Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18604
    Points : 19160
    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 : 2444
    Points : 2438
    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 : 3705
    Points : 3743
    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 : 18604
    Points : 19160
    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 : 2444
    Points : 2438
    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 : 18604
    Points : 19160
    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.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 811
    Points : 805
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:49 pm

    A present to Gunship: Yakovlev article chanting the virtues of STOVL. Worth reading! thumbsup

    https://www.aviapanorama.ru/2018/08/korabelnye-samolety-na-puti-vybora-razumnoj-alternativy/
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3705
    Points : 3743
    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 Oct 20, 2018 11:53 pm

    Isos wrote:

    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.

    you forgot - 250km is for surface targets (radar horizon) .

    For fighter radar horiozn sys on 1500m - 400km. And most important question: why do you stick for 80s radar and compare rto 2020s tech? dunno dunno dunno
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18604
    Points : 19160
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:41 am

    Indeed the proliferation of AESA radar technology, and indeed improvements in computer technology could allow a Ka-31 to be developed with side mounted AESA antenna and onboard processing to greatly reduce the amount of datalink traffic required for an AWACS role... two crew positions on board to put human processing into the loop and it could send tiny encrypted millisecond long burst transmission signals to aircraft and ships... and then the issue is really only flight duration...

    To be clear... no matter what they eventually make, whether it is called VSTOL or STOVL or whatever... even if it can take off and land vertically in practice it almost never will... it will use a rolling landing and a rolling take off to increase the allowable weights it can operate at.

    Vertical takeoffs and vertical landings are emergency and airshow only... even with aircraft like the Harrier.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3705
    Points : 3743
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:30 pm

    LMFS wrote:A present to Gunship: Yakovlev article chanting the virtues of STOVL. Worth reading! thumbsup


    VSTOL on the way of smart choice. I like that respekt respekt respekt Interesting thought I find about VSTOL fighter -Frlanker size... Well imagine u-57 "VSTL navalized" . Indeed notany could fit to CVN but depending on tasks could be sufficient.

    The disadvantage is that we couldn't talk about them in LMFS lol1 lol1 lol1

    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2444
    Points : 2438
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Isos on Sun Oct 21, 2018 1:56 pm

    you forgot - 250km is for surface targets (radar horizon) .

    For fighter radar horiozn sys on 1500m - 400km. And most important question: why do you stick for 80s radar and compare rto 2020s tech? dunno dunno dunno

    I compare what exists. Russia operates only old ka-31 and US is introducing f-35. You can compare to future project s or projects that don't exist if you want but the reality would be ka-31 against low rcs fighters like f-35 or rafale, so detection range would be very low for the ka-31 while those fighters will see it far away and will have meteor and amraam to fire aat it from very long distance.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 811
    Points : 805
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:10 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:The disadvantage is that we couldn't talk about them in LMFS  lol1  lol1  lol1
    No but you would manage to talk about it on the Su-57 one! lol1 lol1
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3705
    Points : 3743
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:31 pm

    GarryB wrote:Indeed the proliferation of AESA radar technology, and indeed improvements in computer technology could allow a Ka-31 to be developed with side mounted AESA antenna and onboard processing to greatly reduce the amount of datalink traffic required for an AWACS role... two crew positions on board to put human processing into the loop and it could send tiny encrypted millisecond long burst transmission signals to aircraft and ships... and then the issue is really only flight duration...

    with better faster electronic would actually make possible to have enough light electronics that payload of platform is not that important. There will couple of bottlenecks remain tho:
    1) physical limitation of antennas'  size
    2) platform service ceiling
    3) flight duration

    (1)  the one of approaches is using of conformal antennas.
    (2) +(3) Since in the air will be only AEW component thus IMHO the best option here using long duration drones. They dont need crew to rest, train... can  fly for a long time. Will it be helo or tilltrotor dunno.  I am sure tho that it will be a UAV vstol platform.  Simly 2-3 tons of payload + tltrotor give flexibility and saves costs.



    To be clear... no matter what they eventually make, whether it is called VSTOL or STOVL or whatever... even if it can take off and land vertically in practice it almost never will... it will use a rolling landing and a rolling take off to increase the allowable weights it can operate at.
    Vertical takeoffs and vertical landings are emergency and airshow only... even with aircraft like the Harrier.

    you're soooo sweet thinking that Harrier's level of technology (developed in 60/70)  didn't progress over a half of century! it soooo romantic  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup

    OK now let get back to reality: if V in VSTOL would not be needed then there is no need to design it. Like Typhoon/Tiger  are always driving reads in Syria thus their off road capabilities is never used? BTW new Russian light VSTOL transport has one  interesting requirement: to be able to both land and takeoff form a strip of 50m (max) to and form height 15m. In so called off-aerodrome mode.


    .................|
    .................| 15m high barrier
    .................|____________________| 50m takeoff-landing strip
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3705
    Points : 3743
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:32 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:The disadvantage is that we couldn't talk about them in LMFS  lol1  lol1  lol1
    No but you would manage to talk about it on the Su-57 one! lol1 lol1

    Thx great idea respekt respekt respekt
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3705
    Points : 3743
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:55 pm

    Isos wrote:
    you forgot - 250km is for surface targets (radar horizon) .

    For fighter radar horiozn sys on 1500m - 400km. And most important question: why do you stick for 80s radar and compare rto 2020s tech? dunno dunno dunno

    I compare what exists. Russia operates only old ka-31 and US is introducing f-35. You can compare to future project s or projects that don't exist if you want but the reality would be ka-31 against low rcs fighters like f-35 or rafale, so detection range would be very low for the ka-31 while those fighters will see it far away and will have meteor and amraam to fire aat it from very long distance.


    Radars (after fr and ru  wiki)..........max.tracking air target.......................engaging
    Rafale..............................................100km.............................................80km  

    Ka-31..............................................150-100km........................................N/A


    Well data says that Rafale wouldn't have chance to accomplish mission + high chance to to return to base.
    French fighter can engage at max 80km. At this distance is clearly seen and tracked by S-300F (150km range) . I wouldn't bet on Rafale there.

    IMHO any attack would be standoff weapons/drones.  In both directions. That's why US is developing 1,600km stealth missiles and Russian GZURs and Kh-50. French have SCALP or something right?
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2444
    Points : 2438
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Isos on Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:19 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    you forgot - 250km is for surface targets (radar horizon) .

    For fighter radar horiozn sys on 1500m - 400km. And most important question: why do you stick for 80s radar and compare rto 2020s tech? dunno dunno dunno

    I compare what exists. Russia operates only old ka-31 and US is introducing f-35. You can compare to future project s or projects that don't exist if you want but the reality would be ka-31 against low rcs fighters like f-35 or rafale, so detection range would be very low for the ka-31 while those fighters will see it far away and will have meteor and amraam to fire aat it from very long distance.


    Radars (after fr and ru  wiki)..........max.tracking air target.......................engaging
    Rafale..............................................100km.............................................80km  

    Ka-31..............................................150-100km........................................N/A


    Well data says that Rafale wouldn't have chance to accomplish mission + high  chance to to return to base.
    French fighter can engage at max 80km. At this distance is clearly seen and tracked by S-300F (150km range) . I wouldn't bet on Rafale there.

    IMHO any attack would be standoff weapons/drones.  In both directions. That's why US is developing 1,600km stealth missiles and Russian GZURs and Kh-50. French have SCALP or something right?

    A rafale fighter said new aesa has 200km range against fighter size target ...

    Rafale is 1m2, ka-31 is huge and not stealthy at all. With meteor it will destroy ka-31 easily. S300FM is deployed only on PtG. S-300F has smaller range if I'm not wrong 90km with 5V55 missiles.

    Anyway I was talking about ka-31 being not well suited for AWACS role because it will face new fighters which are much faster and stealthy while its own radar is from soviet era. Having it with new radar above your fleet to extend radar coverae against missile could be usefull but not for a real AWACS role.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18604
    Points : 19160
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:54 am

    I compare what exists. Russia operates only old ka-31 and US is introducing f-35. You can compare to future project s or projects that don't exist if you want but the reality would be ka-31 against low rcs fighters like f-35 or rafale, so detection range would be very low for the ka-31 while those fighters will see it far away and will have meteor and amraam to fire aat it from very long distance.

    AAMs have pathetic range when launched from low altitude... if you launch them from medium or high altitude the ships the Ka-31 is operating with will shoot them down out to 400km.

    The Ka-31 is only for detecting low flying targets the ships have problems detecting because of the height of their radars from the sea surface.

    And a Ka-31 would be totally safe as it would be practically operating above several dozen S-400/S-350/S-500/TOR/Pantsir and other systems that could easily protect it from pretty much anything.

    1) physical limitation of antennas' size

    It could extend out after the helo is airborne to pretty much any size you want.

    2) platform service ceiling

    It will spot low flying targets out to extended ranges...

    3) flight duration

    Could land on the back of any ship in the carrier group to refuel if needed...

    (1) the one of approaches is using of conformal antennas.
    (2) +(3) Since in the air will be only AEW component thus IMHO the best option here using long duration drones. They dont need crew to rest, train... can fly for a long time. Will it be helo or tilltrotor dunno. I am sure tho that it will be a UAV vstol platform. Simly 2-3 tons of payload + tltrotor give flexibility and saves costs.

    If it is going to be a UAV then HALE makes more sense.... with inflight refuelling from carrier based fighters...

    Rafale is 1m2, ka-31 is huge and not stealthy at all.

    Ka-31 will be scanning for low flying targets continuously... why waste money making it stealthy?

    With meteor it will destroy ka-31 easily.

    How will it get past the S-300 and S-400 and S-500 missiles on the ships below the Ka-31... and more importantly how will get get passed the Russian fighters launching missiles at it?

    S300FM is deployed only on PtG. S-300F has smaller range if I'm not wrong 90km with 5V55 missiles.

    Of course... Ka-31 will be operating with Corvettes only... but even then S-350 can easily shoot down an AAM...

    Anyway I was talking about ka-31 being not well suited for AWACS role because it will face new fighters which are much faster and stealthy while its own radar is from soviet era. Having it with new radar above your fleet to extend radar coverae against missile could be usefull but not for a real AWACS role.

    They will hardly keep it as is forever... it is already on the Kuznetsov carrier so they already have them in service in that mission, but the EMALs for the new CVN means they will likely have another aircraft for the AWACS role for their next gen ships... and they will also have a few fighters there too that could also defend any AWACS platforms they might be operating.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2444
    Points : 2438
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Isos on Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:58 am

    Again, your ships witg S-400/500 don't exists. The only one could be Nakhimov.

    Fort-M could engage at 250km away but there are only 48 missile on only PtG.

    Just like you I said a ka-31 above your fleet is good.

    But as an awacs to coordinate flankers against f-35 or rafales, it's useless. Those fighters can fly at 10km altitude at mach 1 and launch their AAM at max range easily without being detected.

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3705
    Points : 3743
    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 Oct 22, 2018 10:57 am

    Anyway I was talking about ka-31 being not well suited for AWACS role because it will face new fighters which are much faster and stealthy while its own radar is from soviet era. Having it with new radar above your fleet to extend radar coverae against missile could be usefull but not for a real AWACS role.



    Of course comparing 80 teh with 2020s western makes little sense. Same as you'd compare western 80s AWACS against Su-57 /R-37M.
    vv
    I m not sure hat is ship-borne "real" AWACS? Besides US and French (US built) remaining navies use AEW on helo platform. And C on ship. If we take a look on history ti is concept form IIWW. Refined by 50years and now virtually reached its peak. Im nto sure if with decentralizes drones, sensor fusion and first of all netcentric warfare you need existing AWACS. It would be like cavalry among mechanized troops.



    I agree helos are not perfect platforms due to ceiling and duration. Drones are much better.




    Isos wrote:
    A rafale fighter said new aesa has 200km range against fighter size target ...Rafale is 1m2, ka-31 is huge and not stealthy at all. With meteor it will destroy ka-31 easily.
    +++
    S300FM is deployed only on PtG. S-300F has smaller range if I'm not wrong 90km with 5V55 missiles

    You said no future tech just existing. French wiki says 100kmtracking/80km engagement. Why do you assume that Ka-31 would not fly over Kuz w.o escort?


    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3705
    Points : 3743
    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 Oct 22, 2018 11:02 am

    Isos wrote:

    But as an awacs to coordinate flankers against f-35 or rafales, it's useless. Those fighters can fly at 10km altitude  at mach 1 and launch their AAM at max range easily without being detected.


    how do you know they wont be detected? Syrian S-300 proves otherwise. Did Rafale ever fight against technologically advanced opponent? never heard about it.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3705
    Points : 3743
    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 Oct 22, 2018 11:30 am

    GarryB wrote:
    1) physical limitation of antennas'  size
    It could extend out after the helo is airborne to pretty much any size you want.

    meh crosswind not necessarily helps, size antenna cannot be



    2) platform service ceiling
    It will spot low flying targets out to extended ranges...

    extended comparing to ship true. But unless you have OTH radar - radar horizon is for everybody. And this depends on ceiling...




    3) flight duration
    Could land on the back of any ship in the carrier group to refuel if needed...

    But why?!



    (1)  the one of approaches is using of conformal antennas.
    (2) +(3) Since in the air will be only AEW component thus IMHO the best option here using long duration drones. They dont need crew to rest, train... can  fly for a long time. Will it be helo or tilltrotor dunno.  I am sure tho that it will be a UAV vstol platform.  Simly 2-3 tons of payload + tltrotor give flexibility and saves costs.

    If it is going to be a UAV then HALE makes more sense.... with inflight refueling from carrier based fighters...

    As long as you can lauch HALE form your ships it would be a good idea. Or airship ;-)




    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2444
    Points : 2438
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Isos on Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:32 am

    Of course comparing 80 teh with 2020s western makes little sense. Same as you'd compare western 80s AWACS against Su-57 /R-37M

    Su-57 developed is finished it will enter service very soon and r-37M is supposed to be used by it. So it makes sense to compare it to actual AWACS used by NATO.


    You said no future tech just existing. French wiki says 100kmtracking/80km engagement. Why do you assume that Ka-31 would not fly over Kuz w.o escort?

    Rafales are geting their new radars. What wiki says is for older pesa radar. You should look fir more soyrces than only wiki.


    how do you know they wont be detected? Syrian S-300 proves otherwise. Did Rafale ever fight against technologically advanced opponent? never heard about it.

    Not be detected by ka-31 radars. S-300 are sitting ducks once you know where they are. You either launch cruise missile or anti ship missiles in this case from safe distance or don't go in their engagement zones.

    Like I said if you only use it above your fleet, then it's ok (even if they should prove that it can track reduced rcs nmissiles...).

    But if you want to use it against f-35 or rafales a little bit farther of your fleet and coordinate flankers it won't help. First because its radar is old and then because it's an helicopter.

    A drone will face hard jaming on its communication, radars, hacking attempts ... a human factor is needed to coordinate all that. And it is also slow.

    BTW syrian s-300 proved nothing.

    m not sure hat is ship-borne "real" AWACS? Besides US and French (US built) remaining navies use AEW on helo platform. And C on ship. If we take a look on history ti is concept form IIWW. Refined by 50years and now virtually reached its peak. Im nto sure if with decentralizes drones, sensor fusion and first of all netcentric warfare you need existing AWACS. It would be like cavalry among mechanized troops.

    They use helo instead of real awacs because they don't have the money for real carrier and real awacs. India is already looking for naval awacs for its future carrier. China will probably try to buy yak-44 data. Russia if they choose something like shtorm will make a brand new yak-44.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18604
    Points : 19160
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:34 am

    Again, your ships witg S-400/500 don't exists. The only one could be Nakhimov.

    All talk of the new carriers includes mention of being able to engage targets underwater, on the sea surface, on land, in the air, and in space... so why would they fit S-500 and not fit S-400 as well?

    Rif is no longer made and like Granit and Vulkan will need to be replaced for new cruisers.

    Fort-M could engage at 250km away but there are only 48 missile on only PtG.

    Rif and Rif-M are the same physical size as the new 400km range S-400 missiles, it is only a matter of time before they are put in service... even just because there are no older missiles in production any more.

    Just like you I said a ka-31 above your fleet is good.

    It is not ideal, but certainly better than nothing.

    But as an awacs to coordinate flankers against f-35 or rafales, it's useless. Those fighters can fly at 10km altitude at mach 1 and launch their AAM at max range easily without being detected.

    Its purpose is not AWACS... it is AEW. An enemy fighter flying at 10km altitude will be detected by ship radar 400km away and Flankers can be vectored to intercept them easily enough.

    The purpose of the Ka-31... now actually called Ka-35 BTW, is to detect small low flying threats on land or at sea.... something ship radar has problems because of the horizon...

    Im nto sure if with decentralizes drones, sensor fusion and first of all netcentric warfare you need existing AWACS. It would be like cavalry among mechanized troops.

    In certain environments modern cavalry still makes no sense but soldiers on horseback can be vastly more mobile and carry more kit than those on foot.


    I agree helos are not perfect platforms due to ceiling and duration. Drones are much better.

    A drone helicopter would have all the same issues that helicopters have.... a fixed wing aircraft is the best solution... whether it is manned or unmanned is a matter of debate still, but fixed wing or airship both make a lot of sense... yet at the end of the day a helicopter can work where nothing else works like the current Russian Navy as they have no catapults.

    meh crosswind not necessarily helps, size antenna cannot be

    There are enormous radars for the S-300 family systems that have a flat panel radar array that folds... at the moment the Ka-31/35 has a tail assembly for stability in forward flight... a radar antenna array could be designed to open out backwards and act as a stabiliser in forward flight too...

    I mean if they can get two sets of coaxial 3 bladed main rotor blades to fold back into a nice tidy small space I am sure they could do the same with a flat radar antenna.

    extended comparing to ship true. But unless you have OTH radar - radar horizon is for everybody. And this depends on ceiling...

    Ka-31 has an operational ceiling of 3.5km, but with the new engines Klimov is now making for their helos (Hokum and Havoc) it should be able to improve that quite a bit... they are looking for low flying threats... not ICBMs coming over the north pole...

    But why?!

    Imagine a surface action group where ships are operating together a few kms apart... to give them freedom of manouver and ability to defend themselves without having to worry about hitting a friendly.... you would normally have a few smaller ships operating out further... in a sort of Picket role... having to keep your AEW orbiting your carrier gives away its position... whereever you want your AEW helo to operate you can post a ship there to support it... ie a place to land if there is a problem and a place to refuel when needed... when it is refuelling it is not looking, so when it lands to refuel another Ka-31 can take off from any other ship with a helo pad and take over its duties.

    The alternative is having your helo fly 10-20 or more kms to its area where it will search for threats and then fly back to refuel... rather less efficient.

    Of course you could be rather smart and have a small towable barge loaded with enormous amounts of aviation fuel that the Ka-31 could tow to where it is going to operate... so when it runs low on fuel it can descend from 3km altitude and connect up to the barge and refuel and then climb back up and resume operations...

    As long as you can lauch HALE form your ships it would be a good idea. Or airship ;-)

    If it is inflight refuelling capable you could pretty much launch it from land when the carrier group leaves Russian waters and then launch aircraft to keep it refuelled all the way... but I agree an airship would also be valuable... it could hover over an area for long periods... in fact you could use the trade winds to move it without using any energy at all...

    Rafales are geting their new radars.

    Russian cruisers will be getting upgrades and new cruisers will be built...

    Not be detected by ka-31 radars.

    Says who?

    The radar antenna on the Ka-31 is 6 metres across... do you think it might do a better job than a little fighter aircraft radar less than 1 metre across?

    It is intended for tracking anti ship missiles like Harpoon... Harpoon is a very small target when it is heading towards you...

    S-300 are sitting ducks once you know where they are. You either launch cruise missile or anti ship missiles in this case from safe distance or don't go in their engagement zones.

    Impressed by your confidence... you should tell the Israelis what a bunch of pussies they are getting all upset about S-300s in Syria...

    If you don't go in their engagement zone they they have done their job well.

    Like I said if you only use it above your fleet, then it's ok (even if they should prove that it can track reduced rcs nmissiles...).

    When was the last time an AEW aircraft led an attack on anything anywhere?

    Its job is to look out for low flying attacking threats so the ships can be ready when the threat pops up over the horizon.

    But if you want to use it against f-35 or rafales a little bit farther of your fleet and coordinate flankers it won't help. First because its radar is old and then because it's an helicopter.

    How old and crappy do you think the radar on the Ka-31 is?

    Why do you think they would bother with it if it couldn't even detect aircraft let alone munitions?

    A drone will face hard jaming on its communication, radars, hacking attempts ... a human factor is needed to coordinate all that. And it is also slow.

    Jamming is related to distance... jamming from closer is more effective, but a jammer is an emitter and therefore a target for anti jamming missiles.... they might not have super long range S-300 or S-400 missiles on ships yet but Su-33s with R-27E missiles have excellent reach...

    BTW syrian s-300 proved nothing.

    Russia sent S-300s to Syria for use under Syrian control and all of a sudden all operational F-35s are grounded because of a fuel line problem... yeah... nothing proved...

    They use helo instead of real awacs because they don't have the money for real carrier and real awacs.

    They have a real carrier, what they lack is catapult technology, which they are working on right now...
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2444
    Points : 2438
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Isos on Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:47 am

    So we think the same about the role of ka-31 Very Happy

    Russia sent S-300s to Syria for use under Syrian control and all of a sudden all operational F-35s are grounded because of a fuel line problem... yeah... nothing proved...

    They were grounded because of the crash of one f-35 in usa. It's a common attitude to all air forces. When an indian su-30 crashes all the air forces with su-30 will be concerned and will wait for conclusions. Because those things cost more or less than 100 million $.

    Without the sukhois and russians there, israeli would take care of them really fast. That's why russians are operating it.

    All talk of the new carriers includes mention of being able to engage targets underwater, on the sea surface, on land, in the air, and in space... so why would they fit S-500 and not fit S-400 as well?

    Talks. Your carrier doesn't even exist on paper. Now they have the K with old ka-31 and its old radar. USA and other nations are putting f-35 on their carriers now. That's the reality.

    Russian cruisers will be getting upgrades and new cruisers will be built...

    ...

    Says who?

    The radar antenna on the Ka-31 is 6 metres across... do you think it might do a better job than a little fighter aircraft radar less than 1 metre across?

    It is intended for tracking anti ship missiles like Harpoon... Harpoon is a very small target when it is heading towards you...

    They are building small corvettes and missile boats. Gorshkov construction is slow. Upgrading nakhimov takes as long as building a new one (by russian and not soviet standards).

    Rafales are changing their radars like now. They go from a radar that can see 90km away to something that can see 200km away fighters. It's better than your ka-31.


    https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ka31/ wrote:the surveillance range against a fighter aircraft size target is up to 150km

    Fighter size target is 3-5m2. F-35 is less than 1m2 and rafale is ~1m2 when loaded with air to air. So yeah it sucks against new threats. New anti ship missiles are also stealthier than the older one it was designed to deal with, it will pick them too late.


    Why do you think they would bother with it if it couldn't even detect aircraft let alone munitions?

    They can't have anything better. Yak-44 was not finished. China and india are looking for catapult equiped carrier with new real awacs. For their Kuznetsov they need an upgraded ka-31 or a new yak 44.

    Borschty

    Posts : 11
    Points : 15
    Join date : 2018-02-12

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Borschty on Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:07 pm

    People need to remember that:
    a) Russia does not need to project its power like the US does
    b) Russia's Naval building capabilities were greatly affected by the fall of the soviet union
    c) In line with point a) VTOL is not necessary; and in addition to that would require a complicated design to which would not be for the best interest
    d) In line with point B) Delay/No information about Russia building the Lider Destroyer & Shtorm Carrier
    e) Even if Russia does plan to develop the Shtorm carrier (Very costly) It would use non-VTOL aircraft.

    In regards to the last posts;

    It is correct that when an incident happens with a plane/helicopter; that plane/helicopter is grounded until the cause is found.
    It is also correct to say that without the Russian presence in Syria; Israel and its allies would be running rampant (With addition that a black flag would be waving in Damascus)

    Ka-31 is still a capable helicopter in the sense that it can be used for anti-submarine warfare. While it's original role was AWAC; it should be noted that the size,range and frequency of a radar affects the design of the helicopter. If a Ka-31 wants to mount an aircraft's radar (e.g Those used on Mig-31's) its frame cannot support it, Unless modifications are made to which requires R&D and money.

    However I do want to add that it is easier to develop radar technology than stealth.


    S-500 is set to replace the S-300s. S-400's are in-fact a variant of many from the S-300 family; which you could say performs a different role from S-300s (Due to missiles used)

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:34 pm