Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Share
    avatar
    RTN

    Posts : 186
    Points : 163
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

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

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


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

    Posts : 17874
    Points : 18436
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

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

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

    They were probably Ukrainian...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Indeed and I could just as easily be wrong.

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

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

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

    It is not about cost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 2557
    Points : 2563
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

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

    GarryB wrote:

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

    Russian carriers are to defend the ships.

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

    So they packed it in and went home.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3334
    Points : 3418
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  medo on Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:55 pm

    Any naval plane is expensive and all are made in small series. Su-33 in 24 jets, MiG-29K same 24 jets. Other MiG-29K are exported. Yak-141 is already developed, so it only need upgrades and to be put in production. MiG-29K use Zhuk-M radar, which could be also used in Yak-141. True, that VTOL planes are more exposed to IR AAMs, but with modern MAWS sensors and with new flares and DIRCM equipment, they could protect themselves against those missiles. We could see in Syria, that this equippment on helicopters is effective. YAK-141 have the same range as MiG-29K, when operate as classical jet. With modernized engines with lower fuel consumption will increase range and service life. Of course with VTOL operation it will have shorter range than MiG-29K, but still good enough and equipped with IFR, this problem could be solved. VTOL capabilities made them operational in environments, where is not enough space for classical runways like in small islands or in environments, where building runways is too expensive, like in some Arctic islands.

    Russia will have classical carriers with classical fixed wing jets, but VTOL jets could be operated in smaller helicopter carriers or LHDs like US marines Wasp or America class amphibious ships with Harriers or F-35B or new Japanese helicopter destroyers Hyuga and Izumo, which could also carry VTOL planes. Russia could simply enlarge and modify Priboy or Lavina ship in Izumo class carrier and equipp them with Ka-52K and Yak-141 squadrons. While classical carriers will serve in RuNAVY Northern and Pacific fleet, this Izumo style carriers could serve in Black sea fleet, because helicopter destroyers could sail through Bosporus, while classical carriers could not.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2557
    Points : 2563
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:00 pm

    medo wrote:Any naval plane is expensive and all are made in small series. Su-33 in 24 jets, MiG-29K same 24 jets. Other MiG-29K are exported. Yak-141 is already developed, so it only need upgrades and to be put in production. MiG-29K use Zhuk-M radar, which could be also used in Yak-141. True, that VTOL planes are more exposed to IR AAMs, but with modern MAWS sensors and with new flares and DIRCM equipment, they could protect themselves against those missiles. We could see in Syria, that this equippment on helicopters is effective. YAK-141 have the same range as MiG-29K, when operate as classical jet. With modernized engines with lower fuel consumption will increase range and service life. Of course with VTOL operation it will have shorter range than MiG-29K, but still good enough and equipped with IFR, this problem could be solved. VTOL capabilities made them operational in environments, where is not enough space for classical runways like in small islands or in environments, where building runways is too expensive, like in some Arctic islands.

    Russia will have classical carriers with classical fixed wing jets, but VTOL jets could be operated in smaller helicopter carriers or LHDs like US marines Wasp or America class amphibious ships with Harriers or F-35B or new Japanese helicopter destroyers Hyuga and Izumo, which could also carry VTOL planes. Russia could simply enlarge and modify Priboy or Lavina ship in Izumo class carrier and equipp them with Ka-52K and Yak-141 squadrons. While classical carriers will serve in RuNAVY Northern and Pacific fleet, this Izumo style carriers could serve in Black sea fleet, because helicopter destroyers could sail through Bosporus, while classical carriers could not.

    No need to reinvent the wheel. RuN has the planes, all they need is three 60-70k ton CTOL or C&STOL carriers (pure STOL is a waste of tonnage). If they plan this as a 15-year project now, they can have it all by 2030. If they start reinventing the wheel, developing useless tech for new planes, etc. They will get nothing in the end (like with the Yasen, 17 years for one sub to be active).

    Aircraft-wise, what they need to develop right now is a fixed-wing, twin-engined, carrierborne AEW&C platform.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3334
    Points : 3418
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  medo on Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:04 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:

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

    Russian carriers are to defend the ships.

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

    So they packed it in and went home.

    Nothing wrong with planes themselves, the problem was with wires on deck. Kuz will now go through modernization and they will solve issues, which was exposed in the first real combat deployment and this is good to RuNAVY and ship builders to learn from experiences. On the other hand VTOL Yak-141 is not dependent on wires on deck, so problems with wires will not prevent them with landing on carrier. Izumo style carrier with a squadron of Yak-141 and Ka-52K would be ideal for Black Sea fleet and operations in Mediterranean sea and for operations like in Syria.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2557
    Points : 2563
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:08 pm

    medo wrote:Izumo style carrier with a squadron of Yak-141 and Ka-52K would be ideal for Black Sea fleet and operations in Mediterranean sea and for operations like in Syria.

    Yeah sure about the Black Sea or potential Syrian base (no need to depend on the Straits). But still both Pacific and North Sea need proper CVs, without cutting corners. Conventional take-off is a must (read AEW&C) and respectable tonnage too (in the Kuz league or more).
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3334
    Points : 3418
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  medo on Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:19 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    medo wrote:Any naval plane is expensive and all are made in small series. Su-33 in 24 jets, MiG-29K same 24 jets. Other MiG-29K are exported. Yak-141 is already developed, so it only need upgrades and to be put in production. MiG-29K use Zhuk-M radar, which could be also used in Yak-141. True, that VTOL planes are more exposed to IR AAMs, but with modern MAWS sensors and with new flares and DIRCM equipment, they could protect themselves against those missiles. We could see in Syria, that this equippment on helicopters is effective. YAK-141 have the same range as MiG-29K, when operate as classical jet. With modernized engines with lower fuel consumption will increase range and service life. Of course with VTOL operation it will have shorter range than MiG-29K, but still good enough and equipped with IFR, this problem could be solved. VTOL capabilities made them operational in environments, where is not enough space for classical runways like in small islands or in environments, where building runways is too expensive, like in some Arctic islands.

    Russia will have classical carriers with classical fixed wing jets, but VTOL jets could be operated in smaller helicopter carriers or LHDs like US marines Wasp or America class amphibious ships with Harriers or F-35B or new Japanese helicopter destroyers Hyuga and Izumo, which could also carry VTOL planes. Russia could simply enlarge and modify Priboy or Lavina ship in Izumo class carrier and equipp them with Ka-52K and Yak-141 squadrons. While classical carriers will serve in RuNAVY Northern and Pacific fleet, this Izumo style carriers could serve in Black sea fleet, because helicopter destroyers could sail through Bosporus, while classical carriers could not.

    No need to reinvent the wheel. RuN has the planes, all they need is three 60-70k ton CTOL or C&STOL carriers (pure STOL is a waste of tonnage). If they plan this as a 15-year project now, they can have it all by 2030. If they start reinventing the wheel, developing useless tech for new planes, etc. They will get nothing in the end (like with the Yasen, 17 years for one sub to be active).

    Aircraft-wise, what they need to develop right now is a fixed-wing, twin-engined, carrierborne AEW&C platform.

    True, they need carrierborne AEW&C plane. But classical big carriers could be in use only with Northern and Pacific fleet. The most crucial hot spots are in Mediterannean region and in ME, which are in domain of Black Sea fleet. They have now ships with Kalibr LACM, but they need a carrier to sail in Mediteranean Sea, but classical carrier could not sail through Bosporus. To have a carrier inside Black Sea is of no use as this job could be done by the planes stationed in Crimea.

    Deciding for STOL carriers or helicopter destroyers is a long term decision, which is in accordance with strategy and doctrine of RuNAVY. If RuNAVY decide to restart VTOL planes, than they have their place in it.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3334
    Points : 3418
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  medo on Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:30 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    medo wrote:Izumo style carrier with a squadron of Yak-141 and Ka-52K would be ideal for Black Sea fleet and operations in Mediterranean sea and for operations like in Syria.

    Yeah sure about the Black Sea or potential Syrian base (no need to depend on the Straits). But still both Pacific and North Sea need proper CVs, without cutting corners. Conventional take-off is a must (read AEW&C) and respectable tonnage too (in the Kuz league or more).

    Of course. Northern fleet and Pacific fleet need classical carriers as they operate in open oceans. I didn't say any different. Those two fleets will also have LHDs like Priboy/Lavina, which could also place some VTOL planes together with helicopters if needed, but the main air cover will be done by classical carriers and their jets. Smaller STOVL carriers or helicopter destroyers like Izumo are ideal for fleets in closed seas like Black sea fleet and potentionaly Baltic fleet with exposed Kaliningrad enclave. In closed seas those planes don't need big range, but quick deployment where needed.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2557
    Points : 2563
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:42 pm

    medo wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    medo wrote:Izumo style carrier with a squadron of Yak-141 and Ka-52K would be ideal for Black Sea fleet and operations in Mediterranean sea and for operations like in Syria.

    Yeah sure about the Black Sea or potential Syrian base (no need to depend on the Straits). But still both Pacific and North Sea need proper CVs, without cutting corners. Conventional take-off is a must (read AEW&C) and respectable tonnage too (in the Kuz league or more).

    Of course. Northern fleet and Pacific fleet need classical carriers as they operate in open oceans. I didn't say any different. Those two fleets will also have LHDs like Priboy/Lavina, which could also place some VTOL planes together with helicopters if needed, but the main air cover will be done by classical carriers and their jets. Smaller STOVL carriers or helicopter destroyers like Izumo are ideal for fleets in closed seas like Black sea fleet and potentionaly Baltic fleet with exposed Kaliningrad enclave. In closed seas those planes don't need big range, but quick deployment where needed.

    Agreed on all counts. russia
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6974
    Points : 7072
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:25 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    medo wrote:Izumo style carrier with a squadron of Yak-141 and Ka-52K would be ideal for Black Sea fleet and operations in Mediterranean sea and for operations like in Syria.

    Yeah sure about the Black Sea or potential Syrian base (no need to depend on the Straits). But still both Pacific and North Sea need proper CVs, without cutting corners. Conventional take-off is a must (read AEW&C) and respectable tonnage too (in the Kuz league or more).

    If new carrier gets a nuclear propulsion then catapults go without saying.

    I believe that if third party decided to finance development of VTOL aircraft then that aircraft should be primary naval aircraft regardless of which type of carrier they will be deployed on (LHD or conventional AC)

    And we should stop talking about Yak-141. That one is history. If VTOL happens it will be something completely new.

    In my opinion, If new VTOL really is in the cards then new carrier should be based on Lavina LHD. Of course it should be enlarged and equipped with nuclear propulsion and catapults but still should have enough commonality with Lavina to keep the price down and vessel numbers up.

    And regardless of general dislike for ski ramps it should have one just in case. They cost next to nothing and  you never know if something unexpected will happen. Safety is worth sacrificing some aesthetics.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2557
    Points : 2563
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:33 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:And regardless of general dislike for ski ramps it should have one just in case. They cost next to nothing and  you never know if something unexpected will happen. Safety is worth sacrificing some aesthetics.

    Voila



    that's what they need, two side catapults plus a ski ramp at the front. For a total of four launch positions.
    That's how the Soviets wanted it. It works. Use the catapult for the heavily-loaded strikers/AEW&C. Then keep the ski jump for lightly loaded A2A fighters.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6974
    Points : 7072
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:35 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:And regardless of general dislike for ski ramps it should have one just in case. They cost next to nothing and  you never know if something unexpected will happen. Safety is worth sacrificing some aesthetics.

    Voila

    http://a133.idata.over-blog.com/600x376/4/34/37/64/Porte-avions/PA-russe.jpeg

    that's what they need, two side catapults plus a ski ramp at the front. For a total of four launch positions.
    That's how the Soviets wanted it. It works. Use the catapult for the heavily-loaded strikers/AEW&C. Then keep the ski jump for lightly loaded A2A fighters.

    Precisely.

    Although it may be a bit on the big side for this day and age but I would put that down to size of aircraft it carries (Flanker series).

    New one equipped with smaller jets should have more manageable size as a result. Avoiding White Elephant scenario is important as well.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2557
    Points : 2563
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:38 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:And regardless of general dislike for ski ramps it should have one just in case. They cost next to nothing and  you never know if something unexpected will happen. Safety is worth sacrificing some aesthetics.

    Voila

    http://a133.idata.over-blog.com/600x376/4/34/37/64/Porte-avions/PA-russe.jpeg

    that's what they need, two side catapults plus a ski ramp at the front. For a total of four launch positions.
    That's how the Soviets wanted it. It works. Use the catapult for the heavily-loaded strikers/AEW&C. Then keep the ski jump for lightly loaded A2A fighters.

    Precisely.

    Although it may be a bit on the big side for this day and age but I would put that down to size of aircraft it carries (Flanker series).

    New one equipped with smaller jets should have more manageable size as a result. Avoiding White Elephant scenario is important as well.

    The bare minimum would be something like PRC's Kuz, with at least a side catapult (2 is ideal if they make the deck large enough). I agree anything over 70,000 tons and larger deck are than the Kuz is not needed by Russia.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17874
    Points : 18436
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:14 pm

    Their single attempt to do both (incorporate strike/ground attack component when deployed) ended up with ditching two of their fighters in the Med (just a some few weeks apart). 1 out 4 MiG-29Ks gone and one Su-33.

    They wanted operational experience in a real war zone, so they went and got some.

    They learned their recovery cable system does not cope well with a heavy operational tempo... an important lesson to learn I think you will agree.

    They also learned that with a minor upgrade their air superiority Su-33 became a competent ground attack aircraft from a relatively safe altitude and with cheap dumb iron bombs.

    They lost three aircraft, which they should not have... there should have been plans for backup landing alternatives for aircraft in the air with buddy refuelling if needed to get them there... they obviously underestimated the problem with the recovery system.

    Very important lessons learned... a bit like the US learning that small calibre assault rifles are a good idea, but teaching your soldiers that high tech new weapons don't need to be cleaned in combat and not issuing cleaning kits to a combat zone is a pretty dumb thing to do... ie some hardware issues and some procedural issues too... ie don't believe the marketing department at Mattel.

    So they packed it in and went home.

    They completed their training from ground bases and then went home.

    Yak-141 is already developed, so it only need upgrades and to be put in production.

    Yak-141 would need a complete upgrade of everything as it would be as obsolete as the 1988 MiG-29M would be today.

    Of course with VTOL operation it will have shorter range than MiG-29K, but still good enough and equipped with IFR, this problem could be solved.

    With 2-4 on a Helicopter carrier inflight refuelling is simply not an option.

    VTOL capabilities made them operational in environments, where is not enough space for classical runways like in small islands or in environments, where building runways is too expensive, like in some Arctic islands.

    The MiG can operate from rough airstrips pretty much anywhere.

    No Russian or Soviet VSTOL aircraft has ever operated from anything but a nice flat hard carrier surface, or nice flat runway.

    Russia could simply enlarge and modify Priboy or Lavina ship in Izumo class carrier and equipp them with Ka-52K and Yak-141 squadrons.

    But why spend money on the Yak-141 to bring it up to a quality almost as good as a MiG-29K?

    Why not just PAK FA it with as much commonality between the land and sea based models...

    While classical carriers will serve in RuNAVY Northern and Pacific fleet, this Izumo style carriers could serve in Black sea fleet, because helicopter destroyers could sail through Bosporus, while classical carriers could not.

    Russia needs carriers in the Black Sea like it needs SSBNs in the Caspian Sea.

    No need to reinvent the wheel. RuN has the planes, all they need is three 60-70k ton CTOL or C&STOL carriers (pure STOL is a waste of tonnage). If they plan this as a 15-year project now, they can have it all by 2030. If they start reinventing the wheel, developing useless tech for new planes, etc. They will get nothing in the end (like with the Yasen, 17 years for one sub to be active).

    Aircraft-wise, what they need to develop right now is a fixed-wing, twin-engined, carrierborne AEW&C platform.

    X2

    If new carrier gets a nuclear propulsion then catapults go without saying.

    I believe that if third party decided to finance development of VTOL aircraft then that aircraft should be primary naval aircraft regardless of which type of carrier they will be deployed on (LHD or conventional AC)

    And we should stop talking about Yak-141. That one is history. If VTOL happens it will be something completely new.

    In my opinion, If new VTOL really is in the cards then new carrier should be based on Lavina LHD. Of course it should be enlarged and equipped with nuclear propulsion and catapults but still should have enough commonality with Lavina to keep the price down and vessel numbers up.

    And regardless of general dislike for ski ramps it should have one just in case. They cost next to nothing and you never know if something unexpected will happen. Safety is worth sacrificing some aesthetics.

    I agree... if someone wants to pay for them then the VSTOL aircraft will be from scratch new and likely stealthy as that is the fashion.

    Newer aircraft will need smaller lighter weapons for the same effectiveness... indeed a future Russian carrier aircraft might just have short, and medium range AAMs and a cannon and for all other targets act as a stealthy spotter for long range ship based missiles... ie mach 8-10 anti ship and land attack missiles, and 400km range S-400 based and 600km range S-500 based SAMs... hell with bigger solid rocket boosters they could double that range...

    The size of the new carriers will revolve around what they want as a flight group... having a new modular helo that can perform SAR and ASW and other roles with the change of a pod means fewer helos needed and simplification of replacement helos to cover any lost.
    UAVs and perhaps even airship AWACS are other options... especially tethered airships operating at over 30km altitude...
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2726
    Points : 2766
    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 24, 2017 10:38 pm

    Russia is developing hypersonic weapons and vertical takeoff aircraft


    https://iz.ru/674713/2017-11-23/rossiia-razrabatyvaet-giperzvukovoe-oruzhie-i-samolet-vertikalnogo-vzleta

    Russia is developing hypersonic weapons, this issue was discussed at meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Also, work is underway to create a vertical takeoff aircraft.

    This was reported by Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov, noting that these developments are taken into account in the draft new state arms program.

    So VTOL and aircraft carrying cruisers ?



    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1613
    Points : 1608
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:12 pm

    The article seems a little odd, but that could just be the translation.
    But if true, then F, what a waist, looks like we're going back to the Kiev-class. No

    Garry is gonna be pissed.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17874
    Points : 18436
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:31 am

    Total waste of money and time.... VSTOL jet fixed wing aircraft as we know them are total pieces of rubbish.

    Limited performance, super fragile, super expensive, high loss rate for no real return except being able to make cheaper limited aircraft carriers that don't really stack up against decent modern aircraft.

    Total waste of time and money.

    The hope they might develop a design that fixes all the problems is tiny because their problems are enormous.... high pressure piping of air to the wing tips, nose and tail to enable a stable hover means lots of extra weight and complexity and of course vulnerability to damage or failure.

    The best thing they ever did was scale up to the K with conventional fixed wing aircraft also used by the Air Force.

    The Russian AF has no use for crappy short range expensive slow VSTOL aircraft.... even a basic generic MiG-29 shaped airframe with the radar and engine you put into the VSTOL aircraft will have better performance and be much cheaper and much safer.

    There was a famous photographer of aircraft a while back... he unfortunately died and I can't remember his name but the two seater of theYak-38M is the one aircraft he refused to fly in.... It did not have a high kill rate for its pilots but it had a high crash rate the pilots being saved by the automatic ejection system...
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1960
    Points : 1954
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Isos on Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:09 am

    The most weird is that a longer flight deck with a ski jump isn t expensive to build and they can upgrade easily mig 29k or design a new 5th generation mig based on mig 29k.

    I don t understand what they really want. They say they are planing a 100 kt supercarrier but also a vstol fighter which are made for really small carrier. They want one thing and its opposite.
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3320
    Points : 3404
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  flamming_python on Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:39 am

    Isos wrote:The most weird is that a longer flight deck with a ski jump isn t expensive to build and they can upgrade easily mig 29k or design a new 5th generation mig based on mig 29k.

    I don t understand what they really want. They say they are planing a 100 kt supercarrier but also a vstol fighter which are made for really small carrier. They want one thing and its opposite.

    It's really a mystery to me as well.

    First they said that they're going to develop a naval PAK-FA with the MiG-29K used as a stopgap in the meantime and Su-33s to be withdrawn.
    Then they wanted to put the Kuznetsov into deep modernization.
    Then they said they wanted to build some new carriers with catapults and all the rest of it.
    Then they said they'll keep the Su-33s after all and upgrade them, to provide a long-range air defence envelope.
    It's nearly 2018 and the Kuznetsov is still not undergoing that deep modernization.
    Somewhere in the midst of all this they developed the Ka-52K and started talking about helicopter carriers to replace the lost Mistrals, and about how versatile the Ka-52K can be including for anti-ship duties.
    And now they're talking about VTOL aircraft and carriers.

    The only way this VTOL stuff would make sense is if they bin the navalization of the PAK-FA, bin the modernization of the Kuznetsov (let it serve out 10 more years and then withdraw it), bin the idea of the helicopter carriers - and just use the VTOL aircraft and carriers to fulfill all these functions instead whether air-defence for the fleet, land-assault operations or anti-ship missions.
    In this way it would actually be a cost effective move.
    Different question is whether a VTOL aircraft would be able to fulfill all those functions acceptably. That's the engineering challenge.

    Or maybe it's all just a ploy to confuse NATO analysts.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6974
    Points : 7072
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:01 pm

    flamming_python wrote:...............

    The only way this VTOL stuff would make sense is if they bin the navalization of the PAK-FA, bin the modernization of the Kuznetsov (let it serve out 10 more years and then withdraw it), bin the idea of the helicopter carriers - and just use the VTOL aircraft and carriers to fulfill all these functions instead whether air-defence for the fleet, land-assault operations or anti-ship missions.
    In this way it would actually be a cost effective move.
    Different question is whether a VTOL aircraft would be able to fulfill all those functions acceptably. That's the engineering challenge.
    ...................

    I think that is precisely what they are going for. USS Wasp/America-class style ship that will do both jobs depending on aircraft complement at the time.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2726
    Points : 2766
    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 Dec 02, 2017 2:45 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:...............

    The only way this VTOL stuff would make sense is if they bin the navalization of the PAK-FA, bin the modernization of the Kuznetsov (let it serve out 10 more years and then withdraw it), bin the idea of the helicopter carriers - and just use the VTOL aircraft and carriers to fulfill all these functions instead whether air-defence for the fleet, land-assault operations or anti-ship missions.
    In this way it would actually be a cost effective move.
    Different question is whether a VTOL aircraft would be able to fulfill all those functions acceptably. That's the engineering challenge.
    ...................

    I think that is precisely what they are going for. USS Wasp/America-class style ship that will do both jobs depending on aircraft complement at the time.

    Looks like US Marines/Spanish/UK and Italian navies opted for as Garry says mediocre expensive, fighters F-35 in STOVL version... Russian as well. Looks like some advantages are there.



    Chronologically there were announced by Russian top brass:

    1. We consider big AC 100,000 displacement and small about 30,000 tons displacement. Possibly unified with Liders (ekhm I guess this was referring to power reactors...)

    2. We restart vertical start fighter production for navy

    3. There could be Vgen fighter project coo-financed by UAE

    4. We are gonna build Aircraft Cruisers but by end of new program (i.e. ~2025) because first we need to have vertical take off fighter. (very recent interview with Bondarev)


    On Yak-43 (land based version -Efim Gordon as source in Wiki) they considered NK-32... and now surprise NK-32 is alive and kicking in new version.

    5. If you look at Ulyanovsk class drawings you can see then all missile launchers are vertical. If RuN is going for Aircraft Cruiser option my educated guess would be they use UKSK-M embedded in deck.



    BTW schema of group start for Yak-141s.
    http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/yak141.html







    But of course life will tell . Only speculations.



    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2447
    Points : 2431
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:59 pm

    NK-32 would be ideal engine for the the jump jet. Huge engine though.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2726
    Points : 2766
    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 Dec 02, 2017 4:09 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:NK-32 would be ideal engine for the the jump jet.  Huge engine though.

    If you compare F-35 STOVL engine PW with KH there are not so much differences...IMHO goo dsignt Kh-32 can go to Tu-160M2, PAK DA, Tu-22M3M and new ?Yak Smile))



    Specifications (F135-PW-600)[edit]
    Data from F135engine.com[44]
    General characteristics
    Type: Afterburning Turbofan with shaft driven remote lift fan
    Length: 369 in (937.3 cm)
    Diameter: 46 in (116.8 cm) maximum, 43 in (109.2 cm) fan inlet, 53 in (134.6 cm) lift fan inlet
    Dry weight:

    Performance
    Maximum thrust: 41,000 lbf (182 kN) max, 27,000 lbf (120 kN) intermediate, 40,650 lbf (180.8 kN) hover


    NK-32
    General characteristics
    Type: Three-spool low-bypass afterburning turbofan
    Length: 6,000 mm (20 ft)[4]
    Diameter: 1,460 mm (4.79 ft)[4]
    Dry weight: 3,400 kg (7,500 lb)[4]
    Components
    Compressor: 3-stage LP (fan), 5-stage IP, 7-stage HP
    Combustors: annular
    Turbine: 1-stage HP, 1-stage IP, 2-stage LP
    Performance
    Maximum thrust: Cruise thrust: 14 000 kgf (31,000 lbf, 137 kN)[5] Afterburning thrust: 25 000 kgf (55,000 lbf, 245 kN) [5]
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17874
    Points : 18436
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:27 am

    The obvious problems are its length... it is 6 metres long... so six metres behind where its front fans are there is 25 tons of thrust pushing down... what are you going to put up the front to balance that sort of force? Another one?

    The engine itself weigh 3.5 tons... what are they going to mount in the front that can match its lift and doesn't add another 3.5 tons of weight?

    The Tu-160 is an expensive aircraft to run... it burns through a lot of fuel per hour... even if the fuel consumption is dramatically reduced it is still going to need a huge amount of fuel to get any decent flight range...

    In comparison a cat assisted takeoff and arrested landing and you put this engine into an aircraft and it is going to be a very fast medium to heavy fighter.


    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:41 am