense to use them to maximise the take off weight of carrier aircraft. and expand performance rather than reduce it.