Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Share
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3742
    Points : 3780
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:10 am

    GarryB wrote:
    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.


    Nope, I didn't see this video but I am sure that there was one or more . There were many different accidents finally Yak-41 then Yak-41M (141) and not implemented Yak-141M. Current plane also will have to grow technologically. With lessons learned by US with F-35B Russians have easier task.


    And what is most important much smaller fleet that US or even UK. The question is not V/STOL or not but what tasks fleet has to address. Invading of New Zealand, Poland or Latvia ? for example :-)
    Or attacking continental Mauritania? who knows.


    Or just sail around globe and show off V/STOL fighters to market it with occasional supporting humanitarian operations?

    Or defend mainly northern route against aircraft/ASW forces and supporting own ASW?




    Well live and see in coming years. with each news we grow smarter I guess Smile



    Between Yak-141 and new Russian V/STOL fighter there il be more then 35 years difference! V/STOL has its value for Navy especially.
    That's so far was proved by USMC/Royal Navy not to mention Italian/Spanish and potentially Japanese and Australian.













    Azi wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:What "LOL"? Are not you able to argue a point of view on a serious mood and attitude?

    STOL seemed some funny features in the 60's and early 70's, when fastjets were designed with 0,5:1 T/W ratio.

    ...
    LOL because you are arguing not fair and objectively. You are comparing the technology of TODAY with Yak-38 and say that STOVL and VTOL is crap. I can't really compare the Harrier with F-35B, they are aircraft of complete different generation. You have your opinion before the concept even exists. How can you decide if a concept is good or bad before scientist and engineer starting their work?

    In Afghanistan the experiment with Yak-38 offered many problems, but it even offered many advantages of the concept. In Russian Air Force STOVL and VTOL died because of no funds, not of the concept itself. Other good concepts died the same way in 90ies, it's a complete lost decade for russian defence.

    There will be a new concept for STOVL/VTOL and we all don't know if it will be good or bad. So just let the guys do their work. You can say Yak-38 was a primitive aircraft compared to others and had less payload, but the new STOVL/VTOL will be not the Yak-38 or Yak-141. There are many problems with STOVL/VTOL but it offers many advantages.

    Damn you dude, You've stolen my argument respekt respekt respekt

    For some strange reasons smart dudes like Garry B and Perrier  comparing planes with 40 years of difference in technology. Assuming that future V/STOL fighter in Russia will be at most replica of solutions form earlu 80s. In early 2020s.

    Some how they do not  compare Super Entendard or A-7 Corsair II with F-35B?  Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2340
    Points : 2357
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  eehnie on Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:43 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    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 Smile


    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.

    1) MiG-29K was accepted in 2010.  Yak-141 was stopped in 1991 and development stalled by end of 80's. So what actually you compare?


    2) I'd love still see at least one historian, subject matter expert  or top brass opinion roving that Yak was rejected because was poor performing. So far seen none but maybe this statement really exist?  

    3)  V?STOL fighter is planned. That what was stated so far.  I presume lighter and cheaper then Su-57, more like S-54 and also for export. Yak has now little weight as planes' manufacturer so cake could go to Su as only real fighter manufacturer or less probable to MiG.  

    1) The MiG-29K is a variant of the MiG-29, in active service since 1982. Are not you able to recognize this? It is obvious that the technological basis of the MiG-29K is of the late 1970s early 1980s despite to have more modern improvements.

    2) The facts are not enough to need some historian/expert words? The Admiral Kutznesov is the Russian aircraft carrier selected to remain until today. Fairly the best produced in during the Soviet Union. It was commissioned in 1990. The timing was perfect for the Yak-141, but the naval variant of the Su-27/30/33/35 was selected over the Yak-141 and its variants. And later the naval variant of the MiG-29/35 was selected over the Yak-141 and its variants. Do you mean the Russian Navy selected twice the wrong aircrafts?

    3) If the Russian Armed Forces do a bid for a new VTOL fighter, this bid will very likely fall vs the Su-57. Very likely will be lighter, very likely will be underperformer compared to the Su-57, and very likely will be more expensive taking into account that the count begins now, at the begin of 2018, with the Su-57 developed and almost ready for serial production, and the VTOL fighter in zero at this point. To note that if the Russian Armed Forces would have expected a VTOL fighter to overperform the Su-57, they would have developed a VTOL fighter instead of the Su-57, and now we would have a 5th generation Russian VTOL fighter as the future main fighter for all the branches of the Russian Armed Forces.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3742
    Points : 3780
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:18 am

    eehnie wrote:
    1) The MiG-29K is a variant of the MiG-29, in active service since 1982. Are not you able to recognize this? It is obvious that the technological basis of the MiG-29K is of the late 1970s early 1980s despite to have more modern improvements.





    from balancer MiG-29k cockpit





    MiG-29 cockpit

    MiG-29


    And MiG-29k is called 4++ generation you know , because of 70s right? Smile

    http://svpressa.ru/post/article/125741/



    2) The facts are not enough to need some historian/expert words? The Admiral Kutznesov is the Russian aircraft carrier selected to remain until today. Fairly the best produced in during the Soviet Union. It was commissioned in 1990. The timing was perfect for the Yak-141, but the naval variant of the Su-27/30/33/35 was selected over the Yak-141 and its variants. And later the naval variant of the MiG-29/35 was selected over the Yak-141 and its variants. Do you mean the Russian Navy selected twice the wrong aircrafts?

    Project 971 and 885 were also stopped. Were they no good subs?




    3) If the Russian Armed Forces do a bid for a new VTOL fighter, this bid will very likely fall vs the Su-57. Very likely will be lighter, very likely will be underperformer compared to the Su-57, and very likely will be more expensive taking into account that the count begins now, at the begin of 2018, with the Su-57 developed and almost ready for serial production, and the VTOL fighter in zero at this point. To note that if the Russian Armed Forces would have expected a VTOL fighter to overperform the Su-57, they would have developed a VTOL fighter instead of the Su-57, and now we would have a 5th generation Russian VTOL fighter as the future main fighter for all the branches of the Russian Armed Forces.

    Well, Su57 was in part paid by India, V/STOL can be paid by Arab Emirates.
    Su-57 is way too expensive to replace other fighter aircraft, in US they produced F-22 not even 200 for a reason. Do you suggest that

    a) Russia has more money than US in military budget?

    b) Russian has too many large ACs to use an expensive navalized V-gen fighter?

    c) Royal navy is dumb calculating that V/STOL fighter is cheaper then developing catapults and buy READY CATOBAR fighter?

    Azi

    Posts : 225
    Points : 221
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Azi on Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:12 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:No, Yak-141's tests showed it could perform vertical take offs with one ton of payload only.

    To bring around 2,5 tons of payload it had to perform a 120 meters take off run

    A full combat load required  a rather conventional take off run, not really short.

    It was not by chance or mistake that they opted for Su-33 and Mig-29K instead of Yak-141: with the only constraint of an angled deck with arrestor gear, they got far more versatile and useful combat aircraft.

    VTOL is a failed concept when referred to combat aircrafts.
    Once again...

    The tests were stopped, due to insufficient funds! The tests were not stopped because Yak-141 was a bad concept. In time were no money is available, only really conservative concepts comes in to reality, never a visionary concept.

    The Yak-141 has two lift engines with a thrust of 41,7 kN and the main engine with 108 kN dry thrust. To start in VTOL mode you must generate more thrust, than the weight of the aircraft (force of mass is generally mass multiplied with gravitational acceleration (in Europe ~ 9,8 )). To start with a bit agilty I calculate 1 ton thrust for lift more, than mass of the aircraft...and e voila you will have a mass of ~17 tons for a vertical take off.

    I don't know if it was possible to take off vertical with activated afterburner!? The tests stopped at the very beginning of test programm, due to no funds. With afterbruner the Yak-141 would have a lift thrust of 235,4 kN, that exceeds the max weight. Maybe the Yak-141 was possible to take off vertical with full payload and max. fuel?! We don't know!

    By the way were was a concept for Yak-141, to be accompanied by trucks with mobile heat resistant mini start and landing place and fuel.

    The Yak-141 was described by pilots as a very agile and capable fighter...by the way.

    And VTOL is not a failed concept! Every STOVL from Harrier to Yak-38 was able to perform VTOL. But these aircraft had weaker engines, than Yak-141, a supersonic VTOL/STOVL. It is good to decide between STOVL and VTOL, because there are my options and not only one. Think about the airstrip is damaged or debris lies around, than your great short take off is not possible! By the way a VTOL aircraft can even land and start on the helipad of a frigate Razz Very Happy

    Azi

    Posts : 225
    Points : 221
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Azi on Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:27 pm

    The Su-57 is a big multi role fighter. It is capable of nearly everything and it's characteristics are great. But Russia need not only big massive fighter, they have now plenty good of them (Su-35 etc.). Russia lacks the amount of good small fighters, even the Mig-29/Mig-35 is too big. Problem of the Su-57 will be...NOT cheap!

    Russia needs a small and cheap single engine fighter, very similar to F-35, but cheap. The F-35 was intended as a cheap fighter, with costs around 40 million US-$, now it's 100 million US-$.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2340
    Points : 2357
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  eehnie on Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:35 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    1) The MiG-29K is a variant of the MiG-29, in active service since 1982. Are not you able to recognize this? It is obvious that the technological basis of the MiG-29K is of the late 1970s early 1980s despite to have more modern improvements.





    from balancer MiG-29k cockpit





    MiG-29 cockpit

    MiG-29


    And MiG-29k is called 4++ generation you know , because of 70s right? Smile

    http://svpressa.ru/post/article/125741/



    2) The facts are not enough to need some historian/expert words? The Admiral Kutznesov is the Russian aircraft carrier selected to remain until today. Fairly the best produced in during the Soviet Union. It was commissioned in 1990. The timing was perfect for the Yak-141, but the naval variant of the Su-27/30/33/35 was selected over the Yak-141 and its variants. And later the naval variant of the MiG-29/35 was selected over the Yak-141 and its variants. Do you mean the Russian Navy selected twice the wrong aircrafts?

    Project 971 and 885 were also stopped. Were they no good subs?




    3) If the Russian Armed Forces do a bid for a new VTOL fighter, this bid will very likely fall vs the Su-57. Very likely will be lighter, very likely will be underperformer compared to the Su-57, and very likely will be more expensive taking into account that the count begins now, at the begin of 2018, with the Su-57 developed and almost ready for serial production, and the VTOL fighter in zero at this point. To note that if the Russian Armed Forces would have expected a VTOL fighter to overperform the Su-57, they would have developed a VTOL fighter instead of the Su-57, and now we would have a 5th generation Russian VTOL fighter as the future main fighter for all the branches of the Russian Armed Forces.

    Well, Su57 was in part paid by India, V/STOL can be paid by Arab Emirates.
    Su-57 is way too expensive to replace other fighter aircraft, in US they produced F-22 not even 200 for a reason. Do you suggest that

    a) Russia has more money than US in military budget?

    b) Russian has too many large ACs to use an expensive navalized  V-gen fighter?

    c) Royal navy is dumb calculating that V/STOL fighter is cheaper then developing catapults and buy READY CATOBAR fighter?

    1) Then do you mean that if we put the systems and displays that you show in the picture in a T-72 hull will fly like a MiG-29K? There is a lot more to make a MiG-29K, and many of these things are technology of the late 1970s and early 1980s. In fact the most important technological elements that allow the performance of the MiG-29K are outside of the picture. And yess, 4+ generation technologies are developed from a technological basis of the late 1970s early 1980s, that was 4 generation fighter technology (unlike the T-72 hull). To use the technological basis of the MiG-29/35 is what allows to the MiG-29K and the MiG-35 to be 4+ generation fighters, but is also what allows not them to be reach to be 5 generation fighters. The same with the Su-27/30/33/35. If Russia wants 5 generation fighters for its aircraft carriers neee a new design. And the Su-57 is the real project for it, while a new VTOL fighter is in zero still.

    2) The work on the Project 971 and the Project 885 was not totally cancelled, it was frozen some time and was resumed long time ago, because they were better than other projects that were cancelled. There are hulls of both projects laid down in the early 1990s and finished years later. And even today there are hulls of other projects laid down in the early 90s that remain under construction without a cancellation. This is not the case of the Yak-141 and variants, that were defeated by the variants of the Su-27/30/33/35 and the MiG-29/35.

    3) Then do you mean the VTOL fighter was likely to overperform the Su-57, but Russia selected wrong the project to develop as its future main fighter, misleaded by India?

    The EAU is a staunch follower of the US, and it would not be a bad tactic for the US to use money of the EAU in order to distract the Russian engineers in underperforming projects. Russia is not silly and will manage it right.


    Last edited by eehnie on Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:50 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Peŕrier on Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:43 pm

    It's not true that Yak-141's development was dropped for lack of fundings.

    As soon as Yak-141 died, development of what would become Mig-29K started, and already in late 90's happened first trial onboard of Kuznetsov.

    It could sound strange, because they never gave publicity to the development, but Mig-29K born right after Yak-141's ditching.

    Why they should invest funds in Mig-29K, when there was no funds to complete Yak-141's development?

    Tinkle tinkle...

    Maybe because they recognized that STOL with arrestor gear was a more practical and flexible concept, and pursued with Mig-29K to get an aircraft with smaller footprint compared to Su-33, but sharing the same take off and landing characteristics.

    By the way, both Su-33 and Mig-29K are credited with around 2 tons of payload when taking off from forward launching spots, give or take, meaning they need around 120 meters run to take off with such payload.

    Ramp no. 3, giving around 200 meters take off run, is used mainly for greater payloads or for very unfavourable meteorological conditions.

    Anyway, both Mig-29K and Su-33 grant far greater bring back capabilities, because Yak-141 showed nearly zero bring back capabilities.

    That meant, any time a mission woild abort whatever the reason, the payload had to be ditched in the sea before trying to land.

    The same more or less is valid for F-35B as well, in spite of 20+ years of technological advancements.

    The british developed the "rolling landing" right to try improve F-35B's bring back characteristics.

    And they opted for STOVL (F-35B) instead of catapults plus arrestor gear (F-35C) because without a nuclear power plant there is little chance to power steam catapults, and even EM catapults would be tricky to provide with the required electric power.

    They discarded nuclear propulsion because deemed too expensive, everything else followed almost automatically, the F-35B being already on the drawing boards for the US Marine and their 12 LHD/LHA.

    And without the US Marine's requirement, the british plus the italians, the australians and the japanese could never be able to fund a new STOVL combat aircraft for maybe 8 flat tops all togheter.

    So how many flat tops is going to fiels Russian Navy, to make viable a russian STOVL combat aircraft?

    What would its development alone cost?

    Because if Russia is going to have three, maybe four LHD, it will be hardly convenient to develop and build an ad hoc STOVL combat aircraft.

    While the same money could far easily pay for a Su-57 derivative, or at last a Su-35 derivative, and even spare some little sum for a new carrier to field alongside Kuznetsov.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7257
    Points : 7351
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:22 pm

    ...So how many flat tops is going to fiels Russian Navy, to make viable a russian STOVL combat aircraft?

    What would its development alone cost?

    Because if Russia is going to have three, maybe four LHD, it will be hardly convenient to develop and build an ad hoc STOVL combat aircraft.

    While the same money could far easily pay for a Su-57 derivative, or at last a Su-35 derivative, and even spare some little sum for a new carrier to field alongside Kuznetsov.

    Any costs of developing new STOVL aircraft will be immediately offset by massive savings that will be result of using much cheaper and flexible carrier vessels.

    Having 4 LHDs is much preferable and cost efficient than having one massive supercarrier white elephant armed with obsolete aircraft. And I doubt they will stop with 4.

    Having a single Kuznetzov-class ship is already problematic enough. Imagine having another single ship class in use only this one being more expensive and complicated one?

    And any STOVL aircraft designed for carrier use can be easily converted into standard light fighter for airforce and export.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Peŕrier on Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:42 pm

    I suspect you have never looked seriously at amphibious ships.

    America class, displacing around 45.000 tons, without any floodable dock (therefore being limited as amphibious ship) can carry 12-16 F-35B.

    Wasp class, only an handful tons smaller, having a flooding dock can carry 4-8 F-35B.

    Queen Elizabeth, a true STOVL carrier with marginal amphibious capability (only vertical assault through helicopters) displacing 65.000 tons can carry around 40 F-35B, probably up to 50.

    So, what kind of LHD, how much displacing, with or without flooding dock, with how many refueling stations over the bridge, how many ordnance's elevators, what capacity for net fuel, how many workshops for aircrafts' maintenance, and so on?

    An easy bet: somewhat displacing no more than 40.000 tons, teoretically limited to no more than 12-14 aircrafts, practically if it will be a true amphibious ship no more than 8-10 aircrafts.

    Best scenario ( a best case, actually) four flat tops with a total of 30-40 aircrafts capacity.

    A more realistic scenario, a more conservative capacity of 6-8 aircrafts with a total capacity of no more than 30 aircrafts.

    Last, how many conventional aircrafts have been derived until now from a STOVL or VTOL project?

    Never heard of any, but I do not pretend to know all history of aviation.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7257
    Points : 7351
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:56 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:I suspect you have never looked seriously at amphibious ships.

    America class, displacing around 45.000 tons, without any floodable dock (therefore being limited as amphibious ship) can carry 12-16 F-35B.

    Wasp class, only an handful tons smaller, having a flooding dock can carry 4-8 F-35B.

    Queen Elizabeth, a true STOVL carrier with marginal amphibious capability (only vertical assault through helicopters) displacing 65.000 tons can carry around 40 F-35B, probably up to 50.

    So, what kind of LHD, how much displacing, with or without flooding dock, with how many refueling stations over the bridge, how many ordnance's elevators, what capacity for net fuel, how many workshops for aircrafts' maintenance, and so on?

    An easy bet: somewhat displacing no more than 40.000 tons, teoretically limited to no more than 12-14 aircrafts, practically if it will be a true amphibious ship no more than 8-10 aircrafts.

    Best scenario ( a best case, actually) four flat tops with a total of 30-40 aircrafts capacity.

    A more realistic scenario, a more conservative capacity of 6-8 aircrafts with a total capacity of no more than 30 aircrafts.

    Last, how many conventional aircrafts have been derived until now from a STOVL or VTOL project?

    Never heard of any, but I do not pretend to know all history of aviation.

    And these numbers are more than enough for Russian Navy.

    You are trying to apply US Naval doctrine to Russia. One look at the map will tell you those two things are not compatible.

    Vessel numbers > vessel size, simple as that.

    As long as they carry anti-sub helicopters and marine troops they are good. Fixed winged aircraft are bonus.

    As for converting VTOLs to conventional aircraft, just because it wasn't done before does not mean it won't be done.

    Why would it be a problem anyway? Simplifying device is easier than doing opposite.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2340
    Points : 2357
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  eehnie on Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:54 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:Any costs of developing new STOVL aircraft will be immediately offset by massive savings that will be result of using much cheaper and flexible carrier vessels.

    Fake, fake, fake, fake lol!


    http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160324_Fact-Sheet.pdf

    $55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)


    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf

    $04.7 Billion = Development cost G Ford Aircraft Carriers
    $12.9 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-78 G Ford Aircraft Carrier)
    $11.4 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-79 JF Kennedy Aircraft Carrier)
    $13.0 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-80 Enterprise Aircraft Carrier)
    $13.0 Billion = My estimation of the Cost per unit (CV-81 ????? Aircraft Carrier)
    $55.0 Billion = Total cost of development of the G Ford Aircraft Carriers plus construction of the 4 aircraft carriers


    We have here some pro-US liying, like this one, but the reality emerges.


    Last edited by eehnie on Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:31 am; edited 2 times in total

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:17 am

    Quite the contrary: it would be a waste of resources.

    A modest 2 aircrafts CAP require at the very least 8 aircrafts to be mantained.

    Actually, because every N cycles each aircraft has to be grounded for 24 hours, give or take, to perform in depth checks and maintenance, 10 aircrafts is a more sound number.

    So any ship embarking only a dozen aircrafts or less would have just the bare minimum to provide a minimal air cover to itself, or even less than the bare minimum.

    So a huge investment to get a mere 2 aircrafts covering the flat top itself, and maybe 2 more ready to take off on alarm.

    Any real air cover for a task force would require additional aircrafts to be dispatched to defend other naval assets of the task force, a task impossible to accomplish with less than 18-20 aircrafts.

    Please note no offensive/strike role is considered, just mere defense, that with a dozen or less aircrafts falls back to self defense of the flat top itself and jusyt closely near other ships.

    Something that any real carrier, no matter how little, would make a short work of it without any effort.

    Under 16-18 combat aircrafts, it would be a matter of hour before attrition would stop any air cover, without even the need to actually shoot down the aircrafts.

    To get a safer margin, something north of 20 aircrafts would guarantee either a 4 aircrafts CAP always available, plus a additional 2 ready to take off on alarm, or 2 distinct 2 airplanes CAPs, one for the flat top itself the other for a separated group of the naval task force, not ideal but sometimes dictated by the tactical situation.

    Again no offensive role, but an air defense no easily overwhelmed and able to withstand some attrition.


    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7257
    Points : 7351
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:28 am

    Peŕrier wrote:

    ..................


    Again you keep trying to apply US Naval doctrine on Russia.

    Days of naval air warfare are long over.

    Russian Navy will use carrier aviation for same three things that all other navies have been using them since mid 20th century:

    1) Scouting

    2) Bombing third world pre-industrial mountain tribes into submission

    3) Geopolitical dick-waiving

    Try to bring an aircraft carrier to modern naval war against anything other than a Coast Guard and you can say goodbye to entire ship and crew.

    20th century is over. So is era of naval air warfare. Missiles are here.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:40 am

    Good luck.

    Unfortunately, whatever AShM or cruise missile you could launch from a ship or from land, it could be loaded under a combat aircraft embarked on a carrier.

    So the carrier will keep having the longest arm, most if not all the times.

    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7257
    Points : 7351
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:43 am

    Peŕrier wrote:Good luck.

    Unfortunately, whatever AShM or cruise missile you could launch from a ship or from land, it could be loaded under a combat aircraft embarked on a carrier.

    So the carrier will keep having the longest arm, most if not all the times.


    Agreed.

    If only they could invent some kind of ship that could move underwater and attack carriers from below...

    But alas, how could any nation possibly build such technological wonder?

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:58 am

    Even forgetting a carrier group has plenty of ASW assets, and sails escorted by one or two SSNs performing free hunting within the intended area of operations, a carrier group tipically sail at 24+ knots.

    Any SSN should hope to place itself along or very close to the intended course, otherwise any try to race with the carrier would make it so noisy to leave it no chance to remain undetected.

    Because there is no sub in the world that can go high speed and keep being quiet.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3742
    Points : 3780
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:14 am

    Peŕrier wrote:Good luck.

    Unfortunately, whatever AShM or cruise missile you could launch from a ship or from land, it could be loaded under a combat aircraft embarked on a carrier.

    So the carrier will keep having the longest arm, most if not all the times.


    1) how many aircraft battles on high seas have you seen after 45? None because there will be none. No need for this. In 30 you'd probably be zeal opponent of aircraft carriers stating that Russia has to build as many battleships as possible.

    2) Long arm? That's the idea. Zircon with 1000km range can be directed by UAC with AWACS abilities. Like V/STOL Fregat cruising over group for hours. With 32-48 UKSK-M can provide great deal of AAD and AShM power. Cany any plane get closer then 1000 km to Russian? If so maybe Russian 20 can fire hypesonic ASchM misiles too. (1500 km range).

    So who's got longer d...direct range?

    3) Maybe less V/STOL per one carrier but more versatility for class of ships. Wasp Class LHD can carry 20-24 F-35B but can also have other roles similar to Juan Carlos Class.


    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3742
    Points : 3780
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:16 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    3) Geopolitical dick-waiving

    damn I have spilled coffee on my keyboard again. Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil


    eehnie wrote:

    $55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)

    $55.0 Billion = Total cost of development of the G Ford Aircraft Carriers plus construction of the 4 aircraft carriers

    Where F-35 project voders is actually 3 planes sharing more less component base. Not to mention that PAK FA costs are around $20bln  thus with use "off shelf"   avionics (PK FA/Su 35), engines (like new NK-32), coatings and only one V/STOL configuration has to be cheaper. Who knows maybe even around half price.







    Peŕrier wrote:Even forgetting a carrier group has plenty of ASW assets, and sails escorted by one or two SSNs performing free hunting within the intended area of operations, a carrier group tipically sail at 24+ knots.

    Any SSN should hope to place itself along or very close to the intended course, otherwise any try to race with the carrier would make it so noisy to leave it no chance to remain undetected.

    Because there is no sub in the world that can go high speed and keep being quiet.

    With barriers of "dwelling fish like torpedo mines" or hypersonic missiles,sub robo drones  and own subs covered by own ASW choppers this is not really that hard in Arctic to block US entrance into area. There are gonna be neither Midway 2 nor  Marian Turkeys' Shootouts  anymore.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:07 am

    Ok, if thread had turned to SciFi novels, with Wasp able to carry a couple dozens F-35B, not to mention robocops, terminators and Alien's eggs, please be my guest.

    I'll simply switch to the ignore it all mood.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 470
    Points : 502
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:58 am

    Peŕrier wrote:Ok, if thread had turned to SciFi novels, with Wasp able to carry a couple dozens F-35B, not to mention robocops, terminators and Alien's eggs, please be my guest.

    I'll simply switch to the ignore it all mood.

    You forget that the Russian navy has giant hypnotic killer squids and telleporting claw monsters not to mention their inivisble flying sourcers and super death rays. Russian medical science can also be used to remove the alien embryo form its host safely and reliably so I don't think they will be having any xenomorph infestations.

    The americans have how many carriers agian? well it doesn't matter because Russia has 87 fully loaded motherships
    hiding in space and ready for the invasion.  

    Oh and the energy shields how could I forget thoes they have them all around Russia
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2340
    Points : 2357
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:36 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:

    ..................


    Again you keep trying to apply US Naval doctrine on Russia.

    Days of naval air warfare are long over.

    Russian Navy will use carrier aviation for same three things that all other navies have been using them since mid 20th century:

    1) Scouting

    2) Bombing third world pre-industrial mountain tribes into submission

    3) Geopolitical dick-waiving

    Try to bring an aircraft carrier to modern naval war against anything other than a Coast Guard and you can say goodbye to entire ship and crew.

    20th century is over. So is era of naval air warfare. Missiles are here.


    If you would have some intention of being fair with the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015, you would be talking in this comment about non nuclear deterrence, which is the main purpose of the planned future Russian aircraft carriers, and their aircrafts.

    Do not forget that the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 will come to you.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1133
    Points : 1131
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:45 am

    eehnie wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:

    ..................


    Again you keep trying to apply US Naval doctrine on Russia.

    Days of naval air warfare are long over.

    Russian Navy will use carrier aviation for same three things that all other navies have been using them since mid 20th century:

    1) Scouting

    2) Bombing third world pre-industrial mountain tribes into submission

    3) Geopolitical dick-waiving

    Try to bring an aircraft carrier to modern naval war against anything other than a Coast Guard and you can say goodbye to entire ship and crew.

    20th century is over. So is era of naval air warfare. Missiles are here.


    If you would have some intention of being fair with the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015, you would be talking in this comment about non nuclear deterrence, which is the main purpose of the planned future Russian aircraft carriers, and their aircrafts.

    Do not forget that the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 will come to you.

    Oh yes the doctrine that states they would have more than one Gorshkov-class in service by now yet they have yet to hand the first one over to the navy.

    The document that says they would have tons of other shit in service by now they failed to either commission entirely or the number they gave us.

    The document that is confirmed to be a steaming load of BS has shown by the SAP.

    PS when the Russians do lay down that carrier, I'll be shocked if they get it made in 15 years. Has by the time the Russians do commission a new CV many nations will be able to sink it with little hassle, since by that point missile tech will be so advanced ain't nothing anyone can do.

    Age of the carrier is dead, while they still have their use against a competent force they are little more than target practice.

    Yes that plan, so I got one question to ask what kind of drugs are you buying?
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2340
    Points : 2357
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:52 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:

    ..................


    Again you keep trying to apply US Naval doctrine on Russia.

    Days of naval air warfare are long over.

    Russian Navy will use carrier aviation for same three things that all other navies have been using them since mid 20th century:

    1) Scouting

    2) Bombing third world pre-industrial mountain tribes into submission

    3) Geopolitical dick-waiving

    Try to bring an aircraft carrier to modern naval war against anything other than a Coast Guard and you can say goodbye to entire ship and crew.

    20th century is over. So is era of naval air warfare. Missiles are here.


    If you would have some intention of being fair with the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015, you would be talking in this comment about non nuclear deterrence, which is the main purpose of the planned future Russian aircraft carriers, and their aircrafts.

    Do not forget that the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 will come to you.

    Oh yes the doctrine that states they would have more than one Gorshkov-class in service by now yet they have yet to hand the first one over to the navy.

    The document that says they would have tons of other shit in service by now they failed to either commission entirely or the number they gave us.

    The document that is confirmed to be a steaming load of BS has shown by the SAP.


    PS when the Russians do lay down that carrier, I'll be shocked if they get it made in 15 years. Has by the time the Russians do commission a new CV many nations will be able to sink it with little hassle, since by that point missile tech will be so advanced ain't nothing anyone can do.

    Age of the carrier is dead, while they still have their use against a competent force they are little more than target practice.

    Yes that plan, so I got one question to ask what kind of drugs are you buying?

    Another one lying shamelessly about the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015.

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t2631p675-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-1#191117

    eehnie wrote:This is wrong, papadragon, and agrees not with the new Russian doctrine of 2015.

    The Russian maritime doctrine of 2015 say this:

    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50060

    Russian Federation Marine Doctrine

    Vladimir Putin held a meeting to discuss the new draft of Russia’s Marine Doctrine.

    July 26, 2015 16:00Baltiisk
    Vladimir Putin held a meeting to discuss the new draft of Russia’s Marine Doctrine.
    1 of 3
    Vladimir Putin held a meeting to discuss the new draft of Russia’s Marine Doctrine.
    The meeting took place on board the frigate Admiral of the Soviet Navy Gorshkov. Participants included Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, Commander of the Navy Viktor Chirkov, and Commander of the Western Military District Anatoly Sidorov.

    * * *

    President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, good afternoon.

    We have been updating the Russian Federation’s Marine Doctrine. This very complex document’s main aim is to provide our country with an integral, consistent and effective naval policy that will protect Russia’s interests.

    The Doctrine has been drafted and approved. This is a big event for our future navy, and for developing our shipbuilding industry, because the main customer – the navy in this case, and the Defence Ministry – formulate their future needs, and the industry must carry out these tasks. Industry adapts to new tasks depending on the needs formulated.

    Let me note that for the first time, the Doctrine also includes provisions of a purely social nature. They cover marine medicine, and provisions for improving the health of sailors and the specialists working in the marine field. This is very important. People need to know that from now on, our strategic documents for developing our country’s fleet and navy will address the social aspect too, and will give people what they expect from their service, as they carry out the tasks that face our country today in this very complex and important area.

    Let’s now discuss in more detail the Doctrine’s key provisions. Mr Rogozin, you have the floor.

    Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin: Thank you.

    Mr President,

    This new draft of the Russian Federation Marine Doctrine is a fundamental document of key importance, setting out our country’s naval policy. In other words, it is one of our country’s strategic planning documents.

    The Russian Government’s Marine Board undertook the document’s drafting, with the navy playing the leading role in this work. In all, 15 federal executive agencies and organisations took part in drafting the new Doctrine.

    We proposed making changes to the Marine Doctrine adopted back in 2001 for the period through to 2020 for two reasons: above all, the changing international situation; and, of course, strengthening Russia’s position as a sea power.

    The Marine Doctrine covers four functional areas and six regional areas. The four functional areas are naval activity, marine transport, marine science, and mineral resources development. The six regional areas are the Atlantic, Arctic, Pacific, Caspian, and Indian Ocean, and we have added Antarctica, as a fair number of events involving Antarctica have taken place of late and this region is of considerable interest to Russia.

    The main focus is on two areas: the Arctic and the Atlantic. The reasons for this are the following. We emphasise the Atlantic because NATO has been developing actively of late and coming closer to our borders, and Russia is of course responding to these developments.

    The second reason is that Crimea and Sevastopol have been reunited with Russia and we need to take measures for their rapid integration into the national economy. Of course, we are also restoring Russia’s naval presence in the Mediterranean.

    As for the Arctic, several events motivate our decision. One is the growing importance of the North Sea Route. Mr President, I reported to you that we have begun work on building a new fleet of atomic-powered icebreakers. Three new atomic icebreakers will be ready for work accompanying ships along the northern route in 2017, 2019, and 2020. Furthermore, the Arctic also assures us free and unhindered access to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Then there are the riches of the continental shelf, the development of which calls for an attentive approach.

    The Marine Doctrine pays particular attention to environmental issues too, because it is important for us not only to develop these riches, but also to preserve them for future generations.

    The Marine Doctrine contains a new section on shipbuilding. This is to a large extent linked to the fact that over these last 10–15 years, we have developed a shipbuilding industry that in terms of naval shipbuilding is doing work on a scale comparable to what was happening during the Soviet period. As for civilian and commercial shipbuilding, we are taking measures to encourage the establishment of private shipbuilding companies, which have demonstrated successful results.

    State management of marine activities is an important part of the Marine Doctrine. This section stresses the role of the Government’s Marine Board and clarifies the powers of the other state agencies. Essentially, once you approved the Marine Doctrine, we will be able to start drafting the whole list of planning documents for our country’s marine activities in the short, medium and long term.

    That concludes my report.

    Vladimir Putin: Are there any comments or questions?

    Commander of the Navy Viktor Chirkov: Mr President,

    Let me thank you for this Marine Doctrine’s timely drafting and approval. This is a timely document. It places responsibility on us for its future implementation, and we have already begun this process.

    Vladimir Putin: Mr Sidorov, what is the situation with coordination between the army and the navy?

    Commander of the Western Military District Anatoly Sidorov: Mr President, it is hard to talk about coordination when everything works as single whole and unified command. As far as the tasks before us are concerned, the Baltic Fleet is resolving everything together with the Western Military District’s forces.

    Regarding the delimitation of certain powers between the naval chief command and the Western Military District’s command, there is full coordination in this area.

    Vladimir Putin: Good, thank you.

    I see weakening in your comment, papadragon, more than a strenghtening.

    And more concretely about shipbuilding:

    https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/russias-new-maritime-doctrine.391893/

    Shipbuilding strategy

    The 2015 doctrine adds a new section to the mix: shipbuilding. This, the doctrine states, is due to the re-emergence of the Russian shipbuilding sector over the past 10-15 years.

    Admiral Victor Chirkov, commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy states that the navy's priority is to develop and deploy advanced equipment to enable Russia to make up for lost ground (against rivals) and to become superior to them in certain areas. In addition to refitting the fleets, the navy is looking to build up stocks of weaponry and materiel; improve naval command and control (C2); integrate joint force C2 into the various theatres; and improve the navy's basing and support systems.

    Among these, priority will be given to supporting Russia's ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) within the Northern and Pacific fleets.

    Additionally, the doctrine seeks to create a general-purpose marine force armed with long-range and high-precision strike systems capable of providing a non-nuclear deterrent.


    The navy's future surface fleet is to be divided between long-range multirole vessels and short-range vessels with modular capabilities. Looking ahead, the service intends to field a multi-service naval strike force capable of quick relocation to threatened areas.

    The doctrine also foresees the introduction of new and innovative technologies such as: artificial intelligence systems, unmanned aerial, surface and underwater vehicles (UAVs, USVs, UUVs), non-lethal weapon systems, and new weapon types such as directed-energy weapons.

    Russia will now look to create a single, integrated, and jam-proof fleet-wide C2 system for use at all levels from the strategic to the tactical. This is intended to be adaptable and to form a single information control complex to enable network-centric command of diverse naval and joint-service assets in any theatre of operations.

    In connection with the maritime doctrine, and amendments in some aspects of force development, the Russian Navy is expected to gain some additional resources because the creation of a well-balanced and equipped naval force is a long-term effort of 30-40 years. Considering this and the duration of ship design/construction work, the conceptual approach to the development of the navy will be an ongoing issue for 45-50 years.

    To take account of the implementation time and existing/forecast resource and technology restrictions, the creation of the new-model navy has been divided into three phases: up to 2020; 2021-2030; and 2031-2050. The content of each phase was outlined by Adm Chirkov for the various elements of the navy.

    Strategic nuclear forces

    Up until 2020 the maritime strategic nuclear force will focus on completing the development and launching of its fourth-generation Borey-class (Project 955/955A) SSBNs, while maintaining its remaining Delta III/IV-class (Project 667BDR/667BDRM) SSBNs in operational service.

    During the 2021-2030 phase work will proceed on replacing the Delta class with fourth-generation SSBNs. Within this second phase Russia will also work on developing a new ship-based (in fact submarine-based) strategic missile system and a fifth-generation SSBN class. The doctrine sets out that series production of the fifth-generation SSBN will then commence in the final 2031-2050 phase.

    General-purpose force

    The general-purpose marine force inventory will include in its first phase the creation of a strategic non-nuclear deterrent force, enhancements to its SSN and diesel-electric submarines (SSKs), the build-up of the inventory and capability of its surface forces, and the creation of the new marine rapid-response force. In the mid term the non-nuclear deterrent will be provided by Yasen-class (Project 885M) SSNs and Oscar-class (Project 885M) nuclear-powered guided missile submarines (SSGNs). Meanwhile, the capability of Russia's non-strategic submarines will be ensured by upgrading its third-generation SSNs and building a new generation of SSKs.

    During the 2021-2030 phase Russia's existing SSN/SSK fleet is planned to be improved by adding unmanned technologies, while construction of a new-generation SSN class is also planned.

    Surface fleet

    In the first phase Russia's Admiral Gorshkov-class (Project 22350) frigates and Steregushchy-class (Project 20380) corvettes and their variants will become the core of the surface force for long- and short-range operations.

    In the mid term a new-generation destroyer featuring advanced strike, air defence and missile defence capabilities will become the navy's main oceangoing ship. Between 2021 and 2030 a new class of modular multirole surface combat ship will be designed and enter series production as the successor to the Project 22350/20380 classes. It is envisaged that these will be armed with novel weapon systems and will carry unmanned vehicles of various sorts.

    The marine rapid-response force is intended to be capable of conducting missions in the maritime, aerial and land domains in any part of the world. For this, new aircraft carriers will be the core of its capability, along with multirole landing ships. Work to design a new class of Russian aircraft carrier is to be completed before 2020, with construction and entry into service planned for the second phase of the doctrine (2021-2030).

    Unlike the heavy aircraft cruisers of the previous generation of Russian aircraft carriers, the new carrier design will be multirole. It is envisaged to be equipped with manned and unmanned combat systems operating in the air, at sea, underwater and possibly in space. The carrier's air groups will include radar surveillance and C2 aircraft, alongside reconnaissance and strike UAVs.

    Naval Aviation

    For the Russian Naval Aviation the focus in the first phase will be the development and serial production of an advanced maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) by 2020.

    Additionally, Russia will look to develop and produce a new shore/ship-based multirole helicopter (to replace the Ka-27) and acquire a ship-based combat helicopter (the Ka-52K). Russia will also seek to develop advanced airborne strike systems.

    The second phase will see the deployment of the new Russian ship-based radar surveillance aircraft, ship-based UAVs, and ship-based strike aircraft. The 2021-2030 period will see the Russian Naval Aviation transition to optionally piloted aircraft, including those derived from existing manned aircraft. Obsolete aircraft are to be replaced by modern, multirole manned and unmanned aircraft. During the 2031-2050 phase naval aviation focus will switch to a new generation of multirole aircraft and UAVs and field a new generation of airborne precision weapon systems.

    Coastal forces

    The first phase of the doctrine concerning Russia's coastal troops and marine force aims to achieve: the completion of development of advance coastal-defence missiles and the issuing of them; and the enhancement of the marine brigade's ability to operate in different climates, including extreme Arctic conditions.

    Between 2021 and 2030 the doctrine plans the introduction of a highly mobile amphibious combat vehicle for the coastal troops so that they can support the marines' operations. The marines are also earmarked to begin receiving unmanned platforms during this period, possibly armed with directed-energy weapons or powered by alternative energy sources.

    Long term

    The direction of the final 2031-2050 phase is currently being analysed, according to Adm Chirkov. However, it is envisaged that during this final phase the following will be undertaken: series production of new-generation submarines; ongoing series production of the new aircraft carrier class; the start of series production of the new multirole ship class; the creation of a new generation of multirole unmanned systems; and the arming of coastal defence troops with new-generation unmanned missile systems capable of striking air, surface, sub-surface and space targets.

    Long-term plans (by 2050) also call for a transition to modular combat platforms for both surface ships and submarines.

    Nikolai Novichkov is a JDW Correspondent, reporting from Moscow

    And the project being designed is the Project 23000 that full agrees with the doctrine.

    Note that the doctrine explicitly mentions more than one aircraft carrier and serial production of aircraft carriers.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2340
    Points : 2357
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:58 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:Any costs of developing new STOVL aircraft will be immediately offset by massive savings that will be result of using much cheaper and flexible carrier vessels.

    Fake, fake, fake, fake lol!


    http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160324_Fact-Sheet.pdf

    $55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)


    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf

    $04.7 Billion = Development cost G Ford Aircraft Carriers
    $12.9 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-78 G Ford Aircraft Carrier)
    $11.4 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-79 JF Kennedy Aircraft Carrier)
    $13.0 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-80 Enterprise Aircraft Carrier)
    $13.0 Billion = My estimation of the Cost per unit (CV-81 ????? Aircraft Carrier)
    $55.0 Billion = Total cost of development of the G Ford Aircraft Carriers plus construction of the 4 aircraft carriers


    We have here some pro-US liying, like this one, but the reality emerges.

    Where F-35 project voders is actually 3 planes sharing more less component base. Not to mention that PAK FA costs are around $20bln  thus with use "off shelf"   avionics (PK FA/Su 35), engines (like new NK-32), coatings and only one V/STOL configuration has to be cheaper. Who knows maybe even around half price.

    No, the US developed not 3 different aircrafts, they developed 3 variants of the same aircraft. It is very different in terms of costs. It is not common to see 3 variants developed since the begin, but at same time, is rare the aircraft that has not 3 or more variants after some years of development. You have been talking repeatedly about the F-35, well, these are the costs of the program. A VTOL fighter like the F-35, that is still underperformer, will not come to Russia without cost.

    In every case, we can also assume that the cost of development and construction of a new aircraft carrier in Russia will be also significantly lower for Russia. Do not think that while the development of a VTOL fighter would be cheaper in Russia, the development of aircraft carriers would stay with the costs of the US.

    With reports of the Su-57 having a landing distance of around 330m on land runways, and reports of the Project 23000 having a lenght of 330m, well, I have not doubts that the Project 23000 is being designed for a comfortable use of the Su-57. Even, maybe for a comfortable use of the main variant of the Su-57.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1133
    Points : 1131
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:37 pm

    You are something else by all accounts the plan you speak off is based on the SAP of 2011-2020.

    It assumed certain ships would be in commission by a certain date, the SAP and their "naval" doctrine go hand and hand.

    The Russians have failed miserably in terms of naval when the SAP is concerned, the next phase of the SAP

    shows only Super Gorks will be laid down which contradicts the plan you love to quote since that doctrine envisioned having certain ships with a certain number in the fleet by this point

    Long story short you have some mental damage to your head and at this point, I suggest you seek mental help.

    I could give a rats ass what kind of Navy the Russians build (fact is they cannot afford a remotely big one). In fact if you knew me you would know I believe in a multi-power world.

    ETC a world where all major powers are equal offset each other.

    So keep believing that silly 2015 plan is reality because it's not and you are legit the only one here who thinks that they are still holding true it. Also pal we wll know they will eventually build a new CV however that won't be tell close to 2030 and THEN you gotta wait around 15 years for them to make the dam thing and 15 years is me being generous.

    Going on 12 years and they still don't have a single Gorshkov commissioned, I cannot imagine how bad a CV will be for them. Let alone a 100k one IF they decide to build that

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:13 pm