Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Share
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3126
    Points : 3168
    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 Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:36 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Happy New Year everyone, just gonna drops some replies before returning to bed where I belong ATM      santa


    GunshipDemocracy wrote:................
    d) 3 tasks already mentioned earlier onby PapaDragon small universal  LHD/ACs/ASW helicopter AC with 18-24 V/STOL fighters is more then enough.
    .................


    And coincidently, look what is happening in the Pacific even as we speak. Someone must have thought of this before me...or was it the other way around?   Very Happy


    Amphibious Ships Transformed Into Aircraft Carriers Debut in Asia-Pacific

    http://defense-update.com/20171231_lhd_with_f35.html


    They didnt read  Perriers, Eehneis posts damn. Neither Royal Navy did.


    PapaDragon wrote:
    Dokdo and Izumo as aircraft carriers with STOVL air wing, I wonder who was talking about that on this very forum for a while now...  Cool

    Ohhhhh Thank you for mentioning me again  respekt respekt :@:To me the choice is obvious: you got 3 ships in price of 1.
    Very positive IMHO surprise would be if Russians add more UKSK-Ms to make it true TAKR ... not like LHD/AC. But we ll have to live to see it yet Smile





    and below vertical take off and landing of F-35b. For all folks this is basic carrier model for Royal Navy and USMC Smile




    and here STOVL action looks like  simulation of AC operations


    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2263
    Points : 2284
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  eehnie on Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:20 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:it's Anime-class Lider nuclear destroyer

    Also could someone please tell me what is meant by "anime ship"?

    Childish jokes aside could someone what is meant by this term? I don't get it.

    Hi means the Project 23560 is not a real ship. Despite serious sources put the first ship under construction.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 291
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:25 pm


    Well, they can do the same ship but using mig29k and a ski jump and some wires to stop it at landing. The mig doesn't need catapults or expensive technology, just need to design the ship like a small carrier with a recovery aera and the ski jump.

    That's not the point.

    Adding an angled deck means adding an angled deck lonng enough and able to withstand landings, plus having arrestor gears.

    By all past experiences, under 30.000+ tons it isn't possible to design a flat top equipped with an angled deck able to let 18+ tons aircrafts land on it.

    Charles de Gaulle is probably the smallest size a modern carrier could be, and it has nuclear propulsion, which usually has a fairly small footprint compared to the propulsive power generated.

    With facilities devoted to amphibious operations, the 37.000 tons of Charles de Gaulle would be far less than ideal.

    Reality is, the characteristics are dictated by Phisics, and an angled deck alone require a good tonnage in displacements by itself.

    A Wasp would easily top the 50.000 tons mark, if it had an angled deck added.

    I am higly skeptical about Russia building a 100.000 tons vessel, it would be really an overshot and of doubtful fit within the actual and foreseeble force structure of the russian Navy.

    But I am far more than skeptikal about the chances an LHD could turn into an aircraft carrier, the more so if requiring an angled deck.

    A carrier has to be purpose designed and built, and require its own internal facilities and spaces.

    And it needs a decent displacement just to act as a carrier, without much more roles to play.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2263
    Points : 2284
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  eehnie on Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:31 pm

    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.

    Key economic information to avoid to be fooled.

    The part of the $55.1 Billions is where South Korea, Japan and the UK have less obligations.

    The counter part is that these countries are only allowed to build follower ships for the big US aircraft carreirs, they are only allowed to build ships without real capabilities by themselves. And this people want the same for Russia plus the equivalent of the $55.1 Billion of spending.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7079
    Points : 7175
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:25 am

    eehnie wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:it's Anime-class Lider nuclear destroyer

    Also could someone please tell me what is meant by "anime ship"?

    Childish jokes aside could someone what is meant by this term? I don't get it.

    Hi means the Project 23560 is not a real ship. Despite serious sources put the first ship under construction.


    For the record we are talking about this little piece of shipbuilding design ''brilliance''.
    According to our clown here this thing is totally under construction in Santa-Clausinsk shipyard even as we speak. Totally not anime... lol1 Razz






    GunshipDemocracy wrote:....They didnt read Perriers, Eehneis posts damn. Neither Royal Navy did....

    Pathetic fools are they not?

    But then again even likes of Nelson, Ushakov and Nimitz pale in comparison to pure naval genius of Grand Admirals eehenia and Perrier don't they? pwnd

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 291
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Peŕrier on Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:04 am

    So, just to cure my own ignorance, how much could/should cost the development of a new russian STOVL aircraft?

    Very approssimate guess-stimations will be welcome as well.

    Please, don't be shy and put some number forward.

    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 390
    Points : 394
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  ATLASCUB on Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:08 am

    2 reasons why this aircraft will be ordered:

    #1: Keep a design bureau afloat, either YAK/MIG aka nepotism with Russian tax payer money.
    #2: Keep up with Western development of single-engine VTOL aircraft which can spill over to the drone development realm. By Western, I mean the U.S so it's a very weak reason but hey.... can't think of many that would make sense. The points put forth by people in favor are weak as hell in my opinion.

    No brainer to just develop Shtorm and put navalized Pak-fa's/Navalized Su-35s or 34's in it. Save the money (R&D) AND time (10 years least on that engine). Not to mention, capabilities will be maximized in that combo config, not constrained.

    4 Shtorms would be ideal. But b4 all of that, Russia should bulk up on destroyers.


    Last edited by ATLASCUB on Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:20 am; edited 3 times in total
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3126
    Points : 3168
    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 Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:16 am

    PapaDragon wrote:

    ....They didnt read  Perriers, Eehneis posts damn. Neither Royal Navy did....

    Pathetic fools are they not?

    But then again even likes of Nelson, Ushakov and Nimitz pale in comparison to pure naval genius of Grand Admirals eehenia and Perrier don't they? pwnd

    we, we might disagree with both eehnie and perrier, sometimes fairly strong  Idea  but there is no reason to call them bad names.





    Peŕrier wrote:So, just to cure my own ignorance, how much could/should cost the development of a new russian STOVL aircraft?

    Very approssimate guess-stimations will be welcome as well.

    Please, don't be shy and put some number forward.


    How much should cost? how can I or anybody here possibly know? We do not know who is sponsoring, what should be characteristics or tasks to fulfill.  Since F-18, F-35 or Yak-141 didn't pass 2Ma mark possibly this one also will not have need to.  PAK FA cost is about $20BLN so this one should be less.   

    I'd also presume that deal with Arab Emirates can offset this costs by nice part.  This fighter if build probably replaces MiG-29 class and be for export to. 


    My educated guess is that technically it will be something like F-35 , possibly less stealth but with better flight characteristics. To keep costs down usage of NK-32, PAK-FA avionics or coatings would greatly help.


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:56 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2263
    Points : 2284
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  eehnie on Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:30 am

    PapaDragon wrote:...

    Our poor lambie so desperate with the first unit of the Project 23560 under construction



    If our lambie enlarges the image will begin panicking.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7079
    Points : 7175
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:06 am

    ATLASCUB wrote:2 reasons why this aircraft will be ordered:

    #1: Keep a design bureau afloat, either YAK/MIG aka nepotism with Russian tax payer money.
    #2: Keep up with Western development of single-engine VTOL aircraft which can spill over to the drone development realm....

    #3 and most important one: someone else is paying for it and Navy is taking a chance for a free ride just like with MiG-29K on Indian dime




    Peŕrier wrote:So, just to cure my own ignorance, how much could/should cost the development of a new russian STOVL aircraft?

    Very approssimate guess-stimations will be welcome as well.

    Please, don't be shy and put some number forward.

    I am sure that it is so super very much money and that exact amount is listed somewhere in Russian Naval Doctrine of 2015 as an argument not to develop it

    If only we had someone to post a copy of that document here, so many questions would be answered...  Razz




    eehnie wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:...

    Our poor lambie so desperate with the first unit of the Project 23560 under construction
    .................
    If our lambie enlarges the image will begin panicking.


    Oh my God, you are right. It's totally under construction at space shipyard Russia launched into Lunar orbit last year!!!  affraid Razz

    I zoomed in and I am panicking because reality overwhelmed me, look:

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3126
    Points : 3168
    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 Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:16 am

    Peŕrier wrote:
    ....

    And it needs a decent displacement just to act as a carrier, without much more roles to play.

    And for which roles and where should it sail? the Northern Route? Baltic? or be the white elephant near Kamchatka?  And here we get back to basics: Russian Navy has no need for AC besides protection of own subs and geopolitical dick waving. 

    Besides Russia has no budget to build  "pure ACs" and "pure LPHDs" not to mention that USN Wasp class LHD has 20 F-35Bs in "sea control" missions. And no angled deck. Why? no need for arrester gear. No need for catapult either 
     
    For me Russia has 2 options it would be 2+ of  30,000-40000tones displacement or max 2 of 60-70,000 tons class
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3126
    Points : 3168
    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 Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:22 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    ATLASCUB wrote:2 reasons why this aircraft will be ordered:

    #1: Keep a design bureau afloat, either YAK/MIG aka nepotism with Russian tax payer money.
    #2: Keep up with Western development of single-engine VTOL aircraft which can spill over to the drone development realm....

    #3 and most important one: someone else is paying for it and Navy is taking a chance for a free ride just like with MiG-29K on Indian dime


    Fly emirates?  Razz Razz Razz

    PapaDragon wrote:

    I zoomed in and I am panicking because reality overwhelmed me, look:

      if that's Leader then what is this? some fake reports? or what?  What a Face What a Face What a Face



    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2263
    Points : 2284
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  eehnie on Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:07 am

    ATLASCUB wrote:2 reasons why this aircraft will be ordered:

    #1: Keep a design bureau afloat, either YAK/MIG aka nepotism with Russian tax payer money.
    #2: Keep up with Western development of single-engine VTOL aircraft which can spill over to the drone development realm. By Western, I mean the U.S so it's a very weak reason but hey.... can't think of many that would make sense. The points put forth by people in favor are weak as hell in my opinion.

    No brainer to just develop Shtorm and put navalized Pak-fa's/Navalized Su-35s or 34's in it. Save the money (R&D) AND time (10 years least on that engine). Not to mention, capabilities will be maximized in that combo config, not constrained.

    4 Shtorms would be ideal. But b4 all of that, Russia should bulk up on destroyers.

    All the design bureaus were merged by Putin in 2006 (UAC). Economically they are a unity. Still as bureaus there is some independence and increasing specialisation, but at this point there is enough work to keep them very busy until 2025.

    1.- Irkut (Yakovlev) (Airliners and Trainers): MS-21. Likely CRAIC joint venture wil have support from Yakovlev.
    2.- Ilyushin (Transport aircrafts): A number of transport aircrafts in development.
    3.- MiG (Fighter Interceptors): MiG-41
    4.- Tupolev (Strategic Bombers): Tu-PAK-DA
    5.- Sukhoi (Fighters and Fighter Ground Attack): Su-57 (begin of serial production). Likely MiG and Tupolev will have also support from Sukhoi.

    To note that the Ministry of Defense talking about orders of the L-410, SR-10 and Diamond DA42 is bad news for Yakovlev. This project would be fairly distracting for Yakovlev.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2263
    Points : 2284
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  eehnie on Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:20 am

    PapaDragon wrote:...

    lol!  you are panicking even more than expected. Typical US spacial panicking  lol1  You are more US than a Buick.

    Russia will take the money and use it properly in the right projects. France payed the birth of the Projects 23560 and Project 23000. And the UAE will pay the birth of the MiG-41 and the Tu-PAK-DA.lol!  lol!  

    Now that you had the "surgery" you at least have some future going to Eurovision.


    Last edited by eehnie on Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:34 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18090
    Points : 18650
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:59 am

    Indeed there is no need to repeat the same arguments from both sides. As for Iranians, apart form moral grounds, I am sure they shoot passenger plane but didn't care or planned this (vide MH-17) .

    The point is that if they had used carrier based aviation to investigate the "target" they would have realised their error and over 200 people would still be breathing today.

    Move that to any situation at sea and having aircraft you can send to investigate offers flexibility and critical information to the commanders of those vessels and that naval group... information sending a small corvette to investigate cannot match.

    a) Russia cannot and in our lifetime unlikely can afford so many ACs as US. Thus every try to counter US CSG in Midway style is doomed for failure

    Russia does not need carriers to take on the US Navy... what a stupid fucking waste of time and money that would be.

    Russia needs a couple of carriers... perhaps only two new ones with the upgraded K as support/backup so that when they are operating a group of ships away from Russian shores it can offer air protection.

    b) Russia's doctrine focuses on sea denial not sea control and if you look currently every ship or plane is or will be platform to long-arm precision weapons. With 1500 km hypersonic antishp airborne missiles you dont really need so much AA cover by own fighters, do you?

    During WWIII the goal will be to defeat NATO vessels... big and small and the optimum way to do that is at extended range with powerful missiles... not aircraft which are slower and much more vulnerable, yet likely not more effective.

    During peacetime having a carrier that you can send to the south atlantic for a visit to Argentina and perhaps deliver some Su-30Ms or MiG-31BMs Smile means the ability to protect your own ships and to see what is around while you are doing it.

    c) there are drones for surveillance drones

    Yes, they will most likely have them too.

    3 tasks already mentioned earlier onby PapaDragon small universal LHD/ACs/ASW helicopter AC with 18-24 V/STOL fighters is more then enough.

    Such confidence regarding V/STOL fighters that don't actually currently exist and likely are not even on paper or computer model yet.

    Even right now without EM cats, a MiG-29K2 is superior to any potential V/STOL aircraft you could build... anything you could put on the new V/STOL aircraft to make it superior could just as easily be put on the MiG to make it even more so because the MiG will be lighter and stronger and cheaper.

    Dokdo and Izumo as aircraft carriers with STOVL air wing, I wonder who was talking about that on this very forum for a while now...

    If they have to take off V then they aren't worth getting airborne... a false promise.

    Russia will actually be getting LHDs and STOVL aircraft at some point in the future.

    They didn't get them last time.

    The Russian Navy is the poor half cousin in the Russian military heirarchy... they only got MiG-29K2s because India bought some... they would still have Su-33s with partial upgrades otherwise... and you think they will be getting state of the art super naval VSTOL fighters... yeah right.., now who is the fanboy.

    Russia has not a viable, ready and competitive STOVL aircrafts, and numbers would never justify such a developement, while has already competitive aircrafts needing only the right kind of ship.

    They have no export market for such planes, so two helicopter carriers that at a stretch carry 16 helicopters might have 4-6 jets and maybe 4-5 helicopters... making it useless as a helicopter carrier and nothing like an aircraft carrier that could support a landing or some sort of international operations...

    What a waste of money.

    Mistral funds are supposed to be used for russian counterpart which will cost much more as they will need to do the R&D.

    They have full design information for the Mistral... a Russification of that would suffice.... perhaps a nuke engine for endurance and speed, and better defensive array of weapons and sensors, and ice operations capability too.


    and below vertical take off and landing of F-35b. For all folks this is basic carrier model for Royal Navy and USMC

    WOW... amazing... I am totally converted.... what was its fuel weight and weapon load?

    It probably had quarter tanks and no weapons and was therefore not a weapon of war.

    The Hilarious thing of course is that some suggest Eehnie is a joke for suggesting they might be building a carrier sometime in the near future but those same people are certain that Russia will build an F-35B analog in less time than it would take to build a super carrier... wake up.

    The Russian navy can't afford either.

    I'd also presume that deal with Arab Emirates can offset this costs by nice part. This fighter if build probably replaces MiG-29 class and be for export to.

    So not only do you want to make a more expensive (than conventional land based aircraft) VTOL fighter you want your allies to buy it too?

    What MiG will be building with the UAE will be a 5th gen fighter... what makes you think that will be ready before 2030.... how long has PAK FA taken to design and get into production? Do you think this light fighter will be designed and built faster or cheaper?

    #3 and most important one: someone else is paying for it and Navy is taking a chance for a free ride just like with MiG-29K on Indian dime

    You could turn that around and say the Russian Navy does not spend money to upgrade or improve aircraft until it is in a corner with a gun to its head so what sort of future could a VSTOL aircraft have with them?

    The UAE will buy 50 and the Russian Navy will buy 12... 6 for each Mistralski and it will be the most expensive aircraft in Russian history.

    The magical formula of Papadragon: The UAE will pay the cost.

    Yeah... as part of the contract they could get them made in France with their Mistrals... or not.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3126
    Points : 3168
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    temp temp talking rubbish

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:11 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Indeed there is no need to repeat the same arguments from both sides. As for Iranians, apart form moral grounds,  I am sure they shoot passenger plane but didn't care or planned this (vide MH-17) .

    The point is that if they had used carrier based aviation to investigate the "target" they would have realised their error and over 200 people would still be breathing today.


    and sending drone doesn't count? 



    Russia does not need carriers to take on the US Navy... what a stupid fucking waste of time and money that would be.

    Russia needs a couple of carriers... perhaps only two new ones with the upgraded K as support/backup so that when they are operating a group of ships away from Russian shores it can offer air protection.

    as one of roles very true



    During peacetime having a carrier that you can send to the south atlantic for a visit to Argentina and perhaps deliver some Su-30Ms or MiG-31BMs  Smile means the ability to protect your own ships and to see what is around while you are doing it.


    Agree. This was called "geopolitical dick waving" wasnt it? 



    3 tasks already mentioned earlier onby PapaDragon small universal  LHD/ACs/ASW helicopter AC with 18-24 V/STOL fighters is more then enough.

    Such confidence regarding V/STOL fighters that don't actually currently exist and likely are not even on paper or computer model yet.

    Even right now without EM cats, a MiG-29K2 is superior to any potential V/STOL aircraft you could build... anything you could put on the new V/STOL aircraft to make it superior could just as easily be put on the MiG to make it even more so because the MiG will be lighter and stronger and cheaper.

    Nmm neither Zircons nor GZURs or MiG-41 don't exist yet too. MiG 29k  is form 70s. Accepting it on 2010 is only because almost 20 years project was not funded. Russians buily 24 for own needs and not going to buy anymore.  I wonder why?

    Probably you did not check details: STOL without ski jump for  Yak-141 was 120m,  for MiG-29k with ski jump is 200m If those 80m of ship and vertical landing ability i\means noting for fleet you're probably right. 


    BTW In 2030s you want to relay on 60th years old fighter machine?! 




    Dokdo and Izumo as aircraft carriers with STOVL air wing, I wonder who was talking about that on this very forum for a while now...

    If they have to take off V then they aren't worth getting airborne... a false promise.

    why they shpild have? they can get STOL




    The Russian Navy is the poor half cousin in the Russian military heirarchy... they only got MiG-29K2s because India bought some... they would still have Su-33s with partial upgrades otherwise... and you think they will be getting state of the art super naval VSTOL fighters... yeah right.., now who is the fanboy.

    Because in 2025 most of aviation plants will have not much to do? because Russia still needs light Vgen fighter?  also fo rexport? because only fanbois can rely on MiG29K , then why not on Po-2 Smile



    Russia has not a viable, ready and competitive STOVL aircrafts, and numbers would never justify such a developement, while has already competitive aircrafts needing only the right kind of ship.

    They have no export market for such planes, so two helicopter carriers that at a stretch carry 16 helicopters might have 4-6 jets and maybe 4-5 helicopters... making it useless as a helicopter carrier and nothing like an aircraft carrier that could support a landing or some sort of international operations...

    What a waste of money.

    how do you know that no customers? Besides you never checked about Wasp LHD class? neither Canberra, Izumo or Juan Carlos? Wasp is to have sea control missions (i.e. light carrier with 20 fighters wing) or  LHD missions. What s the difference with Kuznetsov with 24 fighters? 





    The Hilarious thing of course is that some suggest Eehnie is a joke for suggesting they might be building a carrier sometime in the near future but those same people are certain that Russia will build an F-35B analog in less time than it would take to build a super carrier... wake up.

    The Russian navy can't afford either.

    Hilarious is that some of us dont recognize need of LHDs/light carriers/ASW ships for Russia.  And dont accept the fact that for some reasons many fleets opt for F-35B nor MiG-29k or F-18.  Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil





    I'd also presume that deal with Arab Emirates can offset this costs by nice part.  This fighter if build probably replaces MiG-29 class and be for export to.

    So not only do you want to make a more expensive (than conventional land based aircraft) VTOL fighter you want your allies to buy it too?

    What MiG will be building with the UAE will be a 5th gen fighter... what makes you think that will be ready before 2030.... how long has PAK FA taken to design and get into production? Do you think this light fighter will be designed and built faster or cheaper?


     V/STOL or STOVL both can start and land vertically it doesn't mean they have to do it every time.  Nothing tells me it will be before 2025s or even 2030s. Whe did I say this? So what's the problem? 

    [/quote]
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7079
    Points : 7175
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

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

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:12 pm


    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....
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1633
    Points : 1628
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    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.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7079
    Points : 7175
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    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.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 621
    Points : 617
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    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.



    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
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2575
    Points : 2557
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    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).
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 827
    Points : 827
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    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?
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 621
    Points : 617
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    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.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7079
    Points : 7175
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    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.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 621
    Points : 617
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    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.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:55 am