Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Share
    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 08, 2018 1:54 am

    LMFS wrote:@Gunship:

    don't have the time or frankly any reason to answer all of the absurdities above. I am here to learn and share knowledge and facts, not cheap rhetoric, as I told you before. It is boring and I learn nothing useful from it.

    Then dont, It's not obligatory. From my side I must admit you presented really cool  3D art, albeit nothing really scientific nor engineering worthy. But positive is that you are willing to learn.  You are good 3d artist, perhaps it is worthy to compete high school physics course too?  Physics is really worth learning, trust  me  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup


    As a summary: please stop to the rest of us
    we LMFS ? how many  all of LMSFes are there affraid affraid affraid


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:20 am; edited 2 times in total
    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 08, 2018 2:15 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    In case of major opponents much better idea is to attack carriers with GZURs or Zircona.
    Future Adm. K & TAKRs may be armed with them later, unless they start building pure CVNs with only defensive armaments.


    I guess this would be depending on which doctrine wins. I just am afraid that full grown CSGs are not really good solution for Russia in foreseeable future. Look ad UK and France. Their forces are modest with this regards. 40-70ktons. 36 fighters max.

    In air superiority against 2 Ford carriers you cannot even dream of. With 14 US+allies' CSGs Russia can withstand how many? 1?2?3? depending on size. It cannot ensure neither local not global superiority on high seas.

    Thus I think their usage (in next 10-20 years) Russians should focus on hypersonic missiles, will they be airborne or seaborne this is another question. To ensure AEW + fighters to naval strikes 60-70 airwing is not really needed. GZURs should be light so VSTOL not VSTOL thy can carry 1-2 , so squadron can deliver salvo 12 GZURs with range 1,500kms.


    AEW drone/Chopper/Tiltrotor can ensure 250-450 km radar range for fleet grouping. Choppers can ensure strong ASW protection. Perhaps this is better option?
    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 Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:33 am

    Besides SSNs &/ SSKs, 1-2 SSGNs armed with GZURs or Zircons can be included in a CBG too. They'll be protecting each other!


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:18 am; edited 1 time in total
    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 08, 2018 3:19 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Besides SSNs &/SSKs, 1-2 SSGNs armed with GZURs or Zircons can be included in a CBG too. They'll protect each other!

    True that the large CSGs is is more potent although also more expensive . Both to field and to maintain.
    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 Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:22 am

    With today's Western ASW capabilities, those SSGNs will need surface escorts anyway, so they might as well use them in CBGs.
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:03 pm

    It was supposed to have AN-70 engines with max. power output of 14K horsepower (10,440 kW); with those it could be possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-70#Design
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_D-27

    D-27 is made by Motor Sich in the Ukraine... I doubt they could make one now and they certainly would not sell any to Russia.

    So, it was stressed & powerful enough for STOBAR. They were working on CAT just in case heavier fighters & other planes were going to be used later on Ulyanovsk class CVNs.

    Yeah... Nah... at 40 tons it would be the heaviest aircraft operating from a carrier... that is even heavier than an Su-34 which has engines rather more powerful than the D-27s... and would have zero chance of getting airborne from a carrier.

    They could have just 2 at the middle/rear, ducts in the front to balance it & smaller valve-controlled nozzles in the nose, tail, and wingtips to provide control at low airspeeds, just like on Harriers:

    How big would those nozzles need to be to allow for the flow of air needed to keep such a large aircraft in the air... and you would still need puffer jets in the tail, wing tips and nose...


    1) 1988 first flight of MG-29k

    The Su-33 first flight was the year before in 1987.


    2) 90s program frozen indefinitely, no more MoD funding

    All funding for navy was frozen.


    3) Su-33 as preferred fighter was built for Kuz

    Su-33 was cheaper because it was a dumb Su-27 with AAMs but only dumb bomb and unguided rocket capacity, whereas the MiG-29K was fully multirole capable of using precision air to air and air to ground weapons... at the time the Russian Navy just wanted an interceptor fighter so they went with the plane that could carry more missiles further.


    4) Indians in early 20 ordered 2 batches of MiG-29k

    They also rejected the Mi-28 and Ka-52 for the Apache... go figure...

    5) Su-33 was a solid redesign of MiG-33 and lines were closed and service life was till 2015 only

    What? The Su-33 got a minor upgrade and is still just an air to air capable fighter, while the new further upgraded MiG-29KR is fully multirole with a further improvement in capabilities and performance.

    6) Using running manufacturing lines RuN ordered 24 only MiG-29k. Delivery till 2015

    With only one operational carrier why order more?

    7) Short after MiG-29k were in use in RuN service life of Su-33 was extended till 2025

    The Su-33s don't have that many hours on the clock...

    8 ) One of Kuzbased MiGs was lost

    One Kuz based Su-33 was also lost...

    9) MoD in 2017 (last MiGs delivered in 2015) said that in 10 years MiGs will be obsolete. Started talking about new fighter.

    Who said they were the last? They were never supposed to have MiGs in the first place because the Su-33 was supposed to be the aircraft of choice, yet here we are with MiGs as well.

    10) in 2018 officially MoD stated that VSTOL program started in 2017

    Just like the VSTOL programme that resulted in the Yak-36 that led to no practical aircraft... but that led to a new VSTOL programme that led to the Yak-38 which was a rather ordinary low performance aircraft, that led to the Yak-38M which in many ways was not much better... no radar, no decent armament, shorter range because of the more powerful engines, but no increase in speed and poor manouver performance... which led to a new VSTOL programme for the Yak-41 which ended up being cancelled because it was resulting in an aircraft with shorter range, lower flight speed, less payload, worse manouver performance than a MiG-33 that was pretty much already ready for service but refused because it was too expensive... yet still cheaper than the Yak-41 if you counted survival rate...


    11) MiG wont be dead as they work on MiG-41 and fast drones

    As well as MiG-35s for export to Egypt and India and domestic use... I suspect when the US imposes sanctions on Indonesia for buying Russian weapons they might drop their F-16s and buy MiG-35s instead...

    After 30 years failure story with MiG-29k and MiG-35 indeed military should be prudent in wasting money.

    It would only be a waste of money if you had nothing to show for it at the end... when they have made 250 MiG-35s they will have value for their money invested...

    The difference is that US can potentially install it on 11 CVNs. + sell 12 th +13th to France.


    All they have to do is get it to work properly and they will be smiling...

    EMALS of course can be beneficial when you build in many instances.

    EMAL technology could be used to greatly extend the firing range of various artillery systems, not to mention rail transport and experience and work with electrical systems...

    Remember army and navy status in 2008? Since 2013 USA aggression against Russia in Ukraine geopolitical situation made Russia to speed up all things that were in "background".

    Yeah... the fact that there is serious hostility coming from the US wont stop because Russia is pissing away money on VSTOL aircraft...

    (2) VSTOL decision was made later in 2018. 10 years later.

    What makes you think the decision is related to anything except one department wanting to gain funding... it is like WIG aircraft... a dead end... for VSTOL aircraft they never achieve what they claim to offer... just like WIG aircraft have to fly at low altitude which makes jet engines inefficient and the aircraft slow.

    (3) Helicopters or any virtual lift system yes. Especially with airborne Hermes they can have ~200km range.

    Ship launched cruise missiles could have a 4,000km range...

    (4) Kuz is one and cannot be in 4 places in same time. Not to mention Arctic. Kuz needs new fighters too. And max 15 years more.

    The Russian navy is not big enough to support 4 independent operations at one time either, and the Arctic will be full of unsinkable land air bases.

    A naval version of Su-57 will be vastly more capable than any alternative VSTOL model and if that is too expensive then the equivalent Su-35 model with the new PAK FA engines is about as good as it will get in the 2030s.

    I dunno whether they would decide to use many smaller ships or less bigger. Less bigger has little value for Russia since one in Arctic, second in pacific and third? oh no no third can afford.

    They are not going to be able to afford four carrier groups... the carrier support vessels cost more than the carrier so if you save with smaller carriers you end up spending more with multiple extra carrier support vessels not to mention the land based support infrastructure each carrier group needs.

    the Pacific fleet will have a carrier group and the northern fleet will likely get one and the K might eventually be based in Syria for the black sea fleet and operations in the med...

    yo yo bro,wake up. Harpoons, Yak-41 you are still in 80s. Russian CV earliest will be 2030. Then USN can use at least of JASSM-XR mutation (1,600km range) or hypersonic SM-3 mutation ? (2,500km range) . Not to mention 10x more fighters.

    The Russians have Onyx in service right now and the USN has Harpoon... by 2030 SATAN II will make all US carriers obsolete for the purposes of WWIII so there is no point in your childish dick measuring contests... Russian carriers can be for promoting Russian interests and ensuring Russian access to their global trade opportunities...


    Because Kuz wasnt' built as CV but TAKR. The fun is that Kuz has no offensive missiles anymore . But this didnt not yield find increase of r hangar size.

    DUH... a TAKR with its missiles removed becomes a CV...

    So where exactly is used US EMALS tech outside Ford Class? nowhere.

    Maybe when they get it right they might use it elsewhere, but again who cares what the USN does... I don't give a shit and am seriously suspicious of your fan love of the USN and everything they do...

    Perhaps even 4th series wont have EMALS... See its useless.

    Of course... they will make wishes for their F-18s and F-35s to get airborne...

    Russia with current budget restrictions is very unlikely to build large CVN. And if in 15 years of so will be operational second might never come.

    So why waste money on VSTOL, they have zero use except from a decent sized carrier... look at how tight the British are and their replacement for the Hermes VSTOL carrier is a much bigger carrier... and they can't afford it either.... except they seem to.


    Investing billions $ equivalent into ONE installation and 2-4 units undead Yak-44 (that was cool mockup BTW- plastic is fantastic) in such situation is a criminal negligibility in spending state funds.

    They aren't making helicopter carriers so that means the VSTOL fighter will operate from perhaps one CVN... talk about a crime against nature... they would be better off just making corvettes and being Americas bitch.

    No worries, all that electrical tech is gonna be developed without wasting money on EMALS.

    Hahahaha... you think they might develop the same technology for free by accident... are you taking the wee wee...

    can you imagine GB and LMFS reaction when Su-57 would be basis for VSTOL fighter?

    Probably as shocked as if you actually started making sense on this thread or any other thread related to the Russian navy, but it is all just a big joke to you and you are just here for giggles.


    This is not technical but questions of doctrine or philosophy. Do you consider airwing your first striking force or auxiliary one. I dont believe that in Russian case large airwing is good idea. In every scenario you are outnumbered in the air by opponent forces.

    Granit is 7 tons and enormous... much smaller newer missiles could greatly increase the flight range at much higher speeds... and few opposition air wings can operate that far from their carriers without inflight refuelling support... support that would be sitting ducks to a long range shot with an R-37M that is reportedly compatible with all 4+ and 5th generation Russian fighters.

    These foreign carriers all seem so well protected, yet Russian carriers are so vulnerable... yet the evidence is currently the opposite.

    And the best attack component of a US carrier group is its air power and the best way to fight air power is with a mix of ground/surface defences and air power.

    But lets not let facts get in the way of a good rant.

    In case of major opponents much better idea is to attack carriers with GZURs or Zircona.


    But what launches those missiles?

    And when away from Russian air bases what protects those launch platforms?


    Ranger, is a new type of aircraft never conceived of before. It originates from a single question, from a hedge fund. Is it possible to build a hypersonic aircraft that is also able to take off and landing vertically. This question was pondered, concepted, and the answer was simple. Yes, yes it is.

    Yeah... ignore aviation experts.... ask a hedge fund manager, why not get your dentist to write up the proposal and spend a billion on it right now...


    Physics is really worth learning, trust me

    Did your hedge fund manager tell you that or your crack supplier?

    I guess this would be depending on which doctrine wins. I just am afraid that full grown CSGs are not really good solution for Russia in foreseeable future. Look ad UK and France. Their forces are modest with this regards. 40-70ktons. 36 fighters max.

    Of course the best way forward for Russia is to copy the UK and France...

    In air superiority against 2 Ford carriers you cannot even dream of. With 14 US+allies' CSGs Russia can withstand how many? 1?2?3? depending on size. It cannot ensure neither local not global superiority on high seas.

    Describe what threat they represent to Russia... all 11 of their carrier groups could not together stop one Kinzhal missile let alone more, so what sort of performance can we expect from them in real combat?

    Which approaches to Russian territory could they try that would allow them to attack Russia from a position of safety... they certainly could not enter the Black Sea and any attack in the baltic would fail, and the northern fleet would be pretty safe too... Pacific fleet? The S-400s will keep them away from land and the Kinzhals will push them further back... they would be pretty useless against Russia.

    But they don't have them for Russia... they never did, it was all about other countries...

    To ensure AEW + fighters to naval strikes 60-70 airwing is not really needed. GZURs should be light so VSTOL not VSTOL thy can carry 1-2 , so squadron can deliver salvo 12 GZURs with range 1,500kms.

    So the MiG-29KR and Su-33 are obsolete but this new as yet not invented VSTOL fighter is already carrying 1.6 ton plus missiles...

    With today's Western ASW capabilities, those SSGNs will need surface escorts anyway, so they might as well use them in CBGs.

    Well why not just do away with everything... a large airship with nuclear power and enormous 300m long radar arrays of various frequency ranges that could detect anything at 1,000s of kms range, could operate with standard cargo ships equipped as arsenal ships with thousands of ready to fire missiles of every type including anti ship, anti sub, land attack and surface to air and surface to space missiles.

    You could operate helos and drones from them... you don't need fighters apparently because no fighter you could carry could take on the entire might of the US and EU and China and India and Israel combined, so just don't bother... fit BULAVA and Sarmat missiles too, and of course attach lots of sonar to the ships, which together with the radars on the airship will give you full situational awareness of any threats out to extended ranges...

    Fuck it... why even bother with that... just withdraw from new START and make thousands of ICBMs and Nuke the US and every other country on the planet about 50 times and problem is solved.
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:15 pm

    As a summary: please stop this non-stop imposition of your opinions to the rest of us above facts, physics and the rules of a honest discussion. We have better things to do than dealing with this crap.

    But we are totally wrong and he is always right...

    Reminds me of that joke about the man who searched and he searched for Miss Right, and he found her... but it wasn't until he married her that he found out her first name was Always... Razz
    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 10, 2018 6:52 pm

    D-27 is made by Motor Sich in the Ukraine... I doubt they could make one now and they certainly would not sell any to Russia.
    They could probably use more powerful An-22/Tu-95 engines but with smaller diameter props:
    Maximum power output: 11,033 kW (14,795 ehp)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-12#Specifications

    Maximum power output: 14,000 horsepower (10,440 kW)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_D-27#Specifications_(D-27)
    Yeah... Nah... at 40 tons it would be the heaviest aircraft operating from a carrier...
    A C-130 didn't use CAT in trials on the CV-59: At 85,000 pounds (39,000 kg), the KC-130F came to a complete stop within 267 feet (81 m), and at the maximum load [~19T, MTOW 68T], the plane used only 745 feet (227 m) for take-off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal_(CV-59)#1963%E2%80%931967
    Powerplant: 4 × Allison T56-A-15 turboprops, 4,590 shp (3,430 kW) each  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules#Specifications_(C-130H)

    From these data, carrier ops w/o the CAT with just two 3,21x more powerful engines & 1.7x less MTOW is not impossible!
    They also rejected the Mi-28 and Ka-52 for the Apache... go figure...
    The MD could bribe the Indian officials to get those orders; it doesn't mean the Mi-28 and Ka-52 r less capable/suitable.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Indian_helicopter_bribery_scandal

    Airships can be disabled/destroyed by hyper-sonic missiles or subs/missile boats with cannons/MANPADs.
    avatar
    LMFS

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

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Sat Nov 10, 2018 7:26 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    As a summary: please stop this non-stop imposition of your opinions to the rest of us above facts, physics and the rules of a honest discussion. We have better things to do than dealing with this crap.

    But we are totally wrong and he is always right...

    Reminds me of that joke about the man who searched and he searched for Miss Right, and he found her... but it wasn't until he married her that he found out her first name was Always...  Razz
    Exactly, and when things get this way you are not respected as a discussion counterpart for helping getting closer to the truth, whatever it is, but basically used by the other person to satisfy its ego. Have dealt enough with this kind of selfishness in my professional life to do it in my free time too.

    Regarding the issue at hand and to respect the thread:

    > CVs are definitely in the works, sooner or later, as said over and over by officials and stated in the naval strategy documents. It is pointless disputing tirelessly this issue, specially when all other powers, big and small, have similar plans.

    > Russia is the biggest country on Earth, a relevant economy, one of the most important civilizational poles, the biggest reserve of resources left and one of the two military superpowers. This notion that they should just dig a hole in the ground and disappear is just absurd, and perhaps results from Western projection, so aptly summarized by Gavin Williamson when he said that Russia should "go away and shut up". Russia (and so many others that do not bow to the West imposition) are not going anywhere and are not shutting up, sorry for existing. And of course Russia will not limit itself to self defence but will also project power as any other country does. And they need a navy for that.

    > A naval industry is a strategic asset. And in the Russian case (contrary to other branches of the MIC that managed to keep some activity during those years), it was completely destroyed during the collapse of the Soviet Union, so the recovery will take decades. There are simply no shortcuts for this painful process. Due to its size and capabilities, Russia does not need Chinese ships, Russia needs a domestic, fully developed industry with which they can guarantee the defence of their sovereignty and interests abroad and besides making money by exporting equipment. Anything less than that is not viable for a country with the history of Russia.

    > STOVL could make sense for LHDs, I think most of us could agree on that... many of us just doubt they make economical sense. But since I don't have all the info I wont say it cannot happen, maybe Russia sees many nations developing small assault ships and therefore a reasonable market for STOVL fighter. Russia may come up with a very good design that minimises the downsides of STOVL, or could accept that even not being as good as other options, STOVL can be acceptable for deterrence, but I think this is not a closed issue at all. What I feel confident to say is that if Russia had 3-4 carriers and naval Su-57s with proper armament (long range ALBM or ALCM, modern AAM) and supported by airspace control and refuelling assets, then not even the current number of US CVNs could expect to easily bully RuN in a contested remote area. That is, the Su-57 with a full fledged carrier allows significant economies of forces because it is reasonable to expect highly asymmetric exchange rates when confronted by the rest of potential naval fighters. This, together with the news we are receiving from Sukhoi regarding the landing distance, make it IMO a more potent and readily available option than a STOVL fighter for the defence of the fleet.
    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 10, 2018 9:19 pm

    Due to its size and capabilities, Russia does not need Chinese ships, ..
    If they r short of FFGs & DDGs, some could be ordered in China, esp. for the Pac. Fleet, until they rebuild their industry. China's entire coastline length of ~14,500 km (around 9,010 mi) is comparable with Russia's E. Coast (~11,902 km, or 2,598 km less, calculated from the info. below, can't find her insignificant Azov coastline length) which is also the most remote from the rest of her coast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_of_China  
    https://www.indexmundi.com/russia/coastline.html
    https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/countries/russia/
    http://www.azerbaijan.az/_Geography/_Caspian/_caspian_e.html?caspian_02   https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Results-for-the-Black-Sea-coastline-length_tbl1_263533472
    https://www.ccb.se/documents/Nationalreport_RUSSIA.pdf
    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 11, 2018 4:32 am

    Facts first. After  facts section we can submerge into speculations, shall we? if you have doubts about facts I have brought please provide your links and Im happy to talk about them.


    1) Gen Yuri Borisov, Deputy PM for MIC. 3rd in command chain in Russia after Putin and Shoigu. He said in August 2018 about VSTOL programe:

    a) "This work is really included in the state armament program, it is being carried out on behalf of the supreme commander-in-chief. We are currently working on the development of conceptual models and prototypes," he said.

    b)  Borisov stressed that this is about creating a new aircraft, and not about developing on the basis of some existing machine.

    c) “Certainly, this is the future for all aircraft carrying ships, a new fleet of aircraft there will be needed - and for this purpose that various technologies are needed to ensure a shortened take-off or just vertical take-off,” said Borisov.

    d) According to him, "conceptually such work has already been carried out in the Ministry of Defense since last year." “The terms are determined by the technological cycle of creation, as a rule, it is 7-10 years, if we go into the series,” said the Deputy Prime Minister.

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5475420

    e) (in 2017) Borisov suggested that the MiG-29 and Su-33 models in ten years may become obsolete morally. Therefore, according to him, it is logical that in the future it will be necessary to create a new aircraft.
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201711232106-gpni.htm



    2) First flight of  MiG-29.........=.1977 and MiG-29k.......=.1988
    Current MiG-29k and MiG-35 are deep modernization of MiG-29


    3) Besides MiG-35 (6 units) there were no official announcements of MoD to augment any of MiG-29 derivatives so far, none of new contracts signed too. .


    4) reliability according to Indian auditors. After wiki
    In a 2016 report, India's national auditor CAG criticized the aircraft due to defects in engines, airframes and fly-by-wire systems. The serviceability of Mig-29K was reported ranging from 15.93% to 37.63% and that of MiG-29KUB ranging from 21.30% to 47.14%; with 40 engines (62%) being rejected/withdrawn from service due to design defects. These defects are likely to reduce the service life of the aircraft from the stated 6000 hours.[48][49][50]


    One remark to GarryB - when we are talking about either Russian VSTOL or CVN we talk about 2030s timescale.



    GarryB wrote:
    This is not technical but questions of doctrine or philosophy. Do you consider airwing your first striking force or auxiliary one.  I dont believe that in Russian case large airwing is good idea. In every scenario you are outnumbered in the air by opponent forces.

    Granit is 7 tons and enormous... much smaller newer missiles could greatly increase the flight range at much higher speeds... and few opposition air wings can operate that far from their carriers without inflight refuelling support... support that would be sitting ducks to a long range shot with an R-37M that is reportedly compatible with all 4+ and 5th generation Russian fighters.

    These foreign carriers all seem so well protected, yet Russian carriers are so vulnerable... yet the evidence is currently the opposite.
    And the best attack component of a US carrier group is its air power and the best way to fight air power is with a mix of ground/surface defences and air power



    This proves you have problems with math on elementary school level.  Who is gonna be a sitting duck? US carriers are so powerful because they can mobilize numerical superiority against comparable adversary and both tech and numerical over weaker one.

    Russians dont have here meaningful qualitative superiority in fighters but clear numerical disadvantage. So building carrier with 70k tons gives you not what 36 -40 fighters of Su-57 size.  
    R-37 is designed against AWACS aircrafts not maneuverable fighters.

    What i your combat radius 1200km? +300km with missile ? lets  make it 1,400km (of course subsonic) +300km with missile? We dont know its guaranteed radiu of target destruction either. AS I can see form other AAD missiles is roughy 2/3.


    Every US carrier can take 90 fighters/drones. 2 is 180, 3 is 270.  Lets take smaller ones with 75 fighters.  in 2030s FA-XX will be the air, The one with DEW against missile defense . So far 260 F-35C was ordered. If you have 75 fighters on every carrier?  then you got 24 F-35, rest  FA-XX and drones.

    Neither  stealth drones nor fighters wont be seen by you in 1600km (range of Us standoff weapons). FA-XX can operate in access denial environment.  You raise all 36 in the air? how long can you keep them there? not all?  and if they attack from different directions then genius  you give one fighter here and one here?

    Yo you genius tell me what you do?  




    GB wrote:
    (2) VSTOL decision was made later in 2018.  10 years later.

    What makes you think the decision is related to anything except one department wanting to gain funding... it is like WIG aircraft... a dead end... for VSTOL aircraft they never achieve what they claim to offer... just like WIG aircraft have to fly at low altitude which makes jet engines inefficient and the aircraft slow.

    because Russian MoD is not populated by idiots,
    Putin has never never driven by emotions.
    And aerospace engineers know their job.

    You might disagree with reality. Even live in parallel one but this wont affect the real world outcomes
    thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup  




    GB wrote:
    6) Using running manufacturing lines  RuN ordered 24 only MiG-29k. Delivery till 2015
    With only one operational carrier why order more?

    True, 22 is enough when you have ~30+ Su-33 which life cycle was extended till 2025 so just about  retiring both Su and MiG form carriers.




    GB wrote:
    7) Short after MiG-29k were in use in RuN service life of Su-33 was extended till 2025
    The Su-33s don't have that many hours on the clock...

    Ru Navy says otherwise. The rest is in previous answer.






    GB wrote:
    10) in 2018 officially MoD stated that VSTOL program started in 2017
    Just like the VSTOL programme that resulted in the Yak-36 that led to no practical aircraft..... which led to a new VSTOL programme for the Yak-41 which ended up being cancelled because it was resulting in an aircraft with shorter range, lower flight speed, less payload, worse manouver performance than a MiG-33 that was pretty much already ready for service but refused because it was too expensive... yet still cheaper than the Yak-41 if you counted survival rate...

    Yak-141 had reduced funding after cancelling of Ulyanovsk when SU was falling. There is no source info  it wa closed  closed  because of poor performance, and closed only in 2003. Long after MiG-29k was frozen indefinitely. And resurrected only because of  Indians.



    GB wrote:
    After 30 years failure story with MiG-29k and MiG-35 indeed military should be prudent in wasting money.  
    It would only be a waste of money if you had nothing to show for it at the end... when they have made 250 MiG-35s they will have value for their money invested...

    virtually no MoD money though.  Much worse it to keep wasting on unpromising fighters.




    GB wrote:
    EMALS of course can be beneficial  when you build in many instances.
    EMAL technology could be used to greatly extend the firing range of various artillery systems, not to mention rail transport and experience and work with electrical systems...

    Do you mean railgun or ETC guns? both projects are funded although, not generously, for long time in Russia and have little connection with EMALS.  OK plasma and electric current  lol1  lol1  lol1

    Russians are already working on electric aircrafts. Superconductors for particle accelerators (and perspectively for aerospace) . Russian are also very advanced in plasma tech. No EMALS needed here







    GB wrote:
    (3) Helicopters or any virtual lift system yes. Especially with airborne Hermes they can have ~200km range.
    Ship launched cruise missiles could have a 4,000km range...

    wow and you need $1mln to hit couple of goat fuckers on shore? so no need for AGTMs only calibrs on every chopper?!  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect



    GB wrote:
    I dunno whether they would decide to use many smaller ships or less bigger. Less bigger has little value for Russia  since one in Arctic, second in pacific and third? oh no no third can afford.

    They are not going to be able to afford four carrier groups... the carrier support vessels cost more than the carrier so if you save with smaller carriers you end up spending more with multiple extra carrier support vessels not to mention the land based support infrastructure each carrier group needs.

    We both dont know, we ate just speculating. , we both are speculating. TAKR unlike CVN needs much smaller group. Besides Arctic RuN needs CVNs basically to fight Syria conflicts.






    GB wrote:
    Russia with current budget restrictions is very unlikely to build large CVN. And if in 15 years of so will be operational second might never come.

    So why waste money on VSTOL, they have zero use except from a decent sized carrier... look at how tight the British are and their replacement for the Hermes VSTOL carrier is a much bigger carrier... and they can't afford it either.... except they seem to.

    let's face it you are neither military, admiral   nor aerospace engineer. You were designing any fighter.
    But but Russians that made decision are. Questioning their decisions it really childish and stupid. ok you are here for giggles? ok hihihi





    GB wrote:
    In air superiority against 2 Ford carriers you cannot even dream of. With 14 US+allies' CSGs Russia can withstand how many? 1?2?3? depending on size. It cannot ensure neither local not global superiority on high seas.

    Describe what threat they represent to Russia... all 11 of their carrier groups could not together stop one Kinzhal missile let alone more, so what sort of performance can we expect from them in real combat?

    Stop with 1 kinzhal? are you serious genious?  affraid  affraid  affraid  first of all not every kiznah gets to the target. On its own. Why do you think 4 are carried by Tu-22?
    Second Kiznahl  can be effective for perhaps 10 or so years. Sooner or later they will find counter measure.



    GB wrote:Which approaches to Russian territory could they try that would allow them to attack Russia from a position of safety... they certainly could not enter the Black Sea and any attack in the baltic would fail, and the northern fleet would be pretty safe too... Pacific fleet? The S-400s will keep them away from land and the Kinzhals will push them further back... they would be pretty useless against Russia.

    US is planning stealth drones, stealth long range fighters that can survive in c Access Denial environment, armed also with DEW. They all can use  stealth standoff weapons of 1,600km class range. So tell me how would you use S-400 to stop them?


    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 11, 2018 5:00 am

    GarryB wrote:
    As a summary: please stop this non-stop imposition of your opinions to the rest of us above facts, physics and the rules of a honest discussion. We have better things to do than dealing with this crap.

    But we are totally wrong and he is always right...

    @GB you  deny reality knowing better then all Russian military their job? and it's my fault because I am wrong quoting them. Wow congrats



    @LMFS From you post I can see that you are frustrated at work what might actually explain your emotional outbursts. But trying to make personal rants instead on any factual discussion is sad.


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Sun Nov 11, 2018 5:20 am; edited 2 times in total
    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 11, 2018 5:01 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Due to its size and capabilities, Russia does not need Chinese ships, ..
    If they r short of FFGs & DDGs, some could be ordered in China, esp. for the Pac. Fleet, until they rebuild their industry. China's entire coastline length of ~14,500 km (around 9,010 mi) is comparable with Russia's E. Coast (~11,902 km, or 2,598 km less, calculated from the info. below, can't find her insignificant Azov coastline length) which is also the most remote from the rest of her coast

    I dont understand why Russia should buy anything like FFG/DDGs in China?! neither economically nor politically justified
    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 Sun Nov 11, 2018 5:27 am

    In 1984, under the Russian Air Force development program, the MiG-29K was conceived as a multi-role fighter and was supposed to be developed almost simultaneously with the Su-27K (Su-33). In 1989 - 1991 the MiG-29K underwent tests aboard the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft-carrying cruiser simultaneously with the MiG-29M (a ground-based гtwinх of the MiG-29K). In December 1991, following these successful tests, Russia's Defense Ministry authorized the commencement of its series production and service with Russia's naval aviation, including its operation on board the Admiral Kuznetsov cruiser. https://web.archive.org/web/20091002212230/http://milparade.udm.ru/34/014.htm

    The problem of lack of aircraft-carrier based AWACS platform may be tackled by further development of dual-seat MiG-29KUB. It is theoretically possible to outfit the MiG-29KUB with powerful radar, and encrypted data links, to permit networking of multiple MiG-29KUB aircraft for AEW coverage. The MiG-29KUB may also be enhanced in areas such as electronic warfare and long-range interdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29K

    I dont understand why Russia should buy anything like FFG/DDGs in China?! neither economically nor politically justified
    On the contrary, it may be justified to quickly plug some gaps in their fleet. As I & some1 else said, their hulls may be outfitted with Russian systems from A to Z. Russia may also build a few nuclear icebreakers for the Chinese- they r going to build them anyway & bypass the NSR entirely, so why not make some $?
    avatar
    LMFS

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

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:48 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:@LMFS From you post I can see that you are frustrated at work what might actually explain your emotional outbursts. But trying to make personal rants instead on any factual discussion is sad.
    You are right, florist is such a hard profession.
    Could you do me a favour and stop making personal comments about me? You know shit about my life. Thanks
    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 11, 2018 1:53 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:@LMFS From you post I can see that you are frustrated at work what might actually explain your emotional outbursts. But trying to make personal rants instead on any factual discussion is sad.
    You are right, florist is such a hard profession.
    Could you do me a favour and stop making personal comments about me? You know shit about my life. Thanks

    you started personal rants, I thought you liked it.
    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 11, 2018 1:58 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    I dont understand why Russia should buy anything like FFG/DDGs in China?! neither economically nor politically justified
    On the contrary, it may be justified to quickly plug some gaps in their fleet. As I & some1 else said, their hulls may be outfitted with Russian systems from A to Z. Russia may also build a few nuclear icebreakers for the Chinese- they r going to build them anyway & bypass the NSR entirely, so why not make some $?


    and all taxes, payrolls would go to China receiving in return? nothing Russians cannot build on their own. Why would they need to plug any gaps with such hurry?

    hoom

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

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  hoom on Mon Nov 12, 2018 1:22 am

    a new fleet of aircraft there will be needed - and for this purpose that various technologies are needed to ensure a shortened take-off or just vertical take-off,” said Borisov
    Then it may be STOL without the V afterall!
    I wasn't imagining that sunny
    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 Mon Nov 12, 2018 2:14 am

    Why would they need to plug any gaps with such hurry?
    Because they don't have enough FFGs & DDGs now & must deploy smaller boats & sometimes ships from the Baltic, Caspian & Pac. Fleet to the Med. Sea to maintain a permanent squadron there.
    Will they have needed # of deployable ships after UDKs & CVNs r ready? I doubt it!
    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 Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:21 am

    hoom wrote:
    a new fleet of aircraft there will be needed - and for this purpose that various technologies are needed to ensure a shortened take-off or just vertical take-off,” said Borisov
    Then it may be STOL without the V afterall!
    I wasn't imagining that sunny

    That's true. FPI ("Russian DARPA" ) is working on STOL transport. 50 m take off + reaching height 15m. Same with landing AFAIK hybrid with usage of electrical motors too. Look at below vid it is something like this.





    Talking about V, vertical is there since 2017. BTW China is also developing VSTOL. So my educated guess is rather high probability it gonna be there. Boriosv also couple of times AFAIR mentioned technologies needed to build this fighter. Me thinks technologies nd breakthrough is same important as creation of fighter itself.

    Totally crazy would be using electrical powered fans to give vertical vector of lift. But very innovative too. Jet engine generates electric current. current is distributed to fans powered electric engines. Since you have
    Electric motor can reach 10kW per kg what is on level of high bypass GE turbofan engine General Electric GE90.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-weight_ratio

    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 Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:29 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Because they don't have enough FFGs & DDGs now & must deploy smaller boats & sometimes ships from the Baltic, Caspian & Pac. Fleet to the Med. Sea to maintain a permanent squadron there.
    Will they have needed # of deployable ships after UDKs & CVNs r ready? I doubt it!

    All true but you forget timeline. Russia needs both ffg/ddgs but desnt need them now. In 5-7 years shipyards will build up (they are being built for some time already) and till 2030 can build many ships of this kind. Still ~10 FFGs will be built till 2030 (8 Gorskhov is in order . For Baltic/Black Seas you need no FFG/DDG size ship. Why do you think BSF have FFGs if not Mediterranean?
    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 Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:17 pm

    Still ~10 FFGs will be built till 2030 (8 Gorskhov is in order . ..
    So far, it's been taking too long to build them; there's no telling if the speed of construction will increase. The Pac. Fleet with its long 12K+ km coastline & Kurils to defend certainly needs more FFGs & DDGs; its ships also deploy to the Indian Ocean & sometimes to the Med. Sea. The JMSDF has many of them:
    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 Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:26 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Still ~10 FFGs will be built till 2030 (8 Gorskhov is in order . ..
    So far, it's been taking too long to build them; there's no telling if the speed of construction will increase. The Pac. Fleet with its long 12K+ km coastline & Kurils to defend certainly needs more FFGs & DDGs; its ships also deploy to the Indian Ocean & sometimes to the Med. Sea. The JMSDF has many of them:


    1) Well, Russia is defending its borders pretty well. Kiznhal, Tu-22M3Ms make long arm in any direction + 22800 ship can defend against any surface ships. Fact ASW ships could be more but that's why 20386 will be mostly ASW + 5 1155 will be refurbished and continue ASW duties. A new ASW air platform joins soon - Be-42 in modernized version.


    3) Pacific coastline? You mean Kamchatka from both sides and below Chukotka? you dont need any FFGs there ;-) Kuriles? Why Japan would want to commit nationwide seppuku? 4 large metropolitan areas with 90% infrastructure/factories/population in range of Kalibrs from Vladivostok?


    In short there is no expediency in building any FFGs / DDGs. Buying them in China should be court-martial case for anybody in Rusaian MoD.

    As for recent shipbuilding troubles, since 2008 West tried to attack Russia. Since 2013 in Ukraine US declared war on Russia. If you check all geopolitical events with what happened to shipbuilding perhaps you can see there is nto that bad after all.
    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 Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:58 am

    ..with the money that the fleet wants to spend on ten ships of Project 20386, you can build twenty ships of Project 20380.
    And this will replace all the rapidly becoming obsolete small anti-submarine ships of Project 1124, which are even more in the Navy 20 units. Today, these ships are vital to cover the combat duty areas of ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs),..
    The second drawback of the project 20386 is its armament. Excluding modules with replaceable weapons , the project ship 20386 is armed almost as much as the twice cheaper corvette of the project 20380. The differences are as follows: it has 4 more anti-aircraft missile launchers and there is no towed sonar station available on projects 20380 and 20385, which can be installed as a removable module. Is it worth doing for this new ship? Of course, it is possible to install on this ship a module with cruise missiles "Caliber", but when it is installed, the possibility of basing a helicopter on the ship disappears!
    ..With a helicopter on board, the ship of the project 20386 is almost identical in design to the corvette of the project 20380 at twice the price. ..Even worse, the armament of the new ship looks in comparison with the project 20385 corvettes. This ship has identical to the project 20386 anti-aircraft armament, a high-tech integrated radar mast, the universal ship-firing complex 3S14 for eight Caliber and Onyx cruise missiles or anti-submarine-launched torpedoes . With all this heavy weapons, the ship carries a helicopter. And the commander of the formation, or the commander of the organization to which the ship is subordinate, does not have to choose between its anti-submarine and strike capabilities. At the same time, the corvette 20385 is also cheaper than the project 20386, by at least one third. .. For the long-range maritime zone in Russia, frigates of the project 22350 are built, the most powerful ships of this class in the world, possessing absolutely incomparable capabilities with the project 20386. For the ocean zone need even larger ships with even more powerful weapons. For the near-sea zone, as a replacement for the IPC of the project 1124, the ships of the project 20386 are completely redundant - to perform combat missions in this zone do not need such a range as theirs, you do not need to have modularity, but you need to have a lower price, and the maximum possible anti-submarine capabilities for this price.
    In fact, the ship of the project 20386, although it is called the word "corvette", but in terms of its displacement, seaworthiness and cruising range it is a frigate. And most importantly - it is a frigate and at a price too, and at the same time it is armed at the level of a corvette! Calling this ship a corvette, as the developers and the Navy do, is wrong; it is not. It is simply a complex, high-tech, expensive and weakly armed frigate. If a group of two frigates of Project 22350 theoretically has a chance to fight off a raid of a squadron (14-16 vehicles) of deck F / A-18 fighter planes armed with a pair of anti-ship or anti-radar missiles each, then a pair of project 20386 ships have no such possibility even in theory. So what tasks will this ship perform in the far sea zone? Why does he need a long range? ..
    The final argument against building ships of project 20386 is technical risk. It is not so easy to create a weapon system from components that have never been built or used before (radar, electric propulsion), while ensuring its reliability and reliability. Most likely, the commissioning of the project 20386 ship will take more than one year. ..Production of ships of project 20386 should be stopped and henceforth not considered its resumption. As was shown above, the technical innovations used in this ship are not justified for the tasks that the Corvette class ship should perform. ..It is necessary to cancel the construction program for ten ships of project 20386, to cancel the decision to cease production of corvettes of projects 20380 and 20385 and to resume their production in the amount of at least 20-25 units in addition to the ships already laid, and to replace them partially or fully with small anti-submarine ships of project 1124. ..
    In modern foreign policy conditions, neither doubtful experiments with combat capability nor delay are acceptable. Unfortunately, the project 20386 combines the one and the other, and must be canceled.

    https://topwar.ru/137547-huzhe-chem-prestuplenie-stroitelstvo-korvetov-proekta-20386-oshibka.html
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%8B_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0_20380#%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_20386
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0_1124

    If all 8 of them, spread across 2 fleets, r modernized, Project 1155 ships will be multi-purpose:
    “Thanks to this alteration, the BOD will actually become destroyers and will be able to destroy not only submarines, but also surface ships, airplanes, missiles and ground targets.” That is, they will become universal warships, ”the source explained.
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0_1155#%D0%9E%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0

    Pacific coastline? You mean Kamchatka from both sides and below Chukotka? you dont need any FFGs there ;-) Kuriles?
    What if enemy subs sneak past the Kurils to sink SSBNs in the big & stormy Okhotsk Sea or land spies/SF/conduct recon. missions as USS Halibut did? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Halibut_(SSGN-587)#Special_operations_missions,_1965_%E2%80%93_1976

    Also, in the coming years Bering Strait will have more traffic & its approaches will need to be patrolled.
    1+7 Project 22350 will also be spread across 4 fleets:
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0_22350#%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0

    IMO, that may not be enough.
    AFAIK, the Be-42s r for the BSF, & not intended for the Pac. Fleet. Not surprising, as the seas there r stormy &/ icy:
    https://lenta.ru/news/2016/03/03/albatros/
    https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/552009-aviasalon-beriev-samolyoty
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Japan#Climate
    http://pacificinfo.ru/data/cdrom/2/HTML/e_3_00.htm
    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/02/05/ice-dance-in-the-pacific/

    Back to the topic:
    ..within the framework of this project, the Ministry of Defense is considering the option of turning to the Yakovlev Design Bureau. ..
    In the mid-1990s, the Yakovlev Design Bureau was working on the draft design of the Yak-201, which was supposed to be a further development of the deck Yak-141 and its land-based counterpart Yak-43. According to some information, this project became the prototype of the American fighter of the fifth generation F-35, including its ship version F-35B. ..“These planes are not offensive, but defensive ... They can be based not only on aircraft carriers, but also on the ground without any runways. A convenient option is what I can tell you as a former commander of front aviation. Comfortable aircraft. The main thing is to make it good, ”Antoshkin said. ..
    In turn, Honored Test Pilot of the Russian Federation, Honorary President of the MAKS aerospace showroom Magomed Tolboev told RT about the high relevance of the creation of aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing.
    This is shown by events in Syria. In the 1970s, this was shown by the Falklands War, when British Harrier aircraft destroyed the Argentine air force and fleet. Very relevant. Apparently, now is the time to return to the topic, it remains to reanimate, ”said Tolboev.
    At the same time, Vladimir Popov, Honored Military Pilot, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Aviapanorama magazine, stated that the urgency of creating an aircraft of vertical takeoff and landing “did not go beyond the limits of technical creativity and engineering thought of modernity”. “We have very good models based on the Su-27 (Su-30SM, Su-33, Su-34) - airplanes that can be used on short runways, but still high-performance airplanes on limited terrain or while in the sea from ships, of course, they must also work with vertical takeoff and landing. For example, on ships without a large runway, ”the expert noted. ..in the light of the creation of a new aircraft, the most promising is the restoration of developments under the Yak-141 program and their full use, adjusted for the fact that recently new materials and technologies have appeared.
    “There is an opportunity to improve by 10–15% the efficiency of the quality of work with the efficiency of fuel automation, new engines, which means a lot. Today, it will be much easier to create such a device for vertical takeoff and landing on the material part, on materials and automated control systems than 20 years ago
    , ”noted Popov. .. Russia has experience of operating VTOL aircraft not on full-fledged aircraft carriers, but on aircraft-carrying cruisers, such as the Admiral Kuznetsov, and smaller ships that can simultaneously act as both a naval strike unit and an aircraft carrier.. “We are engaged in defensive systems today, it is important for us to protect our state, our people, and not to conquer something, somewhere and once, and this approach is closer to us in the development strategy of the armed forces and aviation.

    https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/547228-rossiya-samolyot-vertikalnyi-vzlyot-posadka
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:28 pm

    They could probably use more powerful An-22/Tu-95 engines but with smaller diameter props:
    Maximum power output: 11,033 kW (14,795 ehp)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-12#Specifications

    Maximum power output: 14,000 horsepower (10,440 kW)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_D-27#Specifications_(D-27)

    Wouldn't work... look up the Tu-91...

    A C-130 didn't use CAT in trials on the CV-59: At 85,000 pounds (39,000 kg), the KC-130F came to a complete stop within 267 feet (81 m), and at the maximum load [~19T, MTOW 68T], the plane used only 745 feet (227 m) for take-off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal_(CV-59)#1963%E2%80%931967
    Powerplant: 4 × Allison T56-A-15 turboprops, 4,590 shp (3,430 kW) each https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules#Specifications_(C-130H)

    And what payload did it land and what payload did it take off with... because if it was operating light then WTF would be the point?

    You do understand that a truck designed to tow an enormous load is not really the same vehicle when it is empty right?

    When you take the train off the back of the diesel engines their performance is quite impressive and they can do all sorts of things they can't do when they are towing trailers... but what they can do with the trailers attached is really all that is important, and all the rest is just bullshit.

    Does the US navy have any plans for operating C-130s from their carriers any time soon?

    If they can operate fine then why would they not use them?

    If they are too big to operate with any useful weight then they are not really relevant to this discussion are they?

    From these data, carrier ops w/o the CAT with just two 3,21x more powerful engines & 1.7x less MTOW is not impossible!

    Not impossible, but not very practical or likely.

    The MD could bribe the Indian officials to get those orders; it doesn't mean the Mi-28 and Ka-52 r less capable/suitable.

    To be fair the two Russian helos were less mature, but my point was that the best tool for the job does not always get selected.

    Airships can be disabled/destroyed by hyper-sonic missiles or subs/missile boats with cannons/MANPADs.

    Airships are not invulnerable but less vulnerable that any other aircraft... if you were to fly down to near sea level and the enemy popped up with a MANPADS and launched the weapon at the airship do you think a 5kg HE warhead would destroy a 300m long airship with 50,000 cubic metres of internally bagged hydrogen?

    Even an ideal hit you might burst a dozen bags of hydrogen which likely could be countered by dropping 500kgs of water ballast... but lets get real... there is no reason for the airship to operate below 20,000m which means no surface based gun and very few aircraft could even get to the altitude it is operating at... and while you are climbing it can see you coming and transmit your details to its friendly surface vessels that it is flying over... so as you are climbing to reach it from behind you might find you have an S-400 missile coming up your ass... the 9M96E2 has a range of 120-150km and an altitude of 30km so you will be in serious trouble because that warhead probably wont do very much to the airship because at that altitude blast warheads are ineffectual because the air is so thin blast waves don't do squat, but the fragments from that missile will rip the ass off your plane and gravity is a bitch at that altitude...


    Exactly, and when things get this way you are not respected as a discussion counterpart for helping getting closer to the truth, whatever it is, but basically used by the other person to satisfy its ego. Have dealt enough with this kind of selfishness in my professional life to do it in my free time too.

    But he can't be right unless we are idiots and totally wrong... only he has thought about this.... and only he knows the future...

    > Russia is the biggest country on Earth, a relevant economy, one of the most important civilizational poles

    It also has a thriving aircraft industry, so developing all sorts of aircraft designs does not hurt that much, but it also does not mean development of a VSTOL aircraft will result in small carriers and VSTOL fighters... for all we know they might want a V-44 type VSTOL transport to fly with their new super fast helos...

    This, together with the news we are receiving from Sukhoi regarding the landing distance, make it IMO a more potent and readily available option than a STOVL fighter for the defence of the fleet.

    Even just information about new generation radar technology and hypersonic missiles making stealth and aircraft carriers and all other surface vessels vulnerable means the threat posed by the US carriers is not what it used to be... which is to say if Russia wants new carriers to beat the US Navy in a conventional war they are pushing sht up hill, but they are not wanting carriers for that and the fact that air power makes surface activitiy whether on land or at sea easier and safer means they need carriers.

    They wont be able to afford dozens of carriers so they ones they do get need to be self sufficient and have combat persistence... in other words bigger than western carriers so the logistics tail is shorter and easier to defend so the carrier group is easier to support no matter where it operates.

    If they r short of FFGs & DDGs, some could be ordered in China, esp. for the Pac. Fleet, until they rebuild their industry.

    You are not getting it... buying ships from China puts money into their economy and helps them with their problems and does nothing for the Russian ship building industry and does nothing to help its problems... which are the problems that need to be solved.

    There is no urgency... even if they decided on building a carrier right now they would not get it layed until at least 2022 because of all the other things they are doing and after 10 years on the slipways it will be 2032 before it hits the water... fitting out and initial training it wont be ready for combat until at least 2035 at the earliest... they might lay down a second keel in 2028 or so and that will likely hit the water in 2038 so 2038 will be the first date they could have three operational carriers... assuming the have the support vessels and land infrastructure to operate them.

    c) “Certainly, this is the future for all aircraft carrying ships, a new fleet of aircraft there will be needed - and for this purpose that various technologies are needed to ensure a shortened take-off or just vertical take-off,” said Borisov.

    So worse than an A model MiG-29 in terms of air defence aircraft defending the airfield...

    d) According to him, "conceptually such work has already been carried out in the Ministry of Defense since last year." “The terms are determined by the technological cycle of creation, as a rule, it is 7-10 years, if we go into the series,” said the Deputy Prime Minister.

    If... the biggest word in the English language...

    e) (in 2017) Borisov suggested that the MiG-29 and Su-33 models in ten years may become obsolete morally. Therefore, according to him, it is logical that in the future it will be necessary to create a new aircraft.

    With current upgrades (MiG-35 and Su-35 respectively) they should be fine for the next ten years... or are you suggesting that in 10 years time there will be no Flankers and no Fulcrums in service at all and the Russian AF will be Su-57s and MiG-31/41s?

    Current MiG-29k and MiG-35 are deep modernization of MiG-29

    You haven't said what was wrong with that yet.

    The Su-35 is a deep modernisation of the Su-27 is it also obsolete and ready to remove from service?

    4) reliability according to Indian auditors. After wiki
    In a 2016 report, India's national auditor CAG criticized the aircraft due to defects in engines, airframes and fly-by-wire systems. The serviceability of Mig-29K was reported ranging from 15.93% to 37.63% and that of MiG-29KUB ranging from 21.30% to 47.14%; with 40 engines (62%) being rejected/withdrawn from service due to design defects. These defects are likely to reduce the service life of the aircraft from the stated 6000 hours.[48][49][50]

    Like I said.... brand new aircraft... they will of course have to iron out the bugs... are you suggesting this new VSTOL fighter will have 100% readiness immediately?

    So by the 2030s the MiG-29KR will be a mature fighter with pretty much all the bugs worked out and the new VSTOL fighter may or may not get into service and until it gets experience will test the ejection system severely.

    This proves you have problems with math on elementary school level. Who is gonna be a sitting duck? US carriers are so powerful because they can mobilize numerical superiority against comparable adversary and both tech and numerical over weaker one.

    Except to deliver that power they need to be operating above sea level... when the first Russian hypersonic missile rips through their structure how long can they maintain numerical superiority?

    Russians dont have here meaningful qualitative superiority in fighters but clear numerical disadvantage. So building carrier with 70k tons gives you not what 36 -40 fighters of Su-57 size.
    R-37 is designed against AWACS aircrafts not maneuverable fighters.

    R-37 moves so fast a manouvering fighter is not a manouvering fighter... when something blasts past at mach 5 there is no option to dodge because to dodge you need to see it coming... the R37M is cleared for 8g targets because its directional warhead means it can direct the fragments to where the target is most vulnerable (for Scud type missiles) or where the target will be when the missile blasts past (for highly manouverable targets).

    There is no reason why Zircon missiles could not be carried by Su-57s to take down US carriers and render any advantages moot.

    Either way Russia does not need carriers to fight the US as I keep saying... it needs carriers to be able to expand its influence around the world despite the US or UK or EU or anyone else trying to stop them by not assisting in keeping open the Sea lines of communication.

    Russia needs to reach its new trade partners itself and for that it needs a navy and to have a navy it needs aircraft that can protect those surface and subsurface vessels... hense they need carriers.

    Yo you genius tell me what you do?

    You make me feel like a genius.... you keep talking about Russia taking on the US with these new carriers... why?

    Do you really think that your little VSTOLs would do any better at anything?

    Of course not.

    So what you are saying is that the USN is invincible so Russia should not spend too much on her navy because it will all be sunk.

    What I am saying is that during WWIII the Russian navy would never try to take on the US Navy... there is no point... what the hell would they achieve even if they won?

    Russian carriers are not for beating the USN at WWIII they are for supporting and expanding Russian influence and trade around the globe in a way that is not restricted by western whims... right now the west could demand a naval blockade of the Black Sea and that the Panama and Suez canal do not let through any Russian military ships and all sorts of other crap... right now there is not much the Russians could actually do in practical terms about that.

    With carriers and a modern surface fleet then there are things they could do about that... certainly the west would be rather less keen to push the Russians around if they had a stronger surface fleet. and other countries would be less likely to fall in line with western dictates if the Russian navy was stronger.

    We are headed towards a multipolar world... how is a country to stake its claim to be heard if it has no global reach?

    Strategic bombers don't give you global power.


    You might disagree with reality. Even live in parallel one but this wont affect the real world outcomes

    They failed the last three times to develop a useful affordable VSTOL fighter, but sure... it is my problem with reality that is the issue here... lockheed martin say of course they can make a super 5th gen VSTOL fighter that can defeat anything flying in the 2030s...

    True, 22 is enough when you have ~30+ Su-33 which life cycle was extended till 2025 so just about retiring both Su and MiG form carriers.

    By 2025 they will be mature and capable systems... and you will be claiming the new VSTOL fighter is really worth putting it into service... it will be a Canadian Arrow, or a British Blue Streak... or a British TSR-2... you know... the best system never put into service... and it only had small problems and they were pretty much fixed when the project was cancelled... of course.

    [quote]Yak-141 had reduced funding after cancelling of Ulyanovsk when SU was falling. There is no source info it wa closed closed because of poor performance, and closed only in 2003. Long after MiG-29k was frozen indefinitely. And resurrected only because of Indians. [/qutoe]

    The Yak-41 was cancelled... the Yak-141 was the hope of an export order but no one was interested... certainly not enough to fund development... well except LM and they were interested in only certain pieces of technology rather than the whole design.

    virtually no MoD money though. Much worse it to keep wasting on unpromising fighters.

    Yeah, it is as bad and this new VSTOL fighter is going to be wonderful... I hear you... but that doesn't make you right.

    Do you mean railgun or ETC guns? both projects are funded although, not generously, for long time in Russia and have little connection with EMALS. OK plasma and electric current

    So mr expert you know all about such projects in Russia... of course there could be no connection between using enormous concentrated amounts of electricity to accelerate small very fast projectiles using plasma and magnets and such like with using magnets and enormous concentrations of electrical current to accelerate a range of objects to significant speeds.... yeah... like chalk and cheese... totally different... like totally...

    Russians are already working on electric aircrafts. Superconductors for particle accelerators (and perspectively for aerospace) . Russian are also very advanced in plasma tech. No EMALS needed here

    Yeah, of course... electric motors, energy storage, energy transfer, magnets, accelerators, plasma... why waste money on EMALS at all because you say so...

    wow and you need $1mln to hit couple of goat fuckers on shore? so no need for AGTMs only calibrs on every chopper?! Suspect Suspect Suspect

    Of course... flying into enemy controlled airspace with a helicopter to kill a few goat fuckers... risking a 20 million dollar aircraft and two crew... great stuff...

    BTW if it is just a goat fucker then an Su-33 with a dumb bomb from 12,000m would be a very similar price but the Su-33 would be better able to defend itself from SAM attack or interception... but all this would require eyes on the ground to find those goat fuckers...

    Questioning their decisions it really childish and stupid. ok you are here for giggles? ok hihihi

    So when you question their decision to develop EMALS are you being childish?

    Or when they talk about needing a carrier with slightly bigger capacity to the Kuznetsov are you being childish then when you say they just need a few extra helicopter carriers and some VSTOL fighters and they will be right...

    Stop with 1 kinzhal? are you serious genious? affraid affraid affraid first of all not every kiznah gets to the target. On its own. Why do you think 4 are carried by Tu-22?
    Second Kiznahl can be effective for perhaps 10 or so years. Sooner or later they will find counter measure.

    One Kinzhal = one US ship. Four are carried by Tu-22M3Ms because it has the capacity to carry four... this was an afterthought... the original design and requirement was the MiG-31K which carries one.

    In 10 years time they will have all manner of new IRBMs they can base air launched missiles on with all sorts of ABM evading warheads that US ABM systems will have necessitated they develop for all their ground and sea and air launched systems.

    Who knows better what is hard to intercept than the Russians?

    They carry more than one missile because there will be more than one vessel in the US carrier group that attacks.

    US is planning stealth drones, stealth long range fighters that can survive in c Access Denial environment, armed also with DEW. They all can use stealth standoff weapons of 1,600km class range. So tell me how would you use S-400 to stop them?

    Russia is planning new types of radar that can detect even stealth targets at enormous ranges... and any DEW weapon you can make small enough to fit into an aircraft in an operational way could easily be fitted into buildings and large modular vehicles in a much more powerful longer ranged version...

    Any US attack on Russia means nuclear destruction of the US.... stealthy 1,600km range weapons simply wont come in to the final equation.

    @GB you deny reality knowing better then all Russian military their job? and it's my fault because I am wrong quoting them. Wow congrats

    Of course... you are not giving your opinion, you are merely passing on what the Russian military think... tell me... do you agree with them or do they agree with you?

    @LMFS From you post I can see that you are frustrated at work what might actually explain your emotional outbursts. But trying to make personal rants instead on any factual discussion is sad.

    When is this discussion going to get factual?

    Because they don't have enough FFGs & DDGs now & must deploy smaller boats & sometimes ships from the Baltic, Caspian & Pac. Fleet to the Med. Sea to maintain a permanent squadron there.

    They have plenty of older ships, including Sovremmeny, Udaloy, and Slava class vessels for the moment.

    The new Corvettes are comparable in fire power to Frigates and Destroyers, but they lack the range and persistence of a bigger ship... the need for new ships is there but it is hardly critical because there is no mission they would need to perform right now.

    In 15 years time there would be carrier escort duties that would need to be performed and visits to foreign countries to show the flag and stimulate trade relations, but that is a long way down the track yet.


    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Sponsored content


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