Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Share
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    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 Aug 27, 2018 1:44 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    and I ve never heard it was ordered ether

    No orders for EMALS or VSTOL aircraft... because they are in development.

    where was nfo about firm order or programme approval for EMALS?




    and Soviet Union was dissembled because of this? mind both were about same time.

    It was cancelled because there were fundamental problems in the design...

    [/quote]


    not Yak 41M aka 141. The was proposed Yak141M and then Yak-43

    https://www.abebooks.com/Pavlov-A.S-Dlinnaya-ruka-admirala-Gorshkova/22831631121/bd


    Of the planned Yak-41 M series, 4 units of the machine were built, called the Yak-141, two of them were flying. December 29, 1989 began the test in the "hovering" mode, in July of the next year they tried a short takeoff and landing. In September 1991 the plane landed on the deck of TAKR "Admiral Gorshkov" (formerly "Baku"). During the year of the tests (with the crash of one aircraft), there were worked out lifts and landings both from the deck and from the ground airfields. The main take-off mode was a short (60-120 m) takeoff. At the same time, the payload increased by 2 tons, the radius of combat use of the aircraft increased by 1.5-2 times, the time of the barrage in the zone of possible combat operations was more than three times. Moreover, when the take-off, the surface temperature of the deck does not heat above 80 degrees.

    The take-off and landing of helicopters were allowed at wind speeds of up to 18 m / s and a pitching amplitude of 8 degrees, for planes with stiffer-15 m / s and 6 degrees, pitching in both cases should not exceed 3 degrees.

    With vertical take-off, the time for a set of horizontal speeds of 550 km / h, when an "airplane" flight begins, is up to 25 seconds, and with a shortened, with a detachment speed of up to 120 km / h, no more than 18 seconds. In addition to vertical or short take-off, lifting engines provide Yak-141 and reduced (up to 200 m) mileage when landing: when approaching the ship, nozzles of lift engines rotated 5 degrees against the direction of flight begin to work as aerodynamic brakes. For this reason there are no brake shields on the plane. The installation of the brake hook for the landing was worked on.

    Thus, the devices of purely vertical takeoff and landing became airplanes of short take-off and landing, became more speedy and maneuverable, turning into a serious weapon. All this did not escape the attentive look of foreign experts and in 1994 the US Congress decided to give the task to firms to develop a similar aircraft to replace the "Harriers".







    are you saying Russians didn't calculate/brainstorm over and over  cost/benefits before taking decision?

    I am sure there were plenty of people who want to build a VSTOL fighter, but how can their calculations possibly be accurate without an actual test aircraft to prove the numbers are right?I am sure they probably did all the calculations and brainstorming over the Yak-41, but tests showed there were serious fundamental problems, for which there were no easy answers.


    [/quote]

    meh SWOT doents exist in Russia. There were no aerospace experts asked too. not sure why you say alwasy Yak-41 nto Yak-38 or 36. OR 141 or 141M or 43.




    just Putins after-party hangover? and who told you it cannot be ised as army fighter replacing MiG-35 . Mind why so short series is bought?

    More complicated and expensive and fragile than a normal aircraft... what is not to love...  Rolling Eyes
    [/quote]

    saving trillions of rubles on-ships, EMALS, maintenance and infrastructure? of course!









    NK-32
    thrust  137 kN   with afterburner  245 kN

    Yes... all that extra fuel burned in the bigger engine... and of course using full AB for landing and take off means even more fuel and more damage to the runway...

    no look at text i quoted and check Yak-43stuff







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

    Looks like that Yugoslavian super plane Novi Avion... they never make it for real and over time it just gets better and better.... like the Canadian Arrow or the UK Bluestreak missile.


    USSR ceased to exist this time but perhaps you didnt notice yet?








    The cost for bigger carriers pays off because bigger carriers are better.
    For invading foreign counties, Midway battles true! but you need to see what tasks is to be fulfilled by such ship. apparently for Russians other tasks are different.





    So the F-35B has similar practical performance as a MiG-29K... $122 million dollars per aircraft vs $16 million... I don't see your point.

    bwahahahha this is a good one !!! MiG-23 is ~4mlsn USD is would be even cheaper and faster! 2800km/h vs 2400km/h!




    Carrier will start around thsi time, this was discussed many times over and over first new fighter then new AC

    In practical terms it would not matter if they started laying down a carrier right now... they wont need carrier aircraft for it until well after the engines are ready...
    [quote]







    US and Russian military disagree and invest in this billions.

    No evidence of Russia investing billions...

    US did, Russian made decision to do this. If you stop ingoring facts facts about decision you'll get it!






    They will get 40-60 ktons universal carrier (LHA if you prefer) for VSTOL.

    They have already said they want something slightly bigger than K so bigger than 60k tons.

    no fleet said what they expect not what they get. At first they expected 100kt -> then min 70ktons -> next as a reality something max 60sh will get (videcQE2) although I bet on LHA Americasized ship.







    NK-32 is similar in size/thurst and wight to F-35B engine

    It does, but it was designed as an engine for a bomber.... long range cruise.... high speed dashes... no hard manouvering or rapid throttle changes...

    it was already planned for Yak-43 concept though by aerospace experts unlike us lol1 lol1 lol1






    True yet you can use vSTOL on 20k carriers if you need too.
    WTF would be the point? If you are so keen to save money don't make any carriers at all....

    true not for Midway but for police wars or even Syrian conflict fair enough.






    Compare apples with apples... the 16 billion for the Russian carrier includes programme costs, which means the equivalent costs for the Ford would be 13 billion plus 37 billion... so 50 billion.

    no 37blns is cost of 3 CVs + R&D thus 13blns per unit







    Now you can bitch and say but they can afford to waste money... they are declaring economic war with everyone... not they can't afford it.

    They can they cannot not a business for RuNavy . Ru navy has chosen other way.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

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

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:37 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    BS,
    Gerald R. Ford class:
    Cost:
    Program cost: US$37.30 billion (FY2018)
    Unit cost: US$12.998 billion (FY2018)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier

    With RnD first ship is 14blns, if you add cost of upgrading and building yards in case of Russia...

    Compare apples with apples... the 16 billion for the Russian carrier includes programme costs, which means the equivalent costs for the Ford would be 13 billion plus 37 billion... so 50 billion.

    Now you can bitch and say but they can afford to waste money... they are declaring economic war with everyone... not they can't afford it.

    Come one Garry, lets be a bit optimistic, the Program cost must have included the first unit price too.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18119
    Points : 18679
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:01 am

    where was nfo about firm order or programme approval for EMALS?

    On the shelf next to the firm order and programme approval for their new Death Star and VSTOL fighter aircraft and indeed CVNs.


    not Yak 41M aka 141. The was proposed Yak141M and then Yak-43

    It was a Yak-41M that crashed on the deck of a carrier, and the Yak-43 was a paper project, so yes, the Yak-41M was cancelled and the Yak-43 was not cancelled... because it never actually existed in any hard form except a drawing.

    The main take-off mode was a short (60-120 m) takeoff. At the same time, the payload increased by 2 tons, the radius of combat use of the aircraft increased by 1.5-2 times, the time of the barrage in the zone of possible combat operations was more than three times. Moreover, when the take-off, the surface temperature of the deck does not heat above 80 degrees.

    So with a rolling takeoff it can carry more payload and more fuel... we already knew that.. but with these numbers we can work out what sort of performance you would get from a 20K ton helicopter carrier with no rolling takeoff and no ski jump... and it is pathetic.

    The Yak-41M had a payload of like 3 tons, so vertical takeoff means 1 ton payload and the flight range halved...

    Like I said... bloody useless...

    For a 5th gen fighter that will cost rather more than a MiG-33...

    In addition to vertical or short take-off, lifting engines provide Yak-141 and reduced (up to 200 m) mileage when landing: when approaching the ship, nozzles of lift engines rotated 5 degrees against the direction of flight begin to work as aerodynamic brakes. For this reason there are no brake shields on the plane. The installation of the brake hook for the landing was worked on.

    Except airbrakes would be much lighter and much cheaper than lift engines, and they can be used in a dogfight situation...

    Thus, the devices of purely vertical takeoff and landing became airplanes of short take-off and landing, became more speedy and maneuverable, turning into a serious weapon.

    Thus a shit aircraft that was bloody useless, became adequate... but still fragile and expensive and of limited use.


    meh SWOT doents exist in Russia. There were no aerospace experts asked too. not sure why you say alwasy Yak-41 nto Yak-38 or 36. OR 141 or 141M or 43.

    Yak-38s were proven to be next to useless... Yak-41Ms had a real radar and proper air to air weapons, but had lower all round performance than a MiG-33... lower speed, shorter range, less useful armament, smaller radar... and much more expensive aircraft with nothing in common with any other type... the MiG-33 was a navalised land based aircraft widely used.

    saving trillions of rubles on-ships, EMALS, maintenance and infrastructure? of course!

    Hahahaha... so not only do you get a shit aircraft that is pretty useless for anything, you also get a crap carrier that is bloody useless too...

    They wont know whether the EMALS will be successful or not until after they know if they have a decent VSTOL aircraft or not... so the money on the EMALS wont be saved by selecting VSTOL fighters... EMALS would be even more critical if you want a dinky little piece of shit ship because EMALS is for AWACS... not for fixed wing fighters.

    Buying two big carriers (70-80K tons max) will be cheaper than building 4 smaller carriers but needing to send two carriers everywhere you would normally just send one bigger carrier.

    The infrastructure for four small carriers wont be less than for two big ones... the difference is that you will need to swap the smaller carriers more often because they wont have the endurance or capacity of the bigger vessels.

    Smaller carriers means less defence (remember Russian carriers will have much more in the way of air defences and systems than western carriers... and a smaller carrier wont need less such defences so they will occupy a greater percentage of space in a smaller carrier...) ...it means less onboard fuel for aircraft operations, less ordinance for aircraft operations... and it will likely mean no or limited AWACS support.

    It is like buying fake cameras to deter thieves, instead of forking out for real cameras... fine when there are no problems and a good deterrent... but when you actually do need them they are useless.

    no look at text i quoted and check Yak-43stuff

    Yeah, why not show me text about Yak-57 or Yak-67, or another plane that has never been built before.

    USSR ceased to exist this time but perhaps you didnt notice yet?

    Yup, but the fact that it ceased to exist doesn't make the plans for the Yak-43 viable.

    For invading foreign counties, Midway battles true! but you need to see what tasks is to be fulfilled by such ship. apparently for Russians other tasks are different.

    Ohh come on... are you saying Russia does not need Frigates or Destroyers or Cruisers because patrol boats are cheaper?

    All they need is super supply ships to follow them around... hey... no... arsenal drone ships that follow Corvettes around... literally on a tether passing electricity and data to the smaller vessel on long voyages... coastal batteries can be used when the ship is close to land...

    Cancel the big expensive Frigates... I have a harebrained scheme to save a few roubles... might end up killing a lot of sailors, but their standard of living will be better while they are alive...


    bwahahahha this is a good one !!! MiG-23 is ~4mlsn USD is would be even cheaper and faster! 2800km/h vs 2400km/h!

    But the MiG-23 is a single engined aircraft... a no no.

    [quote]US did, Russian made decision to do this. If you stop ingoring facts facts about decision you'll get it!['/quote]

    All Russia is doing is looking at developing VSTOL fighters... there is no commitment to serial production, nor decisions regarding carrier size.

    VSTOL aircraft can actually be used on the Kuznetsov... that is actually what the ski jump was developed for... vectored thrust VSTOL aircraft... they benefit the most... but of course a naval fighter like Su-33 or MiG-33 or Su-57 navalised could also have thrust vector engines too...

    although I bet on LHA Americasized ship.

    Of course because a primary goal of the Russian Navy is to be as bloated and useless as the US Navy... they are heros...

    The Russian Navy has separate requirements... they want a Mistral type landing ship... it will probably be nuke powered and rather better armed now, but still not likely more than 35K tons. They also want an air defence carrier to protect their ships beyond russian waters and some little helicopter carrier just wont cut it...

    It would very much be like the British Navy in the late 1970s and early 80s... they just got rid of their fixed wing carrier the ark royal and replaced it with the Hermes helicopter carriers and were very very very lucky that their spat was in south america where centuries of US pressure limited them to fairly weak air power.

    I mean Mirage IIIs and A-4 Skyhawks...

    With the Fixed wing ark royal carrier they would have had Buccaneers for strike and Phantoms for fighters with full BVR capabilties, not to mention Gannet AEW aircraft so they could see what was coming and would have had less surprises...


    it was already planned for Yak-43 concept though by aerospace experts unlike us

    The F-111 was originally planned as a carrier based fighter aircraft but it was decided it was too heavy... the engines went in to what replaced it... the F-14, while the radar and missiles were adapted and improved and were also eventually put in the F-14, and the F-111 (note the F for fighter designation) became a strike and EW aircraft for the Air Force.

    The F-14A suffered because of its poor engine... great for long range cruise flight, but not so good for turning combat.

    true not for Midway but for police wars or even Syrian conflict fair enough.

    If Russia wants to trade globally, it will need a global navy... and that means air power to support naval operations anywhere.

    It does not mean invasion... it means being able to send ships and aircraft anywhere they need to... and that means you need carriers.

    Countries don't become global powers and with all that money they make they build a powerful navy... it happens the other way around.

    Right now in any dispute in Africa or the Americas or indeed the pacific or Asia, France and the UK and the US and a few other countries would have more say than Russia simply because Russia can't take anything to enforce their will that can operate safely... having a carrier changes that and makes all your ships and subs SAFER.

    Don't think of it as an extra expense... for some capability to attack countries... think of it as improved reach in terms of weapons and sensors... it is more information in times of stress... how much is that worth?

    It is extra layers and rings of defence and vision for a surface group... it is the difference between the Hermes and quite a few ships getting sunk because the British didn't see them coming, and everyone coming home alive without ship losses.

    The Argentinian aircraft were not powerful heavy capable fighters.

    Their pilots were incredibly brave and also skilled, but if they had anything decent in terms of aircraft... having MiG-23s with R-24 AAMs as well as the capacity to operate from rough strips on the islands would have meant the Brits would have been in serious trouble... even if they flew high and fast and just blew past those Harriers and launched R-24T missiles... those Harriers only had Sidewinders and would have had little chance against fighters flying at 10,000m at mach 2, while the IR signature of a Harrier is enormous and the engine nozzles on the side make them terribly vulnerable to IR guided missiles...

    Once the Harriers are gone... the British would be left with missile defences... Sea Dart was in service in the Argentine Navy so they knew all about that... Seawolf would be a problem but just fly high and avoid it...

    The Argentines were familiar with the Exocet but then the British had that in service too so they should have been more aware.

    I remember at the time the Royal Navy said they had had trouble with the Exocet but it was OK because the Soviets didn't have any anti ship missiles as potent as that.... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    (Note for those not aware the SS-N-22 Sunburn was just entering service... max height is 300m to find the target and 7m or less operational height for the rest of the 120km range at mach 2.

    no 37blns is cost of 3 CVs + R&D thus 13blns per unit

    Then I know it is bullshit... there is no way the second two will cost the same as the first one...


    Come one Garry, lets be a bit optimistic, the Program cost must have included the first unit price too.

    American accounting... who knows what it includes... all we know is that in the end it will actually cost about 4 times more than any promise made before production started...

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    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 Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:51 am

    GarryB wrote:
    On the shelf next to the firm order and programme approval for their new Death Star and VSTOL fighter aircraft and indeed CVNs.


    still in senial, Supreme Commander signed VSTOL unlik EMALS






    not Yak 41M aka 141. The was proposed Yak141M and then Yak-43

    It was a Yak-41M that crashed on the deck of a carrier, and the Yak-43 was a paper project, so yes, the Yak-41M was cancelled and the Yak-43 was not cancelled... because it never actually existed in any hard form except a drawing.
    [/quote]

    in 1991 any pretext was good to cancel financing. This had nothing to do with technical issues tho. True Yak-43 , MiG-144 too, nothing to do with technical side.






    So with a rolling takeoff it can carry more payload and more fuel... we already knew that.. but with these numbers we can work out what sort of performance you would get from a 20K ton helicopter carrier with no rolling takeoff and no ski jump... and it is pathetic.


    skijump can be on 20k too. Invincible could take 18 Harriers and had skijump and 22ktons Smile







    meh SWOT doents exist in Russia. There were no aerospace experts asked too. not sure why you say alwasy Yak-41 nto Yak-38 or 36. OR 141 or 141M or 43.

    Yak-41Ms had a real radar and proper air to air weapons, but had lower all round performance than a MiG-33... lower speed, shorter range, less useful armament, smaller radar... and much more expensive aircraft with nothing in common with any other type... the MiG-33 was a navalised land based aircraft widely used.

    [/quote]

    MiG-33 is a hybrid of MiG-29 and Su-33? lol1 lol1 lol1 BTW speed of Yak-141 in pair with F-18 or F-35.







    Hahahaha... so not only do you get a shit aircraft that is pretty useless for anything, you also get a crap carrier that is bloody useless too...

    useles to what? to your requirements of solving real ltaksks?


    shit ship because EMALS is for AWACS... not for fixed wing fighters.

    so you didn notice that currently there is netcentric warfare? and drones? you still live in 90s?





    Buying two big carriers (70-80K tons max) will be cheaper than building 4 smaller carriers but needing to send two carriers everywhere you would normally just send one bigger carrier.

    not true, 1 is enough to send anywhere. besides Midway. For 1/4 of costs.




    The infrastructure for four small carriers wont be less than for two big ones... the difference is that you will need to swap the smaller carriers more often because they wont have the endurance or capacity of the bigger vessels.


    What a Face What a Face What a Face so you want to have years somewhere?!




    Smaller carriers means less defence (remember Russian carriers will have much more in the way of air defences and systems than western carriers... and a smaller carrier wont need less such defences so they will occupy a greater percentage of space in a smaller carrier...)  ...it means less onboard fuel for aircraft operations, less ordinance for aircraft operations...

    Unliely 40-50ktons has it all, and if she needs more supplies that's wny are supply ships for right?





    USSR ceased to exist this time but perhaps you didnt notice yet?

    Yup, but the fact that it ceased to exist doesn't make the plans for the Yak-43 viable.


    OK denial of existing and approved plans. Next I expect aggression. Acceptance comes later.


    For invading foreign counties, Midway battles true! but you need to see what tasks is to be fulfilled by such ship. apparently for Russians other tasks are different.

    Ohh come on... are you saying Russia does not need Frigates or Destroyers or Cruisers because patrol boats are cheaper?

    [/quote]

    now? yes she does. BTW 80 destroyers you mean? for 1,4 blns $ each? right.






    US did, Russian made decision to do this. If you stop ingoring facts facts about decision you'll get it!['/quote]

    All Russia is doing is looking at developing VSTOL fighters... there is no commitment to serial production, nor decisions regarding carrier size.

    bwahahah again we are in denial dont we? no there are plans for CVNs the question is not if but whenm, And yes they are persistent since last year - ~10 years



    VSTOL aircraft can actually be used on the Kuznetsov... that is actually what the ski jump was developed for... vectored thrust VSTOL aircraft... they benefit the most... but of course a naval fighter like Su-33 or MiG-33 or Su-57 navalised could also have thrust vector engines too...

    True.






    The Russian Navy has separate requirements... they want a Mistral type landing ship... it will probably be nuke powered and rather better armed now, but still not likely more than 35K tons. They also want an air defence carrier to protect their ships beyond russian waters and some little helicopter carrier just wont cut it...


    America class LHA is 45k tons. Kuz is 45-55 ktons displacement. There is no need to cut it. Depends on takss as I said before: 40-60ktons ship. Still 1/3 -1/4 costs of 100ktons.





    The F-14A suffered because of its poor engine... great for long range cruise flight, but not so good for turning combat.

    yeha yeah yeah



    true not for Midway but for police wars or even Syrian conflict fair enough.

    If Russia wants to trade globally, it will need a global navy... and that means air power to support naval operations anywhere.
    It does not mean invasion... it means being able to send ships and aircraft anywhere they need to... and that means you need carriers.

    [/quote]

    you dont read my posts dont you? But there are light universal CVNs. In this case doesnt matter. For Syrian WAR 20-30 was enough for years!
    Any attack on any ship means war.

    In 2030s In less then hour bunch of Avangards will come. Or accompanying Husky with bunch of Cefalopods will cleat the way. 20-30 fighters is more than enough. Imagine Kinzhal is ~4 tons, payload of F-35 is 6,5 . And no country would fuck with Russia who has global reach with either bombers + cruise missiles of closer to shores missile ships.







    no 37blns is cost of 3 CVs + R&D thus 13blns per unit

    Then I know it is bullshit... there is no way the second two will cost the same as the first one...


    Programme cost read again please, This time with understanding. lol1 lol1 lol1
    R&D + 3 ships =37 blns


    How to Find the Mean
    The mean is the average of the numbers.

    It is easy to calculate: add up all the numbers, then divide by how many numbers there are.

    In other words it is the sum divided by the count.
    https://www.mathsisfun.com/mean.html


    bounce bounce bounce


    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    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 Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:09 pm

    And now Ladies and Gentlemen special goodies for GarryB. The article is pretty long I took liberty to quote some parts specially for VSTOL H8ers lol1 lol1 lol1
    Et voila:


    Fighter vertical take-off. An airplane of the future or a well-forgotten past?



    TASS - on the urgency of creating new vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, as well as on similar projects in the arsenal of the Soviet Union, and on unique technologies that left for the West
    +++
    According to Borisov, we are talking about the creation of a new aircraft, and not about working out on the basis of some existing machine.

    Undoubtedly, this is the future for all aircraft carrying ships, a new fleet of aircraft will be needed - it is for this purpose that various technologies are used that make it possible to provide a short take-off or landing, or simply vertical take-off
    Yuri Borisov,
    Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation

    +++

    According to him, "the terms are determined by the technological cycle of creation, as a rule, this is seven to ten years, if you go into the series." The existing Su-33 and MiG-29K / KUB planes will gradually become obsolete, resulting in the development of new aircraft in about 10-15 years.

    +++

    And when we have a plane for vertical take-off and landing, it will be additional operational capabilities, not only at sea, but in limited areas of some local hostilities or in the organization of defense. Such a plane, in fact, more relates to defensive systems
    Vladimir Popov
    honored military pilot of the Russian Federation, Major-General
    +++
    In this case, he will not have very large radii of action in relation to conventional aircraft, the expert believes. "But they will be able to carry out operational-tactical tasks, in order to expeditiously maximize opportunities, that is, to prevent the enemy from attacking somewhere, to prevent this blow from accumulating and relocating troops," he said.

    Another important point, Popov believes, is "without having a large airfield network, it is possible to use platforms such as helicopter radars for such an aircraft."
    +++
    In service with the Russian army, the Yak-141 stood until 2003.

    +++

    At the same time in the mid-1990s work was already underway on the Yak-201 design sketch, which was to be the further development of the Yak-141. It was envisaged that it would already be implemented using stealth technologies.

    Aviation experts and experts note the high urgency of creating new vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. This is important not only to enhance the prestige, but also the defense capability of Russia. At the same time, engineers and designers will be able to take full advantage of all the existing developments in this field and modern aircraft engineering


    Подробнее на ТАСС:
    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5502973




    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 630
    Points : 624
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:09 am

    Was thinking of posting that article but I found it way too weak Gunship, good ideas do not need so much whitewashing lol1 lol1
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    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 Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:25 am

    LMFS wrote:Was thinking of posting that article but I found it way too weak Gunship, good ideas do not need so much whitewashing lol1 lol1

    surely too weak because no arguments for H8rs but even for die-hards like you or GarryB is never too late for education thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 630
    Points : 624
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:01 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:surely too weak because no arguments for H8rs but even for die-hards like you or GarryB is never too late for education thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup

    I am no hater of STOVL! They can always win me over if they come up with some smart anti-gravitational device for take-off, or even better if they use my proposal for take-off assistant UAV and pay me some handsome royalty, then you would have here the biggest advocate of STOVL What a Face

    By now CTOL vs STOVL is rather like two competing athletes, one of which carries a backpack full of rocks. Should we discuss who will win?

    Mind you, they may come with some intelligent doctrine to support use of STOVL. Have not seen it until now, or at least not solidly based in reasoned, feature-based cost estimations. Claims here are rather "CV is xxx trillion, LHD is dirt cheap". But what features would make the carrier so extremely expensive and the LHD so cheap? Why would a light carrier like the one presented in Army 2018 be so many times more expensive than a big LHD with space for two squadron STOVL + well dock + VLS + helos + advanced systems? Displacement similar, similar systems... similar costs me thinks. I am an ignorant, so please explain to me!

    One more question: any guess what is the exact status of this STOVL development? Funds approved? For what exactly? It is not clear to me whether they have decided that they definitely want the STOVL or are just saying "we may want them". Any evidence they are already doing preliminary design of the plane itself? Since no design bureau has been named I have to doubt it.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    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 Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:20 am

    LMFS wrote:
    By now CTOL vs STOVL is rather like two competing athletes, one of which carries a backpack full of rocks. Should we discuss who will win?

    it is rahter you want sprinter to run marathon. You dont need same qualities.
    From F-35:
    50% deck fighters is F-35B
    100% of Royal Navy
    100% Italian Fleet
    1000 of Spanish fleet

    Yes Su33 won in 2040! and 60 years old MiG-29k Smile


    But what features would make the carrier so extremely expensive and the LHD so cheap? Why would a light carrier like the one presented in Army 2018 be so many times more expensive than a big LHD with space for two squadron STOVL + well dock + VLS + helos + advanced systems? Displacement similar, similar systems... similar costs me thinks. I am an ignorant, so please explain to me!

    I didnt write cheap as dirt. did I? Carrier as on forum is definitely an option but then you still need to buy 2x as man LHS ships. Isnt it more expensive?




    One more question: any guess what is the exact status of this STOVL development? Funds approved? For what exactly? It is not clear to me whether they have decided that they definitely want the STOVL or are just saying "we may want them". Any evidence they are already doing preliminary design of the plane itself? Since no design bureau has been named I have to doubt it.

    deputy primeministersays on opproav of Supreme Commander, it is in 2027 SAP plan. OK doubt it. You have right!
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 630
    Points : 624
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:16 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:it is rahter you want sprinter to run marathon. You dont need same qualities.
    From F-35:
    50% deck fighters is F-35B
    100% of Royal Navy
    100% Italian Fleet
    1000 of Spanish fleet

    Yes Su33 won in 2040! and 60 years old MiG-29k Smile
    You say STOVL will substitute STOBAR. Then they should have the same roles and hence qualities. Another option is that STOVL are deployed in LHDs and STOBAR fighters and carriers operate in parallel with different requirements. This will be the case for some years with the K and its air wing of Su-33s and brand new MiG-29K, after that we don't know exactly.

    Not very interested in what other navies do:
    - vassal states are not going to carry the weight of the fighting in war against peer opponents and are rather interested in colonial wars and prestige. BTW no orders by Spain that I know, are they new?
    - US has already a huge fleet of CVNs with CATOBAR fighters.

    Russia has their own needs, doctrine and resources. Should not give a damn copying what Marines or Italian navy does.

    I didnt write cheap as dirt. did I? Carrier as on forum is definitely an option but then you still need to buy 2x as man LHS ships. Isnt it more expensive?
    You keep deflecting the question. Why are the LHDs so much cheaper, what features do they have in comparison to the expensive carriers? Also, why do you need twice as many LHDs as CVs, is that not a matter of doctrine? And who says Russia will have LHDs instead of carriers so the later can be spared with the development of STOVL fighters?

    deputy primeministersays on opproav of Supreme Commander, it is in 2027 SAP plan.  OK doubt it. You have right!
    Don't kill me, I am just asking in what state of development the program is. The Supreme Commander has approved exactly what?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18119
    Points : 18679
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:19 pm

    still in senial, Supreme Commander signed VSTOL unlik EMALS

    Supreme commander hasn't signed off on any carriers either... for all we know they could be operating them from civilian cargo ships, or chinese made islands in the middle of international waters...

    in 1991 any pretext was good to cancel financing. This had nothing to do with technical issues tho. True Yak-43 , MiG-144 too, nothing to do with technical side.

    Definitely true that there was no funding at the time for carriers or carrier aircraft... the Su-33s they had made are still the ones they have, and the only reason they got MiG-29MRs is because the Indian order paid for tooling and most of the design... so they tagged their order on the back of the Indian order.

    The thing with the MiG-1.42/1.44 and the Yak-43 is that the former failed because Sukhoi offered something better, and the latter never got off the drawing board, while there are already aircraft with likely better performance already in service in the form of the MiG-29KR, that is related to a land based aircraft of the same design and many of the same parts... that is entering service too... paid for by the Air Force.

    skijump can be on 20k too. Invincible could take 18 Harriers and had skijump and 22ktons

    A ship replaced by a new carrier similar in size to the Kuznetsov by a country well known for only spending money on absolute essentials... and even then cutting budgets after conflicts...

    MiG-33 is a hybrid of MiG-29 and Su-33? lol1 lol1 lol1 BTW speed of Yak-141 in pair with F-18 or F-35.

    MiG-33 is the name for the MiG-29K/R... like the Yak-41M is sometimes called Yak-141... and the amount of fuel needed to operate supersonically means the Fulcrum and the Yak are unlikely to ever operate at such speeds operationally...

    useles to what? to your requirements of solving real ltaksks?

    To provide adequate air cover for a group of Russian ships beyond land based aircraft range.

    so you didn notice that currently there is netcentric warfare? and drones? you still live in 90s?

    Of course... everyone uses drones instead of AWACS... can you name them?

    Describe the drone the Russians would use...

    I hear tanks are all going to be replaced because ATGMs are too powerful... what they are going to replace tanks with is a land vehicle with a really big gun and three crew in the hull under the heaviest protection, with a range of anti missile and anti warhead and anti IED capabilities... they are going to call this replacement for the obsolete tank... a tank.

    I suspect the same for AWACS platforms... you need a huge radar and lots of computing power to process the enormous raw volume of data, so that information can be used to generate commands and controls to direct your forces... it is the difference between AWACS and AEW... and of course you need humans in the loop to make decisions and issue those commands... so it will end up being an unmanned aircraft with 4 crew and probably 2-4 guys operating consoles sending commands to ships, other aircraft, and via satellite HQ.

    not true, 1 is enough to send anywhere. besides Midway. For 1/4 of costs.

    If you are wrong, your surface fleet will get wiped out... costing lives and perhaps a trillion dollars worth of hardware... not to mention a political and likely economic defeat Russia might not recover from.
    If I am wrong they spend a little too much on their shipyards and domestic production...

    6 billion dollars is a lot of money... but over the 15 years it will take to get the thing into service and properly trained and ready for combat it is not that big a deal... and in many ways it ensures the money spent on other vessels is money better spent as it will make them more useful and safer.

    It wont let Russia take on the US or NATO, but that would never be a consideration... use Kinzhal and Kh-32 and Onyx and soon Zircon...


    What a Face What a Face What a Face so you want to have years somewhere?!

    If it is a blockade, you might need to be there for 2-3 months... the logistics chain for a small vessel would be cheaper but also more taxed to maintain such a deployment.

    Unliely 40-50ktons has it all, and if she needs more supplies that's wny are supply ships for right?

    Supply ships that might be banned from various choke points around the world... so no Panama canal, no suez canal, no bosphorus straight... who knows how far this supply line might have to go... and in some places it will need protection too.

    Better to have larger capacity on board... they could have an 80KT vessel with 90 fighters that only carries 30 fighters and AWACS and helicopters and the rest of the capacity extra resources... the point is that a carrier designed to carry 90 planes will have weapons and fuel reserves for 90 planes... so 40 planes could operate for twice as long without any resupply support.

    It is like the Flanker... it has the capacity to carry an enormous load of fuel, but most of the time most of its internal fuel tanks are empty... you are claiming money could be saved by buying a smaller aircraft like the MiG-29 and if you need to operate great distances then use external fuel tanks (which reduce load) or send some inflight refuelling aircraft to support them.

    I am saying if it was for home defence then a MiG would be fine but the intention of these carriers is to support operations well away from Russian territory so the extra capacity is useful and worth the extra money.

    If you are afraid of US carrier groups attacking Russia then MiG-29s and MiG-31s with kinzhal, in addition to coastal defences and land based airpower should already be plenty to not just stop an attack but also totally obliterate the attacking force...

    That is not what they need carriers for.

    OK denial of existing and approved plans. Next I expect aggression. Acceptance comes later.

    The call for a new VSTOL aircraft design does not mean the Yak-43 would be involved...

    now? yes she does. BTW 80 destroyers you mean? for 1,4 blns $ each? right.

    All their new large ships are going to be expensive... new technology is not cheap.

    But they are not going to need enormous numbers of new ships anyway... the Russian Navy is not going to be as big as the Soviet Navy, but the Russian navy is going to be more mobile and likely more active than the Soviet Navy was... the Soviet Navy was all about facing off against the enormous US and powerful French and British navies... the future Russian navy will be about supporting free and open commerce with Russias trading partners around the world...

    no there are plans for CVNs the question is not if but whenm, And yes they are persistent since last year

    There are no plans for mini CVNs... ie helicopter carriers, that you seem to be endorsing...

    Nuclear propulsion and EMALs and the new larger ship designs seem to suggest several things... first a shift from single used optimised ship design, to more multirole modular approach, but such a change means an increase in cost per vessel, despite an increase in flexibility within the fleet... instead of having 6 air defence missile destroyers and 6 anti sub destroyers and 6 anti ship destroyers, they could have 8-12 destroyers able to carry anti ship, anti sub, and land attack, plus all with serious air defence capability... those 8-12 ships might cost more than 18 of the older ships but they will also be more useful, more flexible... and cheaper to run and man and maintain.

    The V in CVN suggests they wont be Hermes sized carriers.

    America class LHA is 45k tons.

    American Lha sounds like something that comes out of a volcano.

    And no country would fuck with Russia who has global reach with either bombers + cruise missiles of closer to shores missile ships.

    The US is screwing with Russia now... a good example is the USS Liberty... it was at risk of revealing Israel cheating on agreements made with the US so they had to stop it... but they couldn't ask it to stop operating in international waters... so they pretended to misidentify it and they attacked it... and they didn't stop attacking it until they intercepted a message that a nearby carrier group was sending F-14s...

    Knowing the US has nukes is one thing having actual F-14s approaching at high speed and weapons armed is something else... something tangible... something that turns your underpants brown...

    But who on the planet is as arrogant as an Israeli... perhaps an American? If America decides to blockade Venezuela for whatever reason do you think they will back off because a ship is there... when fighter aircraft are inbound then they will listen...

    Programme cost read again please, This time with understanding. lol1 lol1 lol1
    R&D + 3 ships =37 blns

    And what was the unit cost of the F-35 before they were built? ... I seem to recall statements of $50 million each... because they are buying 2,300 of them... now it is more like double and when Turkey gets S-400... the numbers might change again...


    How to Find the Mean
    The mean is the average of the numbers.

    Of course... but in the US MIC you are better off taking estimates of cost and doubling them and then delay a couple of years and increase the price by 30% again just to be sure... and then once they are in service... because they were rushed add another 40% for all those problems that weren't fixed during testing and wont get fixed until the 3rd or 4th block or tranch...

    According to Borisov, we are talking about the creation of a new aircraft, and not about working out on the basis of some existing machine.

    Because the Yak-41M was a failure and the Yak-43 was an untested paper plane...

    At the same time in the mid-1990s work was already underway on the Yak-201 design sketch, which was to be the further development of the Yak-141. It was envisaged that it would already be implemented using stealth technologies.

    Read was going to be enormously expensive...

    At the same time, engineers and designers will be able to take full advantage of all the existing developments in this field and modern aircraft engineering

    So brand new design not evolved from the Yak-41M or Yak-43 design... that is good news at least.

    If they want STOVL they could use the AN-2 prototype... with a carrier sailing into the wind at 10 knots and a wind of say 20 knots the An-2 could hover over the deck and land vertically... and it is already made....
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:The thing with the MiG-1.42/1.44 and the Yak-43 is that the former failed because Sukhoi offered something better, and the latter never got off the drawing board, while there are already aircraft with likely better performance already in service in the form of the MiG-29KR, that is related to a land based aircraft of the same design and many of the same parts... that is entering service too... paid for by the Air Force.



    Not, really PAK-FA first flight in 2010, MiG 1.44 - 2000. Yes MiG was 9 years dealyed guess why?
    It is hard to say It was worse, Su had nothing better then Su-47/Su-37 Internal contacts of Pogosyan could here mean more then "technical excellence"



    skijump can be on 20k too. Invincible could take 18 Harriers and had skijump and 22ktons

    A ship replaced by a new carrier similar in size to the Kuznetsov by a country well known for only spending money on absolute essentials... and even then cutting budgets after conflicts..

    Filled with VSTOL fighters Very Happy



    .

    useles to what? to your requirements of solving real ltaksks?

    To provide adequate air cover for a group of Russian ships beyond land based aircraft range.


    Then VSTOL is perfectly fitted. Glad you agree withme on this.




    so you didn notice that currently there is netcentric warfare? and drones? you still live in 90s?

    Of course... everyone uses drones instead of AWACS... can you name them?

    Describe the drone the Russians would use...


    My first guess it would be Fregat


    can be shipborne OTH radar

    can be new Russian tiltrotor



    I suspect the same for AWACS platforms... you need a huge radar and lots of computing power to process the enormous raw volume of data, so that information can be used to generate commands and controls to direct your forces... it is the difference between AWACS and AEW... and of course you need humans in the loop to make decisions and issue those commands... so it will end up being an unmanned aircraft with 4 crew and probably 2-4 guys operating consoles sending commands to ships, other aircraft, and via satellite HQ.


    did you ever hear C4I? you know drones can transmit data to control center on the ship. You have same abilities just different approach. Depending of course how conservative military




    not true, 1 is enough to send anywhere. besides Midway. For 1/4 of costs.

    If you are wrong, your surface fleet will get wiped out... costing lives and perhaps a trillion dollars worth of hardware... not to mention a political and likely economic defeat Russia might not recover from.

    affraid affraid affraid trillions hardware?! surface fleet wipped out - we didnt talk about III WW. In this case again large CVN make no sense. US o far never dared to attack Russian ship or airplane. Why they start with CN?



    It wont let Russia take on the US or NATO, but that would never be a consideration... use Kinzhal and Kh-32 and Onyx and soon Zircon...
    that's the ides why to build large and expensive ships if they dont solve tasks better then smaller and cheaper ones? dunno dunno dunno










    Unliely 40-50ktons has it all, and if she needs more supplies that's wny are supply ships for right?

    Supply ships that might be banned from various choke points around the world... so no Panama canal, no suez canal, no bosphorus straight... who knows how far this supply line might have to go... and in some places it will need protection too.

    Can you please name such case of blockade you are talking about?! Im not sure what kind of situation you are talking about here. Seriously




    I am saying if it was for home defense then a MiG would be fine but the intention of these carriers is to support operations well away from Russian territory so the extra capacity is useful and worth the extra money.

    True but well away to me means mean away form Russia borders. Even with small fighters you have ~800km radius. IT just fine for fleet defense and Syrian campaign.



    OK denial of existing and approved plans. Next I expect aggression. Acceptance comes later.

    The call for a new VSTOL aircraft design does not mean the Yak-43 would be involved...


    Yup, I dotn think anybody will speak about Yak family anymore.The new machine to me is not only VSTOL copied form Soviet times. It's gonna to b a light fighter , new construction and perhaps also some breakthrough tech.



    But they are not going to need enormous numbers of new ships anyway... the Russian Navy is not going to be as big as the Soviet Navy, but the Russian navy is going to be more mobile and likely more active than the Soviet Navy was... the Soviet Navy was all about facing off against the enormous US and powerful French and British navies... the future Russian navy will be about supporting free and open commerce with Russias trading partners around the world...

    unless in 2050s aircraft carriers will be rendered obsolete by new tech development.

    Anyway large or small doesn't matter if war starts in conventional scenario (what I seriously doubt) having 50 fighters or 25 fighters doesnt make much of difference when you face 2 Ford carriers with 150 fighters





    no there are plans for CVNs the question is not if but whenm, And yes they are persistent since last year

    There are no plans for mini CVNs... ie helicopter carriers, that you seem to be endorsing...


    there were 2 options considered in 2017 AFAIK small ~30ktons and larde 80ktons. I am just convinced that to have light CVN is much better then to havenone Smile






    Nuclear propulsion and EMALs and the new larger ship designs seem to suggest several things... first a shift from single used optimised ship design, to more multirole modular approach, but such a change means an increase in cost per vessel, despite an increase in flexibility within the fleet... instead of having 6 air defence missile destroyers and 6 anti sub destroyers and 6 anti ship destroyers, they could have 8-12 destroyers able to carry anti ship, anti sub, and land attack, plus all with serious air defence capability... those 8-12 ships might cost more than 18 of the older ships but they will also be more useful, more flexible... and cheaper to run and man and maintain.

    That's precisely my idea universal ships - small displacement a bit like Soviet TAKRs :-)






    And no country would fuck with Russia who has global reach with either bombers + cruise missiles of closer to shores missile ships.

    The US is screwing with Russia now...

    where?!





    But who on the planet is as arrogant as an Israeli... perhaps an American? If America decides to blockade Venezuela for whatever reason do you think they will back off because a ship is there... when fighter aircraft are inbound then they will listen...

    they wont send ens of own fighters right


    Programme cost read again please, This time with understanding. lol1 lol1 lol1
    R&D + 3 ships =37 blns

    And what was the unit cost of the F-35 before they were built?  ... I seem to recall statements of $50 million each... because they are buying 2,300 of them... now it is more like double and when Turkey gets S-400... the numbers might change again...

    Su-57 programme si ~10 billions, 2 delivered what makes it pretty expensive dont you think?





    According to Borisov, we are talking about the creation of a new aircraft, and not about working out on the basis of some existing machine.

    Because the Yak-41M was a failure and the Yak-43 was an untested paper plane...


    it want failure at all. It was killed like many military programmes after Soviet Union was killed.



    At the same time in the mid-1990s work was already underway on the Yak-201 design sketch, which was to be the further development of the Yak-141. It was envisaged that it would already be implemented using stealth technologies.

    Read was going to be enormously expensive...


    do you suggest that any of new fighters will be cheap?!





    If they want STOVL they could use the AN-2 prototype... with a carrier sailing into the wind at 10 knots and a wind of say 20 knots the An-2 could hover over the deck and land vertically... and it is already made....

    lol! lol! lol! That's definitely good ides to consider


    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:31 pm

    UAC discusses with the Ministry of Defense the creation of a plane with vertical take-off


    The head of the corporation Yuri Slyusar did not specify the terms of the creation of such an aircraft, noting that it is premature to talk about this before receiving technical instructions from the customer

    GELENDZHIK / Krasnodar Territory /, September 7. / TASS /. The parameters of the plane with vertical take-off are discussed with the Russian Defense Ministry, the head of the United Aircraft Corporation UAC Yury Slyusar said on Friday.

    "[The project] at the stage of communication with the customer in the person of the Ministry of Defense, which is responsible for the requirements for this aircraft.There is such a theme, we are now actively communicating what kind of aircraft is needed, with what characteristics," he said at the exhibition "Gidroaviasalon-2018" .

    Slyusar noted that a "virtual design bureau, a kind of cloud" was created inside the UAC, which unites the forces of all design schools in Russia. Within its framework, work is also being distributed to create promising machines. The head of the corporation did not specify the timing of the creation of such an aircraft, noting that it is premature to talk about this before receiving technical instructions from the customer.

    Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov said that on behalf of President Vladimir Putin, work has been carried out from last year on a prototype of a completely new vertical takeoff aircraft.

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5535599
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 630
    Points : 624
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:16 pm

    Good info Gunship, this means UAC will now receive information to start preliminary design estimations, possible project structure and maybe discuss what company within the corporation can be tasked with the development. Will be not easy, with two companies (Yakovlev and MiG) in need of funds. Yak would be the logical bureau for such design but MiG is needing also a deal, maybe if MiG-41 is given the go (don't know if there are funds for this beyond maybe preliminary studies) then they could have some relatively logical outcome. Without clear decisions in terms of carrier strategy it is difficult to calculate what number of planes will be bought and without that you cannot know the project's economic viability. This is IMO the biggest project risk right now.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:45 pm

    LMFS wrote:Good info Gunship, this means UAC will now receive information to start preliminary design estimations, possible project structure and maybe discuss what company within the corporation can be tasked with the development. Will be not easy, with two companies (Yakovlev and MiG) in need of funds. Yak would be the logical bureau for such design but MiG is needing also a deal, maybe if MiG-41 is given the go (don't know if there are funds for this beyond maybe preliminary studies) then they could have some relatively logical outcome. Without clear decisions in terms of carrier strategy it is difficult to calculate what number of planes will be bought and without that you cannot know the project's economic viability. This is IMO the biggest project risk right now.

    I dont think it will be any specific company - as they say "virtual teams" so Sukhoi,MiG perhaps Yak too. Perhaps it will have MiG or Yak badge but anyway its all OAK Razz Razz Razz
    Look MiG-35 is in fact only morally outdated but still a good fighter. Though they hibernated it. I guess it is as a backup plan in deck aviation if this program fails.


    new fighter dont have to be also only deck based. Mind that Soviets wanted to have "front fighter" in STOL configuration, so perhaps concept is back yet with technology 40 years more advanced. My educated guess thatit's gonna be a light fighter with good maneuverability, V/STOL or STOL and less weight of perfect stealth . I.e. not to compromise fight performances with stealth.


    For Kuz it would be 30+ anyway lol1 lol1 lol1

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18119
    Points : 18679
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 11, 2018 2:31 pm

    Then VSTOL is perfectly fitted. Glad you agree withme on this.

    Sorry to give lessons in English, but you cannot describe something as perfect if there is another solution that suits the problem better.


    My first guess it would be Fregat

    Where would you put a 360 degree radar antenna on that?

    can be shipborne OTH radar

    OTH radar is not good enough to detect and track low flying missiles... the primary weapon of the US Navy ATM.

    can be new Russian tiltrotor

    So piss away money on VSTOL AND TILTROTORS... the Russian Navy must have US Navy level funding...

    or perhaps nothing better to spend their money on...

    did you ever hear C4I? you know drones can transmit data to control center on the ship. You have same abilities just different approach. Depending of course how conservative military

    Did you know the F-22 doesn't have a datalink because that would defeat its stealth and give away its position... C4IR between ships and drones will also reveal their numbers and position... why bother with stealth VSTOL fighters... MiG-29KR fighters are not stealthy either but then neither are these new drones you are suggesting anyway... the MiG-29KR is already paid for and ready for service now.

    trillions hardware?! surface fleet wipped out - we didnt talk about III WW. In this case again large CVN make no sense. US o far never dared to attack Russian ship or airplane. Why they start with CN?

    WTF are you talking about the Americans for.... what has this got to do with them?

    that's the ides why to build large and expensive ships if they dont solve tasks better then smaller and cheaper ones?

    Because all ships are going to be expensive... they are multi role vessels that need all sorts of state of the art technology in air defence, anti shipping, anti Sub use and land attack, and in the case of a carrier anti satellite ABM missiles too... by making them smaller you are just limiting their ability in each area and also reducing their potential endurance and capacity.

    A very large transport plane like an An-225 does use a lot more fuel than an Il-76, but with nuclear powered carriers the cost of operations in not that big, and the group of ships that needs to operate with the carrier is going to make operations expensive no matter how cheap the carrier was.

    A bigger carrier offers better protection with larger more capable aircraft.

    Can you please name such case of blockade you are talking about?! Im not sure what kind of situation you are talking about here. Seriously

    Well rather recently, when Russia was sending ships to Syria the countries of the EU basically closed their ports to Russian ships for refuelling... do you think it would be impossible for them to do something to prevent the use of the Suez or Panama canals to prevent Russian flagged vessels getting somewhere they didn't want them to go?

    True but well away to me means mean away form Russia borders. Even with small fighters you have ~800km radius. IT just fine for fleet defense and Syrian campaign.

    If the problem is in Syria then a carrier is not necessary as shown by the fact that not much changed after the K left.

    The real test would be in a conflict where the carrier is critical and really makes a difference...


    unless in 2050s aircraft carriers will be rendered obsolete by new tech development.

    You mean like an anti ship missile of some kind?


    Anyway large or small doesn't matter if war starts in conventional scenario (what I seriously doubt) having 50 fighters or 25 fighters doesnt make much of difference when you face 2 Ford carriers with 150 fighters

    You are not listening... who gives a fuck what America has... but lets say we go with your example... 150 F-35s up against 50 Su-57s, with Zircon Mach 8 hypersonic scramjet powered anti ship missiles... what makes you think Russia would be at a disadvantage?

    Those subsonic Harpoons and Tomahawks probably have those Russian cruisers shaking in their shoes... NOT.

    But I agree, 50 Yak-41s vs 150 F-35s would be in the shit...

    Which is why I am suggesting bigger carriers and bigger carrier fighters.

    I am just convinced that to have light CVN is much better then to havenone

    I agree light CVNs are better than none, but 80kt CVNs are better than light CVNs.

    That's precisely my idea universal ships - small displacement a bit like Soviet TAKRs

    But the new ships CAN'T be small displacement... they are combining the firepower of 3-4 of the old vessels they are replacing... to be fully multi role they need a variety of weapons for a variety of roles... you can't fit a decent warload of anything on a small ship.

    The new destroyers would need to be cruiser sized to carry the firepower of four old destroyers... the Sovremmeny carried 8 main armament missiles (SS-N-22), a new destroyer will have 4 USUK launchers able to carry 32 Onyx missiles that replace the SS-N-22, but it can also carry a mixed load of 8 anti ship missiles plus 8 anti sub missiles and 8 land attack missiles and still have 8 launch tubes free for a mix of other weapons... the point is that the new destroyers wont be smaller than the old ones... but they will be much better armed and equipped... and that is the point... it is not about cheap... it is about performance...

    There is no point in saving a billion dollars on a cheap carrier only to find it does not have enough capacity to be useful for the things you want to use it for.

    Now they have committed to developing STOVL aircraft... I very much doubt that will mean Hermes class carriers... it is more likely to be what they had already decided... a carrier bigger than the K, but with STOVL aircraft to operate on it together with CATOBAR fighters with better performance...

    where?!

    Economically punishing them... and any country they sell S-400s to...

    they wont send ens of own fighters right

    English?

    Su-57 programme si ~10 billions, 2 delivered what makes it pretty expensive dont you think?

    Star Wars programme... trillions spent... nothing delivered. Russia doesn't know how to spend like the US does...

    it want failure at all. It was killed like many military programmes after Soviet Union was killed.

    The design was fundamentally flawed and was a total dead end... yes it was a failure...

    do you suggest that any of new fighters will be cheap?!

    Modfying a land based aircraft with folding wings and tailhook is cheap in comparison to developing a new aircraft from scratch.

    The new MiG-35/29M2/29KR is a unified aircraft design intended for land and carrier use...

    Look MiG-35 is in fact only morally outdated but still a good fighter.

    The MiG-35 is outdated like the Eurocanards are all outdated and the F-22 is outdated... (the latter has obsolete avionics as admitted by Boeing offering an F-22/F-35 hybrid).

    new fighter dont have to be also only deck based.

    5th gen fighters by definition are ideal carrier fighters... high thrust, low drag, internal weapons (further adds low drag), modern small relatively light weapons... and net centricity.

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    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 Sep 12, 2018 1:06 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Then VSTOL is perfectly fitted. Glad you agree withme on this.

    Sorry to give lessons in English, but you cannot describe something as perfect if there is another solution that suits the problem better.

    After Brexit we Europeans dont take lessons from loyel subjects of Her Majesty  lol1  lol1  lol1





    My first guess it would be Fregat

    Where would you put a 360 degree radar antenna on that?


    like that?







    can be shipborne OTH radar

    OTH radar is not good enough to detect and track low flying missiles... the primary weapon of the US Navy ATM.


    in some publications I've found they do. But true not knowing for sure and what size of such antenna is I agree CM might not be but ships and planes  are. Missiles need carriers anyway. If they use stealth LARSM in massive salvo your AWACS wont help you much.

    Ka-31 radar can see 250km in every case. Just duration sucks. That's why tiltrotor  suggestion. More efficiency.



    can be new Russian tiltrotor

    So piss away money on VSTOL AND TILTROTORS... the Russian Navy must have US Navy level funding...

    or perhaps nothing better to spend their money on...


    tiltrotor was only mine suggestion as they seem to be considering to build it anyway. Still better then any AWACS chopper. On VSTOL they are working already.
    No Russian Nav is using money efficiently that's why unconventional solutions.

    You really want have symmetrical answer? that's the game you cannot win  US.





    did you ever hear C4I? you know drones can transmit data to control center on the ship. You have same abilities just different approach. Depending of course how conservative military

    Did you know the F-22 doesn't have a datalink because that would defeat its stealth and give away its position... C4IR between ships and drones will also reveal their numbers and position... why bother with stealth VSTOL fighters... MiG-29KR fighters are not stealthy either but then neither are these new drones you are suggesting anyway... the MiG-29KR is already paid for and ready for service now.

    [/quote]F
    So US is not using C4I?  affraid  affraid  affraid  MiG-29k is paid and outta service soon too.  Wasent  it what Boriosv said? Su/Mig are in ~10 years obsolete ...Im not sure if VSTOL has to be stealthy or better to what weight in characteristics should stealthiness have. It's just better use of resources you got.






    trillions hardware?! surface fleet wipped out - we didnt talk about III WW. In this case again large CVN make no sense. US o far never dared to attack Russian ship or airplane. Why they start with CN?

    WTF are you talking about the Americans for.... what has this got to do with them?

    [/quote]
    nope you are talking  lol1  lol1  lol1  I am talking about Russian way - bettter use os smaller (and cheaper ) ships. More universal but for [/b] different set of tasks





    that's the ides why to build large and expensive ships if they dont solve tasks better then smaller and cheaper ones?

    Because all ships are going to be expensive... they are multi role vessels that need all sorts of state of the art technology in air defence, anti shipping, anti Sub use and land attack, and in the case of a carrier anti satellite ABM missiles too... by making them smaller you are just limiting their a
    +
    A bigger carrier offers better protection with larger more capable aircraft.[/quote]

    All animals ships are equal expensive, but some animals ships are more equal expensive than others.'
    First of all you should be able to afford it.  

    Second use funds efficiently within limits you have, instead of  copying US solutions and US strategy.  





    Can you please name such case of blockade you are talking about?! Im not sure what kind of situation you are talking about here. Seriously

    Well rather recently, when Russia was sending ships to Syria the countries of the EU basically closed their ports to Russian ships for refuelling... do you think it would be impossible for them to do something to prevent the use of the Suez or Panama canals to prevent Russian flagged vessels getting somewhere they didn't want them to go?
    Hmm  and how does it relate to size of carrier?  scratch  scratch  scratch





    True but well away to me means mean away form Russia borders. Even with small fighters you have ~800km radius. IT just fine for fleet defense and Syrian campaign.

    If the problem is in Syria then a carrier is not necessary as shown by the fact that not much changed after the K left.
    The real test would be in a conflict where the carrier is critical and really makes a difference...


    again where size of carrier matters? in cale of full scale war you are dead in both cases.





    unless in 2050s aircraft carriers will be rendered obsolete by new tech development.

    You mean like an anti ship missile of some kind?


    orbital bombers with global range for example?




    Anyway large or small doesn't matter if war starts in conventional scenario (what I seriously doubt) having 50 fighters or 25 fighters doesnt make much of difference when you face 2 Ford carriers with 150 fighters

    You are not listening... who gives a fuck what America has... but lets say we go with your example... 150 F-35s up against 50 Su-57s, with Zircon Mach 8 hypersonic scramjet powered anti ship missiles... what makes you think Russia would be at a disadvantage?

    Time stands still in US right? there will be F-35 (or improved one) with AAD lasers, F-X (also as drones) and US hypersonic missiles.





    Those subsonic Harpoons and Tomahawks probably have those Russian cruisers shaking in their shoes... NOT.

    Tomahawks and harpoons are when you have Krivaks, 2 Slavas What a Face What a Face What a Face




    But I agree, 50 Yak-41s vs 150 F-35s would be in the shit...


    Which is why I am suggesting bigger carriers and bigger carrier fighters.[/quote]

    Is anybody mentioning Yak-41 here ?! affraid affraid affraid



    I am just convinced that to have light CVN is much better then to havenone

    I agree light CVNs are better than none, but 80kt CVNs are better than light CVNs.

    yes if you can afford for one and for some tasks too thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup




    That's precisely my idea universal ships - small displacement a bit like Soviet TAKRs

    But the new ships CAN'T be small displacement... they are combining the firepower of 3-4 of the old vessels they are replacing... to be fully multi role they need a variety of weapons for a variety of roles... you can't fit a decent warload of anything on a small ship.

    I'm not sure about offensive armament (although it would be nice) but ~40ktons should be ok with this + 24 fighters+helos.





    Now they have committed to developing STOVL aircraft... I very much doubt that will mean Hermes class carriers... it is more likely to be what they had already decided... a carrier bigger than the K, but with STOVL aircraft to operate on it together with CATOBAR fighters with better performance...

    Hermes is unlikely I bet on ~40 isk kind of ship. But we both dont know which approach will be chosen. I am not sur w hy do they need 2 types of deck fighters on tho.




    where?!
    Economically punishing them... and any country they sell S-400s to...

    like size of carrier then matters? either you have one ~24-30 fighters and helps. If not 50 wont change much wither. Their fighters will be there too. Only in bigger numbers.



    it want failure at all. It was killed like many military programmes after Soviet Union was killed.

    The design was fundamentally flawed and was a total dead end... yes it was a failure...

    yup, you're entitled to you own opinion what doesn't change objective reality.



    Look MiG-35 is in fact only morally outdated but still a good fighter.

    The MiG-35 is outdated like the Eurocanards are all outdated and the F-22 is outdated... (the latter has obsolete avionics as admitted by Boeing offering an F-22/F-35 hybrid).


    That's why you meet F-X not F-22.



    new fighter dont have to be also only deck based.

    5th gen fighters by definition are ideal carrier fighters... high thrust, low drag, internal weapons (further adds low drag), modern small relatively light weapons... and net centricity.

    Then why VSTOL cannot be the one? or 5+ ?


    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2157
    Points : 2149
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Isos on Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:34 pm

    Ka-31 radar can see 250km in every case. Just duration sucks. That's why tiltrotor  suggestion. More efficiency.

    Very bad. And ka-31 just isn't awacs but send data to the ship which then send it back to fighters which in the future will have a far better radar tha ka-31.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18119
    Points : 18679
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 13, 2018 10:19 am

    After Brexit we Europeans dont take lessons from loyel subjects of Her Majesty

    Yes... the Americans don't respect rules either... from the language they speak to the countries they invade/occupy/bomb/bully.

    I would expect better standards from colonial Europe... not the first time I have been disappointed though. Smile

    like that?

    Not really ideal though is it?

    The front and rear would get little to no coverage with much smaller or nonexistent antenna, so you would have to constantly fly in circles to get reasonable coverage... not to mention the curve of the wing blocking the signal for low flying threats in the rear sector... I mean you want to fly this thing high for max range so low flying targets will be blocked in the rear area by the main wing...

    Missiles need carriers anyway. If they use stealth LARSM in massive salvo your AWACS wont help you much.

    An AWACS platform can carry a range of sensors including EO... long medium and short range IR, as well as a large aircraft can have a variety of radar antenna sizes optimised to detect a range of targets... and of course the new photon radars are supposed to be eye watering in terms of performance, so having an eye in the sky that does not just see targets (AEW) but manages the defence (AWACS) would be enormously useful... especially against swarm attacks... it could direct interceptor aircraft and also guide ship launched SAMs beyond the radar horizon of the ships at low flying threats... it would multiple by several times the number of missiles needed to defeat a surface group... and with a powerful radar perhaps even detect launch platforms that could be engaged before they launch their missiles... which is even better.

    Ka-31 radar can see 250km in every case. Just duration sucks. That's why tiltrotor suggestion. More efficiency.

    2 hours 30 minutes at 3.5km altitude at 100km/h with the antenna deployed is not that bad when it can operate from any ship with a helipad... including Frigates if need be, but I agree more endurance would be much more valuable.

    You really want have symmetrical answer? that's the game you cannot win US.

    You keep talking about the US... it wont be the carrier that defeats any fleet the Russian carrier group comes up against... the carrier is just for defence from external attack... land or sea based air threats and anti ship missiles.

    Any enemy surface vessels or land based targets will be engaged with missiles using carrier based recon platforms, plus ship and sub based platforms, and of course space based assets as well as special forces assets on the ground...

    So US is not using C4I?

    The only way they can get away with inferior aircraft on their smaller carriers...

    MiG-29k is paid and outta service soon too.

    They have been operational about a year and a half... they will be fine for the next 20 years or so... especially with new photonic radars and next gen AAMs.

    Wasent it what Boriosv said? Su/Mig are in ~10 years obsolete ...Im not sure if VSTOL has to be stealthy or better to what weight in characteristics should stealthiness have. It's just better use of resources you got.

    Stealth is not really a weight issue... more a purchase and operational cost issue... a bit like the capacity to take off and land vertically... weight and cost issues...

    nope you are talking lol1 lol1 lol1 I am talking about Russian way - bettter use os smaller (and cheaper ) ships. More universal but for [/b] different set of tasks

    A smaller carrier is not better... ever.

    They went from the Kiev class to the Kuznetsov class... the next step was the bigger Ulyanovsk class with cats... so they were pretty much right all along... and no they don't and will never need a 100K ton vessel, but 70-90K ton is a good size with room for growth and extended operations...

    First of all you should be able to afford it.

    If they don't develop a strong navy they will be landlocked and limited in growth to their neighbours whim... most of their current neighbours have them under sanction, so little to no growth or chance of improvements there any time soon.

    The UK and US didn't get wealthy and become global powers and then build powerful navies... you need a powerful navy to secure your access to the global market. Modern technology means they don't need to be huge navies, which means the more capability you can pack into each ship the fewer ships you will actually need to use.

    If you don't want carriers you can go for picket destroyers to operate some distance from your fleet to detect threats and targets... but the risk of losing a destroyer is expensive compared with possibly losing a few fighters... your AWACS platform can remain within the air defence ring around your ships and does not need to risk itself in combat.

    Over the 15 years it will take to make these carriers it wont actually be all that expensive, yet the capabilities it adds to your navy is rather more valuable than any other option. The Russian Army is very well equipped for air defence and could operate on its own, but operating with an air force that cooperates compliments and adds capabilities nothing else could add... an Air Force is not cheap either... all those big vulnerable expensive airfields...

    Second use funds efficiently within limits you have, instead of copying US solutions and US strategy.

    Who said this is US strategy or solutions?

    How many fighter only carriers does the US have?

    Hmm and how does it relate to size of carrier?

    A 90K ton carrier off the coast of Africa that could carry 90+ fighters plus fuel and ordinance to operate for 2 months without resupply could probably double that with 40 fighters. A 90K ton carrier will be nuclear powered... some 30K ton light carrier is more likely to be gas turbine powered... which means it is burning fuel too... so even less persistence.

    again where size of carrier matters? in cale of full scale war you are dead in both cases.

    So you keep saying, but you show no evidence to support this claim.

    A Russian group of ships with no AWACS platform would certainly be vulnerable to a mass attack, but with a large carrier able to detect that attack earlier and provide aircraft to help blunt such an attack is vastly more capable of surviving, and providing information to destroy the attackers too.

    orbital bombers with global range for example?

    Hey Vann... did you hack an account?

    Are you suggesting that an orbital bomber can provide the support needed for a group of Russian ships to operate in the South Atlantic or South Pacific?

    Time stands still in US right? there will be F-35 (or improved one) with AAD lasers, F-X (also as drones) and US hypersonic missiles.

    The alternative is to accept US hegemony and just be the bitch of the west... a supplier of resources that has Hilary Clinton drooling...

    The US likely wont accept giving up power and is going to do something really stupid... Invade Iran or Turkey or China or Russia... either way I rather doubt the US will be able to support a trillion dollar yearly budget and the US Navy is really going to suffer when they start slashing and burning...

    Squeal like a pig Boeing and Lockheed Martin... Twisted Evil

    Is anybody mentioning Yak-41 here ?!

    Because that is currently the peak of Russian VSTOL fighters.


    I'm not sure about offensive armament (although it would be nice) but ~40ktons should be ok with this + 24 fighters+helos.


    It is a Russian carrier... it will have UKSK launchers and Poliment-redut, and it will have S-500 too.

    Hermes is unlikely I bet on ~40 isk kind of ship. But we both dont know which approach will be chosen. I am not sur w hy do they need 2 types of deck fighters on tho.

    MiG is already making the MiG-35 carrier compatible... folding wings and a tailhook can be used for landing on sections of motorway... and it is a good backup in case the STOVL is shit... which it most likely will be.

    like size of carrier then matters? either you have one ~24-30 fighters and helps. If not 50 wont change much wither. Their fighters will be there too. Only in bigger numbers.

    Since when has having too many aircraft been a problem?

    Having quite a few CAP aircraft is a good thing.

    yup, you're entitled to you own opinion what doesn't change objective reality.

    They pretty much admitted it... the early model US VSTOL aircraft were going to have lift jet engines, but went for lift fans and cold air screens to prevent hot gas ingestion issues... leading to chunky, overweight aircraft more akin to overweight strike aircraft than nimble fighters.

    That's why you meet F-X not F-22.

    Who cares... they wont be in a position to afford to actually buy any...

    Then why VSTOL cannot be the one? or 5+ ?

    Why completely redesign an aircraft, with all sorts of high pressure piping and lift fans and jets, when a conventional aircraft will already be able to do the job?

    Very bad. And ka-31 just isn't awacs but send data to the ship which then send it back to fighters which in the future will have a far better radar tha ka-31.

    Yet vastly better than nothing... even the Russian Army are apparently buying some for battlefield surveillance...
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2157
    Points : 2149
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Isos on Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:01 am


    Yet vastly better than nothing... even the Russian Army are apparently buying some for battlefield surveillance...

    A ka-31 traveling 100km/h with a radar that can see 250km away and probably for targets with 5-10 m2 rcs will have hard time coordinating fighters going almosta mach 1 against fighters it can't see with actual radar.

    For battlefield surveillance it is more than enough. It can be covered by SAM and can hide from aviation in the mountains or land until the enemy fighters go away. If it has the ability to link with SAM missiles then it is a must. The thing will send s-400 missile to any approching target, even those flying very low.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3160
    Points : 3200
    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 Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:14 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    After Brexit we Europeans dont take lessons from loyel subjects of Her Majesty

    Yes... the Americans don't respect rules either... from the language they speak to the countries they invade/occupy/bomb/bully.

    I would expect better standards from colonial Europe... not the first time I have been disappointed though. Smile

    bold statement from somebody living so far from "meridian prime: lol! lol! lol!








    I mean you want to fly this thing high for max range so low flying targets will be blocked in the rear area by the main wing...
    1) bulge in nose
    2) for Israeli it works so it not that bad I guess
    3) it was just nexample that you can have similar functionality in different ways



    Missiles need carriers anyway. If they use stealth LARSM in massive salvo your AWACS wont help you much.

    An AWACS platform can carry a range of sensors including EO... long medium and short range IR, as well as a large aircraft can have a variety of radar antenna sizes optimised to detect a range of targets...

    +

    Ka-31 radar can see 250km in every case. Just duration sucks. That's why tiltrotor  suggestion. More efficiency.

    2 hours 30 minutes at 3.5km altitude at 100km/h with the antenna deployed is not that bad when it can operate from any ship with a helipad... including Frigates if need be, but I agree more endurance would be much more valuable.



    E-2A has ~5 tons payload and 3 AWACS crew (+2 pilots). Ceiling 9000m.

    Radar horiozn up to 435km.

    In fact 3 payload Fregat with over 8000m ceiling. With such parameters can have ~412 km range. Thus can do such job without problem. crew can sit on ship. Links via microwave links (i.e.narrow beams)

    Fregat is VSTOL Very Happy:D:D



    You really want have symmetrical answer? that's the game you cannot win  US.

    You keep talking about the US... it wont be the carrier that defeats any fleet the Russian carrier group comes up against... the carrier is just for defence from external attack... land or sea based air threats and anti ship missiles.

    Any enemy surface vessels or land based targets will be engaged with missiles using carrier based recon platforms, plus ship and sub based platforms, and of course space based assets as well as special forces assets on the ground...

    No you do talk about US approach. You wan t huge CVNs I just dotn see their added value in sea denial strategy.


    So US is not using C4I?
    The only way they can get away with inferior aircraft on their smaller carriers...

    inferioa only in your head, we are talking about realm of reality here thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup



    MiG-29k is paid and outta service soon too.
    They have been operational about a year and a half... they will be fine for the next 20 years or so... especially with new photonic radars and next gen AAMs.

    photonic radars to fighters designed in 1988 and ugraded in 2007? it is like painting a dead girlfriend.




    Wasent  it what Boriosv said? Su/Mig are in ~10 years obsolete ...Im not sure if VSTOL has to be stealthy or better to what weight in characteristics should stealthiness have. It's just better use of resources you got.

    Stealth is not really a weight issue... more a purchase and operational cost issue...  a bit like the capacity to take off and land vertically... weight and cost issues...

    to

    and bullring 1 billion $ EMALS in one max 2 pieces is cheap? affraid affraid affraid and 10-15 billions difference on fleet spending is cheaper?! affraid affraid affraid
    Well you like it or not VSTOL is better option regarding cost/effort allocation for Russia. They will make new fighter anyway. To develop more technology also VTOL.fighters that better can use smaller ships.





    nope you are talking  lol1  lol1  lol1  I am talking about Russian way - bettter use os smaller (and cheaper ) ships. More universal but for [/b] different set of tasks

    A smaller carrier is not better... ever.


    12 blns for CVN vs 1,5-2 for smaller? right especially that to realization of doctrine they have similar abilities.

    They went from the Kiev class to the Kuznetsov class... the next step was the bigger Ulyanovsk class with cats... so they were pretty much right all along... and no they don't and will never need a 100K ton vessel, but 70-90K ton is a good size with room for growth and extended operations...

    you are again talking about US fleet please start to talk about Russian approach and doctrine.



    First of all you should be able to afford it.  

    If they don't develop a strong navy they will be landlocked and limited in growth to their neighbours whim...

    +

    The UK and US didn't get wealthy and become global powers and then build powerful navies...
    +
    If you don't want carriers you can go for picket destroyers to operate some distance from your fleet to detect threats and targets... but the risk of losing a destroyer is expensive compared with possibly losing a few fighters... your AWACS platform can remain within the air defence ring around your ships and does not need to risk itself in combat.

    So your house is small but buy first Mercedes then get you get rich? it doesnt work this way. You buy Mercedes then after you get rich. US/UK were basing their expansion on countless wars and genocides . Why not carriers? 20-30 fighteris more than Kuz is carrying now. Carriers , destroyers or LHDs but within your means. Otherwise you'll bankrupt economy or overspend military and remain on level of North Kores with obsolete tech but with large useless CVNs.






    Over the 15 years it will take to make these carriers it wont actually be all that expensive, yet the capabilities it adds to your navy is rather more valuable than any other option. The Russian Army is very well equipped for air defence and could operate on its own, but operating with an air force that cooperates compliments and adds capabilities nothing else could add... an Air Force is not cheap either... all those big vulnerable expensive airfields...

    VSTOL doesnt need big airfields lol1 lol1 lol1 You want to spend billions more for 20-30 fighters extra? assumign you'll never meet any US ships? if you do you're dead anyway.


    Second use funds efficiently within limits you have, instead of  copying US solutions and US strategy.
    Who said this is US strategy or solutions?
    How many fighter only carriers does the US have?


    75+: Ford




    Hmm  and how does it relate to size of carrier?

    A 90K ton carrier off the coast of Africa that could carry 90+ fighters plus fuel and ordinance to operate for

    this is US strategy tell me about Russian one.





    again where size of carrier matters? in cale of full scale war you are dead in both cases.
    So you keep saying, but you show no evidence to support this claim.


    so do you thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup




    A Russian group of ships with no AWACS platform would certainly be vulnerable to a mass attack, but with a large carrier able to detect that attack earlier and provide aircraft to help blunt such an attack is vastly more capable of surviving, and providing information to destroy the attackers too.


    lol1 lol1 lol1 lol1 lol1 lol1 lol1 lol1 lol1

    with an enemy on same or higher tech level and numerical superiority you're dead in every case. You have on elarge CVN? good they sen 3 after her. You're dean anyway.



    orbital bombers with global range for example?

    Are you suggesting that an orbital bomber can provide the support needed for a group of Russian ships to operate in the South Atlantic or South Pacific?

    14Ma - your in Wellingoton in 40 minutes? or even can orbiter like X-37. Better to invest in this tech.





    The alternative is to accept US hegemony and just be the bitch of the west... a supplier of resources that has Hilary Clinton drooling...

    The US likely wont accept giving up power and is going to do something really stupid... Invade Iran or Turkey or China or Russia...

    I fail to understand how size of 1 (in wet dreams 2 ) carrier is gonna stop that?!




    Is anybody mentioning Yak-41 here ?!
    Because that is currently the peak of Russian VSTOL fighters.

    technically Soviet one lol1 lol1 lol1 well and what was paramount of Soviet stealth fighters at that time? any models that were flying?







    Im not sure about offensive armament (although it would be nice) but ~40ktons should be ok with this + 24 fighters+helos.

    It is a Russian carrier... it will have UKSK launchers and Poliment-redut, and it will have S-500 too.


    Then it wouldn't be Carrier but TAKR russia russia russia




    Hermes is unlikely I bet on ~40 isk kind of ship. But we both dont know which approach will be chosen. I am not sur w hy do they need 2 types of deck fighters on tho.

    MiG is already making the MiG-35 carrier compatible... folding wings and a tailhook can be used for landing on sections of motorway... and it is a good backup in case the STOVL is shit... which it most likely will be.

    MiG-35 is dead , ok can be kept undead until 6gen appears at the gate. VSTOL can be something between 5 and 6 gent to me.




    like size of carrier then matters? either you have one ~24-30 fighters and helps. If not 50 wont change much wither. Their fighters will be there too. Only in bigger numbers.

    Since when has having too many aircraft been a problem?

    couple billions of USD that might be spent otherwise on space weapons?




    That's why you meet F-X not F-22.

    Who cares... they wont be in a position to afford to actually buy any...

    please lets stay in realm of reality. F-X will come andin 40s you can expect it flying




    Then why VSTOL cannot be the one? or 5+ ?
    Why completely redesign an aircraft, with all sorts of high pressure piping and lift fans and jets, when a conventional aircraft will already be able to do the job?


    Why to build new fighter form scratch when you need one? perhaps to push techforward? to have better fighter the currently designed ones (all designed in 1980s) ?



    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18119
    Points : 18679
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:30 am

    A ka-31 traveling 100km/h with a radar that can see 250km away and probably for targets with 5-10 m2 rcs will have hard time coordinating fighters going almosta mach 1 against fighters it can't see with actual radar.

    You are joking right?

    The Ka-31 is AEW, not AWACS... it feeds radar data to a nearby ship that processes the information and generates information collated with other sources like fighters and other ships and subs and satellites.

    Why do you think there will be a problem coordinating fighters on CAP... and if these aircraft are radar invisible then all the ships will be sunk whether there is a carrier there or not.

    In the real world of course there is no such thing as radar invisible... and the 6 metre wide radar antenna should have very good ability to detect all sorts of aircraft and munitions... rather better than any fighter aircraft whose radar is less than one metre wide...

    For battlefield surveillance it is more than enough. It can be covered by SAM and can hide from aviation in the mountains or land until the enemy fighters go away

    Are there no land based stealth aircraft? And most fighters can hit ground targets just as easily as air targets...

    If it has the ability to link with SAM missiles then it is a must. The thing will send s-400 missile to any approching target, even those flying very low.

    But ships don't need to shoot down very low flying missiles????

    bold statement from somebody living so far from "meridian prime

    Middle Earth... thank you very much... and I notice you didn't say I was wrong...  Twisted Evil

    1) bulge in nose
    2) for Israeli it works so it not that bad I guess
    3) it was just nexample that you can have similar functionality in different ways

    Really didn't work for the British... look up Nimrod AEW.

    E-2A has ~5 tons payload and 3 AWACS crew (+2 pilots). Ceiling 9000m.

    Radar horiozn up to 435km.

    Who cares about merican shit? Why do you keep bringing up that crap?

    You wan t huge CVNs I just dotn see their added value in sea denial strategy.

    Why are you talking about sea denial? The carrier is to support international trade for Russia and any international partners beyond the range of Russian land based air power...

    And it is the Russian Navy that has a K and wants something bigger.

    inferioa only in your head, we are talking about realm of reality here

    Vapourware is inferior until order is made and serial production starts...

    photonic radars to fighters designed in 1988 and ugraded in 2007? it is like painting a dead girlfriend.

    So new technology can only be put in brand new designs... you do work for the US MIC...
    When photonic radar enters service all radar stealth technology will be useless, so wasting money putting it in an expensive 5th gen stealthy shell is a dumb thing to do isn't it?

    and bullring 1 billion $ EMALS in one max 2 pieces is cheap?

    EMALS technology includes lots of breakthrough technology that can be applied to high speed trains, and EM weapons and a broad range of other new areas of technology... and each new carrier will use at least two EMALs most likely and your stupid little dinky helo carriers would benefit from a couple of cats to get heavier aircraft airborne from a very short strip.

    Well you like it or not VSTOL is better option regarding cost/effort allocation for Russia.

    It is not cheaper if it results in ineffective products.

    To develop more technology also VTOL.fighters that better can use smaller ships.

    Their experience with the Kuznetsov tells them they need a bigger carrier and not a smaller one.

    12 blns for CVN vs 1,5-2 for smaller? right especially that to realization of doctrine they have similar abilities.

    Are you suggesting a small carrier for 1.5-2 billion... if you are not going to be serious there is no point in discussing it.

    And even your bullshit 12 billion figure for the full sized carrier is acceptable when you add the 20 billion to develop a STOVL 5th gen fighter that will cost 200 million dollars each and crash all the damn time.



    you are again talking about US fleet please start to talk about Russian approach and doctrine.

    Russia wont be building 10 CVNs... they don't have the support ships... they will likely have a max of 3 carriers likely including the Kuz until about 2035, so it is likely they will have perhaps one or maybe two carriers to cover the entire planet... of course they will need large carriers, but filled with fighters and AWACS platforms... not bombers like US carriers.

    So your house is small but buy first Mercedes then get you get rich? it doesnt work this way.

    I never said it did. When you live in a tough neighbourhood you don't buy a big screen TV and a Merc for the driveway first... you put up a good high strong fence... good locks on the door... a big loyal dog and a rifle... and then you go to work to increase your wealth... because you now have the capacity to defend it.

    Otherwise you'll bankrupt economy or overspend military and remain on level of North Kores with obsolete tech but with large useless CVNs.

    And the alternative is to not bother with the navy and hope that the west will let you get wealthy with open and fair trade... how do you think that is going to work out?

    A strong military means you can defend your own interests... that does not mean invasion or colonisation... we have seen what that turned the west into...

    VSTOL doesnt need big airfields

    Of course it does... anyone who tells you different is a liar.

    You want to spend billions more for 20-30 fighters extra? assumign you'll never meet any US ships? if you do you're dead anyway.

    Hang on... you are the one pushing the VSTOL aircraft crap... it will cost 10 billion plus to develop a VSTOL 5th gen fighter that would be good enough to take on an F-35 on better than equal terms. 12 on each helicopter carrier... so maybe you want 36 fighters?

    I am talking about a navalised Su-57, which would not even cost half a billion... and already cream any F-35 it gets near... let alone two CVNs worth (90 each) plus another 40 or so for the K CV to carry... 220 should be fine...

    75+: Ford

    F/A-18 is by design a fighter bomber and the F-35 is a strike aircraft... so no.


    this is US strategy tell me about Russian one.

    The difference is that the Russian carrier is there to protect the Russian ships there... a US carrier would be there to bomb the country.

    so do you

    It is simple logic that a larger vessel is better able to defend itself... and it is clear that they are more useful in non WWIII situations.

    If they weren't more useful they certainly are more expensive, so why would anyone want big carriers if there is no value in having a larger one?

    with an enemy on same or higher tech level and numerical superiority you're dead in every case. You have on elarge CVN? good they sen 3 after her. You're dean anyway.

    First of all I am never Dean.

    Argentina had a similar tech level to the UK... why wasn't the Hermes sunk... it is a sitting duck isn't it?

    Whatever force you send they will always try to send a force able to defeat it, but that assumes they are not underestimating you, and that you play their game by their rules....

    14Ma - your in Wellingoton in 40 minutes? or even can orbiter like X-37. Better to invest in this tech.

    Already have mach 23+ ICBMs... why invest?

    I fail to understand how size of 1 (in wet dreams 2 ) carrier is gonna stop that?!

    The west only respects power.. a group of ships is more limited in air defence and would be on the defensive in almost any engagement... with air power it can detect an attack earlier... meaning no matter what the attack is they will be better able to defend themselves.

    The British lost several ships because they had really cheap VSTOL carriers and no AWACS... possibly save one or two billion over what it would have cost to have a real carrier, but it cost them quite a few ships they likely would not have lost with proper air control with real AWACS.

    paramount of Soviet stealth fighters at that time? any models that were flying?

    None at that time, but now one entering serial production.

    To be honest I don't think much of US stealth fighters... an Su-35 or MiG-35 with the appropriate jammer pod should be able to defeat AMRAAM models and of course Sidewinder can be defeated with DIRCMS... so it is gun against gun... and my money on on the Russian aircraft in that regard...

    Then it wouldn't be Carrier but TAKR

    TAKR is a carrier... or do you think US terminology applies?

    Is an Arleigh Burke a TAKR? It could carry an F-35...

    MiG-35 is dead , ok can be kept undead until 6gen appears at the gate.

    It is probably the best and most practical and affordable carrier fighter available today... the Rafale is French and too expensive for what it is, and the F-35 is American and far too expensive for what it is... and it is shit.

    couple billions of USD that might be spent otherwise on space weapons?

    Russia doesn't need weapons in space.

    please lets stay in realm of reality. F-X will come andin 40s you can expect it flying

    In the 2020s or 2030s the US economy will collapse and they wont be buying anything... they will pull all their troops and bases back to the US and the navy will take an enormous cut in funding that will pretty much leave all its vessels in port 99% of the time...

    Russia has been there... but US debt is so much worse and getting worse all the time... their fall is going to be huge...

    Why to build new fighter form scratch when you need one? perhaps to push techforward? to have better fighter the currently designed ones (all designed in 1980s) ?

    If pushing tech forward is a goal then make a tech leap instead of a rehash of old failed crap.

    Anti Grav fighter design...
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2157
    Points : 2149
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Isos on Fri Sep 14, 2018 12:46 pm

    In the real world of course there is no such thing as radar invisible... and the 6 metre wide radar antenna should have very good ability to detect all sorts of aircraft and munitions... rather better than any fighter aircraft whose radar is less than one metre wide...

    250 km range against LO fighters means the ka-31 will be in range of the AMRAAM before it sees the fighters. And flying 100km/h with very bad acceleration means it is dead for sure.

    A modern yak 44 could have 600km range with L band radar and it would fly some 800km/h and could get away of an approaching threat while sending interceptors to it.

    Above the ground the helicopter can survive more because there are also A-50/100 that will take care of enmy air force. There won't be above sea where a carrier has to go, dar away from home. Unless you plan to use the carrier near your shores.


    But ships don't need to shoot down very low flying missiles????

    Then no need for carrier. Just put a ka-31 on a new destroyer with 2 helicopter hangars and develop a very good data link between the heli and missiles.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18119
    Points : 18679
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:15 am

    250 km range against LO fighters means the ka-31 will be in range of the AMRAAM before it sees the fighters. And flying 100km/h with very bad acceleration means it is dead for sure.

    Of course... a Ka-31 flying above several capital ships and an aircraft carrier is totally vulnerable... nothing can save it from an AMRAAM... except it is flying above several capital ships that have the air defence performance of about 10 S-300 batteries with about 8 batteries of TOR to support it... totally a sitting target.

    And by the way AMRAAM has nothing like a range of 250km launched from LOW ALTITUDE.

    If it is launching from medium or high altitude to improve range then it will be detected at 400km+ and shot down with an S-300 missile when it gets within range...

    A modern yak 44 could have 600km range with L band radar and it would fly some 800km/h and could get away of an approaching threat while sending interceptors to it.

    A Yak-44 does not exist and even if it did it would be in no better condition to be dodging AAMs, but are you trying to tell me AWACS is better than AEW?

    Perhaps you need to reread what I have been posting on this forum because your attention to detail is very poor.

    Above the ground the helicopter can survive more because there are also A-50/100 that will take care of enmy air force.

    Are you even reading what I am posting?

    The Ka-31s are being bought by the Russian Army... A-50s and A-100s operate with the Aerospace Defence Forces (that is Air Force and Space Defence Forces combined).

    Very simply the A-50 and A-100 will fill the gaps in ground radar coverage to detect low, medium, and high altitude attacks on Russian territory.

    The Ka-31 will provide low level coverage around specific areas the Army wants coverage from low level attacks from... medium and high level threats will be covered by medium and long range SAM batteries and their extensive radar systems... but their ground based low level radar can't see through mountains, or down into valleys, so the Ka-31 will provide localised low level radar coverage... and I would suspect they would also have airships dong the same job in some places where long term coverage is needed.

    When Russia starts building its large carriers and develops carrier based AWACS platforms, then that aircraft will likely then be adopted by the Army that wants low level radar coverage over the battlefield in Russia but also where ever the Russian Army deploys (Syria or Afghanistan etc)... a fixed wing AWACS will be much more useful than a helicopter based system, but for now something is better than nothing.

    There won't be above sea where a carrier has to go, dar away from home. Unless you plan to use the carrier near your shores.

    The Ka-31 does not require carriers and can land on any corvette or destroyer or cruiser with a helicopter landing pad. In fact it could easily operate from one of the support ships with a helicopter pad if they wanted it to.

    Then no need for carrier. Just put a ka-31 on a new destroyer with 2 helicopter hangars and develop a very good data link between the heli and missiles.

    And when 300 missiles are detected at 250km wouldn't it be nice to be able to launch 12 fighters... each with ten AAMs to blunt that attack... hell if the targets are subsonic cruise missiles they don't need super AAMs... Manpad based SAMs would be fine... four on each main weapon pylon and twin launchers on the outer pylons... that would be 4 x 6 plus 4 times two, so 32 targets per aircraft plus cannon...

    Equally their ability to fly out and track the targets with their own radars means missiles like the S-300 could be used over the horizon... and S-400 missiles would be even more effective.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Sep 23, 2018 1:22 pm