Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Share
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1232
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Isos on Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:07 pm

    Rocket assisted vertical take off, with zero runway.
    And yes, that is not landing.

    I know but it's not the subject here. We are talkin about VTOL which means Vertical Take Off and Landing. The landing needs to be Vertical too if you want you aircraft to be VTOL class...

    that's not rocket assisted take off, not VTOL like F-35 or Yak 141

    I meant it is rocket assisted !! Sorry for the mistake. And yes you still need a runway for landing while for true VTOL you don't need.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 588
    Points : 584
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:58 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Rocket assisted vertical take off, with zero runway.
    And yes, that is not landing.

    I know but it's not the subject here. We are talkin about VTOL which means Vertical Take Off and Landing. The landing needs to be Vertical too if you want you aircraft to be VTOL class...

    that's not rocket assisted take off, not VTOL like F-35 or Yak 141

    I meant it is rocket assisted !! Sorry for the mistake. And yes you still need a runway for landing while for true VTOL you don't need.

    These stuff was vertical take off.

    It was a solid booster strapped to the bottom of the aircraft, to the centre of gravity. So the aircraft take off vertically, and become airborne in few seconds.

    It was better than the F-35 or Harrier, because any aircraft can be launched like this from anywhere.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:39 am

    Then you will need to discuss again the price and the ability of Russians to build true carrier and we will have the same discussion as we can found in every thread of this part of the forum. Not my intension.

    Part of the problem is that everyone wants solutions now.

    Russia has no use for four medium carriers right now... it does not have the port facilities nor the support ships needed to operate two or three carrier groups.

    They will need time to put together a properly balanced fleet, with two new helicopter landing ships in the water by 2022-4 and maybe operational 2-3 years later they will have the core of two carrier groups so a second fixed wing carrier class could be started in 2020 to be ready by 2025 for initial trials and testing together with the Kuznetsov as their two fixed wing carriers.

    My idea as you understood is to add the speed of fighter in small numbers to power-up your forces for a very small price and for somme situtation, clearly not WW3. At the end true carrier is of course better than a small ship lunching a few fighters maybe 4 time every day.

    You get what you pay for... if you could do it cheaper the UK would already be doing it.

    I gotta say Garry you definitely seem exceptionally critical of VTOL aircraft and they do have dodgy track record but these are not 70s. Technology moved on.

    Not really. To save a small amount by building a 20K ton ship instead of a 40-60k ton ship is actually very limiting.

    Taking the British example, if the Argentines had had access to better IR guided missiles the British would have been in the shit. More importantly if the Argentines even just had access to medium fighters with BVR missiles the British would have been in real trouble.

    Even MiG-23s with R-24R and R-24T AAMs, which would not have been state of the art at the time, the British would have been in serious trouble... a Harrier is a horrible IR target... for most aircraft the direct rear portion makes for an easier shot but with a Harrier every angle except directly from the front is dangerous.

    A MiG-29 with R-73s would have massacred the British.

    As I have mentioned, I don't like VSTOL aircraft... they are a one trick pony and for that trick they are expensive, complicated, delicate, and prone to terminal crashes...

    For a small extra cost you can use a proper sized carrier with better range and better capacity and aircraft that are not unique to the navy.

    The Yak-38 was tested in Afghanistan as a CAS and it was found to be a poor option... expensive, fragile, prone to damage.

    Sure the Yak was not the best example of VSTOL aircraft, but its problems are shared by all VSTOL aircraft... there are none that have solved them... even the VTOL F-35 is what is making the F-35 a poor performer... and more expensive than it needs to be.

    It could be a stealthy F-16... instead it is a stealthy Buccaneer... while will likely make it a useful strike aircraft, but a crap light fighter.... and that is half the job.

    Fact is that Russia is building these helicopter​ carriers and they will be in production and use. That is their primary purpose.

    Agreed. But the idea of making a few extra that can haul other loads like MiG-29s makes sense too... but restarting the Yak line of VSTOLs would be counter to the whole concept of a cheap support for a full carrier that carries extra airframes to make up numbers without being expensive.


    Now, to theorize, we know that UAE have ordered new light 5th gen fighter jet. If it ends up having standard configuration then there will be no effect on this topic.

    But in stealth mode a light stealth fighter should have excess thrust to make takeoffs from ships a piece of cake as low drag internal weapons storage and light air to air weapon load means little take off weight requirement...

    However if UAE ended up being less than frugal and decided to go for VTOL config then it will mean that Russia will have both:

    The UAE have no carriers... so VTOL makes no sense for them... on land VSTOL aircraft are a total failure.

    And those two roles are pretty much only reason Russia has for acquiring aircraft carriers.

    Those two requirements don't just go away if UAE does not want a jack of all trades fighter...

    The russians are talking about a CAT system for their new design carriers... it would be a total waste on a helicopter carrier but refitting it on the K could allow a heavier tanker aircraft to be carried that could top up aircraft taking off from the smaller carriers as they take off with full weapon loads...

    the addition of a EM CAT system on K would mean heavy AWACS type to be developed... a cargo plane and a tanker on the same airframe would make sense but would reduce the number of deployed aircraft on the K... the extra carriers become rather more useful and sensible to support operations.

    UAE are not going to be field aircraft carriers of any sort. So why would they need VTOL?

    Agreed... VTOL adds weight and complexity... most of which is deadweight in normal flight. It also makes the aircraft horribly vulnerable to damage/faults.

    Skyjump is more efficient the VTOL.

    Skijumps allow aircraft to get airborne easier from shorter takeoff runs. Thrust vectoring also helps a lot even on no VSTOL aircraft.

    With VTOL you don't need airfield anymore. You can operate them anywhere and lunch them from basicly anywhere.

    That was the sales pitch for Harrier... but in actual practise it was a pain in the ass... anything that was not concrete needed pierced steel planking for takeoffs, which shows up on radar. The idea they could take off from shopping mall carparks is nice but all the rubbish they ingest on takeoff they don't last very long operationally.

    With the introduction of hypersonic and very low observable cruise missiles, airfield are more and more in danger. I know there is little to no chance they go for VTOL but who knows.

    Actually even with modern very capable weapons it is still easier to repair a runway than disperse all your resources all over the place. Note your air defence unit protecting your base wont disperse like your aircraft so they will operate without air defences...


    VTOL didn't improve a lot. For F-35 US bought legally Yak-141 plans and technical data so it's still 70's 80's technology. Russian stop research since then. There isn't successor to Harrier.

    Don't get me wrong... I find the Yak-141 impressive, as is the Harrier for what they are, but the amount of investment needed to make them useful... you can fit a bigger better radar and more weapons in a MiG-29K and operate it from bigger sized ships with more aircraft on board.

    The MiGs are faster, longer ranged, cheaper, and more effective... and also used by the Air Force.

    I meant it is rocket assisted !! Sorry for the mistake. And yes you still need a runway for landing while for true VTOL you don't need.

    Landing is actually the easy part... arrester wires will pretty much land anything... it is the getting airborne that is the issue.

    Again for the Russians the solution will be different from the west because they want fighters, not bombers/strike aircraft.

    Fighters already have a high thrust to weight ratio, good lift, low max weight... AAMs are light payload stuff.

    Harriers and F-35s wont land vertically or take off vertically unless there is something wrong. More conventional takeoffs and landings use a lot less fuel and are actually safer.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 845
    Points : 849
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:10 pm

    Russia is not getting two new Helio carriers in the water by 2024. I'd be shocked if they can get one in the water by that time. Maybe by 2028 sure.

    Say what you want here but their build speed speaks for it's self and no Icebreakers aren't warships.

    Russia cannot build a 60k Carrier like the Kuz in five years.....you are REALLY high balling these numbers. I get the whole optimistic angle but be realistic.

    Don't get me wrong, I second carrier like the Kuz makes more sense for Russia.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:32 am

    The Kuznetsov was a Soviet design and not really a model for future designs.

    The next fixed wing carrier needs to be nuke propelled, and needs to use a modular design to use the modules developed for all new Russian ships.

    This will make upgrades easier and cheaper and simpler.

    You are entitled to your own opinion regarding future vessels for the Russian navy... the French generously handed over all the details and technology for their Mistral class ships and allowed Russia to build half of them and then refunded their money and sold the ships to Egypt and now Russia is selling the Russian components for the ships to Egypt... so Russia got its money back and is selling aircraft and equipment to Egypt.

    Incorporating the design features of the Mistral in their new design should speed up the design phase and the modular building process used to produce half of the Mistrals they built in Russia should lead to speedy production.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1986
    Points : 2028
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Yak 141 is back?

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:11 pm

    Ministry of Defense is considering creation of a vertical takeoff aircraft


    Zhukovsky (Moscow Region), July 18 - RIA Novosti. Russia's Defense Ministry is discussing the creation of a vertical takeoff aircraft for aircraft carriers on the basis of "Yak", he told reporters on Tuesday, Deputy Minister Yuri Borisov.
    "Defense is discussing with our aircraft manufacturers the creation of aircraft with short takeoff and landing, possibly VTOL this development." Yakovskoy "line" - Borisov said.

    РИА Новости https://ria.ru/arms/20170718/1498711735.html
    https://ria.ru/arms/20170718/1498711735.html

    https://vz.ru/news/2017/7/18/879188.html


    Well I was always a big fan of Yak 141 and I am convinced  that you can pack this on "Mistral" like LHS or use old good Aircraft Carrying Cruiser concepts to protect own fleet on far away operations. LHS with 12-16 fighters is not that bad support after all.

    PS is this needs to me moved pls advise where Smile


    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6115
    Points : 6219
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:15 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Ministry of Defense is considering creation of a vertical takeoff aircraft......................

    Yeah, ''totally'' MoD idea... Cool

    I said before that United Arab Emirates have ordered new 5th gen fighter and that in usual Arab extravaganza they will want all the fancy stuff that looks cool even if they have no use for it.

    VTOL system looks cool and Arabs are loaded with cash.... thumbsup
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1856
    Points : 1854
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  miketheterrible on Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:17 pm

    A MiG and Yakovlev jv fighter jet will make me cream my pants.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1986
    Points : 2028
    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 Jul 19, 2017 9:08 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:A MiG and Yakovlev jv fighter jet will make me cream my pants.

    it is even better ...


    MOSCOW, July 19 - RIA Novosti, Andrei Kotz. The Russian Defense Ministry plans in 2025 to lay a new aircraft-carrying cruiser,, which will be part of one of the country's naval fleet. This was at the aerospace show MAKS-2017 told the deputy head of the military department, Yuri Borisov. He stressed that the final decision will be, when the country will be a new generation of aircraft.
    "The plans of the Ministry of Defense we are discussing the creation of the deck of the aircraft, and it may be a VTOL" - said Borisov.

    РИА Новости https://ria.ru/arms/20170719/1498773102.html

    Number of MiGs 35 decreased to 24.... maybe there is a link between resumption of Yak-141 "2" and less money for MiGs 35?

    TAVKR - with Zircons, s-500, ASW torpedoes... sounds like a flag-ship not only AC. Tilt-rotor drones can replace AWACS or even strike missions and fighters just to protect fleet. But lets wait first Smile







    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1232
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Isos on Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:54 pm

    I've always wondered how % of the total fuel a yak 141 or a F-35 would need for a take off. Anyone knows ?
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6115
    Points : 6219
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:59 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:............
    it is even better ...

    MOSCOW, July 19 - RIA Novosti, Andrei Kotz. The Russian Defense Ministry plans in 2025 to lay a new aircraft-carrying  cruiser,, which will be part of one of the country's naval fleet.....

    This is all very theoretical and up in the air but still, why not speculate a bit:

    Aircraft-carrying  cruiser which means NOT a super-carrier. Oh boy, Eehenie will have a shit-fit on an epic scale, can't wait for Kilo, Sieg and Militarov to see this...    lol1

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:........
    This was at the aerospace show MAKS-2017 told the deputy head of the military department, Yuri Borisov. He stressed that the final decision will be, when the country will be a new generation of aircraft.
    "The plans of the Ministry of Defense we are discussing the creation of the deck of the aircraft, and it may be a VTOL" - said Borisov.....

    So suddenly after decades of trying unsuccessfully to get the money for humble MiG-35 they are now not only talking about designing a whole new thing but also making it a VTOL by some crazy coincidence?

    Yeah, I'm sure that UAE spiel had nothing to do with this, I mean when was last time Gulf Arabs purchased something they have zero need for just because neighbor has a ''cooler looking and bigger one''  Laughing

    If this really pans out by some miracle then that Avalanche helicopter carrier will not only get a massive boost in construction priority but will also be getting an optional for nuclear propulsion.  Cool
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 845
    Points : 849
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:57 pm

    I have heard nothing about them laying down a new Kuz style warship. It's possible but that just seems odd....

    I really am not sure what to make of this really, it could have been a typo someone who is used to saying that word when talking about carriers.

    Let's say however it's not a typo and they fully intend to build another kuz style carrier. I actually like this idea more than a super carrier, provided they expand the deck to make the aircraft count a decent sizem strap some zircon missiles onto the ship, so let's say the ship has some USUK's with Zircons and like an airwing of say 60 aircraft.

    Much better option than a super carrier.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If they come out with new VTOL's then their helio carriers will get a massive boost in terms of priority. That would be a HUGE and I mean HUGE deal.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:48 pm

    I would not read too much into the terminology of aircraft carrying cruiser.

    The Soviets and Russians had a tradition of arming all their ships with a little bit of everything so that even if they were on their own... which should never actually happen, they can at least defend themselves with something... even the SS-N-14s had a secondary anti ship capability for this reason.

    They will likely have UKSK launchers for their land attack and anti ship strike capability anyway...

    As for wasting money on VSTOL aircraft I think they are being stupid.

    No vertical takeoff and landing aircraft like the Harrier or F-35 will ever actually take off vertically... it reduces the take off weight and burns the most fuel... the ship has been payed for... use the skijump deck and carry more fuel and weapons further with a rolling takeoff. Rolling landings are also safer and less damaging to an aircraft structure... so what we are actually talking about is an aircraft with TVC to improve landing and takeoff performance... you can get that from a MiG-29K2 if you really want.

    The Yak-141 is vastly inferior to the MiG-29K and there is no way you can do anything to the design to make it superior to the MiG-29K2, because the extra weight of lift engines, the internal complication and weight of pipes to carry high pressure air to the nose, tail, and both wing tips for puffer jets to allow manouver performance in the hover, and also therefore vulnerability to damage both accidental and battle damage is expensive and effects performance too.

    VSTOL is a dead end one trick pony that in real combat would be very vulnerable to even old model IR guided missiles.

    Modern BVR IR guided missiles would have devastated the Harrier fleet in 1982 in the Falklands war... if Argentina had MiG-23s with R-24Ts those Harriers would have been in serious trouble.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    SLB

    Posts : 20
    Points : 24
    Join date : 2017-06-08

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  SLB on Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:42 pm

    IMHO what these latest rumours mean is that, at this stage, the Russian Navy is more inclined to develop a conventionaly powered surface fleet,
    leaving the nuclear propulsion to its SSBNs/SSGNs/SSNs.

    The "aircraft carrying cruiser" would be a kind of LHA version of the Priboi/Lavina LHD.

    Now that the project 22350M has scaled up to Udaloy size, maybe an AAW version will be developed, replacing the cruisers,
    and that would be all for the surface fleet.

    The submarine component would remain the backbone of the Russian Navy and 50 Tu-160M2 would be a better power projection
    tool than any super-expensive super-carriers (besides maintaining a strong bomber component of the nuclear triad).

    T-47

    Posts : 212
    Points : 216
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  T-47 on Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:55 pm

    SLB wrote:The "aircraft carrying cruiser" would be a kind of LHA version of the Priboi/Lavina LHD.


    I agree with this. I think they want to give a fixed wing aircraft in these ships. For fire supports like anti-helo, anit-radar and typical air to ground mission with minimal air-to-air focus.They can improve the Yak-43 design (Or 141, but I like 43 more). Adding a ski jump at the end could reduce the fuel cost as well, only landing will be at vertical.


    But I don't think its time for this luxury right now. Ka-52K can handle fire support role very well, includes anit-helo op.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6115
    Points : 6219
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:14 pm

    T-47 wrote:
    SLB wrote:The "aircraft carrying cruiser" would be a kind of LHA version of the Priboi/Lavina LHD.


    I agree with this. I think they want to give a fixed wing aircraft in these ships. For fire supports like anti-helo, anit-radar and typical air to ground mission with minimal air-to-air focus.They can improve the Yak-43 design (Or 141, but I like 43 more). Adding a ski jump at the end could reduce the fuel cost as well, only landing will be at vertical.


    But I don't think its time for this luxury right now. Ka-52K can handle fire support role very well, includes anit-helo op.

    It's not a luxury if someone else is paying for it. In this case UAE otherwise nobody would even be considering this.

    T-47

    Posts : 212
    Points : 216
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  T-47 on Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:26 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:It's not a luxury if someone else is paying for it. In this case UAE otherwise nobody would even be considering this.

    Ah, my bad. Didn't notice that. One thing, can a Kirov can hold Yak VTOLs in its hanger? I read the hanger is designed for 5 helos but usually 3 are carried. So there are spaces for 2 more. Just for fun but it'll be nice to see a jet jumping out from a battle-cruiser lol1 lol1 lol1
    avatar
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1762
    Points : 1919
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  TheArmenian on Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:54 pm

    This is just plain stupid.

    We have the 5 following threads about Russian Naval Aviation :

    - Russian Carrier air wing

    - Russian Naval Aviation: News

    - ASW Aircrafts for Russian Navy

    - Ka-52K for Russian Navy


    And I have not even mentioned the Kuznetsov thread and the Future Russian Aircraft Carriers thread,

    Quite often, a number of them are active at the same time.
    This is fu**ing insane.

    Can we please combine all these threads into one. It will make everybody's life easier.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1232
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Isos on Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:12 pm

    TheArmenian wrote:This is just plain stupid.

    We have the 5 following threads about Russian Naval Aviation :

    - Russian Carrier air wing

    - Russian Naval Aviation: News

    - ASW Aircrafts for Russian Navy

    - Ka-52K for Russian Navy

    - ASW Aircrafts for Russian Navy

    And I have not even mentioned the Kuznetsov thread and the Future Russian Aircraft Carriers thread,

    Quite often, a number of them are active at the same time.
    This is fu**ing insane.

    Can we please combine all these threads into one. It will make everybody's life easier.


    We have you who complain every day too ... and we don't complain, us. tongue  Laughing  lol! lol! lol!
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3282
    Points : 3368
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  medo on Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:14 pm

    VTOL plane like Yak-141 could have good potential for special environments. The plane will be for NAVY and they could place them on those new LHDs. Simply put 2 or 4 for air protection. There is also another environment in NAVY hands, which could be protected by this jet. These are Arctic islands like Kotelny, which are too far away and building there concrete runways for classical jets is too expensive. They could still build smaller concrete platforms, from where plane like Yak-141 could take off nad land vertically. Vietnam could be as well very interested in them as they don't have that big island in South China Sea to place fighter jets there and Su-30 from mainland are too far for quick reaction. Helicopter sized concrete pads could be build there to place such jets there for guarding their islands there.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:28 am

    IMHO what these latest rumours mean is that, at this stage, the Russian Navy is more inclined to develop a conventionaly powered surface fleet,
    leaving the nuclear propulsion to its SSBNs/SSGNs/SSNs.

    They have developed new naval nuclear power plants especially for large cruisers and aircraft carriers... they are not just going to shelve them and develop large conventional propulsion units.

    The "aircraft carrying cruiser" would be a kind of LHA version of the Priboi/Lavina LHD.

    Don't be confused by the terminology, they called the Kuznetsov and the Kiev class carriers aircraft carrying cruisers too.

    VTOL plane like Yak-141 could have good potential for special environments.

    Very expensive for something with very specific uses...

    The plane will be for NAVY and they could place them on those new LHDs. Simply put 2 or 4 for air protection.

    So adding equipment and spares and weapons for just 2-4 fighter aircraft on a helicopter carrier... it would make more sense to fit R-37M missiles with large solid rocket boosters to Ka-52ks and use the ships radar to detect targets.

    I mean lets face it... if Russia is going to mount an actual opposed landing it will have its fixed wing carrier there too, so spending money on VSTOL aircraft you might have 6-8 of operationally on 2-3 landing vessels makes no sense at all...

    There is also another environment in NAVY hands, which could be protected by this jet. These are Arctic islands like Kotelny, which are too far away and building there concrete runways for classical jets is too expensive. They could still build smaller concrete platforms, from where plane like Yak-141 could take off nad land vertically.

    Ka-52K is already developed and entering in service...

    It could find targets for ground based 400km range missiles to attack and monitor the results for further attacks or calling up long range fighters.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    SLB

    Posts : 20
    Points : 24
    Join date : 2017-06-08

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  SLB on Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:10 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    They have developed new naval nuclear power plants especially for large cruisers and aircraft carriers... they are not just going to shelve them and develop large conventional propulsion units.


    I don't think new conventional propulsion units would be needed. Just those already planned for Lavina and Gorshkov-M.

    The talk about STOVL aircraft makes me think that the aircraft carrier concept the navy is playing around with is definitely under 40000 tonnes.
    While it could have nuclear propulsion, what I think it is more likely, if such concept is approved, is that the ship would be a Lavina variant of
    20 something thousand tonnes, with a similar propulsion unit to the LHD.

    As for the other possible user of these new nuclear power plants, the Leader destroyer, we already hear that the Gorshkov-M is leading
    to a rethink of the prospective destroyer project, so who knows what's going to happen there, or if there will be a new destroyer at all.

    Maybe in the end the new nuclear power plants will be just for the icebreaker fleet.

    Again, let me state that this is just my opinion and my current assessment, which could very well be wrong.

    What the Russian Navy has to ponder is what costs more: developing a large carrier (40000 tonnes and above) and associated infrastructure (if needed)
    plus a naval version of PAK-FA (or LMFS), or developing small carrier and a STOVL aircraft.
    avatar
    RTN

    Posts : 188
    Points : 169
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield , CT

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  RTN on Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:44 am

    GarryB wrote:They have developed new naval nuclear power plants especially for large cruisers and aircraft carriers... they are not just going to shelve them and develop large conventional propulsion units.


    So the design philosophy of Russian aircraft carrier designer is completely different from their US counterparts, isn't it? For example, US aircraft carriers are considerably larger
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:19 pm

    I don't think new conventional propulsion units would be needed. Just those already planned for Lavina and Gorshkov-M.

    They were probably Ukrainian...

    They have about 12 cruisers planned that will use NPP, so I really don't understand why you think their future carriers wont have NPP.

    Anything above about 15K tons means nuke propulsion makes sense... especially as that means high speed to get to locations around the world fast without having to plan refuelling stops... especially when Russian ships can be banned from EU and western friendly ports...

    The talk about STOVL aircraft makes me think that the aircraft carrier concept the navy is playing around with is definitely under 40000 tonnes.

    The Yak-141 was supposed to operate from the Kuznetsov and later carriers were going to be bigger.

    While it could have nuclear propulsion, what I think it is more likely, if such concept is approved, is that the ship would be a Lavina variant of
    20 something thousand tonnes, with a similar propulsion unit to the LHD.

    You are confusing their fixed wing carrier requirements with their helicopter carrier requirements.

    they wont have VSTOL aircraft on their Mistral replacements... it simply does not make sense to take helos off a helicopter carrier to fit it with short range slow fighter aircraft, when any time Russia would actually use a helicopter carrier it would also have a fixed wing carrier present too with real carrier aircraft on board.

    As for the other possible user of these new nuclear power plants, the Leader destroyer, we already hear that the Gorshkov-M is leading
    to a rethink of the prospective destroyer project, so who knows what's going to happen there, or if there will be a new destroyer at all.

    the original Gorshkov is a frigate. An expanded version has been called a destroyer.

    whether they expand the Gorshkov into a destroyer or not they will still need destroyers and cruisers.

    The modular nature of the weapons and sensors means new Russian ships are going to start looking alike... the whole purpose of modular design is the bigger ships have more modules... corvette has 1 or two UKSK launchers so Frigate needs two or three, Destroyer needs 4-6, cruiser 10+.

    Same with Air defence missiles and other equipment... the bigger vessel has more of the same or a larger model.

    Maybe in the end the new nuclear power plants will be just for the icebreaker fleet.

    They spent a lot developing NPPs... it is pretty unlikely they wont fit them to large carriers.

    AFAIK there are no models of cruisers with conventional power plants and no actual engine designs currently available to use... the only Kirov sized vessels they have are the Kirovs and the Kuznetsovs and the conventional propulsion components of both vessels were Ukrainian AFAIK...

    Do you think it makes sense to say to Saturn... hey now that you have spent a small fortune expanding your operations to make conventional engines for frigates, could you now do the same for destroyers, cruisers, and a couple of carriers...

    Again, let me state that this is just my opinion and my current assessment, which could very well be wrong.

    Indeed and I could just as easily be wrong.

    I doubt very much anything is even set in stone right now so even current plans can change... what ever they are.

    But I don't think they would pay the South Koreans enormous amounts of money to upgrade their ship building capabilities in the far east and a small fortune to develop NPP for large vessels to make sub 40K ton carriers with conventional propulsion. It is like building a five car garage for a motor bike... a motor bike with a 5hp motor and pedals.

    What the Russian Navy has to ponder is what costs more: developing a large carrier (40000 tonnes and above) and associated infrastructure (if needed)
    plus a naval version of PAK-FA (or LMFS), or developing small carrier and a STOVL aircraft.

    It is not about cost.

    Having no navy at all it by far the cheapest option of all, but it does not suit the future plans of Russia.

    A small carrier will still need a carrier battlegroup to operate with it... in fact it will need it more and all the infrastructure to support a large carrier is not that much more expensive than the infrastructure to support a smaller carrier. A smaller carrier just carries less aircraft with shorter ranged slower aircraft and also lacks airborne early warning and control performance.

    A larger vessel costs more but actually does the job better.

    Just look at the UK... they thought a VSTOL fighter and small carrier would do... they went from Phantoms and Buccaneers on the Ark Royal, to Harriers on the Hermes. What are they looking at now? VSTOL carriers or fixed wing carriers?

    the British actually use their carriers more like the Russians do even though they look rather different... Russian and British carriers are first and foremost air defence carriers to defend groups of ships.

    US carriers are an attack weapon of strike aircraft with a group of ships to protect it.

    So the design philosophy of Russian aircraft carrier designer is completely different from their US counterparts, isn't it? For example, US aircraft carriers are considerably larger

    US carriers are about force projection... ie strike aircraft with fighters to support strike missions. The ships in the battlegroup are there to protect the carrier... ie AEGIS class vessels.

    Russian carriers are to defend the ships. They are currently looking at giving their aircraft better ground attack performance, but primarily they are fighter interceptors to protect the ships the carrier operates with... if a ground target needs to be attack the ships will use their long range cruise missiles to strike ground targets at extended range at no risk to pilots.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2230
    Points : 2246
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:36 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    US carriers are about force projection... ie strike aircraft with fighters to support strike missions. The ships in the battlegroup are there to protect the carrier... ie AEGIS class vessels.

    Russian carriers are to defend the ships.

    US carriers and their groups/squadrons do both.
    The Russian carrier and its grouping can barely do one task. They rarely deploy, with Su-33s providing fleet defense and air cover of sorts. Their single attempt to do both (incorporate strike/ground attack component when deployed) ended up with ditching two of their fighters in the Med (just a some few weeks apart). 1 out 4 MiG-29Ks gone and one Su-33. Suspect

    So they packed it in and went home.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:20 am