Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Share
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7216
    Points : 7310
    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 : 804
    Points : 798
    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 : 2739
    Points : 2721
    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 : 1138
    Points : 1138
    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 : 804
    Points : 798
    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 : 7216
    Points : 7310
    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 : 804
    Points : 798
    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.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3699
    Points : 3737
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russia is developing a new aircraft with vertical take-off

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:31 pm

    Well now it's official.  VSTOL for fleet. I dont think news about universal LHD was so unrelated Smile


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



    https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20180821/1526929317.html

    Kubinka (Moscow region), August 21 - RIA Novosti. The Ministry of Defense began developing a new plane with vertical take-off and landing, Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Borisov said at the opening of the military-technical forum "Army-2018".


    According to him, the project was included in the state program of armaments on behalf of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.
    "Now we are working on a conceptual model, prototypes.Thank you, this is the future.For all types of aircraft carriers, a new fleet of aircraft will be needed.This is why different technologies are used to ensure shortened take-off and landing or simply vertical take-off. are conducted in the Ministry of Defense from last year, "he said.

    He noted that the timing of the creation of a new aircraft is determined by the technological cycle.

    "Typically, this is 7-10 years, if you go to the series," - said Borisov.

    In the USSR, vertical takeoff and landing aircraft have already been produced - more than 230 Yak-38 fighters. It was replaced by Yak-141, but in 2004 the program was canceled. The aircraft was based on the aircraft carrying cruisers of project 1143 (Kiev, Minsk, Novorossiysk, Baku), which they sold abroad.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 12166
    Points : 12645
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  George1 on Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:34 pm

    we have thread for this already
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1127
    Points : 1127
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Hole on Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:58 pm

    He´s just excited.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 804
    Points : 798
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:58 pm

    @Gunship:

    Congratulations man, they are f*cking up! lol1 lol1 lol1
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3699
    Points : 3737
    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 Aug 21, 2018 7:30 pm

    Hole wrote:He´s just excited.

    you know, not every day Putin confirms you were right Razz Razz Razz





    LMFS wrote:@Gunship:

    Congratulations man, they are f*cking up! lol1 lol1 lol1


    and what is VSTOL fighter will be LMFS? then perhaps you're right lol1 lol1 lol1

    BTW Soviet TAKR concepts had basis in conditions that exist today:

    1) TAKR is not to fight Midway battles
    2) Airwing is to cove grouping, do limited fighter bomber work and ASW
    3) not many large support ships make TAKR having strong ASh/ASW/AAD weaponry

    add to this drones, robotic subs, VLS and nuclear power and you got a picture what's cooking.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 804
    Points : 798
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:08 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:and what is VSTOL fighter will be LMFS?  then perhaps you're right  lol1 lol1 lol1

    BTW Soviet TAKR concepts had basis in conditions that exist today:

    1) TAKR is not to fight Midway battles
    2) Airwing is to cove grouping, do limited fighter bomber work and ASW
    3) not many large support ships make TAKR having strong ASh/ASW/AAD weaponry

    add to this drones, robotic subs, VLS and nuclear power and you got a picture what's cooking.

    Maybe I will be surprised with the results (if this really goes forward), but I think it is difficult to make a good STOVL without compromising the CTOL version. At least the Yak-141 with engines instead of the lifting fan did not massively increase the cross sectional area of the plane, that is already something. Maybe they already have lots of designs and studies and they want to make something out of them. And/or maybe they want Yakovlev to get some part of the pie.

    It all depends on the operational requirements. If you plant to have some amphibious assault ships and give them some form of air cover it can make sense to think in STOVL. But developing a fighter is exceedingly expensive and this is a niche plane, even if they would export it. Russia would not buy probably more than 50-75 of those, in best conditions. And if you consider what a navalized Su-57 can do from a simple carrier like the K then it makes no sense to me to do an additional development of something so inferior, instead of consolidating a massively good design you already have.

    If you then consider that such amphibious assault would not have a strong air wing and AEW then you limit very much the kind of scenario where you can deploy it without sending additionally lots of supporting vessels. For the same price, make a carrier and send transport vessels for the expeditionary operations. Opponents are going to be pleased in making you pay heavy prices for deployments to areas of interest for them, as we are seeing in Syria. You need first level intelligence and defensive capabilities to contest geopolitical space.

    Have to talk to Vlad urgently to prevent this disaster... lol1 lol1
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7216
    Points : 7310
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:03 pm

    LMFS wrote:@Gunship:
    Congratulations man, they are f*cking up! lol1.........

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


    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Hole wrote:He´s just excited.

    you know, not every day Putin confirms you were right Razz ..........


    Feels good man.... lol1



    LMFS wrote:...........
    Maybe I will be surprised with the results (if this really goes forward), but I think it is difficult to make a good STOVL without compromising the CTOL version..........

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

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

    Posts : 3699
    Points : 3737
    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 Aug 21, 2018 10:29 pm

    LMFS wrote: Maybe I will be surprised with the results (if this really goes forward), but I think it is difficult to make a good STOVL without compromising the CTOL version.

    in absence of CTOL com;romising wont be needed?


    At least the Yak-141 with engines instead of the lifting fan did not massively increase the cross sectional area of the plane, that is already something. Maybe they already have lots of designs and studies and they want to make something out of them. And/or maybe they want Yakovlev to get some part of the pie.

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



    It all depends on the operational requirements. If you plant to have some amphibious assault ships and give them some form of air cover it can make sense to think in STOVL. But developing a fighter is exceedingly expensive and this is a niche plane, even if they would export it. Russia would not buy probably more than 50-75 of those, in best conditions.

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




    And if you consider what a navalized Su-57 can do from a simple carrier like the K then it makes no sense to me to do an additional development of something so inferior, instead of consolidating a massively good design you already have.

    Su 57 wont start from Kuz. Too short lane and Su-57 takes 2x so much space on AC then F-35B. Guess why USN builds 100k monsters? and UK for 60k AC bought VSTOL stuff?
    Inferior to what in which metrics? For example: Su-57 is so much inferior then MiG-31. Thus why to buy inferior fighter not all MiG-31 or 41 right?

    Or AK-47 is inferior to Machine gun in sustained rate of fire, with Mosin in terms or range and PPSh in terms of rounds capacity. Damn why they needed AK-47?!







    if you then consider that such amphibious assault would not have a strong air wing and AEW then you limit very much the kind of scenario where you can deploy it without sending additionally lots of supporting vessels.

    wat so with Su-57 no extra ships would go with carrier?!





    For the same price, make a carrier and send transport vessels for the expeditionary operations. Opponents are going to be pleased in making you pay heavy prices for deployments to areas of interest for them, as we are seeing in Syria. You need first level intelligence and defensive capabilities to contest geopolitical space.

    TAKR (say LHD like wasp) costs 4x cost of LHD carrier in US realities. During Syria assignment there were not more than 25-30 fighters there. Defensive capabilities ? actually TAKR has much better in every aspect than CVN :-) For war like Syria small LHD is more than enough.









    Have to talk to Vlad urgently to prevent this disaster... lol1 lol1

    too late respekt respekt respekt



    Borisov: on the instructions of Putin, a prototype of a vertical takeoff aircraft

    Such a machine can appear in 7-10 years, noted the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation

    Подробнее на ТАСС:
    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5475420



    Krylovsky Center developed a pre-design for a light aircraft carrier

    The new project will cost, according to preliminary estimates, almost twice cheaper than the previous concept of the heavy aircraft carrier "Storm"
    rom the accompanying materials it follows that the new aircraft carrier will have a displacement of 44 thousand tons and can carry up to 46 aircraft. The power plant of the ship will be a gas turbine.

    Подробнее на ТАСС:
    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5476445
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3699
    Points : 3737
    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 Aug 21, 2018 10:31 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:Feels good man.... lol1

    you bet thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup

    now lets wait for resumption of 40-60k TAKR concepts and I will be sure Uncle Vova reads thsi forum lol! lol! lol!
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 804
    Points : 798
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:31 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Even if they are they will still be wasting far less money than they would if they tried to do super-carrier.
    Developing a plane is some billions. Shtorm is just a way of teasing the public opinion IMO, not a realistic project.


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

    More importantly, it can be used as basis for excellent single-engine light fighter. Replace VTOL engine with standard one and replace all associated equipment (fans or front engines) with fuel tank. Done.
    Of course it has to be good. If not, then take the Yak-141 and you are done at a fraction of the cost Razz

    The engine position in a STOVL is not the same as in a CTOL. You need it placed forward and it then steals useful space in the middle section of the plane, which is specially serious in case of weapon bays. In essence, to optimize a CTOL version your are going to need redesign the plane entirely, unless they come with a f*cking clever arrangement I have not yet seen...
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 804
    Points : 798
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:09 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:in absence of CTOL  com;romising  wont be needed?
    You have a wonderful way of misunderstanding everything I say don't you?  thumbsup

    Yak -141 (actually Yam41M) wasn't latest. Yak-141M was latest then Yak43 and Yak-201 according to Yefn Gordon books. Perhaps some blueprints remained?
    Sure. There are some pretty interesting designs of Yak-141 evolutions. And if they don't go for big weapons bays they may get something decent... maybe

    That we dont know. Not necessarily only fleet needs it. They were plans to use STOL version of Yaks for land forces AFAIK. As front fighter. Kuznetsov + series of HD ships. Perhaps also Arctic fleet patrols ships can take some.  OR Arctic forces can enjoy STOL capabilities in remote locations?
    Well, that would be actually cool. You can put a VTOL fighter instead the rescue helo in the frigates too  lol1

    Su 57 wont start from Kuz. Too short lane and Su-57 takes 2x so much space on AC then F-35B. Guess why USN builds 100k monsters? and UK for 60k AC bought VSTOL stuff?
    Inferior to what in which metrics? For example: Su-57 is so much inferior then MiG-31. Thus why to buy inferior fighter not all MiG-31 or 41 right?
    Or AK-47 is inferior to Machine gun in sustained rate of fire, with Mosin in terms or range and PPSh in terms of rounds capacity. Damn why they needed AK-47?!
    Su-57 would take off from K full load on the short runs... with 3500 km range and 4 x R37M for instance. Or loaded as a bomb truck if needed.
    The reason for the big carriers are not the fighters as discussed, it is the rest of the planes! And why UK bought that thing is beyond me to start with  Razz
    Inferior as multirole fighter, almost in every metric, but maybe in size. But especially inferior in AD which is its most critical role.

    wat so with Su-57 no extra ships would go with carrier?!
    You need far less AD cover in form of expensive frigates and missile destroyers if you have proper AEW and long range fighters on board.

    TAKR  (say LHD like wasp) costs 4x cost of LHD carrier in US realities. During Syria assignment there were not more than 25-30 fighters there.  Defensive capabilities ? actually TAKR has much better in every aspect than CVN :-) For war like Syria small LHD is more than enough.
    A TAKR (Kuznetsov or new light carrier if I am not wrong) does not need STOVL, those would deploy on LHDs... or am I missing something?


    Have to talk to Vlad urgently to prevent this disaster... lol1 lol1

    too late   respekt  respekt  respekt

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3699
    Points : 3737
    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 Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:50 am

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:in absence of CTOL  com;romising  wont be needed?
    You have a wonderful way of misunderstanding everything I say don't you?  thumbsup

    the idea of VSTOL is nto to take off on long lanes but as short as possible. lol1 lol1 lol1



    S
    Su-57 would take off from K full load on the short runs... with 3500 km range and 4 x R37M for instance. Or loaded as a bomb truck if needed.

    Short take off mean low payload and short range. And on Kz you take 18 Su-57? 14?




    wat so with Su-57 no extra ships would go with carrier?!
    You need far less AD cover in form of expensive frigates and missile destroyers if you have proper AEW and long range fighters on board.


    what is proper AEW? in netcentric warfare small groupings of drones does the same job. Missile destroyers you dotn need so many as in US groups. simply to fight CSG you use Kiznahl. Otherwise you dream midway battles.

    Airwing is for assigments like Arctic cover or Syrian style wars. Or Africa interventions. Not full scale Midway battles.







    A TAKR (Kuznetsov or new light carrier if I am not wrong) does not need STOVL, those would deploy on LHDs... or am I missing something?

    you do. Timeline. Air-wing form Kuz is aging too. In 2030s will be obsolete. New fighters will be required.





    Have to talk to Vlad urgently to prevent this disaster... lol1 lol1

    nyet gospodin LMFS

    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 804
    Points : 798
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

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

    Andrei Martyanov with preliminary comments on the STOVL news:

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

    It Is Official Now.


    Read this attentively:

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


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

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

    Posts : 804
    Points : 798
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:32 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Short take off  mean low payload and short range. And on Kz you take 18 Su-57? 14?
    You mean short take off as in STOVL? The Su-57 with izd. 30 will have close to 35 ton thrust... you could almost launch it vertically like a rocket Razz
    As to the capacity of the K with such plane, it should be similar to the Su-33, with the advantage that it is shorter. All depends of course on the wing folding mechanism, this we don't know yet.

    you do. Timeline. Air-wing form Kuz is aging too. In 2030s will be obsolete. New fighters will be required.
    MiG-33Ks are there. Su-57 available. STOVL is to give fixed wing aircraft to LHDs and similar.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3699
    Points : 3737
    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 Wed Aug 22, 2018 3:31 pm

    Yak-43 multi-role V/STOL fighter (project)


    In 1983-84 the Yakovlev OKB embarked on the design of a next-generation multi-role V/STOL fighter intended to follow the
    Yak-41 M. In its general layout it had a marked resemblance to the Lockheed Martin
    F-22 Raptor
    (albeit the latter was designed to a somewhat later time-scale
    and had no VTOL capability).

    Like its predecessor, the Yak-43 was to have a cruise engine and separate lift jets; these were to be supplemented by an auxiliary combustion
    chamber in the nose provided with air bleed piped from the main engine.

    The latter was to be a derivative of the Kuznetsov NK-321 three-shaft afterburning turbofan with a take-off rating of 24,980 kgp (55,070
    lbst; four such engines power the Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bomber).

    \
    The Yak-43 promised a considerable improvement on the Yak-41 M in performance and combat capabilities. The wings of
    bigger area ensured greater agility; the increased fuel tankage afforded a longer combat mission radius, the aircraft would be
    capable of carrying a bigger weapons loadand would have a reduced radar signature.

    However, with the Yak-41 M (Yak-141) shelved, the new project had no chances of reaching the hardware stage.


    ->>> my comment now is has  russia  russia  russia

    OKB Yakovlev
    А HISTORYOF ТНЕ DESIGN BUREAU AND ITS AIRCRAFT

    Yefim Gordon
    Dmitriy Komissarov
    and Sergey Komissarov

    page 346




    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Short take off  mean low payload and short range. And on Kz you take 18 Su-57? 14?
    You mean short take off as in STOVL? The Su-57 with izd. 30 will have close to 35 ton thrust... you could almost launch it vertically like a rocket Razz
    As to the capacity of the K with such plane, it should be similar to the Su-33, with the advantage that it is shorter. All depends of course on the wing folding mechanism, this we don't know yet.



    1) sure, min take off (check Russian wiki) is 350m. With ski-jump but Kuz has300 m or so Smile
    2) bigger plane less space 1,5/2 more than F-35B - smaller airwing
    3) no need to build for one Kuz 24 Su-57 since you got new fighter doing the same job cheaper per unit.



    LMFS wrote:
    you do. Timeline. Air-wing form Kuz is aging too. In 2030s will be obsolete. New fighters will be required.
    MiG-33Ks are there. Su-57 available. STOVL is to give fixed wing aircraft to LHDs and similar.


    Su-57 is not available yet. Kuz will stay till 2040s AFAIK. TAKRs will IMHO go in series dure their universal applications: 3 roles in one ship due to modularity. Just cheaper option. Imagine - Mistral, AC and helo-carrier in one + command ship russia russia russia

    The difference is displacement. Su-57 simply cannot go to 40-50k ships innumbers. Too big, too small numers can be embarked.



    BTW Putin's green light, Borison support proves they didnt make brain-storming 10 times before making decisions ?   unshaven unshaven unshaven
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3699
    Points : 3737
    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 Wed Aug 22, 2018 3:43 pm

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

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

    It Is Official Now.


    Read this attentively:

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



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



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

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

    Posts : 1127
    Points : 1125
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 7216
    Points : 7310
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

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

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

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

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

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

    Fighter jet carrier feature is just a bonus.

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

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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:27 am