Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Share
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3301
    Points : 3389
    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 : 2359
    Points : 2373
    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 : 3301
    Points : 3389
    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 : 2359
    Points : 2373
    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 : 3301
    Points : 3389
    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 : 3301
    Points : 3389
    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 : 2359
    Points : 2373
    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 : 6403
    Points : 6505
    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 : 2359
    Points : 2373
    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 : 6403
    Points : 6505
    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 : 2359
    Points : 2373
    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 : 17690
    Points : 18286
    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...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1513
    Points : 1512
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  AlfaT8 on Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:28 pm

    Well, F#%k.

    VTOL for the 21st Century: Why Russia's Working on New Vertical Takeoff Fighter

    Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov has confirmed that work is underway on the design of a new vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft. Military observer Vadim Saranov outlines what's driving the military's interest in this class of aircraft, and considers whether Russia's aviation industry has the resources and know-how to build it.

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201712151060040750-new-russian-vtol-aircraft-analysis/
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6403
    Points : 6505
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:19 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:Well, F#%k.

    VTOL for the 21st Century: Why Russia's Working on New Vertical Takeoff Fighter

    Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov has confirmed that work is underway on the design of a new vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft. Military observer Vadim Saranov outlines what's driving the military's interest in this class of aircraft, and considers whether Russia's aviation industry has the resources and know-how to build it.

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201712151060040750-new-russian-vtol-aircraft-analysis/

    eehenie is on suicide watch lol1
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1989
    Points : 2014
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  eehnie on Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:15 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:Well, F#%k.

    VTOL for the 21st Century: Why Russia's Working on New Vertical Takeoff Fighter

    Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov has confirmed that work is underway on the design of a new vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft. Military observer Vadim Saranov outlines what's driving the military's interest in this class of aircraft, and considers whether Russia's aviation industry has the resources and know-how to build it.

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201712151060040750-new-russian-vtol-aircraft-analysis/

    eehenie is on suicide watch lol1

    Not your day of luck lambie lol1
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1073
    Points : 1087
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:56 am

    VTOL for the 21st Century: Why Russia's Working on New Vertical Takeoff Fighter

    Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov has confirmed that work is underway on the design of a new vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft. Military observer Vadim Saranov outlines what's driving the military's interest in this class of aircraft, and considers whether Russia's aviation industry has the resources and know-how to build it.

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201712151060040750-new-russian-vtol-aircraft-analysis/

    "In any case, Saranov pointed out that the case of the F-35 offers a warning about the potential costs involved in the creation of a new VTOL-capable fighter plane, with that program reaching a staggering $1.3 trillion estimated price tag. "

    What BS. The F-35 is not a true indicator of a VSTOL development as its a mega-project one-size fits-all compromise design expected to perform every mission on th same basic airframe. The obvious lesson learned is design a VSTOL to be a VSTOL. Not the hybrid corporate welfare bastard child the MIC has created to boost ROI to teh stratosphere and massively enrich the LM stock holders and executives.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1513
    Points : 1512
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:18 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:Well, F#%k.

    VTOL for the 21st Century: Why Russia's Working on New Vertical Takeoff Fighter

    Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov has confirmed that work is underway on the design of a new vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft. Military observer Vadim Saranov outlines what's driving the military's interest in this class of aircraft, and considers whether Russia's aviation industry has the resources and know-how to build it.

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201712151060040750-new-russian-vtol-aircraft-analysis/

    eehenie is on suicide watch lol1

    He's fine, it's Garry i am worried about.
    I can see him now, axe in hand.


    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 340
    Points : 344
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  ATLASCUB on Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:36 am

    They're not alone....waste of time/resources/money.

    Consolation: Not my money.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 931
    Points : 935
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:13 pm

    Oh look....said this all along.

    I knew they would do this eventually.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17690
    Points : 18286
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 16, 2017 2:49 pm

    From this article:

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201712151060040750-new-russian-vtol-aircraft-analysis/

    The Yak-38M is an interim aircraft that was just testing that an actual aircraft could perform vertical takeoffs with the horizontal speed of a fixed wing fighter aircraft..

    The Yak-141 was supposed to be an actual combat aircraft yet it never was.


    The idea that a VSTOL aircraft can operate from clearings in the woods is bullshit.

    MiG-29s can operate from strips of highway, so having a slow expensive VSTOL aircraft is redundant on land and at sea if half your carrier is destroyed the idea of operating them from frigates or half a carrier is absurd.

    It seems the only positive is that they could be operated from helicopter carriers, but that means the helicopter carrier stops being a helicopter carrier so it can carry short range low performance fighters.

    If the plan is to create small aircraft carrying cruisers then why not make big aircraft carrying cruisers out of old container ships.... that would be super cheap and allow much more capable aircraft to be carried in much greater numbers...



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6403
    Points : 6505
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:17 pm

    ....What BS. The F-35 is not a true indicator of a VSTOL development as its a mega-project one-size fits-all compromise design expected to perform every mission on th same basic airframe. The obvious lesson learned is design a VSTOL to be a VSTOL.

    Correct. With F-35 they were supposed to design 3 versions​ of same aircraft. Instead they ended up with 3 different aircraft whose only identical feature was physical appearance.

    Russia should keep it simple: design STOVL/VTOL aircraft for Navy.

    If after that they want to make standard land based light fighter out of it they should take that Naval aircraft, replace VTOL engine with standard simple one, replace frontal fan with a additional fuel tank and remove any leftover naval components from it. Job done. Airforce does not need VTOL aircraft. So keep it simple.

    Maneuverability is willingly sacrificed. They can't have it with one engine and don't need it. That's what twin engine aircraft are for.

    STOVL/VTOL fighters are not as good as standard ones but for Navy it means that instead of couple of hypothetical supercarriers they can be based on anything from LHD to escort carriers to aircraft cruisers. More ships with aircraft, less money used.

    As for ASW aircraft, we already know that Russia wants to build tiltrotor aircraft so they can convert that one into ASW platform down the road and base it on carriers.


    They're not alone....waste of time/resources/money.

    Consolation: Not my money.

    For price of one supercarrier (aircraft complement not included) they can build a whole fleet of STOVL/VTOL jets, throw them into metal grinder, buy another fleet of those same jets and still have money to spare.

    Age of Naval dogfights is over. These things will be scouting ahead of fleet and dropping bombs on mountain tribes. That's it.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 292
    Points : 292
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Peŕrier on Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:47 pm

    Seriously, are we talking about vtol combat aircrafts?

    It's a waste of time and resources, vertical take off require just too much hardware (dead weight 99% of flight time) too much power and too much fuel.

    So the only quite reasonable approach is a STOVL combat aircraft.

    Only Short take off capability, no vertical take off at all, and vertical/rolling landing capability.

    So zero chance of ubiquitous deployment capabilties, only flat tops would embark them.

    How many are those flat tops? Kuznetsov is one.

    Lavina or whatever prospective LHD should be very large to be able to accomodate just an handful of them let's say around 30K tons to be able to embark around six aircrafts.

    So we are talking to develop an high performance aircraft from scratch just to build what? maybe 50 or 60 of them.

    It's anyone's own right to judge the pros and cons, but it won't be in any way cheap.

    And it's anyone's own right to judge how much an handful of aircrafts deployed onboard of two or three middle sized flat tops would increase effectiveness of any task group.

    At last, how much would cost to develop and build a naval derivative of an existing high performance aircraft, able to perform short takeoff by itself and to land by arrestor gear?

    I suspect far less, and far less would cost the whole life cycle's costs, both for support and future upgrades.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1989
    Points : 2014
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  eehnie on Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:23 pm

    1- First this is how the modern real Russian VTOL aircrafts are:

    http://www.russianhelicopters.aero/ru/press/news/vr_konvertoplan_2019/
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.russianhelicopters.aero%2Fru%2Fpress%2Fnews%2Fvr_konvertoplan_2019%2F

    https://life.ru/t/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/1027612/na_maks-2017_priedstaviat_ekspierimientalnyi_biespilotnyi_konviertoplan_vrt30
    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Flife.ru%2Ft%2F%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2%25D0%25BE%25D1%2581%25D1%2582%25D0%25B8%2F1027612%2Fna_maks-2017_priedstaviat_ekspierimientalnyi_biespilotnyi_konviertoplan_vrt30





    2.- Second, the article posted assumes the future production of the Project 23000 aircraft carrier:

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201712151060040750-new-russian-vtol-aircraft-analysis/

    In the meantime, the military has already offered hints about its vision of the future of Russian naval aviation. The MoD plans to lay down the Project 23000E Shtorm heavy aircraft carrier sometime between 2025 and 2030. By that time, the Navy expects to receive two new Priboy-class universal helicopter-carrying amphibious assault ships. These, it can be safely assumed, would be perfectly capable of carrying any new VTOL project the aircraft industry throws their way.

    I do not think the timeline would be right, but this reference to the Project 23000, the alone real project of aircraft carrier living today in Russia, is the most realistict comment of the article.



    3.- Finally, in the descriptions of the Project 23000 aircraft carrier we can find how a VTOL aircraft fits with the ship:

    http://www.deagel.com/Fighting-Ships/Project-23000E_a003273001.aspx

    The ship will carry 100 aircraft including the navalized version of the T-50 PAK FA stealth fighter, Mig-29Ks and Yak-44 early warning and control aircraft.

    Very likely the bolded in red are the 2 new aircrafts Bondarev is talking about these days. Obviously and logically, the fighter aircraft to replace all the current shipborne fighters will be the Su-57 (T-50). The second plane to replace the entire Russian shipborne fleet would be this new early warning and control aircraft. The MiG-29 is of a previous generation.

    https://tacairnet.com/2015/07/20/could-the-yak-44-make-a-comeback-for-russias-next-carrier/

    While Russia anticipates fulfilling the fighter/attack and utility roles with its current aviation projects, its AEW&C capabilities are very anemic. At the moment, the Russian Navy uses Kamov Ka-31 Helixes to fulfill the AEW&C role- essentially refitted coaxial helicopters that carry a large rotating/folding radar antenna underneath the fuselage. While the Helix does actually perform somewhat as needed while deployed aboard the Kuznetsov, it just doesn’t live up to the mark set by fixed-wing AEW&C aircraft like the E-2C/D Hawkeye, currently in shipboard use with the United States Navy and the French Navy. A limited range and a very limited onboard sensor suite are two of the Helix’s biggest flaws. Therefore, Russia if builds a better carrier than the one they have right now, they’re going to need better AEW&C aircraft too. The article in IHS Jane’s did state that Russia expects to build a jet-powered airborne early warning aircraft. However, an AEW&C jet would, in comparison with a turboprop version, likely necessitate heavier maintenance, fly with a reduced range and, in general, just cost a heck of a lot more. So it might actually make more sense for Russia to consider building the propeller-powered alternative instead, and luckily for them, in designing a brand new AEW&C plane, they can call upon the scrapped Yak-44 project.

    In this quote we can see how some media identified this new project with the Yak-44. Like que Yak-141, the Yak-44 was a project cancelled with the fall of the Soviet Union, but like in the case of the Yak-141 some media identified the project of a new early warning and control aircraft with the Yak-44 project because this was also the role of the old project.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-44

    For the following years, a new early warning and control aircraft (in fact a shipborne maritime patrol aircraft) design would be totally different. It can be VTOL and it can be unmanned. The words of Bondarev about a new VTOL plane following the Yak like make sense, but not like the media is taking them.

    A new Russian VTOL early warning and control aircraft can emerge in the future following this line of the most modern VTOL aircrafts that Russia is designing now.


    Last edited by eehnie on Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:45 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1513
    Points : 1512
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:28 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:Correct. With F-35 they were supposed to design 3 versions​ of same aircraft. Instead they ended up with 3 different aircraft whose only identical feature was physical appearance.

    Russia should keep it simple: design STOVL/VTOL aircraft for Navy.

    If after that they want to make standard land based light fighter out of it they should take that Naval aircraft, replace VTOL engine with standard simple one, replace frontal fan with a additional fuel tank and remove any leftover naval components from it. Job done. Airforce does not need VTOL aircraft. So keep it simple.

    Maneuverability is willingly sacrificed. They can't have it with one engine and don't need it. That's what twin engine aircraft are for.

    STOVL/VTOL fighters are not as good as standard ones but for Navy it means that instead of couple of hypothetical supercarriers they can be based on anything from LHD to escort carriers to aircraft cruisers. More ships with aircraft, less money used.

    As for ASW aircraft, we already know that Russia wants to build tiltrotor aircraft so they can convert that one into ASW platform down the road and base it on carriers.

    I even with such a conversion you will end up with an aircraft that is aerodynamically inferior in all regards.

    In short more likely to not be able to dodge a missile for sh%t.

    Why is the Uber-carrier the only option here, and 2 things.
    1) Coordination will be sent to hell
    2) Actually, it means more money, since all these ships now need the equipment and personnel to be able to repair and maintain this monstrosity.

    Nah, to save cash they'll just keep using the Ka-27.

    For price of one supercarrier (aircraft complement not included) they can build a whole fleet of STOVL/VTOL jets, throw them into metal grinder, buy another fleet of those same jets and still have money to spare.

    Age of Naval dogfights is over. These things will be scouting ahead of fleet and dropping bombs on mountain tribes. That's it.

    1) Your pilots will be demoralized to say the least, and good luck recruiting.
    2) Again with this Uber-carrier nonsense, a carrier will be hella more useful than these flying coffins, since they'll not only have the proper aircrafts, but also a metric crap ton of missiles at the ready.

    The Ka-52K is what you're looking for then.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6403
    Points : 6505
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:42 pm

    ....I even with such a conversion you will end up with an aircraft that is aerodynamically inferior in all regards.

    In short more likely to not be able to dodge a missile for sh%t.

    They are not supposed be aerodynamically superior or to dodge missiles. They would be cheap filler to supplement proper fighter jets and to handle low priority crap.


    ...Your pilots will be demoralized to say the least, and good luck recruiting

    How so? Since when do pilots concern themselves with budget expenditures?

    Supercarrier = white elephant for Russia, just like Kuznetzov is now. Naval budget will not be growing and neither will importance of surface fleet in Russian naval doctrine.

    ....Seriously, are we talking about vtol combat aircrafts?
    It's a waste of time and resources, vertical take off require just too much hardware (dead weight 99% of flight time) too much power and too much fuel.

    So the only quite reasonable approach is a STOVL combat aircraft.

    Not 'we'. Russian​ Navy is.

    And VTOL is needed option is for smaller deck ships like LHDs.

    STOVL setting will be default approach for carriers. They will have space. And who knows, if they squeeze angled deck in them somehow then can go with cable assisted landing.

    But having options is important.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:26 pm