Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Share

    hoom

    Posts : 1320
    Points : 1310
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  hoom on Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:48 am

    Well then, thats a pretty comprehensive demolition of my argument silent

    Operating costs may force cutting 590 fighters, analysis finds
    Not surprised that there are cuts but I'd missed that news.

    Of course, - said Borisov, answering the question whether the work on the aircraft vertical take-off for the aircraft carrier.
    - It is logical to assume that during this time, those models, I mean the MiG-29 and su-33 will become obsolete and
    in ten years will require the creation of a new flying vehicle. There are such plans, " Borisov said.

    "Now we are working on the creation of conceptual models and prototypes. Of course, this is the future of all aircraft carrying ships.
    A new machine park of flying vehicles is needed, for this purpose various technologies are used that allow shortened take-off and landing
    or simply vertical take-off. Conceptually, work is already underway in the Ministry of defence since last year," Borisov said.
    +++
    He specified that this development is included in the state program of arms
    and is carried out on order of the Supreme commander.
    Dammit I've read these quotes before but somehow mentally failed to connect that the MiG-29/Su-33 replacement was so directly linked to VSTOL in the quotes Embarassed
    Yeah, I've been wrong on that unshaven

    There would be no new fighter project for fighter besides MiG-41. What else do you see?
    Well there is PAK-DA, PAK-TA, LMFS, fast helicopter, Su-25 replacement, new MPA,  & I've thought short term navalised Su-30 & AEW version, with longer term project to navalise Su-57, maybe a Su-34ised tactical bomber version.
    IMO needs new tanker & AEW too.

    Really no shortage of new planes to be designed within a limited budget/engineering resource.
    Not to mention huge amounts of bits & bobs in need of import substitution.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 31, 2018 7:34 am

    When talking about ATGMs you don't include the flight range of the Attack helicopter...

    From what I remember reading, when the information about the Kinzhal launched from the MiG-31 the range of the missile given was "up to 2,000km"... which makes sense because it could launch the weapon from different heights and different speeds, which would effect range dramatically for a solid rocket fuelled missile.

    When they mentioned that the upgraded Tu-22M3M was going to also carry the weapon they mentioned a range of 1,500km for the weapon but also mentioned the fact that the aircraft itself has a decent range and that could add to the "reach" of the weapon.

    The Tu-22M3M is supposed to have a flight range of 10,000km, so operational radius of 5,000km... or more likely 4,000km with a fuel reserve... however the M3M model has inflight refuelling so its range could be practically anything you want with support tankers.

    I assumed the difference in flight range (2,000km vs 1,500km) is based on the fact that the MiG-31 is a mach 2.4 aircraft able to climb to at least 18km altitude with weapons, while the Tu-22M3M is a mach 2 aircraft with a ceiling of about 10-12km... being launched at a lower speed in slightly thicker air is bound to effect range.

    Because of the capacity of the Backfire there is no reason why they could not add a solid rocket booster to the rear of the Kinzhal that accelerates it to more than mach 2.4 and higher than 18km altitude and not only recover the lost performance but actually build upon it, but to be honest I think this was a quick and easy thing that could be done without much fuss to get a hypersonic manouvering weapon into operational service... now that the INF treaty is a gonner then it wont be long before not just solid rocket missiles, but also scramjet powered missiles start to enter service in ground and air and sea launched versions.

    I remember a few years ago having a discussion with a member regarding a naval version of the Iskander... I poo pooed the idea because 500km range is not big enough, and making a decent ranged missile... ie 1,500-3,500km range missile would risk the US accusing Russia of breaking the spirit of the INF treaty... especially if the new missile could fit in Iskander launchers... but of course now it really does not matter...

    Taking into account thet VDV wants to have tiltroror and Mi-42 concept "implementation" I can see this a reasonable way for Russia to acquire a decent AEW platform. instead of spending money o spending yet another billion on an extra platform not needed anywhere else.

    They already have Ka-35s in Russian Army service... if they developed a larger fixed wing model I am sure they would adopt that too... as would the VKKO as a smaller, lighter and cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate alternative to the A-100.


    Dammit I've read these quotes before but somehow mentally failed to connect that the MiG-29/Su-33 replacement was so directly linked to VSTOL in the quotes Embarassed
    Yeah, I've been wrong on that

    And when it does not work they will navalise the Su-57 and get a decent naval fighter again.

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    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 Oct 31, 2018 4:13 pm

    hoom wrote:Well then, thats a pretty comprehensive demolition of my argument silent

    apologies mate, my idea is to bring light and win hearts and minds for VSTOL cause  respekt  respekt  respekt



    hoom wrote:Dammit I've read these quotes before but somehow mentally failed to connect that the MiG-29/Su-33 replacement was so directly linked to VSTOL in the quotes Embarassed
    Yeah, I've been wrong on that unshaven

    yesterday in auto translator they were missing too... I translated manually most of text... What a Face  What a Face  What a Face




    hoom wrote:
    There would be no new fighter project for fighter besides MiG-41. What else do you see?
    Well there is PAK-DA, PAK-TA, LMFS, fast helicopter, Su-25 replacement, new MPA,  & I've thought short term navalised Su-30 & AEW version, with longer term project to navalise Su-57, maybe a Su-34ised tactical bomber version.
    IMO needs new tanker & AEW too.

    Really no shortage of new planes to be designed within a limited budget/engineering resource.
    Not to mention huge amounts of bits & bobs in need of import substitution.

    OK true but lets stay by fighters since unlikely fighter engineers will go to build fighter dept. Same with Kamov ones. Besides old fighters are going to be retired you constantly need to work on new models.


    (1) Su-25 unlikely has any manned replacement (vide Okhotnik, Skat)

    (2) AEW & Tanker. Im sure tiltrotor would be more then enough for the role. Especially that VDV wants to have one. No need to develop new platform.

    (3) LMFS  actually  could be VSTOL. The only argument that not is that VSTOL will be size of Su-57


    (4) never heard about any plans to navalize Su-30 nor S-57
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    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 Oct 31, 2018 4:21 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Taking into account thet VDV wants to have tiltroror and Mi-42 concept "implementation" I can see this a reasonable way for Russia to acquire a decent AEW platform. instead of spending money o spending yet another billion on an extra platform not needed anywhere else.

    They already have Ka-35s in Russian Army service... if they developed a larger fixed wing model I am sure they would adopt that too... as would the VKKO  as a smaller, lighter and cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate alternative to the A-100.

    We were talking about shipborne application. Ka-31 is still product of 80 yet upgraded and new gen one.





    And when it does not work they will navalise the Su-57 and get a decent naval fighter again.

    I'm sre than VSTOL version of Su-57 would yield a great fighter lol1 lol1 lol1
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2454
    Points : 2448
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Isos on Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:12 pm

    They already have Ka-35s in Russian Army service... if they developed a larger fixed wing model I am sure they would adopt that too... as would the VKKO as a smaller, lighter and cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate alternative to the A-100.

    Yak-44 was what you are suggesying. But they canceled it. A cheap alternative to A-100, naval version could be used on the ground so that they could replace those on the carriers if needed. Special version for ELINT or small refuel tanker could have been also developed.

    For VDV, aircrafts are better than helicopters/tiltrotors specially for paratroupers. Since they can carry more, longer range and they are fast so they can escape to potentiel fighters quickly.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 823
    Points : 817
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:36 pm

    GarryB wrote:When talking about ATGMs you don't include the flight range of the Attack helicopter...
    We will agree Kinzhal is not exactly an ATGM but a revolutionary substrategic weapon, maybe not yet in the catalogue of Rosoboronexport with all characteristics disclosed Razz

    I remember a few years ago having a discussion with a member regarding a naval version of the Iskander... I poo pooed the idea because 500km range is not big enough, and making a decent ranged missile... ie 1,500-3,500km range missile would risk the US accusing Russia of breaking the spirit of the INF treaty... especially if the new missile could fit in Iskander launchers... but of course now it really does not matter...
    I also have not made any numbers but I would have had the same first impression as you, from 500 to 2000 km there is quite a gap. If I were not that lazy (or "busy", to be politically correct) would check in a ballistic simulator and put the doubt to rest...

    STOVL Man wrote:(2) Chinese VSTOL
    Fairly unlikely that Russian VSTOL finds its market in China. They already are working own VSTOL fighter. (Hello GB and LMFS lol1 lol1 lol1 )
    Who has said anything against STOVL on board of LHDs? Would you be so kind to read you own quote?

    The official China Daily, citing experts, said progress was being made in research on components for short take-off and vertical landing jets, \
    which they said could be deployed on China’s lone aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, and other ships to complement its fighter jets.

    Chinese researchers are getting closer to developing a military aircraft seen as key to building the country’s amphibious capabilities

    The navy can deploy helicopters and STOVL aircraft on the amphibious assault ship, designating helicopters to conduct anti-submarine tasks and using STOVL planes to perform mid- to long-range air defense as well as air-to-surface strikes,” Senior Captain Zhang Junshe, a researcher at the PLA Naval Military Studies Research Institute, told China Daily.

    Yak wrote:apologies mate, my idea is to bring light and win hearts and minds for VSTOL cause respekt respekt respekt
    A man in a sacred mission indeed lol1 lol1


    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    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 Oct 31, 2018 8:44 pm

    Simplicity Florist Man asked me: wrote:(2) Chinese VSTOL {}
    Who has said anything against STOVL on board of LHDs? Would you be so kind to read you own quote?

    And what is difference long range AA mission for LHD and CVN?  dunno  dunno  dunno As for requites pls check below. Same text just more cropped for your convenience.

    they said could be deployed on China’s lone aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, and other ships to complement its fighter jets,

    “and using STOVL planes to perform mid- to long-range air defense as well as air-to-surface strikes,”
     [/b]



    I cannot understand why neither Royal Navy, nor  USMC  and even Chinese Navy  want VSTOLS? affraid affraid affraid
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    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 Oct 31, 2018 9:24 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Yak-44 was what you are suggesting. But they canceled it. A cheap alternative to A-100, naval version could be used on the ground so that they could replace those on the carriers if needed. Special version for ELINT or small refuel tanker could have been also developed.

    on land Il-114 could be a candidate for deck AEW is useless tho.


    For VDV, aircrafts are better than helicopters/tiltrotors specially for paratroopers. Since they can carry more, longer range and they are fast so they can escape to potential fighters quickly.

    Actually VDV insisted on "flying IVF" and tiltrotor for operations. I think you think that all operations need couple of thousands kilometers operations. titl rotors or "flying IVFs" can fight with radius hundreds of kilometers and dont need any prepared airfields nor infrastructure.

    As for escaping fighters, I cannot imagine any airborne operations without air superiority. In case its not 500-700kmh of virtual lift vehicle vs 850 of Il-76 wont make real difference when you meet F-15/F-16.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 823
    Points : 817
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Wed Oct 31, 2018 10:41 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:And what is difference long range AA mission for LHD and CVN?  dunno  dunno  dunno
    No more questions, Your Honor Laughing
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    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 Oct 31, 2018 11:12 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:And what is difference long range AA mission for LHD and CVN?  dunno  dunno  dunno  
    No more questions, Your Honor Laughing

    so now , good man, you are convinced to VSTOL? glad to see this thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup

    After Chinese tho you but good to see a new convert cheers cheers cheers
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2454
    Points : 2448
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Isos on Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:40 am

    on land Il-114 could be a candidate for deck AEW is useless tho.

    It must be I would say. Russia lacks such small aircrafts for such roles. No need for deck version since they don't have the carrier for.

    As for escaping fighters, I cannot imagine any airborne operations without air superiority. In case its not 500-700kmh of virtual lift vehicle vs 850 of Il-76 wont make real difference when you meet F-15/F-16.

    Mi-26 can do the job.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 823
    Points : 817
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Thu Nov 01, 2018 1:20 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:so now , good man, you are convinced to VSTOL? glad to see this thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup  

    After Chinese tho you but good to see a new convert cheers cheers cheers
    Not so fast! I was finally understanding all this discussion if you don't see a big difference between the missions and requirements of CVN and LHD! lol1 lol1 lol1

    Your crusade against infidels will have to continue! thumbsup
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    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 Nov 01, 2018 2:16 am

    Isos wrote:
    on land Il-114 could be a candidate for deck AEW is useless tho.
    It must be I would say. Russia lacks such small aircrafts for such roles. No need for deck version since they don't have the carrier for.

    idea for tiltrotors and helos for AEW have first of all meaning for navy. For army  indeed small platforms like Il-114 can make potential cost saving however with AEW role for frontline still vertical lift vehicles have advantage - close and no need for extra infrastructure.




    As for escaping fighters, I cannot imagine any airborne operations without air superiority. In case its not 500-700kmh of virtual lift vehicle vs 850 of Il-76 wont make real difference when you meet F-15/F-16.

    Mi-26 can do the job.

    The idea of "flying IVF" for VDV in my understanding is abut agility, firepower and survivability. This is about fast drop of VDV troops and support with firepower.  Its gonna be first wave of "human airdrop" after artillery and drones.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    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 Nov 01, 2018 2:26 am

    LMFS wrote:Not so fast! I was finally understanding all this discussion if you don't see a big difference between the missions and requirements of CVN and LHD! lol1 lol1 lol1


    Its not what I said, dotn twist my words please. I quoted senior officer of PLA Naval Research institute,who said about complimenting with VSTOL both CVNs and LHDs. Then he expressed view about using STOVL planes to perform mid- to long-range air defense. I'd love to hear what is the difference between mission of air defense form LHD and CVN?

    You fight with the same opponent, same fighters and same weapons.




    LMFS wrote: Your crusade against infidels will have to continue! thumbsup

    That's not a crusade. That's a basic education campaign lol1 lol1 lol1

    hoom

    Posts : 1320
    Points : 1310
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  hoom on Thu Nov 01, 2018 8:10 am

    apologies mate, my idea is to bring light and win hearts and minds for VSTOL cause  respekt  respekt  respekt
    Don't apologise you presented facts, I was wrong  Very Happy

    OK true but lets stay by fighters since unlikely fighter engineers will go to build fighter dept. Same with Kamov ones. Besides old fighters are going to be retired you constantly need to work on new models.
    With a limited talent pool/funding & loads of tasks to do I don't think you can afford to have talent spread thin, better to concentrate force on getting achievable stuff done.

    (1) Su-25 unlikely has any manned replacement (vide Okhotnik, Skat)
    (2) AEW & Tanker. Im sure tiltrotor would be more then enough for the role. Especially that VDV wants to have one. No need to develop new platform.
    (3) LMFS  actually  could be VSTOL. The only argument that not is that VSTOL will be size of Su-57
    (4) never heard about any plans to navalize Su-30 nor S-57
    1: thats 3 projects that need effort...
    2: need a completed tiltrotor project then modifications to make AEW & Tanker, all a bunch of effort needed.
    3: yes could be & thats a good prospect for concentration of effort Smile but its still a really huge project.

    4: neither have I but in my scenario there would be: immediate replacement for Su-33 operating on K would be navalised Su-30 (AEW & Tanker variants), new STOBAR carrier/s built & then eventually a navalised Su-57 would replace the Su-30s.
    It has to be a much more attainable programme than developing entirely new tiltrotor, drones, stealth VSTOL fighter & VSTOL carriers.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 823
    Points : 817
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Thu Nov 01, 2018 2:17 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Its not what I said, dotn twist my words please.

    I quoted senior officer of PLA Naval Research institute,who said about complimenting with VSTOL both CVNs and LHDs. Then he expressed view about using STOVL planes to perform mid- to long-range air defense.  I'd love to hear what is the difference between mission of air defense form LHD and CVN?

    You fight with the same opponent, same fighters and same weapons.

    Not saying you cannot differentiate a LHD and a CVN, but that you don't seem to perceive the fundamentally different mission the air wing has in both of them. Your argument revolves around the notion that STOVL or STOBAR/CATOBAR does not make a difference in capacity and hence a STOVL fighter on board of a LHD can be as effective as a CATOBAR/STOBAR on board a CVN. Only they do not serve the same purpose.

    One thing is supporting assault operations from the air with limited numbers of STOVL fighters, other very different to offer the AD cover for the whole fleet, including normally also the LHDs. And here, irrespective of what you argue, evidence is overwhelming. Navies choose CATOBAR or STOBAR for such mission, despite the need for arresting gear, bigger decks etc. And Russia has made it clear in its naval development plan that they want both LHDs and carriers so they clearly differentiate those roles too and don't plan to cover the role of the carriers with LHDs.

    You are using the words of the Chinese guy as a proof of your theories and they are not. He is stating the obvious: that STOVL planes can help with AD and striking roles of an amphibious force... he is not even quoted as stating nothing about CVs BTW, though as a complement it would be also ok, provided there are enough numbers of the most capable planes. I only see it expensive to develop a especial plane for so few units to be constructed and hence have issues understanding the viability of the project. But I am open to surprises, we just have to wait and see.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    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 Nov 02, 2018 1:50 am

    LMFS wrote:
    Not saying you cannot differentiate a LHD and a CVN, but that you don't seem to perceive the fundamentally different mission the air wing has in both of them. Your argument revolves around the notion that STOVL or STOBAR/CATOBAR does not make a difference in capacity and hence a STOVL fighter on board of a LHD can be as effective as a CATOBAR/STOBAR on board a CVN. Only they do not serve the same purpose.

    One thing is supporting assault operations from the air with limited numbers of STOVL fighters, other very different to offer the AD cover for the whole fleet, including normally also the LHDs. And here, irrespective of what you argue, evidence is overwhelming. Navies choose CATOBAR or STOBAR for such mission, despite the need for arresting gear, bigger decks etc. And Russia has made it clear in its naval development plan that they want both LHDs and carriers so they clearly differentiate those roles too and don't plan to cover the role of the carriers with LHDs.

    You are using the words of the Chinese guy as a proof of your theories and they are not. He is stating the obvious: that STOVL planes can help with AD and striking roles of an amphibious force... he is not even quoted as stating nothing about CVs BTW, though as a complement it would be also ok, provided there are enough numbers of the most capable planes. I only see it expensive to develop a especial plane for so few units to be constructed and hence have issues understanding the viability of the project. But I am open to surprises, we just have to wait and see.


    Glad we agree that for AAD function VSTOL is perfectly suitable. My question was about fighter and mission, not about platform. Regardless what size RuN chooses or universal or dedicated it doesnet matter there will be no hundreds of fighters in the air. I understand that you'd love to see many of CVNs involved like in Midway but this not gonna happen in 21 century anymore. Last great battleships' battle was Jutland's one . Last CVs battles were on Pacific 43-44.


    Russian Navy first of all need air cover and eventually anti ship strikes. Regardless if its fighters will be land, CVN LHD or sub based (ok it was Japanese idea :d).




    Talking about evidence:
    (1) Russia didnt make any choice regarding air carrying ship yet. The only what I've heard from MoD is first fighter then ship and that projects will be presented and evaluated.


    All those Krylov fantastic plastic looks cool but it is presented for years with no effect so far. Shtorm is really slight update of Soviet projects. From 80s. Regardless what Russian Navy chooses I'd expect something modern for 2050s conflicts not 80s concept with "necronomicon" treatment.


    (2) Evidence for CATOBAR? Facts say that there are no navies choosing that. Only one navy has chosen CATOBAR. US Navy. Even Royal Navy dumped CATOBAR conventional fighter going for VSTOL. Opps sorry French too using US tech and their only fighter ;-)

    Russian Navy? Kuz is waiting for VSTOL. Skijump? why not after all it was invented for VSTOL same as TVC.


    (3) As of usage of LHDS in sea control missions. it is actually US Navy idea to send LHDs as with augmented airwing (and w/o Marines) on sea control mode (i.e. light carriers) . I ve provided some time ago a relevant link to .mil domain.

    IMHO rationale is simple: on one ship VSTOL fighters let you choose if you want to support ASW, amphibious or air support operations.




    Of course as geopolitical situation is changing very quick we need to wait for yet another funding amendments to see results.

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    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 Nov 02, 2018 2:34 am

    hoom wrote:Don't apologise you presented facts, I was wrong  Very Happy

    ok lest call it a learning curve, very steep in your case   thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup



    OK true but lets stay by fighters since unlikely fighter engineers will go to build fighter dept. Same with Kamov ones. Besides old fighters are going to be retired you constantly need to work on new models.
    With a limited talent pool/funding & loads of tasks to do I don't think you can afford to have talent spread thin, better to concentrate force on getting achievable stuff done.
    +++
    (3) LMFS  actually  could be VSTOL. The only argument that not is that VSTOL will be size of Su-57
    3: yes could be & thats a good prospect for concentration of effort Smile but its still a really huge project.


    I can only agree here. That's why VSTOL fighter was chosen as next one. VSTOL/ MiG-41 and actually that's what is left from development projects (I presume 6gen features will be in goth). Mind tat last 20 years there were Mig-29k/35+ Su-30/35 and Pak-FA.


    (1) Su-25 unlikely has any manned replacement (vide Okhotnik, Skat)
    1: thats 3 projects that need effort...

    even more, depending on number of drones required by MoD. But unlike Su-25 this is future of warfare.



    (2) AEW & Tanker. Im sure tiltrotor would be more then enough for the role. Especially that VDV wants to have one. No need to develop new platform.
    2: need a completed tiltrotor project then modifications to make AEW & Tanker, all a bunch of effort needed.

    Very true but again what is alternative? IMHO using chopper is possible but to achieve service ceiling is much harder to achieve the fixed wing ("tilt wing too ;-)  





    (4) never heard about any plans to navalize Su-30 nor S-57
    4: neither have I but in my scenario there would be: immediate replacement for Su-33 operating on K would be navalised Su-30 (AEW & Tanker variants), new STOBAR carrier/s built & then eventually a navalised Su-57 would replace the Su-30s.It has to be a much more attainable programme than developing entirely new tiltrotor, drones, stealth VSTOL fighter & VSTOL carriers.

    Then you'd have replaced of 4 gen fighter with 4++gen which itself is a stopgap.  Su-30SM production lines, according to today's plans, are gonna be shut in 2022. This perhaps would look good for next 10 years of so and then what would you put on CVN?

    True, money are always in tight supply. But this yet another reason you need to invest them wisely. For 2050 conflicts using 80's designed air frames doesn't seem to be like winning strategy to me.

    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 823
    Points : 817
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Fri Nov 02, 2018 6:38 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Glad we agree that for AAD function VSTOL is perfectly suitable.
    Obviously can cover that function, but with lesser capability. Maybe ok for neo-colonial wars, not ok for contesting space with other powers.

    My question was about fighter and mission, not about platform.
    That is exactly the problem. STOVL are used on LHDs, carriers use STOBAR or CATOBAR with the only exception of the QE, better known as the biggest Windows-running PC in the world. UK as said can allow themselves some indulgence in military issues being the junior partner of US, but all the bigger powers and even France go for other type of fighters on their carriers. That F/A-XX that you talk about non-stop when anybody mentions a naval Su-57 will be also CATOBAR, France is in discussions with US to get access to their EMALS technology for the FCAS or whatever their new planes is named, both China and Russia are actively developing EMALS too. And according to you, all that accounts as a massive evidence pointing to STOVL as future substitute of STOBAR and CATOBAR planes  respekt  

    Talking about evidence:
    (1) Russia didnt make any choice regarding air carrying ship yet.  The only what I've heard from MoD is first fighter then ship and that projects will be presented and evaluated.
    What about some irrelevant document called naval strategy 2050??? If you think they will chose the carrier in function of the fighter then... you will surely be one of those guys that build the foundations after the roof.

    All those Krylov fantastic plastic looks cool but it is presented for years with no effect so far. Shtorm is really slight update of Soviet projects. From 80s. Regardless what Russian Navy chooses I'd expect something modern for 2050s conflicts not 80s concept with "necronomicon" treatment.
    - Krylov has no responsibility designing carriers for MoD. So they can propose what they want and wont necessarily be built, it means zero regarding MoD plans
    - Will all due respect, I don't think you can know what the Shtorm means in terms of evolution regarding other carriers.

    (2) Evidence for CATOBAR? Facts say that there are no navies choosing that. Only one navy has chosen CATOBAR. US Navy. Even Royal Navy dumped CATOBAR conventional fighter going for VSTOL.   Opps sorry French too using US tech and their only fighter ;-)
    I said STOBAR/CATOBAR. And they are ALL carriers with exception of QE.
    Maybe Russia can see more market for other LHD operators for the STOVL than I do. But they may as well sell EMALS technology, if they manage to develop it, it would have a good market price indeed.

    Russian Navy? Kuz is waiting for VSTOL. Skijump? why not after all it was invented for VSTOL same as TVC.
    Sorry????  lol1  lol1  lol1

    (3) As of  usage of  LHDS in sea control missions. it is actually  US Navy idea to send LHDs as with augmented airwing (and w/o Marines) on sea control mode (i.e. light carriers) . I ve provided some time ago a relevant link to .mil domain.
    Yes, please show me where it is stated that they will renounce to CSGs due to having those LHDs  welcome
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    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 Nov 03, 2018 3:08 am

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Glad we agree that for AAD function VSTOL is perfectly suitable.
    Obviously can cover that function, but with lesser capability. Maybe ok for neo-colonial wars, not ok for contesting space with other powers.

    I'm impressed seeing your zeal against Russian, Chinese and  British military  planners and experts. OK who and how would you like Russia to contest? continental USA? NATO airspace over English channel?

    I have never heard any realistic scenario. Any in mind?
     Suspect Suspect Suspect




    LMFS wrote: but all the bigger powers and even France go for other type of fighters on their carriers., France is in discussions with US to get access to their EMALS technology for the FCAS or whatever their new planes is named, both China and Russia are actively developing EMALS too.

    (1) CATOBAR rulez without catapults:
    There are  no other powers besides USA using catapults of own design.   And perhaps Chine will join the club but unlikely Russia. EMALS = 2* 885M. India since 10 years  tries to make RFQ for new fighter. If catapult will be the same then good luck with progress.

    Russia is developing EMALS? hmm last time I've heard this was about Shtorm surely will be built.  Any news about this ever since?

    France is in discussion for EMALS?v affraid  affraid  affraid  It would be great since they didnt even discuss building second CVN. A link perhaps?  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect





    (2) Fighters

    a) China is using copycat Su-33 and has just dtrted developing VSTOL + built J-31 which looks, to my non expert eye, like copycat of F-35

    b) India is using MiG_29k with pathetic record and wants to get rid of those.

    c) Russia herself stopped building MiG-29k and Su-33 and started working on VSTOL.


    Well you have interesting interpretation of data.   No, VSTOL is not substitute, It is a logical evolution of legacy concepts  russia  russia  russia







    Talking about evidence:
    (1) Russia didnt make any choice regarding air carrying ship yet.  The only what I've heard from MoD is first fighter then ship and that projects will be presented and evaluated.
    What about some irrelevant document called naval strategy 2050??? If you think they will chose the carrier in function of the fighter then... you will surely be one of those guys that build the foundations after the roof.

    Apology I was wrong in wording: first fighter then start building CV. Of course you first evaluate and prepare to build. Unless you want to build empty CV. Strategy doesnt say anything about type or displacement of aircraft carrying ships AFAIR




    Will all due respect, I don't think you can know what the Shtorm means in terms of evolution regarding other carriers.
    Great, I love to learn! then what Shtorm does mean in term of evolution regarding carriers?  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup





    LMFS wrote:Maybe Russia can see more market for other LHD operators for the STOVL than I do. But they may as well sell EMALS technology, if they manage to develop it, it would have a good market price indeed.

    Russian EMALS for export. So you'd invest ~$1B equivalent to build 1 max 2 emals?  and then sell "cheap to some potential customers"? And the customer will be?  Belarus? Armenia? or north Korea?





    LMFS wrote:
    Me wrote:Russian Navy? Kuz is waiting for VSTOL. Skijump? why not after all it was invented for VSTOL same as TVC.
    Sorry????  lol1  lol1  lol1

    Kuz can serve extra 15-20 years after renovation.  From which 5-7 only with  STOBAR fighters. Then VSTOL comes into picture. There is no need nto to use skijump as this WAS designed for VSTOL.





    LMFS wrote:
    Me pointed LMFS didnt get the poitn tho wrote:(3) As of  usage of  LHDS in sea control missions. it is actually  US Navy idea to send LHDs as with augmented airwing (and w/o Marines) on sea control mode (i.e. light carriers) . I ve provided some time ago a relevant link to .mil domain.
    Yes, please show me where it is stated that they will renounce to CSGs due to having those LHDs  welcome

    You missed the point. US Navy noticed growing role of small carriers and its application. And they are the only real operator of catobar CVNs.[/quote]
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1179
    Points : 1179
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Nov 03, 2018 6:14 am

    You can deny as much as you want but simply MiG-29k is a dead end.
    Don't bury it yet, an enlarged MiG-29/35 with better performance could be designed, just like Lavi/J-10, F-16/F-2-18C/D/E/F, & MiG-25/-31.
    China is working on CAT & fixed wing AEW KJ-600, but that doesn't mean that they'll have no use for STOVLs on CV/Ns, esp. when having problems with J-15s stability.

    The KJ-600 will most likely fly with China's new carriers using electromagnetic catapults, Chinese military expert Lan Shunzheng told the Science and Technology Daily. A fixed wing aircraft is too heavy for the ski jump takeoff on the Liaoning and Type 001A, Lan reportedly said. The electromagnetic catapult is a valuable addition to a modern carrier as it can launch heavier aircraft like the KJ-600, Song said. Using the new catapult, more jets can take off in a shorter time and boost the carrier's combat capabilities.
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/kj-600.htm

    Russian STOVLs will be used if not on Adm.K, on UDK/LHDs; no need to wait for CVNs to be built.
    I can imagine large barges anchored in the S. Black/Caspian Sea &/ in the Arctic & even on big lakes/rivers substituting for UDKs & CV/Ns as their platforms, helping defend their interests.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Nov 03, 2018 6:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 823
    Points : 817
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Sat Nov 03, 2018 6:29 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:I'm impressed seeing your zeal against Russian, Chinese and  British military  planners and experts.
    I am impressed you thinking all the navies in the world but the Royal Navy are wrong

    I have never heard any realistic scenario. Any in mind? [/b]  Suspect Suspect Suspect
    You have been shown dozens in this thread but you ignore them. Wont bother repeating because you simply don't want to know.  dunno

    There are  no other powers besides USA using catapults of own design.
    So what?

    And perhaps Chine will join the club but unlikely Russia.
    "Perhaps" like they are developing them, making prototypes and planning their 3rd carrier to use them?

    "Unlikely Russia" because you convinced Putin of using STOVL instead or because it would piss you off? They have said they are developing them, do you have better sources than the rest of us?

    USC President Alexei Rakhmanov stated regarding the program on July 5th 2018: "We closely follow developments in shipbuilding in the leading sea powers and do not sit idle. Work is currently underway to develop systems that can also be used on modern aircraft carriers. For example, we are working on special modifications of new aircraft launch systems.”

    https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/russian-supercarrier-coming-soon-electromagnetic-launch-system-currently-being-tested-for-a-future-carrier-navalised-su-57-likely-to-follow
    Then-CEO of the St. Petersburg-based Nevskoye Design Bureau Sergei Vlasov earlier told TASS that Russia had started work to create an electromagnetic aircraft launch system (an electromagnetic catapult) for aircraft carriers.
    http://tass.com/defense/1011912

    You will love this one:
    Though it has not yet received the order from Russia's Ministry of Defense, the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) is ready to develop the carrier version of the Su-57, formerly known as the T-50, says chief designer Sergey Korotkov.

    "If needed, we will do it, undoubtedly," he said in an interview for Russian media.

    "If a new carrier is being built, it must have modern features, such as electromagnetic catapults," Korotkov added.
    https://sputniknews.com/russia/201803011062099752-carrier-su57-plane-ready/

    EMALS = 2* 885M. India since 10 years  tries to make RFQ for new fighter. If catapult will be the same then good luck with progress.
    What makes you think they would not buy it from US or Russia if available? Or makes you so certain they are not capable of designing it?

    Russia is developing EMALS? hmm last time I've heard this was about Shtorm surely will be built.  Any news about this ever since?
    I doubt it since Shtorm was not requested by MoD. See above references from 2018

    France is in discussion for EMALS?v affraid  affraid  affraid  It would be great since they didnt even discuss building second CVN. A link perhaps?  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect
    Don't be so afraid, here is your link (from Navy Recognition even). There are tons of them in the web about this.
    http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/2018/euronaval-2018/6564-france-started-emals-talks-with-u-s-for-its-future-pa-ng-aircraft-carrier.html

    a) China is using copycat Su-33 and has just dtrted developing VSTOL + built J-31 which looks, to my non expert eye, like copycat of F-35

    J-31 is not STOVL, hence with well designed weapons bays, and has two engines. Looks quite ok for carrier operations to me, but this is still to be confirmed. They indicated the STOVL as needed for their amphibious force. What is your point?

    b) India is using MiG_29k with pathetic record and wants to get rid of those.
    Yes, they want F-18 and Rafales but may try also buying some spares for the MiGs, that would be good idea to increase availability  thumbsup

    c) Russia herself stopped building MiG-29k and Su-33 and started working on VSTOL.
    So? Their MiGs were delivered in 2016, should they renew them each year?

    Well you have interesting interpretation of data.   No, VSTOL is not substitute, It is a logical evolution of legacy concepts  russia  russia  russia
    Yes, Yak-141 is the evolution of legacy planes like the F-35C, Su-57, F/A-XX, FCAS. You are convincing me 200%

    Apology I was wrong in wording: first fighter then start building CV. Of course you first evaluate and prepare to build. Unless you want to build empty CV. Strategy doesnt say anything about type or displacement of aircraft carrying ships AFAIR
    Only they have already naval fighters. And, as confirmed by chief designer of UAC, Su-57 could be adapted too.

    Great, I love to learn! then what Shtorm does mean in term of evolution regarding carriers?  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup
    You made the claim it was just some "necronomicon" (whatever that should mean) version of 80's soviet carriers, explain us why.

    Russian EMALS for export. So you'd invest ~$1B equivalent to build 1 max 2 emals?  and then sell "cheap to some potential customers"? And the customer will be?  Belarus? Armenia? or north Korea?

    Make up your mind, either it is such scarce and expensive technology to develop or is cheap to source. If it is the first case, then it wont be sold for peanuts right?
    Customer could be India for instance.

    Kuz can serve extra 15-20 years after renovation.  From which 5-7 only with  STOBAR fighters.

    What part of "MiG-29Ks were commissioned in 2015-16" you don't understand?
    BTW, they received 2 squadrons, not "4" planes:
    http://www.migavia.ru/index.php/ru/novosti/press-relizy/553-mig-29kub-9-let-v-nebe

    You missed the point. US Navy noticed growing role of small carriers and its application. And they are the only real operator of catobar CVNs.
    That is why thy can protect smaller LHDs and carriers effectively, unlike navies without proper carriers...
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    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 Nov 03, 2018 5:10 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Don't bury it yet, an enlarged MiG-29/35 with better performance could be designed, just like Lavi/J-10, F-16/F-2-18C/D/E/F, & MiG-25/-31.

    it's not about improving MiG-29k, after 25 years since first version it's very likely a very good fighter, same with MiG-35. There is no need to upgrade it. The problem is in timing. They can be good 10years of so. then what? Against FAXX, FCAS or Tempest has low chances of survival. All countries so far (except forced due to low tech level) are developing new platform for the future. Iran lso started to build new one.


    Tsavo L wrote:China is working on CAT & fixed wing AEW KJ-600

    True but Chinese GDP is 20% bigger then US one. Chine is preparing to build large fleet of CSGs. In such case money and needs investment in catapults and AWACS platform is justified.

    Talking about platform itself. This is copy of US approach from 1980s. Now in the US as I can see it discussion to what degree AWACS should be manned. And if not let it be just control center with all data transmitted remotely.

    If you close watch Russian military budget vs needs, navy receives not much of it. Russia is modernizing 5 1155 ASW frigates. After 20 years of non investment navy requires practically rebuilding. IMHO nobody will spend billions on many large CVNs in next 10-15 minimum. First you need frigates, destroyers, subs ,amphibious forces before going global.


    That's why I am a proponent of Soviet concept of TAKR (heavy aircraft carrying cruiser) . Ship ~40kt, with 18-24 (ideally 36) VSTOL airwing, pretty strong AAD, ASW defenses. Which can eventually also support amphibious operations (vide French CVN or British QE2 which both can transport marines).

    Such a ship could use advantage of VSTOL air cover, and would not need so many escort ships. Whats more could coordinate smaller ships as its "decentralize defense". Mind that 22160 based corvette has 6000nm range.

    22160 nn armed version can use BUKs/Poliment Redut (whe finally approved) , chopper, calibers and Paket.




    Tsavo Lion wrote: Russian STOVLs will be used if not on Adm.K, on UDK/LHDs; no need to wait for CVNs to be built.
    I can imagine a large barges anchored in the S. Black/Caspian Sea &/ in the Arctic 7 even on big lakes/rivers substituting for UDKs & CV/Ns as their platforms, helping defend their interests.

    Unlikely, on Black or Caspian seas there is no need to use VSTOL as land based aviation can reach everywhere.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1179
    Points : 1179
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Nov 03, 2018 6:46 pm

    True but Chinese GDP is 20% bigger then US one.
    Yes, China can afford both CATOBAR & STOVLs; if the latter was useless they wouldn't be developing them.
    Unlikely, on Black or Caspian seas there is no need to use VSTOL as land based aviation can reach everywhere.
    They can be in those seas for training & may be pressed to service to get local air superiority in a crisis.
    Even larger floating bases could be created for CTOLs & lily pad ops of bombers & transports- recall TU-22Ms, IL-76 & AN-124s long range runs to Syria & denial of their use of bases in Iran.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    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 Nov 04, 2018 3:19 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    True but Chinese GDP is 20% bigger then US one.
    Yes, China can afford both CATOBAR & STOVLs; if the latter was useless they wouldn't be developing them.


    I agree. Same with USA - two richest countries in the world yet they decided to build VSTOL fighters.

    Personally I have no doubts VSTOL are the future, perhaps not yet but with next generations surely. Now even Sapce X rockets are landing vertically. That was not technically feasible till very recently.






    Unlikely, on Black or Caspian seas there is no need to use VSTOL as land based aviation can reach everywhere.
    They can be in those seas for training & may be pressed to service to get local air superiority in a crisis.
    Even larger floating bases could be created for CTOLs & lily pad ops of bombers & transports- recall TU-22Ms, IL-76 & AN-124s long range runs to Syria & denial of their use of bases in Iran.[/quote]


    as cerebral fitness case it si good to see potential possibilities. From practical point of view though virtually zero chance to invest serious money "just in case"

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Nov 19, 2018 7:14 am