Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1755
    Points : 1750
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:15 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Oh my... Cool

    Russia to Expand its Carrier Fleet with Two Advanced New Assault Ship Classes; Vertical Takeoff Aircraft Could Follow

    http://militarywatchmagazine.com/read.php?my_data=70725

    ... It also remains a possibility, particularly for the ‘large amphibious assault ship’ referred to by the Deputy Commander in Chief, that Russia may well develop a new fixed wing aircraft to operate from its warships. With these ships potentially approaching the size of the Japanese Izumo Class or even the Untied States' own American Class carrier warships, this remains a considerable possibility. Much like the United States developed the F-35B with short takeoff vertical landing (STOVL) to operate from its own amphibious assault ships, so too did the Soviet Union before it develop Yak-38 Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) strike fighter to operate from its own Kiev Class vessels - which lacked runways entirely. These aircraft served until the year of the Soviet disintegration, when the more advanced Yakovlev 141 VTOL fighter was also cancelled with four prototypes built. The possibility of a resurrection of the Yak-141 program, or a derivative program making use of similar technologies, remains a considerable possibility for the Russian Navy to equip its new carriers - thus allowing it to field a larger force of fixed wing aircraft carrying warships without the costs of developing and operating a vessel the size of the Kuznetsov, Ulaynovsk or SHOTRM ships....

    Some magazine catching up to old news, but it does mention a “universal amphibious assault ship” and “large amphibious assault ship”, the former obviously being Lavina, while the latter is genuinely unknown.
    Unless the former is Priboy, while the latter is Lavina, i doubt it.

    Either way, if the MoD wants to repeat the mistakes of Kiev and Yak-38, then who am i to stop them.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8016
    Points : 8104
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:26 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:........Either way, if the MoD wants to repeat the mistakes of Kiev and Yak-38, then who am i to stop them.

    Wasting time and money on aircraft carrier is mistake by default but with STOVL they will waste less time and money and VKS just might get a new light fighter jet out of the whole thing.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:23 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Wasting time and money on aircraft carrier is mistake by default but with STOVL they will waste less time and money and VKS just might get a new light fighter jet out of the whole thing.

    Quite difficult that they don't end up wasting more time and money than making a proper carrier. Such a light fighter for the VKS, by being made compatible with STOVL requirements, would end up being a failure like the F-35 (actually I find the F-35 as good as such a concept can get) due to design constrains that do not appear easy to solve (namely, central engine position + vertical lift propulsion competing with weapons bays and forcing an excessive plane frontal section, see picture). The development would cost billions and lead to a subpar fighter. Better employ them in a properly matched carrier / light fighter design so the plane can operate with reasonable loads from the deck and be directly usable by the air force.

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Servei10

    Besides, making a STOVL fighter specific for the naval fleet of the RF would make an economic sense close to zero. How many planes would be ordered in the end, 100 at the best? This would be a complete frivolity.

    Not that I discard that this is what happens (sadly) but unless they manage a breakthrough design and to somehow steal the customers from the F-35 they would lose big time with such plane
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3612
    Points : 3594
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  miketheterrible on Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:26 pm

    Well, if they actually make even just 100, that is already profitable for Yakovlev, Sukhoi or Mikoyan.

    Fact matter is if they really are making a jump jet, they could probably reduce overall costs by going with a jump jet design and then a non jump jet design for same design of an aircraft and allow airforce to acquire the non jump jet variant.

    Yakovlev can make some very impressive fighters. Russia needs to increase airforce numbers especially with something cheaper. May prove helpful in all rounds.

    So long as they don't go crazy on requirements and then make it impossible to buy. Just use a lot of modern already used technology and or promising technology (Zhuk-A, RD-93 modified, etc).
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2441
    Points : 2439
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:37 pm

    India & Thailand could buy some to replace their Harriers, not to mention China for her LH/PDs.
    We discussed it in depth already. I also wonder if a steeper ski jump rump can eliminate the need for STOVL?
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:50 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:Well, if they actually make even just 100, that is already profitable for Yakovlev, Sukhoi or Mikoyan.

    Fact matter is if they really are making a jump jet, they could probably reduce overall costs by going with a jump jet design and then a non jump jet design for same design of an aircraft and allow airforce to acquire the non jump jet variant.

    Yakovlev can make some very impressive fighters.  Russia needs to increase airforce numbers especially with something cheaper.  May prove helpful in all rounds.

    So long as they don't go crazy on requirements and then make it impossible to buy.  Just use a lot of modern already used technology and or promising technology (Zhuk-A, RD-93 modified, etc).

    Yeah, I was being optimistic and thinking of 4 -5 carriers at least, so that number of planes may take decades to be reached...

    I agree on the rest. But the problem is that the fighter for the air force would have, in order to have at least a minimum commonality with STOVL version, the engine in a central position. If you add this to the lifting devices (engines or fan) and the fact that as a 5G fighter some level of internal carriage of weapons is needed, then you need to make the plane grow transversally to put inside all those things.

    Result is VERY bad, essentially unacceptable for a light fighter design. Increased cross section forces heavier, draggier plane and that in time forces bigger engine with additional weight creep, but in the end you cannot avoid the plane having suboptimal dynamic characteristics. F-35 is there for anyone to check what I say. As soon as you meet fighters not so heavily compromised you are going to find out how dangerous that design path was.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8016
    Points : 8104
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:25 am

    LMFS wrote:.....

    I agree on the rest. But the problem is that the fighter for the air force would have, in order to have at least a minimum commonality with STOVL version, the engine in a central position. If you add this to the lifting devices (engines or fan) and the fact that as a 5G fighter some level of internal carriage of weapons is needed, then you need to make the plane grow transversally to put inside all those things.

    Result is VERY bad, essentially unacceptable for a light fighter design. Increased cross section forces heavier, draggier plane and that in time forces bigger engine with additional weight creep, but in the end you cannot avoid the plane having suboptimal dynamic characteristics. F-35 is there for anyone to check what I say. As soon as you meet fighters not so heavily compromised you are going to find out how dangerous that design path was.

    There is no need for engine to be in central position when you convert STOVL aircraft to standard takeoff aircraft.

    Lifting devices (fan) will not be present in standard version and that space will most likely be occupied by additional fuel tank.

    Internal weapons will be mandatory and this is perfectly normal. As for the amount, this is light fighter so weapons load will be smaller by definition.

    Fact is that airforce wants light single engine fighter. Getting it funded is a hassle as always but if they can also solve the issue of carrier aviation refusing to cease it's existence and solve two problems at the same time then it's a whole different story.

    This way both Navy and VKS get new plane, Navy focuses on helicopter carriers (ships they actually need and can get in usable numbers) that will double as aircraft carriers thus saving both insane amounts of money and appeasing their overinflated egos while whole supercarrier idiocy is finally relegated to oblivion once and for all.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:38 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    There is no need for engine to be in central position when you convert STOVL aircraft to standard takeoff aircraft.

    Lifting devices (fan) will not be present in standard version and that space will most likely be occupied by additional fuel tank.

    Internal weapons will be mandatory and this is perfectly normal. As for the amount, this is light fighter so weapons load will be smaller by definition.

    Fact is that airforce wants light single engine fighter. Getting it funded is a hassle as always but if they can also solve the issue of carrier aviation refusing to cease it's existence and solve two problems at the same time then it's a whole different story.

    This way both Navy and VKS get new plane, Navy focuses on helicopter carriers (ships they actually need and can get in usable numbers) that will double as aircraft carriers thus saving both insane amounts of money and appeasing their overinflated egos while whole supercarrier idiocy is finally relegated to oblivion once and for all.
    Laughing Laughing Now that is a clear opinion!

    Would agree on the double role, doing otherwise really makes me wonder where the money for both ship types in useful numbers is going to come from, but due to industry development issues it seems they plan to proceed progressively with ships of increasing size until they are capable of producing CVNs. Hell, if they can maintain their 10:1 return on military investment against US also in carriers, they could get one for little over 1 billion Razz

    The fighter part... agree on most of your comments but see it very difficult to change engine position without developing two different planes. In general I think there are innovative ways to solve this issue of the naval aviation waiting to be explored, but without moving from conventional approaches, a carrier with characteristics similar to those of the Charles de Gaulle would be at the same time very powerful without being such an overkill as a 100 kT one.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:08 pm

    Andrei Martyanov with preliminary comments on the STOVL news:

    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/08/it-is-official-now.html

    It Is Official Now.


    Read this attentively:

       KUBINKA /Moscow Region/, August 21. /TASS/. Russia is developing a prototype of a completely new vertical take-off plane on the instruction of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov said on Tuesday. "This work has, indeed, been included in the state armament program and is being conducted on the instruction of the supreme commander-in-chief. Now work is underway to develop conceptual models and prototypes," the vice-premier said.


    I will comment in depth on this later but one thing which is absolutely clear--STOVL concept in Russian Navy will lead, inevitably, to some sort of a hybrid carrier akin to US Navy's LHA-6 America-class amphibious assault ships but, in Russian case, most likely with greater emphasis on the air-wing and self-defense—even most likely making it closer to HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier of the Royal Navy conceptually. I can already hear sobbing and cries of desperation from all kinds of Russian navalists still enamored with the concept of Alfa-strikes and glory of the flying decks of CATOBAR carriers. I used to be a navalists myself but with the appearance of 4th generation submarines and weapons such as P-800 Onyx, I got cured and transferred from the shining light and inherent goodness of the Battle of Midway romanticism to a dark side of bookkeeping, cynical pragmatism and stand-off weapons. And I mean STAND-OFF weapons and we all know what they are.

    The main question now thus is this: is co-existence of CATOBAR and STOVL carriers possible in Russian Navy? My answer is: why not. MiG-29K is a mature program and this excellent aircraft will eventually substitute venerable SU-33s on a fully upgraded Kuznetsov, which undergoes a major refit as I type this. As per new STOVL aircraft—let's wait and see. When Yak-141 first appeared in late 1980s it was a revolutionary STOVL aircraft; who said that new one will not be.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Aug 22, 2018 3:43 pm

    LMFS wrote:Andrei Martyanov with preliminary comments on the STOVL news:

    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/08/it-is-official-now.html

    It Is Official Now.


    Read this attentively:

    I will comment in depth on this later but one thing which is absolutely clear--STOVL concept in Russian Navy will lead, inevitably, to some sort of a hybrid carrier akin to US Navy's LHA-6 America-class amphibious assault ships but, in Russian case, most likely with greater emphasis on the air-wing and self-defense—even most likely making it closer to HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier of the Royal Navy conceptually.



    IMHO closer to TAKRS - VLS are modular fo ASh, AAD or ASROC type of weapons + pakets+ pantsirs. Just my guess, pseculation: it will be something on level of Groskhov M as for armament.



    The main question now thus is this: is co-existence of CATOBAR and STOVL carriers possible in Russian Navy? My answer is: why not.

    Functinally OK but to me against this is cost and risk. EM Catapult in US costs 1bln USD, lasts couple of years. And is heavier and takes place. for VSTOL adding all CATOBAR stuff makes it close to F-35 so not really competitive moeny-ise plane.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1350
    Points : 1348
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:00 pm

    Now we wait to see how long it takes them to get one in the water if they ever do.

    Russia designing a STOVL isn't odd, Feelings regarding these types of warships are always mixed.

    There is strong points but also weak points to a ship like this, the question is where if they do make afew will they find home in the navy.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8016
    Points : 8104
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:15 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Now we wait to see how long it takes them to get one in the water if they ever do.

    Russia designing a STOVL isn't odd, Feelings regarding these types of warships are always mixed.

    There is strong points but also weak points to a ship like this, the question is where if they do make afew will they find home in the navy.

    They need new transports, they need helicopter carriers so from that angle they should definitely get these built. Not really optional for them given the age of fleet.

    Fighter jet carrier feature is just a bonus.

    Like I said before, they are doing same thing that Japanese did with Izumo-class. Makes perfect sense.

    Also, new STOVL aircraft is probably tied into fact that it will use derivatives of NK-321 same as Tu-160 which has been restated recently. Two birds, one stone.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2106
    Points : 2106
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Hole on Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:42 pm

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 000113
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:50 pm

    @hole:

    Thanks! BTW, the F-35B has no folding wings, so capacity of a LHA is rather weak:

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Images10

    Taking reference from plant views, the wingspan of the F-35C with folded wings is 9 m
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty PapaDragon wrote:

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:11 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    They need new transports, they need helicopter carriers so from that angle they should definitely get these built. Not really optional for them given the age of fleet.

    Fighter jet carrier feature is just a bonus.

    or standoff maritime platform with VSTOL edition...





    Like I said before, they are doing same thing that Japanese did with Izumo-class. Makes perfect sense.

    Also, new STOVL aircraft is probably tied into fact that it will use derivatives of NK-321 same as Tu-160 which has been restated recently. Two birds, one stone.

    Looks like some engineers have hidden Yak-43 blueprints since 80s ;-))) me thinks Izumo is a bit too small. They will be 40-60k ranges.








    SeigSoloyvov wrote: There is strong points but also weak points to a ship like this, the question is where if they do make afew will they find home in the navy.

    Taking into account age, size and tasks of the fleet Russia again has to rethink (IMHO) way Soviet Union did. Variation of TAKRs - but this time with LHD capabilities. VLS and modular desing make it versatile and mission equipped. Cost effectiveness.

    OK Im speculating as I did with VSTOL fighter before Smile

    Talking about weak/strong points - its like comparing AK with Maxim and Mosin. Maxim is much better in sustained RoF, Mosin outclasses in range. Still AK is excellent in its role.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:51 pm

    LMFS wrote:@hole: Thanks! BTW, the F-35B has no folding wings, so capacity of a LHA is rather weak:


    America Class LHA can carry 23 F-35. Is more less size of Russian fixed wing contingent which won war in Syria.
    For Midway too little tho   Razz  Razz  Razz




    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 20120618095119742


    rrrright, you can fold 50% longer length of Su-57 too?  OK size of hangar an deck is flexible with Su-35.


    Taking reference from plant views, the wingspan of the F-35C with folded wings is 9 m

    So you say Su-57 has foldable  wings? But F-22 doesn't and for some reason want navalized. BTW Su-57 wingspan is like 14m and length 20m (22 with this funnu needle Smile  vs 15,7m/11m   wingspan  f-35[/quote]
    [/quote]




    LMFS wrote: BTW I am confused, for me the Kuz is a TAKR.

    my bad, I mixed wit h Kiev Class dismantling ASh. She still has  12 Granit's VLS.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  LMFS on Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:43 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    America Class LHA can carry 23 F-35. Is more less size of Russian fixed wing contingent which won war in Syria.
    For Midway too little tho   Razz  Razz  Razz

    I agree expeditionary forces do not need huge air wings like in a super carrier (or not always), I have been advocating for compact, multifunctional carriers. Just wanted to point out that current STOVL-carrying flat tops do not carry many aircraft, since you were claiming that Su-57 type aircraft would be too big to get a decent air wing in a compact carrier. No Midways, that can be spared with just one Poseidon  What a Face

    rrrright, you can fold 50% longer length of Su-57 too?  OK size of hangar an deck is flexible with Su-35.
    Nooo, you are not exaggerating a bit right?  lol1

    Su-57 is 19.8 m long, MiG-29 is 17,3 m, Yak-141 was 18.4 m, F-35 is 15,5 m. So Su-57 is 28% longer than the thick and short F-35 which is hopeless as supersonic fighter... but we don't know if it would be narrower. F-35C is 20% wider than Su-33 once folded, mind you!

    So you say Su-57 has foldable  wings? But F-22 doesn't and for some reason want navalized. BTW Su-57 wingspan is like 14m and length 20m (22 with this funnu needle Smile  vs 15,7m/11m   wingspan  f-35
    No it hasn't, no reason for it, until MoD decides to create a carrier version, the same way Su-27 has no folding wings but Su-33 has. F-22 had many issues to be navalized... aero was not up o the task to start with apparently, and of course the type of undercarriage is incompatible with carrier landings. This, apart from other political issues that may have been more important than mere technical considerations. On the other hand, Su-57 has LEVCONS to handle approaching at high AoAs, massive lifting body and extremely robust undercarriage. Seems relatively close to a possible naval fighter to me, and I would be surprised that some basic compatibility was not a requirement from the very beginning. A carrier designed with it in mind could house good amounts of them (new light carrier with 44 k would have one squadron Su-33 and one squadron MiG-29 apparently, plus 4 AWACS and one squadron helos)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20889
    Points : 21443
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:31 am

    It doesn't have to be good, it just has to be decent. It will not be doing any dogfights.

    Yeah... missiles can do everything... don't bother making it manouverable or giving it a gun... isn't that what they said about the F-4?

    Because the F-15 that replaced it was manouverable and had a gun... odd that really...

    Let me guess "heavy aviation cruiser" concept is back. Uparm Wasp class and you can have either small AC (~24 VSTOL) or LHD or helo antisub carrier. Simply cost effectiveness.

    Funny because I have not heard the EMALS is cancelled....

    If they are going ahead with this VSTOL fighter then it is rather likely it is the plan B.

    Remember the Yak-41 was funded too... right up until they cancelled it.

    The main thing that kills the VSTOL F-35 is the enormous space taken up by the large lift fan that is dead weight during normal flight, but such a fan is critical because it blows normal temperature air downwards... if that goes into the air intake at the front there are no problems... if it uses two small jet engines like the Yak-41 did then that hot air will stall the main engine... stall at landing is fatal for VSTOL jet.

    Even if they are they will still be wasting far less money than they would if they tried to do super-carrier.

    Of course... a super cheap 5th gen fighter that takes off vertically and will be produced in numbers of perhaps 50 or 100 max... yeah... that is going to be real cheap... Of course if they want to operate them for more than 5 years they will need to make 200... to allow for operational losses...

    Feels good man....

    You mean to know Putin is not always right?

    It doesn't have to be good, it just has to be decent. It will not be doing any dogfights.

    So if you are going to be setting the bar so low why bother at all?

    UAVs can detect threats and targets and ship based missiles can be directed to intercept targets out to 600km...


    More importantly, it can be used as basis for excellent single-engine light fighter. Replace VTOL engine with standard one and replace all associated equipment (fans or front engines) with fuel tank. Done.


    Hahahahahahahahaaha..... YOU JUST SUGGESTED RUSSIA BUILD AN F-35!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! are you drinking right now?

    Yak -141 (actually Yam41M) wasn't latest. Yak-141M was latest then Yak43 and Yak-201 according to Yefn Gordon books. Perhaps some blueprints remained?

    Why not try to find some Nazi plans from WWII to base it on?

    I mean no progress in design or manufacture or materials has been made recently...

    Maybe the Chinese will build them for Russia?

    That we dont know. Not necessarily only fleet needs it. They were plans to use STOL version of Yaks for land forces AFAIK. As front fighter. Kuznetsov + series of HD ships. Perhaps also Arctic fleet patrols ships can take some. OR Arctic forces can enjoy STOL capabilities in remote locations?

    Yeah... that is what Russia needs... very short range low payload fighters... they seem to prefer Flankers to Fulcrums... but lets equip them with something even less capable than a MiG-35... I mean how could they possibly manage a long runway in Russia... there is simply no room... or am I confusing Russia with Hong Kong?

    Su 57 wont start from Kuz. Too short lane and Su-57 takes 2x so much space on AC then F-35B.

    Who told you that?

    The Su-57 is smaller and lighter than an Su-33 but has more powerful engines... and is getting even more powerful engines soon...

    Guess why USN builds 100k monsters?

    Because their so called fighters have 10 ton payload capacities they use to bomb the natives in their colonial wars on the other side of the planet.

    Invasions require a lot of planes.

    For example: Su-57 is so much inferior then MiG-31. Thus why to buy inferior fighter not all MiG-31 or 41 right?

    152mm artillery piece is superior in power and range to any assault rifle... but they have different uses. MiG-31 is an excellent interceptor but not a fighter.

    Stealth is useful... but not everything and a lot of the time an unnecessary extra expense.

    The Su-57 has already been developed... using your example... the Russians have AK-74s and PKP machineguns... if you want another weapon developed from scratch to do both jobs... lets call it the XM25... then you are wasting money and time... an AK-74 with rail mounts and decent optics would be a naval Su-57... your new VSTOL fighter is an XM25....

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:54 am

    LMFS wrote:

    rrrright, you can fold 50% longer length of Su-57 too?  OK size of hangar an deck is flexible with Su-35.
    Nooo, you are not exaggerating a bit right?  lol1

    Su-57 is 19.8 m long, MiG-29 is 17,3 m, Yak-141 was 18.4 m, F-35 is 15,5 m. So Su-57 is 28% longer than the thick and short F-35 which is hopeless as supersonic fighter... but we don't know if it would be narrower. F-35C is 20% wider than Su-33 once folded, mind you!


    Su-33 / MiG-29K are not in picture anymore mind you. I took F-35 as an example of modern design and more less features you could exp3ct with new fighter hre.
    Talking about size:

    F-35 after wiki:
    Length: 50.5 ft[487] (15.67 m)
    Wingspan: 35 ft[c] (10.7 m)

    Su-57
    Length: 19.8 m (65 ft) - without dingy (pitot tube? antena? )
    Wingspan: 13.95 m (45 ft 10 in)

    wingspanratio: 1,3
    length ratio: 1.26 (with thingy: 1.4)

    surface ratio: 1.64
    1.82 with thingy


    so from 20 you have 10-12 fighters on board.


    So you say Su-57 has foldable  wings?


    No it hasn't, no reason for it, until MoD decides to create a carrier version, the same way Su-27 has no folding wings but Su-33 has. F-22 had many issues to be navalized...

    [/quote]

    looks like Su-57 undergone similar exercise and perhaps that's why this decision.





    This, apart from other political issues that may have been more important than mere technical considerations.
    Same here - light fighter of new generation more cost effective and great asset for fleet.



    [qute] A carrier designed with it in mind could house good amounts of them (new light carrier with 44 k would have one squadron Su-33 and one squadron MiG-29 apparently, plus 4 AWACS and one squadron helos)[/quote]

    mind Su-33/ MiG-29k are out of pic. Check Borisov statement last year. AWACS - in net centric world swarm of drones linked to control room on AC is air replacement and less costly and much less space requirements.
    Wtih size of AC we both of course speculating bt it is nice exercise anyway bounce bounce bounce





    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:17 am

    GarryB wrote: Let me guess  "heavy aviation cruiser" concept is back. Uparm Wasp class and you can have either small AC (~24 VSTOL) or LHD or helo antisub carrier. Simply cost effectiveness.

    Funny because I have not heard the EMALS is cancelled....
    [/quote]
    and I ve never heard it was ordered ether  Razz  Razz  Razz



    Remember the Yak-41 was funded too... right up until they cancelled it
    and Soviet Union was dissembled because of this? mind both were about same time.





    Of course... a super cheap 5th gen fighter that takes off vertically and will be produced in numbers of perhaps 50 or 100 max... yeah... that is going to be real cheap... Of course if they want to operate them for more than 5 years they will need to make 200... to allow for operational losses...


    are you saying Russians didn't calculate/brainstorm over and over  cost/benefits before taking decision? just Putins after-party hangover? and who told you it cannot be ised as army fighter replacing MiG-35 . Mind why so short series is bought?




    Yak -141 (actually Yam41M) wasn't latest. Yak-141M was latest then Yak43 and Yak-201 according to Yefn Gordon books. Perhaps some blueprints remained?

    Why not try to find some Nazi plans from WWII to base it on?


    Surely, Tu-160M2 is like nazi project ot you? MiG-35 even older design? af forgot designs are updated iwth new materials and avionics and weapons.  

    All in all deal with this decision is made  lol1  lol1  lol1 e






    Yeah... that is what Russia needs... very short range low payload fighters...

    F-35B has payload same as MiG-29K and about same range.


     but lets equip them with something even less capable than a MiG-35... I mean how could they possibly manage a long runway in Russia... there is simply no room... or am I confusing Russia with Hong Kong?

    You do Smile In Russia in cold climate (Arctic) are fairly hard to make, number of bases will grow.  Long runway are also more expensive in building. We do not know yet will the new fighter will be less capable then MiG-35.

    NK-32
    thrust  137 kN   with afterburner  245 kN


    MiG-35  
    thrust2x55kN or  88kN (186kN)  with afterburner.






    Su 57 wont start from Kuz. Too short lane and Su-57 takes 2x so much space on AC then F-35B.

    Who told you that?

    Take Off - 350m. Wiki for example.





    The Su-57 is smaller and lighter than an Su-33 but has more powerful engines... and is getting even more powerful engines soon...


    soon = after 2023




    Guess why USN builds 100k monsters?
    Invasions require a lot of planes.

    wrong, because they are exclusive  lol1  lol1  lol1
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:28 am

    And if new fighter is not going to be produced by Yak but MiG?


    Last year Butoski's drawing of new MiG LMFS

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 3914794_original
    drawing form 2017

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2430909.html



    Yak STOL concept in article on iParalay site. Article form 2009...

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 10

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Yak2


    speed max. 2100 km / h
    range 4000 km





    and Izdleye 201 (Yak-43)

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 201

    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1840
    Points : 1830
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  hoom on Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:58 am

    That Yak canard is pretty interesting.
    No V, just STOL right?

    Big canards, big flaps, limited thrust vectoring on the main nozzle & bleed air from the compressor run forward to a what?
    Fan powered by the compressed air? Combustion chamber directly producing thrust? or With a turbine also powering a fan?

    This is in my thinking the right way to do it: Design explicitly for a ski-jump takeoff & slow rolling landing with wings always expected to be significantly contributing to lift.
    Should mean significantly less downside than full Vertical capability.

    Hot air forward of the engine inlets is problematic Suspect
    Was watching a video the other day of one of the Skunkworks engineers who did propulsion for K-35 program & he was very explicit that cold air fan was key to X-35 winning, specifically blocks the hot air from swirling forward to be ingested.
    If its always moving forward at decent speed (STOL no V) that'd be much less of an issue though.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:20 am

    hoom wrote:That Yak canard is pretty interesting.
    No V, just STOL right?


    project 1 (white plastic Very Happy:D:D ) project 2 down is VSTOL AFAIK with NK-32 modification (245kN thrust...)



    Big canards, big flaps, limited thrust vectoring on the main nozzle & bleed air from the compressor run forward to a what?
    Fan powered by the compressed air? Combustion chamber directly producing thrust? or With a turbine also powering a fan?

    This is in my thinking the right way to do it: [].
    If its always moving forward at decent speed (STOL no V) that'd be much less of an issue though.




    Sounds reasonable, and cheaper Very Happy:D:D nobody optimizes better Russian Army than Suilianov. But izdleye 201 had also VSTOL version - I hope there will be both thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup

    I was just struck by similarities of STOL version and JANES Butowski's drawing about LMFS... supposedly MiG LMFS bounce bounce bounce
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2106
    Points : 2106
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Hole on Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:22 am

    Yak-41 was cancelled by Jelzin.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1840
    Points : 1830
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  hoom on Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:56 pm

    project 1 (white plastic Very Happy:D:D ) project 2 down is VSTOL
    Are you positive they're different?
    Drawing looks like its illustrating the white plastic model.

    Sponsored content

    RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion - Page 8 Empty Re: RuN Carriers and deck aviation future discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:29 pm