Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Share
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1317
    Points : 1317
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Nov 24, 2018 7:30 pm

    ..the Russian navy plans have been for a slightly larger carrier than the K, for which the Su-33 was intended, so a naval Su-57 would be ideal.
    That's why IMO, it would be more feasible to restart the Su-33"M" low rate production, concurrent with current Su-30/-34/-35 production. India &/ China may order some too, as they will operate STOBARs & have problems with MiG-29Ks/J-15s.
    The Su-57s r badly needed by the AF, "hand to mouth" so to speak, & the more Su-57Ks r produced, the less the AF will get. Also, they'll be more expensive to replace in a more risky naval environment.
    The VTOL capability is good to have when parts of a flight deck can't be used to launch & recover a/c. But STOL will be used most of the time, so less higher fuel consumption compared with VTOL won't be that relevant. They could have tilt rotor tankers to increase their range. Modified AN-72/-74s with shortened fuselage (by ~8m to = the Yak-44) is also an option for COD/ASW/tanker support:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-72#/media/File:Russian_Navy_Antonov_An-72_Dvurekov-1.jpg
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-72
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-74
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-44#Specifications_(Yak-44E)
    Until early 2018, the Antonov An-148 aircraft was also being produced in Russia by Voronezh Aircraft Production Association, so they could modify any of them there to make the AN-71 AWACS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-148
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-71


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun Nov 25, 2018 5:34 am; edited 5 times in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3891
    Points : 3929
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Nov 25, 2018 6:18 am

    LMFS wrote:
    GarryB wrote:

    ..............................range......................payload...........................overload
    F-35C......................2,200.km.................4,500.kg.........................9g (A variant)
    MiG-29k...................2,000.km.................8,160.kg.........................8,5g

    Oh, its numbers are bigger it must be a better aircraft... because if there is one thing that real combat has taught us is that the plane that can pull the highest gs always wins... amusing you call me a genius moron.
    Numbers above are screwed up, in fact F-35C is rated 7.5 g (Lockheed data) against 8 g of the MiG (MiG data). Payload values are swapped above.


    1) Data were form wiki.  if you have better links you are always welcome.

    MiG's Payload is swapped with what ?  Data was after wiki for Russian MiG-29k , MiG is not providing its data about payload.
    Range ? is MG data is 2,000km/1700km UB. Less than F-35C


    https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1212&ct=1
    http://www.migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/new-unified-family-of-the-fighters/mig-29k-mig-29kub


    As for g frankly for US doctrine it is not important anymore yet g is on level of Russian CATOBAR MiG-29k that is supposed to be maneuverable? which payload is roughly half or non maneuverable opponent. Ekhm let me be skeptical about MiG-29K



    2) performance

    I didnt actually write performance doesn't matter. All I was saying about fetish  of payload. I maximal payload alone would matter so much then  MiG-29k is so much worse then F-18E (again !50% of payload).



    LMFS wrote: In any case I guess performance matters, if not all navies would be using Harriers instead of bothering with STOBAR and CATOBAR issues.

    All navies? let me check:


    Navy.....................................fighter used before................fighter of new generation.(manned one)

    Russian Navy..........................MiG-29k,Su-33.....................VSTOL now being developed

    Chinese Navy..........................Su-27 derivative..................VSTOL among future deck fighters

    Royal Navy.............................Sea Harrier..........................F-35B

    Italian Navy...........................AV-8B Plus...........................F-35B

    USMC*..................................AV-8B Plus...........................F-35B

    Spanish Navy.........................AV-8B Plus..........................none yet chosen but F-35B is in discussion as only one

    Turkish Navy..........................none....................................F-35

    French Navy..........................Super Entendard....................Rafale.M

    USN......................................F-18E...................................F-35C (partially) rest is  later FA/XX


    So what do we have?  French changing Super Entndard (2100kg payload and 1,200km/h  vs  AV-IIB - 4,200kg..1080km/h) to Rafale M. In case of  French - they swapped outdated fighters with the only choice they had.


    As for rest - none has swapped VSTOL to no-VSTOL.  Russians even swapped to VSTOL from conventional ones (skijump most likely stays since it was invented for VSTOL). And Chinese are building now as new of deck fighters too.



    So actually USN as only left. Let me guess why?  USN can afford anything since US budget is by order or magnitude bigger then Russian one.
    I added USMC as they are stronger than many navies and use light carriers.






    LMFS wrote:
    In the MiG-35 the design is fully unified between land and sea based models.
    Have no certainty with the -35 but even in K/M models there is no difference in any disclosed parameter that allows to think they are so apart. Looking normal TOW, MTOW, range and payload in does not seem there is a big difference in empty weight between them.

    it is always difference between navlized and deck fighter. MiG-35 max payloas is 6,000kg still less then F-35B, is that hwat you wanted to say?






    I rather suspect the Su-57 will be the same.
    References to STOL performance and indications from UAC chief designer regarding a potential naval version point IMO to an easier adaptation than for instance Su-33. Hook, corrosion protection, maybe some reinforcements (sink rates for CTOL are so different than it would be arguable to burden the conventional version with the same strong airframe) would still need to be added I think. Wing fold, if could be avoided through bigger carrier and maybe some other provisions, would be a good thing for weight, cost and performance of course.





    LMFS wrote:
    Before it was cancelled it was intended to operate the Yak-41 from the K... they had already done the Kiev class small carrier with VSTOL fighters and knew it was limited and rubbish... basically a glorified helicopter carrier.
    Yeah, they had planed small carriers with STOVL....but also bigger ones with catapults and AWACS and heavy fighters. Have not seen any disruptive statements that lead me to think they plan very differently for the future to be honest. Technologies for STOVL (FCS, engine thrust and materials) have evolved quite a bit to allow better performance, but the same has happened for STOBAR planes and ship technology in the sense of simplifying operations. Not clear for me that the picture has changed so much in terms of what option offers more performance.

    wow agreed with you 100%



    LMFS wrote: {} you want fixed wing aircraft to engage the targets as far away from the ships as possible so speed and flight range are important, but an all AAM payload is not that heavy {}

    agreed again 100%




    LMFS wrote: so max payload is irrelevant except when used as a tanker aircraft... [/b]but a tanker variation of an AWACS platform would be simpler and cheaper.

    Partially agreed. Although technically true, financially unlikely. Russian Navy  unlikely can fund  a separate  platform  only for deck AWACS/ tanker/ transport and I see so far no existing candidates  for this.

    Especially that they are testing now tilt rotors drones and even VDV wants tiltrotor for their own. TSAGI/FPI have also projects about tilt rotors
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3891
    Points : 3929
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Nov 25, 2018 6:24 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    ..the Russian navy plans have been for a slightly larger carrier than the K, for which the Su-33 was intended, so a naval Su-57 would be ideal.
    That's why IMO, it would be more feasible to restart the Su-33"M" low rate production,
    +++

    The Su-57s r badly needed by the AF, "hand to mouth" so to speak, & the more Su-57Ks r produced, the less the AF will get. Also, they'll be more expensive to replace in a more risky naval environment.


    Su-57 now is in testing and waiting till enemies partners can field anything more advanced. It is not a matter or not being able to build. Besides all Sukhoi factories nor make ~30-40 units per year.

    In case of su-33k restarting, it is expensive for outdated platform? I dont think it has any chances. Look at MiG-31/ MiG-41 case



    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1317
    Points : 1317
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:44 am

    F-35B stealth jets could operate on Japan’s flattop destroyers, study says
    There's no smoke w/o fire! They already have F-35As and ultimately plans to acquire forty-two of them...
    South Korea is another country that took notice of the reports about Japan’s plan. In fact, shortly after Japan’s thinking became public reports emerged that Seoul was also considering refitting its helicopter destroyers to carry the F-35B. ..
    The Yomiuri Shimbun article notes that Tokyo is interested in the F-35B because it can operate from commercial air strips rather than requiring longer military air strips. Japan sees this as especially valuable because some of its most distant islands only maintain commercial airports. Thus, the F-35B could help defend these islands.

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/japan-might-buy-many-40-f-35b-fighters-report-states-24544

    As mentioned before, Russia too could use STOVLs on her Kurils & Arctic coast/islands, saving on building & maintaining long airstrips.
    In case of su-33k restarting, it is expensive for outdated platform?
    If nothing else replace them, it's not impossible. They r not that different from Su-30/-34 now in production. Those will be used for decades & the possible Su-33"M" won't be a huge burden with its parts commonality & pilot training savings. If needed, some Su-27/-30/-34 AF pilots could also be trained to fly them off the deck.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3891
    Points : 3929
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:10 am

    GarryB wrote:
    There is no fighter which can have large apyload high maneuverability and range in sam etime.
    Carrier based fighters don't need high manouverability over their airfield... that would be surrounded by ships all equipped with state of the art air defence missiles and sensor systems... what they need is a decent (ie small) payload of AAMs and enough fuel to reach out and touch targets at a distance over the horizon where the ships are not best equipped to deal.
    wow, cannot believe my eyes my educational efforts finally have brought results! You've just defined VSTOL role  russia  russia  russia
    Kudos ot myself  lol1  lol1  lol1




    GB wrote:
    BTW Su-33 ~300 lower for deck variant - where Su-33 has stronger engines!!! Weight is increased by 2 tons.

    well Duh... I keep saying as much when you claim the F-35 can carry 8 ton payloads of weapons, except that reduced weight vertical take offs means reduced fuel and also reduced flight range... which would be much more of a problem than not being able to carry more than 2 tons of AAMs.

    Payload of F-35B (VSTOL one) is bigger  than any of Russian STOBAR fighters at the moment. Range? really this 350 kilometers counts that much in fleet air  defense missions?
    In case of Yak well..


    Range (after naval technology + MiG corp +Russian wiki)
    F-35B.......................1,660 km
    MiG-29k....................2,000km
    Yak-141.....................2,100 (STOVL  profile)





    GB wrote:
    and again Yak-41M (final line of Yak-141) unlike MiG-29k this could have worked.  (Gordon, Soviet Jumjets p 121)

    Well actually the MiG-29K did work and was the aircraft actually designed to operate from the Kuznetsov... the Su-33 was intended to operate from a slightly larger replacement ship... the type the Russian Navy still wants, which would make the Su-57K ideal for the job.

    is this form your vid game experience? Real world's evidence say:

    a) MiG-29k even after 25 years has never delivered much of its promises really:at most average performance, poor radar (cheek Indian claims), extremely low serviceability. And its maneuverability is on level of US F-35B, which was not built to maneuverability doctrine.

    b) Russian navy preferred to extend life of Su-33 instead and invest in VSTOL instead of wasting money on  MiG-29k/35.  

    c) Su-33 was intended to operate from any Soviet carrier, same as Yak-141 and MiG-29k originally. IMHO Su-57k has a good hancr be basis for VSTOL. Same as Su-27 for Su-33 was. Sukhoi was told unification with T-10 frame







    GB wrote:
    Korean project of V gen fighter. Future. Similar hypothetical  form, Koreans didn't forget?!

    Three pictures with only one VSTOL aircraft among them...

    This one VSTOL was a Russian one, build to  Russian doctrine (F-35 doesnt assume maneuverability yet has on level of MiG-29k) . Korean with canards you say? KFX-201? And below.
    and if the canard equipped KFX is the one you are talking about.

    So where is this bulkiness of VSTOL  again





    KFX 201 CTOL






    Yak 201 VSTOL






    GB wrote:... they don't even know how powerful the engine is going to be...

    well Koreans were able to collect Aegis destroyers, build KAI T-50so why should't be able to build decent engine? with their level of funding and technical abilities? or just buy license on US on one.



    GB wrote:It shows capability in technical drawing and design and making plastic models... but really does not show anything regarding ability to actually develop and manufacture and put into service a 5th gen fighter.

    Technically Su-57k is also  in plastic only.  And MiG-35 in promises, since MiG hasn't been able not only to build to build any Vgen fighter but even to build a decent deck fighter. They failed with radar, engines and serviceability. Still having half of any other deck fighters load and less even than F-35B one. Miserably.  








    GB wrote:The Yak-41M didn't work and will never get the chance to except in video games of the 80s and 90s.
    Yak 41 did work, had never had a chance for funding tho. But it's always good to know where your naval aviation sources are coming from.: video game  lol1  lol1  lol1




    GB wrote:
    Not to my knowledge. In Russian
    aircraft carrier: авианосец (avianosec)
    aircraft cruiser:   ТАКР  (тяжелый авианесущий крейсер- heavyaircraft carrying cruiser)
    Exactly... a large ship is a cruiser and the Kuznetsov and Kiev and other carriers are therefore types of cruisers... aircraft carrying cruisers.
    well then you understand that adding more offensive armament is actually traded with smaller air wing. BTW in Soviet times Su-33 was only to be air superiority fighter. So no ship  strike missions were foreseen. Anti ship missions were to be carried out by... 12 Granit missiles.  Soviets also preferred missiles to anti ship operations as we can see.

    Currently any fighter could use GZUR as tis weight  should be ~1,600kg things can change but I still hope UKSKs wil be installed there.




    GB wrote: Before there was a Soviet Cosmonaut everyone used the term to describe a space traveller because that is literally what it means, but the Americans have to be different so they call their space men Astronauts.... star travellers... when of course our sun is the only star they will get anywhere near.

    They landed on  Moon so something with moon should be better. Like Moonshiners?  lol1  lol1  lol1








    GB wrote:
    You seem to be a fan of max payload and range. But also critisize strike aircrafts.
    Because missiles from ships and subs make rather more sense than risking a pilot to attack a ground target... I don't give a shit about max payload... 2.5 tons would be plenty of AAMs and jammer pods, but look at the problems the Americans have with their navy... those huge expensive carriers and a puny fighter with a pathetic range... they were better off with Tomcats.

    Perhaps you didnt have a chance to notice but last 20 years of so so called stand off weapons has been developed. You dont need to risk pilot's live for that anymore.  This punny pathetic fighters (with level of MiG-29k level performance) can still outnumber Russian or Chinese adversaries with same level of performance.  And both  to show numerical and technological superiority  towards ay other opponent.


    BTW Yak-141 load was 2,600kg so glad we agree  respekt  respekt  respekt  








    GB wrote:
    yo yo genius this strike fighter you should like since has apuloaf and range better then MiG-29k. It also can kill MiG-29 without much problems. Rest of parameters check below. Yes you can deny real world's evidence as much as you want but this wont affect facts.  After wiki.

    ..............................range......................payload...........................overload
    F-35C......................2,200.km.................4,500.kg.........................9g (A variant)
    MiG-29k...................2,000.km.................8,160.kg.........................8,5g

    Oh, its numbers are bigger it must be a better aircraft... because if there is one thing that real combat has taught us is that the plane that can pull the highest gs always wins... amusing you call me a genius moron.[/quote]

    yo yo  video games' top gun, not sure to what period you were playing on Atari but since then technology advance you know.  MiG-29k could ever see F-35C only and eventually its missiles in coming just before being shot down.  There is no dog fighting anymore with radars with 250km range on stealth aircraft. And capable IRST systems.  17km vs 15,5? will this difference compensate what precisely? AA missiles work at last to 25km.




    How about some racist asian slurs to follow up with?
    so you are a racist  Asian? damn what's wrong with you boy






    GB wrote:
    So Russian AF says F-35 is shit? did you hear any military claiming this ?
    Why would they? Never interrupt an enemy when they are making a mistake...

    no, because they know real answer. Enemy has advanced fighters. Now they are plagued with growing pains But with such funding it is only matter of relatively short time all flaws will be fixed.




    GB wrote:
    True ! They called them TAKRs and populated with VSTOL
    Actually the ones they have in service or refurbished themselves use MiG-29KRs and Su-33s only.... the only VSTOLs are helicopters on Russian ships.

    KR is no magic of name - R stands worm Russian not better, actually Indian ones have better preference  lol1  lol1  lol1  

    Well as for VSTOL true, That's why now RuNav decided to replace both aging Su and especially pathetic MiGs with VSTOL




    GB wrote:Before it was cancelled it was intended to operate the Yak-41 from the K... they had already done the Kiev class small carrier with VSTOL fighters and knew it was limited and rubbish... basically a glorified helicopter carrier.

    yo yo vid game expert,
    a) Yak was never cancelled, read Russian sources. Was closed.
    b) new VSTOL will be fielded on Russian CVNs unlike MiG-35




    GB wrote:Close in targets will already be engaged with ship based CIWSs anyway... you want fixed wing aircraft to engage the targets as far away from the ships as possible so speed and flight range are important, but an all AAM payload is not that heavy so max payload is irrelevant except w.

    CIWS with range of 2000kms of Yak? Same for pathetic MiG-29k


    lol1  lol1  lol1 yo yo Julius Cesar
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3891
    Points : 3929
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Nov 25, 2018 10:15 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:F-35B stealth jets could operate on Japan’s flattop destroyers, study says
    +++
    South Korea is another country that took notice of the reports about Japan’s plan. In fact, shortly after Japan’s thinking became public reports emerged that Seoul was also considering refitting its helicopter destroyers to carry the F-35B. ..


    That's logical extension o small carriers of LHDs abilities. BTW I've posted some time ago  US Navy link about LHDs in roles of light carriers. BTW Japanese Izumo has 30,000ton displacement and up to 28 units airwing. So well yes Japanese potentially can do with short notice. If not constitution they cold build CVs long time ago already.



    Tsavo wrote:As mentioned before, Russia too could use STOVLs on her Kurils & Arctic coast/islands, saving on building & maintaining long airstrips.  

    True, however Im not sure about defense capabilities anything 30km from "mainland Japan"   . Where all AF is in range.




    Tsavo wrote:
    In case of su-33k restarting, it is expensive for outdated platform?
    If nothing else replace them, it's not impossible. They r not that different from Su-30/-34 now in production. Those will be used for decades & the possible Su-33"M" won't be a huge burden with its parts commonality & pilot training savings. If needed, some Su-27/-30/-34 AF pilots could also be trained to fly them off the deck.  


    Not sure why Russians could not field anything as deck fighter? till 2022 Kuz is in renovation.  New CVN will be effectively after 2030. VSTOL programme started effectively in 2017. Why they should not be able to have VSTOL in first half of 2030s?

    If Su-57 will be basis that can happen  even faster.  As really nackup case they can try to buy MiG-35 as stopgap. However with 20 MiG-29k virtually not used and Su-33 with service life till 2025 new fighter intro would not be really badly needed, before VSTOL one.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18876
    Points : 19432
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:49 pm

    That's why IMO, it would be more feasible to restart the Su-33"M" low rate production, concurrent with current Su-30/-34/-35 production. India &/ China may order some too, as they will operate STOBARs & have problems with MiG-29Ks/J-15s.

    I rather doubt they would restart production for a dozen of so planes... would be expensive and they already have Su-33s and MiG-29KRs... what would they do with them?

    If the Chinese want to order some Su-33s then it would make sense to tack on an order for a new batch of a few Su-33s... they are hardly state of the art... they are just the equivalent of Su27SM3s without most of the air to ground capability... after all they are just air defence interceptor/fighters.

    The Su-57s r badly needed by the AF, "hand to mouth" so to speak, & the more Su-57Ks r produced, the less the AF will get. Also, they'll be more expensive to replace in a more risky naval environment.

    I don't think they will be making enormous numbers of Su-57s... they are a good design and will be capable, but 90% of most missions an Su-35 will be too much plane let alone Su-57... so making 48 or so Su-57s for the first carrier (CVN) will be plenty to be getting on with... and they would not need to be built until about 2028 or so because any new CVN wont be in the water by then anyway.

    The VTOL capability is good to have when parts of a flight deck can't be used to launch & recover a/c. But STOL will be used most of the time, so less higher fuel consumption compared with VTOL won't be that relevant. They could have tilt rotor tankers to increase their range.

    Vertical take off is a circus trick and totally useless in a real military force... it limits payload and fuel capacity and burns a lot of fuel and is a high risk procedure and with little to no benefit.

    Vertical landing is also risky but at the end of the mission when the weight is much lower it makes more sense.

    Modified AN-71/-72/-74s with shortened fuselage is also an option for AWACS & COD/ASW/tanker

    If they are going to adapt an aircraft into a carrier based aircraft why on earth would they choose a Ukrainian plane design?

    They would be just as likely to choose an American design...

    Partially agreed. Although technically true, financially unlikely. Russian Navy unlikely can fund a separate platform only for deck AWACS/ tanker/ transport and I see so far no existing candidates for this.

    I see no existing candidates for VSTOL fighter either.... what are you suggesting... are you saying you have not heard of anything so it wont happen?

    As mentioned before, Russia too could use STOVLs on her Kurils & Arctic coast/islands, saving on building & maintaining long airstrips.

    And that is what I am talking about... STOVL aircraft encourage money saving... but also reduced performance and capacity.

    So you design your crappy short range slow low payload STOVL fighter and you make short little 200m airstrips they can operate from, but then war breaks out and you want to land supplies and heavy equipment but all the nearby runways are shitty little 200m strips that no transport aircraft can operate from... MiG-31s can use them in an emergency either and have to ditch into the sea... yeah of course because making real air strips is so hard and expensive.... right...

    wow, cannot believe my eyes my educational efforts finally have brought results! You've just defined VSTOL role russia russia russia
    Kudos ot myself

    And you have proven my point... short range useless VSTOL fighters protect the short range area over the ships already covered by CIWS and have neither the speed nor the range to go out and engage an enemy threat... or just identify it correctly so other measures can be taken.

    Payload of F-35B (VSTOL one) is bigger than any of Russian STOBAR fighters at the moment. Range? really this 350 kilometers counts that much in fleet air defense missions?
    In case of Yak well..


    F-35B is not an option for the Russian Navy... and the PR people for US companies exaggerate...

    a) MiG-29k even after 25 years has never delivered much of its promises really:at most average performance, poor radar (cheek Indian claims), extremely low serviceability. And its maneuverability is on level of US F-35B, which was not built to maneuverability doctrine.

    Over 300 in service and how many F-35s actually operational?

    In terms of manouver performance the MiG-29KR would piss all over any model F-35s... even the makers don't claim it is a dog fighter... they claim stealth and superior radar will allow it to defeat enemy aircraft at range... when the MiG jams the F-35s four BVR missiles then it will be in trouble.

    b) Russian navy preferred to extend life of Su-33 instead and invest in VSTOL instead of wasting money on MiG-29k/35

    The Russian navy spends very little on aircraft so it will invest in extending the lives of all its fighters... MiG-29KRs included.

    c) Su-33 was intended to operate from any Soviet carrier, same as Yak-141 and MiG-29k originally.

    Kiev class?

    With modifications the MiG can operate but the Su-33 was not an option...

    This one VSTOL was a Russian one, build to Russian doctrine (F-35 doesnt assume maneuverability yet has on level of MiG-29k) . Korean with canards you say? KFX-201? And below.
    and if the canard equipped KFX is the one you are talking about.

    So where is this bulkiness of VSTOL again

    They don't even fucking know what the wing area will be... how about we wait till it gets into service before we claim it is a success... and they had better talk to Yak about the auto ejection system or they are going to lose pilots.


    well Koreans were able to collect Aegis destroyers, build KAI T-50so why should't be able to build decent engine? with their level of funding and technical abilities? or just buy license on US on one.

    Sure, just built an engine... or two or three... it is easy.

    Technically Su-57k is also in plastic only.

    Of course it is not the same... a Su-57K is a relatively straight forward modification of an existing type... the drawings and plastic models you are posting are drawings and plastic models only... there are not even full size mockups for goodness sake.

    And MiG-35 in promises, since MiG hasn't been able not only to build to build any Vgen fighter but even to build a decent deck fighter.

    Yeah... MiG-35 is a promise... but these drawings and plastic models are dead cert hard evidence and proof they are the best performing aircraft in their field with perfect radar and engines and excellent 100% serviceability... wow I think they might even have a few kills.

    You hate for MiG is amusing.

    Yak 41 did work, had never had a chance for funding tho.

    It was never going to be as good as a cheaper and simpler MiG-29K let alone MiG-29KR so it was dumped before more money was wasted.

    well then you understand that adding more offensive armament is actually traded with smaller air wing. BTW in Soviet times Su-33 was only to be air superiority fighter. So no ship strike missions were foreseen. Anti ship missions were to be carried out by... 12 Granit missiles. Soviets also preferred missiles to anti ship operations as we can see.

    Currently any fighter could use GZUR as tis weight should be ~1,600kg things can change but I still hope UKSKs wil be installed there.

    A single role ship is a liability. Multi role ships only.

    They landed on Moon so something with moon should be better. Like Moonshiners?

    Or more reflecting their general outlook... egomaniac bullshitters?

    Perhaps you didnt have a chance to notice but last 20 years of so so called stand off weapons has been developed.

    So why launch from a plane at 300km when you can launch from a ship or sub from 2,000km?

    BTW Yak-141 load was 2,600kg so glad we agree

    The only way the Yak-41 could carry 2,600kgs of external load would be if it had four external drop tanks... which makes it a 30mm cannon armed gun fighter.

    With four weapons pylons it would be armed with two R-77s and two R-73s, which is less fire power than a early model MiG-29 with a simple cheap upgrade.

    There is no dog fighting anymore with radars with 250km range on stealth aircraft. And capable IRST systems. 17km vs 15,5? will this difference compensate what precisely? AA missiles work at last to 25km.

    Yeah, with both aircraft having self defence ESM equipment and towed decoys and the like it is going to come down to a gun fight.

    Detecting the F-35 is what the AWACS platform the MiG is operating with is for and the AWACS the F-35 is using will be shot down with R-37M missiles soon enough.

    In a gun fight the F-35 will get its arse kicked.

    so you are a racist Asian? damn what's wrong with you boy

    Technically Australiasian Mother.

    But with such funding it is only matter of relatively short time all flaws will be fixed.

    Of course... money will make all the corruption go away... hahaha... give that alcoholic a beer and tell them to chill... they will be ok... have another one...

    KR is no magic of name - R stands worm Russian not better, actually Indian ones have better preference

    What would you know... you didn't even realise the current models are different from the ones that first flew in 1988... Rolling Eyes

    a) Yak was never cancelled, read Russian sources. Was closed.

    Cancelled. Military funding cut, no longer included in future plans for procurement... finished.

    However with 20 MiG-29k virtually not used and Su-33 with service life till 2025 new fighter intro would not be really badly needed, before VSTOL one.

    In fact after the 10th one crashes they might not want any VSTOL fighters at all.

    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1317
    Points : 1317
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Nov 25, 2018 8:47 pm

    .
    .if they are going to adapt an aircraft into a carrier based aircraft why on earth would they choose a Ukrainian plane design?
    The AN-72 family was started in the USSR:
    An-72 First flight 22 December 1977. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-72

    An-74 First flight November 1983.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-74

    If it'll work, why not? As late Deng Xiaoping said, if a cat catches mice, it doesn't matter if it's black or white.
    ..you make short little 200m airstrips they can operate from, but then war breaks out and you want to land supplies and heavy equipment but all the nearby runways are shitty little 200m strips that no transport aircraft can operate from...

    Like the wheel spokes principle in civil aviation, there will be 1 big airfield with a few smaller 1s 100s of miles away, & as mentioned, they could be resupplied by An-72/-74, Mi-6/-10/-38/-26s & future tiltrotors:
    Capacity:
    90 passengers or
    70 airborne troops or
    41 stretcher cases with 2 medical personnel
    Payload: 12,000 kg (26,400 lb) of internal cargo
    Range: 620 km (385 miles)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-6#Specifications_(Mi-6)

    Capacity:
    28 passengers or
    3 t (3,000 kg; 6,600 lb) internally
    up to 15 t (15,000 kg; 33,000 lb) payload on platform or
    8 t (8,000 kg; 18,000 lb) max slung payload
    Range: 430 km (267 mi; 232 nmi) , Mi-10K 500 km (310 mi; 270 nmi) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-10#Specifications_(Mi-10)

    Performance
    Range: 800 km (430 nmi; 500 mi)
    Capacity:
    30 passengers (under the AP-29 airworthiness regulations)
    Internal 6,000 kg (13,000 lb)
    External 7,000 kg (15,000 lb)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-38#Specifications_(Mi-38)

    Capacity:
    90 troops or 60 stretchers
    20,000 kg cargo (44,090 lb)
    Range: 900 km (560 mi; 490 nmi) with 3,000 kg (6,600 lb) cargo
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26#Specifications_(Mi-26)

    They could even revive the Mi-12 designed to deliver BMs & use them to do just that with Iskanders & AShMs & bring in other supplies:
    Capacity: 196 passengers
    normal 20,000 kg (44,000 lb)
    maximum 40,000 kg (88,000 lb)
    Range: 500 km (311 mi; 270 nmi)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_V-12#Specifications_(V-12)


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Nov 26, 2018 5:47 am; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3891
    Points : 3929
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Nov 26, 2018 5:19 am

    GarryB wrote:
    a) Yak was never cancelled, read Russian sources. Was closed.
    Cancelled. Military funding cut, no longer included in future plans for procurement... finished.
    OK you dont get words difference meaning, not my problem.  VSTOL fighter is now is going  to replace MiGs. And MiG is not funded, no future plans for procurement, finished   cheers  cheers  cheers

    That's quite logical to me, there is always better to spend shitload of money on decent VSTOL then loads of money on shitty MiG-29k. I mean 6x as many as VSTOLs   lol1  lol1  lol1
    as average one per six is flying according to Indian auditors  affraid  affraid  affraid




    GB wrote: Vertical take off is a circus trick and totally useless in a real military force... it limits payload and fuel capacity and burns a lot of fuel and is a high risk procedure and with little to no benefit. Vertical landing is also risky but at the end of the mission when the weight is much lower it makes more sense.b
    ekhm vertical landing means you can also vertically take off.  Application of VTO? well you need to ask military guys how they see it at best. VSTOL is in demand. Growing demand as real worlds evidence say. After Russia  China has joined VSTOL club. Congratulations to Chinese comrades  respekt  respekt  respekt




    GB wrote:
    TsavoL wrote:Modified AN-71/-72/-74s with shortened fuselage is also an option for AWACS & COD/ASW/tanker
    If they are going to adapt an aircraft into a carrier based aircraft why on earth would they choose a Ukrainian plane design?
    well as Tsavo already mentioned An-72 is by no mean Ukrainian design. It is a Soviet one.  Technically An-72 is interesting application of Coanda effect to get STOL capacity.
    Engines are above the wing - they help to "cheat" getting extra pressure difference so wing "thinks" it is moving with much higher speed than the plane actually does.

    If similar stuff would be possible on Su-57 you can imagine Su-57 taking off in say 80-100 meters without ski jump?




    GB wrote:
    Partially agreed. Although technically true, financially unlikely. Russian Navy  unlikely can fund  a separate  platform  only for deck AWACS/ tanker/ transport and I see so far no existing candidates  for this.
    I see no existing candidates for VSTOL fighter either.... what are you suggesting... are you saying you have not heard of anything so it wont happen?
    The difference is substantial,  the  VSTOL programme is approved and funded and new platform of sea based AEW is only in your head so far.  
    Financially there is no sense spending billions $ equivalent to a plane made in 4 pieces.

    You dont have to bother, high speed helo and tilt-rotors are being developed now  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup





    GB wrote:So you design your crappy short range slow low payload STOVL fighter and you make short little 200m airstrips they can operate from, but then war breaks out and you want to land supplies and heavy equipment but all the nearby runways are shitty little 200m strips that no transport aircraft can operate from... MiG-31s can use them in an emergency either and have to ditch into the sea... yeah of course because making real air strips is so hard and expensive.... right...
    VSTOL even if crappy is much better then outgoing models. That's why is gonna replace obsolete MiG-35/29k with pathetic serviceability record family  russia  russia  russia

    Perhaps GB can make strips everywhere,  2kms runway is easy in principle, and cheap.  but real military's opinions which I've read so far  stated otherwise.  
    You can read, perhaps, some opinions of Russian, Chinese or US military and tell me about easiness of building long runway everywhere?






    GB wrote:
    wow, cannot believe my eyes my educational efforts finally have brought results! You've just defined VSTOL role  russia  russia  russia
    Kudos ot myself
    And you have proven my point... short range useless VSTOL fighters protect the short range area over the ships already covered by CIWS and have neither the speed nor the range to go out and engage an enemy threat... or just identify it correctly so other measures can be taken.
    Short range  and  low speed you mean on level of MG-29k? True, then they would be useless indeed.  No worries they will be better,much better.
    Wait even 30y old Yak-141 had better range then MiG-29k has now. Speed was 1800 vs 2100 for MiG but MiG has 2x90kN vs 1x152kNso 30% higher.


    So what great characteristics would you like to see for light deck fighters ?






    GB wrote:
    Payload of F-35B (VSTOL one) is bigger  than any of Russian STOBAR fighters at the moment. Range? really this 350 kilometers counts that much in fleet air  defense missions?
    In case of Yak well..
    F-35B is not an option for the Russian Navy...
    of course is not, Russian one will be adapted to Russian doctrine. Faster more maneuverable, this can be traded with payload tho. But anything will be better then MiG-29k anyway.



    GB wrote:
    a) MiG-29k even after 25 years has never delivered much of its promises really:at most average performance, poor radar (cheek Indian claims), extremely low serviceability. And its maneuverability is on level of US F-35B, which was not built to maneuverability doctrine.

    Over 300 in service and how many F-35s actually operational?

    then less then 15,5% oherwise MiG-29k wins in every case  cheers  cheers  cheers
    Serviceability of F-35 should be compared after 25 years of improvements so in 2040 to be fair.  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup  But then will be rather F-35D upgrade AFAIK.





    GB wrote: they claim stealth and superior radar will allow it to defeat enemy aircraft at range... when the MiG jams the F-35s four BVR missiles then it will be in trouble.
    MiG jams missiles ? with old electronics - unlikely. MiG is not going even to see them coming.   Why would you think that only Russians work on multispectral warheads for their AAMs? and EW? F-35 has much better AESA radar and IRST system. BTW MiG-29k has none isnt it?



    GB wrote:
    b) Russian navy preferred to extend life of Su-33 instead and invest in VSTOL instead of wasting money on  MiG-29k/35
    The Russian navy spends very little on aircraft so it will invest in extending the lives of all its fighters... MiG-29KRs included.
    of course! they need to live as long as VSTOL is going to replace them.



    GB wrote:
    c) Su-33 was intended to operate from any Soviet carrier, same as Yak-141 and MiG-29k originally.
    Kiev class?
    Ulyanovsk Class.  BTW Su-33 was actually tested on TAKR Tbilisi. Wait wait Tbilisi was renamed to Kuz  affraid  affraid  affraid




    GB wrote: and they had better talk to Yak about the auto ejection system or they are going to lose pilots.
    Ok so your claims about bulky fuselage is just emotional BS no facts based? that's exactly what  I thought.
    BTW MiG-29k had worse record in killing 3 pilots when Yak-141 none, so what exactly did you want to say?




    GB wrote:  a Su-57K is a relatively straight forward modification of an existing type...
    making VSTOL from Su-57 is no trivial thing you know  scratch  scratch  scratch



    GB wrote: the drawings and plastic models you are posting are drawings and plastic models only...
    c'mon, make up your mind,  what you want to talk about? past? like MiG-35 and MiG-29k or the perspective fighters like Korean fighters?
    Actually MiG-35 is also so far plasticwarez level of combat record   lol!  lol!  lol!






    GB wrote:
    And MiG-35 in promises, since MiG hasn't been able not only to build to build any Vgen fighter but even to build a decent deck fighter.
    Yeah... MiG-35 is a promise... but these drawings and plastic models are dead cert hard evidence and proof they are the best performing aircraft in their field with perfect radar and engines and excellent 100% serviceability... wow I think they might even have a few kills.
    You hate for MiG is amusing.
    MiG-29k so far has record of killing itself and crew members. MiG-35 so far is promising as export model only. not really for internal needs. MiG-35 is clear recognition that MiG-29k is one big fail. they even changed name to cover this.  15,5% serviceability can it go worse?!

    hate? what hate. All my critics of MiG-29k is based on facts only. I always provide sources and no self-invented stories like damaged landing strip, pilots killed by Yak-141 or program cancelling.





    GB wrote:
    Yak 41 did work, had never had a chance for funding tho.
    It was never going to be as good as a cheaper and simpler MiG-29K let alone MiG-29KR so it was dumped before more money was wasted.
    Facts say:  Yak-141 did work, had 1 crash and killed no pilots unlike 3 crashes of MiG-29k and 3 pilots killed.both programmes were stopped due to under-funding.  MiG-29k was re-started only due to Indian order. not its dubious characteristics. Unfortunately its  record in India was a disgrace fr Russian aerospace industry.  MiG reached as low as 15,5% serviceability  affraid  affraid  affraid. Then as tech improved and funding on fighters increased Russians decided to invest in VSTOL technologies.

    Even MiG decided to kill 29k name. Now they will offer MiG-35.



    GB wrote:
    Perhaps you didnt have a chance to notice but last 20 years of so so called stand off weapons has been developed.
    So why launch from a plane at 300km when you can launch from a ship or sub from 2,000km?
    Ask US and Russian military, they are much more matter experts then you and me. Yet  They still plan 1,500kms airborne standoff missiles.




    GB wrote:
    BTW Yak-141 load was 2,600kg so glad we agree
    The only way the Yak-41 could carry 2,600kgs of external load would be if it had four external drop tanks... which makes it a 30mm cannon armed gun fighter.
    With four weapons pylons it would be armed with two R-77s and two R-73s, which is less fire power than a early model MiG-29 with a simple cheap upgrade.
    Yak had 5th pylon for conformal fuel tank.  It coul dcarry 4 missiles  still having better range than MiG-29k. MiG of it course if could accidentally start.




    GB wrote:
    There is no dog fighting anymore with radars with 250km range on stealth aircraft. And capable IRST systems.  17km vs 15,5? will this difference compensate what precisely? AA missiles work at last to 25km.
    Yeah, with both aircraft having self defence ESM equipment and towed decoys and the like it is going to come down to a gun fight.
    Detecting the F-35 is what the AWACS platform the MiG is operating with is for and the AWACS the F-35 is using will be shot down with R-37M missiles soon enough.
    In a gun fight the F-35 will get its arse kicked.
    if is the keyword here, gun fight aint happen. At least with  MiG-29k. Old design, old avionics, old missiles. No IRST.  F-35 is gonna st it from more than 2x greater distance.



    after wiki
    MiG-29k
    Radar Zhuk-ME [11]


    Waveband: X
    Detection range of air targets 5m2:
    against the sky / land in front hemisphere: 130/120 km
    against the sky / land in the rear hemisphere : 50/40 km


    F-35B The APG-77
    provides 120° field of view in azimuth and elevation,[citation needed] which is the highest possible value for a flat phased array antenna.[2] Unconfirmed sources suggest that APG-77 has an operating range of 125–150 mi (201–241 km),[3] against a 1 m2 (11 sq ft) target. A range of 400 km or more, against a 1 m2 (11 sq ft) target, with the APG-77v1 with newer GaAs modules, is believed to be possible while using more narrow beams.[


    MiG-29k with R-37 ?! in which video game?!!!! Can you at least from time to time read the real data?  affraid  affraid  affraid






    GB wrote:
    KR is no magic of name - R stands worm Russian not better, actually Indian ones have better preference
    What would you know... you didn't even realise the current models are different from the ones that first flew in 1988...  Rolling Eyes

    yup, and after 30 years actually  they still fail to deliver. Indian record of serviceability reached  tadam 15,5%! check auditors note.  So 1 per 6 is able to fly  affraid  affraid  affraid
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1317
    Points : 1317
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Nov 26, 2018 6:02 am

    Besides CATOBAR being more expensive to build, maintain & operate, it's less safe. Snapped cables, cold launches, & wrong settings maimed/killed many sailors & pilots, not to mention wrecked planes. The VMF would rather avoid all that!
    Necessity is the mother of invention. Believe me, they can design STOVL fighters equal or even better than the F-35B (which uses some elements of the Yak-41), esp. after the Su-27 family equaled & in some ways surpassed the F-15/-18 families in performance:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30#Specifications_(Su-27PU/Su-30)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-33#Specifications
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34#Specifications_(Su-34)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35#Specifications_(Su-35S)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#Specifications_(F-15C)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet#Specifications_(F/A-18C/D)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet#Specifications_(F/A-18E/F)


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Nov 26, 2018 6:21 am; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : add links)
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18876
    Points : 19432
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:44 am

    The AN-72 family was started in the USSR:
    First flight 22 December 1977. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-72
    First flight November 1983

    And MiG and Tupolev and Yakovlev and Sukhoi were all Soviet too, but now they are Russian, and Antonov is dead and Ukrainian.

    If it'll work, why not? As late Deng Xiaoping said, if a cat catches mice, it doesn't matter if it's black or white.

    An-72s were never designed or expected to operate from a carrier... their engines were optimised for low cost long range cruise, not vigorous short length takeoffs at sea.

    A custom designed aircraft would be much more useful and sensible... and they wont be operating from the Kuznetsov so they wont be needed for at least a decade possibly more... by which time the An-72 design will be totally obsolete.

    In addition to AWACS it could also provide tanker support and cargo supply to speed up replen at sea.

    Like spokes principle in civil aviation, there will be 1 big airfield with a few smaller 1s 100s of miles away, & as mentioned, they could be resupplied by An-72/-74, Mi-6/-10/-26/-38s & future tiltrotors:

    Well there you go... the AN-72 and An-74 have no future in the Russian military... Il-112 and Il-114 is what you should be talking about... as well as the new upgraded An-2 rebuilt from scratch by Siberians.

    BTW Mi-6 is also obsolete and has been replaced by the Mi-26, and the Mi-10 flying crane is also likely out of service too with the Mi-26 doing a much better job.

    And the Mi-12 just makes no sense with the Mi-26 doing what it does.

    Their could be an option for a flying crane variant of the Mi-26 at some stage perhaps, but why bother?

    OK you dont get words difference meaning, not my problem.

    Blah blah blah... yeah, I get it... you don't like MiG... haven't bothered reading the rest of your post because I suspect it is just more of the same.

    Besides CATOBAR being more expensive to build, maintain & operate, it's less safe.

    Where did that come from?

    For heavy low thrust aircraft like AWACS platform catapult launch is the only option, but the majority of your aircraft that are 5th gen fighters with big wings, low drag, light weight air to air payloads, powerful engines that give high thrust to weight ratios at Normal TOW, they will be conventional take off with arrested landing using the ski jump.

    Ie what the Kuznetsov uses currently.

    They lost two aircraft to faulty arrester gear and they were lost together so it was likely one fault... shall we go through the dozens of Yak-38 and Yak-38M crashes where aircraft were lost?

    Snapped cables, cold launches, & wrong settings maimed/killed many sailors & pilots, not to mention wrecked planes. The VMF would rather avoid all that!

    Again.... what are you talking about?

    When a plane lands if a cable breaks there will be no one on deck to get injured by the cable... the pilot engages full AB and takes off again and goes around and has another go with three cables instead of four to catch.

    The one instance where there was a problem with the arrester gear which meant the cables would not work so the cable would always snap during a landing attempt. No injured pilots, no injured sailors... some injured pride. Two lost aircraft. Big deal.

    How many Yak-38 and Yak-38Ms crashed and killed their pilots?

    Rather more than have been killed with the CTOBAR system the Kuznetsov uses.

    To its credit the auto ejection system of the Yak meant that no aircrew were killed when it was turned on, but sometimes it was turned off and aircrew died as a result...

    Believe me, they can design STOVL fighters equal or even better than the F-35B (which uses some elements of the Yak-41), esp. after the Su-27 family equaled & in some ways surpassed the F-15/-18 families in performance:

    The energy and effort to make them V whether it is take off or landing makes it a waste of money... and guess what... the AWACS and tanker aircraft are still going to need a catapult system to take off and an arrester gear system to land so you are wasting time and money and effort just to get planes that can already land conventionally but with arrester gear to land vertically on a ship.

    Bare minimum to create a 5th gen fighter would be 20 billion dollars if you want it to take off and land vertically... and I am being generous here because the F-35 will cost 1.5 trillion and they have made aircraft before so they should know what they were doing... it could have been a stealthy F-16, but ended up a dog.

    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1317
    Points : 1317
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:46 pm

    Antonov is dead and Ukrainian
    But its planes r in the RFAF/etc. inventory, have many years of life left & could be modified &/ produced under different names. The Chinese Y-7/MA60/-8/-9s & their variants r also based on the now obsolete An-24/-26 & An-12.
    An-72s were never designed or expected to operate from a carrier...
    Nor did the An-24/-26, but China is now working on AWACS variant based on it:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_Y-7
    http://chinesemilitaryreview.blogspot.com/2012/07/chinese-jzy-01-aircraft-carrier-capable.html
    https://archive.is/20130118230711/http://defense.chariweb.com/2012/07/china-develops-its-e-2c-jzy-01-fix-ed.html

    The Il-112/-114s r not proven yet & may not be produced in large #s.
    Belarus, an allied state, still had a few in 2016 & Russia 10 Mi-6s in 2013: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8-6#%D0%A2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%89%D0%B8%D0%B
    UTair has 5 Mi-10Ks: https://web.archive.org/web/20130219160513/http://corp.utair.ru/en/park/index.html#heli

    Harrowing footage of a cable snapping during aircraft carrier landing
    Navy: 8 sailors aboard USS Eisenhower injured when cable breaks during E-2C landing
    Even if their future tankers, CODs & AWACS use CATOBAR, it'll be less often than with also CTOL fighters, resulting in less wear & tear, maintenance needed, & casualties.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:05 am; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 907
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:57 pm

    Some interesting data:

    1) Tarasenko confirming the MiG-35 has been designed from the outset with a reinforced structure compatible with carrier operations:


    — With regard to the development of the project, the MiG-35, the company plans to create its naval version?

    — It is possible. Especially considering the fact that reinforced construction of the MiG-35 fully complies with the requirements for operation of the ship aircraft. In the future, upon receipt of an appropriate order, we can modify the aircraft and to ship version.

    https://ria.ru/interview/20170214/1487925313.html

    2) Most recent data from F-35 program offer interesting information about the cost evolution of the different versions. Please consider the recent squeeze the DoD effectively forced on Lockheed and P&W and the resulting prices, including engine & fee:

    F-35A - $89.2 million
    F-35B - $115.5 million
    F-35C - $107.7 million

    That makes 8.8 million difference between B and C versions (separated also by serious range and payload differences) and impressive 26 million difference between B and A, the full cost of a Su-30SM by RuAF standards lol1

    To see the price evolution (LRIP up to 8 do not include engine):


    There is a substantial reduction in the cost of F-35C from LRIP 10 to 11 ($15 million), which was not exactly the case for the B

    And this is the cost projection:


    Analysing the last table is quite interesting:

    > Final prices of B version are expected to be 34% higher than CTOL and 16% higher than CATOBAR one

    > Airframe of C version is 1.6% more expensive than B version and 16% more expensive than A version. Difficult to say what comes from increased fuel capacity and wingspan and what to strict navalization efforts. In any case and surprisingly, airframe of the STOVL version, without wing fold and reinforcements for trap landings, is almost as expensive as the CATOBAR version.

    > Engine of STOVL version is seriously more expensive, though: 241% more than C version and 246% more than A version.

    The question that this suggests to me is: what would happen if, instead of a less than impressive naval version we would talk about a plane which does not need such serious modifications for naval operations? What would be the extra cost and weight of a naval version? F-35 had overweight, weak landing gear, little range and bad aero for a naval fighter to fit USN requirements, and correspondingly needed intensive modifications. But for instance MiG-35 seems to be reinforced already, and Su-57 apparently has impressive STOL performance by itself so aero needs to be outstanding for carrier operations already.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1317
    Points : 1317
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:27 am

    Pl. see http://www.russiadefence.net/t5376p300-pla-navy-and-naval-air-force#241187
    They will have CATOBAR & STOVL fighters. Why would they need both? They r not known for unwise spending.  
    Russia will be able to afford STOVL & UDKs/LHDs, but may or may not be able to afford larger CVNs/TAKRs with CATOBAR in the time frame her admirals want.
    So, it makes sense to invest in STOVL fighters regardless, & share the cost of developing them with China.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3891
    Points : 3929
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Nov 28, 2018 1:07 am

    LMFS wrote:Some interesting data:

    1) Tarasenko confirming the MiG-35 has been designed from the outset with a reinforced structure compatible with carrier operations:

    Interesting that after epic failure of MiG-29k in India and Russia they decided to even change this name... to have any chances with reworked platform. I hope they get some expeort contracts.


    LMFS wrote: 2) Most recent data from F-35 program offer interesting information about the cost evolution of the different versions. Please consider the recent squeeze the DoD effectively forced on Lockheed and P&W and the resulting prices, including engine & fee:
    Analyzing the last table is quite interesting:
    > Final prices of B version are expected to be 34% higher than CTOL and 16% higher than CATOBAR one

    the funnier thing is number fo F-35B originally planed comparing to F-35C. USMC ordered 80 F-35C to be stationed only in Florida lol1 lol1 lol1 so actually for naval usager it looks like 200/260 = 77% ratio. Damn perhaps VSTOL have interesting features for navies after all? BTW no planned fighters yet were induced fo Spanish, Korean or Japanese navies.
    US is and most likely remains the only to use F-35C

    F-35B = 200
    F-35C = 80+260




    LMFS wrote: The question that this suggests to me is: what would happen if, instead of a less than impressive naval version we would talk about a plane which does not need such serious modifications for naval operations? What would be the extra cost and weight of a naval version? F-35 had overweight, weak landing gear, little range and bad aero for a naval fighter to fit USN requirements, and correspondingly needed intensive modifications. But for instance MiG-35 seems to be reinforced already, and Su-57 apparently has impressive STOL performance by itself so aero needs to be outstanding for carrier operations already.



    a) Not sure if you were writing about US navy or Russian one? Russian MoD wants to have perspective platform for aircraft carriers. So MiG-35 is out by definition.
    Su-57k well, if Russian MoD chooses xSTOL then IMHO Su-57 would be a great candidate. Su-57 already has bu normal TOW M/T=1,36 .

    Why Russian MoD decided for VSTOL approach? looks that VSTOL capability is needed after all. All western navies adopted VSTOL but France. China recently joined VSTOL club working on own fighter this class.




    b) Well, MiG-35 has little chance in Russia IMHO. It came too late for large procurement without imminent danger if war. This would be mostly export plane. If anybody wants it of course. in eyes of Russian MoD MiG should restore former reputation after epic MiG-29k fail. first.


    c) F-35B is lighter actually then F-35C. (after wiki)

    Empty weight 32,472 lb (14,729 kg) 34,581 lb (15,686 kg)

    and yes foreign navies ordered only F-35B none F-35C for a reason I guess.
    F-35 bulkiness problem are not because of VSTOL. It is enough to look at other proposals of light Vgen fighters. Korean, Turkish ones.






    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3891
    Points : 3929
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:07 am

    First of all since to exclusive club of VSTOL fighter Navies Chinese has recently joined - congrats to PLA comrades! Second after Russian from this part of this world and after
    after Royal Navy, Italian Navy, Turkish Navy and of course  biggest so far operator USMC. Spanish Navy, Korean and Japanese are still waiting to join this club.

    Perhaps Indian to replace MiG-29ks  too? If it would be not MiG but Su or Yak  lol1  lol1  lol1

    But why VSTOL?

    some say they are very heavy:

    Yak-141
    vertical life engines...Type...........number installed...dry weight...........weight per fighter.........thrust............specific fuel consumption......first in production
    ..................................RD-41........2.........................290kg................680kg.........................40kN..............1,4 kg/kG*hr......................1984

    Comparison (after wiki) basic data of Yak-141 (not final iterations before proposed redesign) with MiG-29k (after Indian tender so  15 years later with redesign)


    ...........................march engine/..............engine.................................................................specific fuel
    ...........................lift-march.engine..........weight..............thrust..................thrust AB............consumption.......internal fuel
    Yak-141.............. .1xR79V-300.................1x1,800kg.........1x10,977.kgf/s.....1x15,500.kgf/s....0,66...................4,400.kg
    MiG-29k ................RD-33..izd.9-31...........2x1,055kg.........2x5,400.kgf/s.......2x.9,000.kgf/s.....0,77..................4,750.kg


    continued..............

    ...........................max speed low...max speed high....combat radius
    Yak-141-..............1,400.km/h........1,800 km/h.........690/900 * -> for Yak 141/141M with 2,000 kg payload I assumed with 1 external fuel tanks (conformal)
    MiG-29k...............1,400.km/h........2,200 km/h.........850/1050 *-> no payload mentioned: on internal fuel/1 extra fuel tank


    Yefim Gordon History of Yak Design Bureau p. 345.

    As we can see even 35 years  old design of Yak 141 is not that different from MiG-29k with old tech and weaker engine. Material engineering, computers, engines progressed immensely,
    so with right design VSTOL can be agile fighter. Dont compare to F-35 please because F-35 was build no to Russian doctrine (vide compare Kuz to ay US CVN and Kuz always is looser)
    And no there is nothing bulky abut VSTOL.

    Check any other V gen light fighter proposal. And compare to late Yak proposals.




    BTW I'have found very old Kommersant paper mentioning that for PAK FA had two engines contenders:   AL-41F, and the R179-300 (here with 20tons thrust).
    https://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2007/12/17/133511.html

    R79V-300 is alive and kicking but this is another story - transport aviation seems to be interested in lol1 lol1



    Tsavo Lion wrote:Pl. see http://www.russiadefence.net/t5376p300-pla-navy-and-naval-air-force#241187
    They will have CATOBAR & STOVL fighters. Why would they need both? They r not known for unwise spending.  
    Russia will be able to afford STOVL & UDKs/LHDs, but may or may not be able to afford larger CVNs/TAKRs with CATOBAR in the time frame her admirals want.
    So, it makes sense to invest in STOVL fighters regardless, & share the cost of developing them with China.


    Budget is never written in stone. It si depending on geopolitical situation. But considering no major war on horizon I'd expect Russia to build 2 70k tons class TAKR/CVN or 3-4 30-45 ktons TAKR/LHD .  Russians also badly need LHDs, so I dont know, really. So many combinations of

    1) light fighter or heavy fighter (both VSTOL)
    2) more  LHD more CVN
    3) TAKR (missiles as main strike force) or classical CVN (air wing)

    well the good side of it is - we will see soon. Spring 2019 Russian MoD is to choose  one of reworked (words of Borisov AFAIR)  initial designs. This can sort out many of current discussions  thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup



    What fighters? cheapest option I'd presume is xtreme STOL for Su-57.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18876
    Points : 19432
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:51 am

    But its planes r in the RFAF/etc. inventory, have many years of life left & could be modified &/ produced under different names.

    They also have lots of MiG-21 and MiG-23 aircraft in their inventory... are you suggesting they upgrade them and use them on their carriers too?

    These aircraft were designed and built during the Soviet era when a group of countries worked together in a country called the Soviet Union.

    The Soviet Union has split up and some components are not talking to or cooperating with other former parts.

    The companies that made Antonov aircraft is now based in the Ukraine... not all of the parts that were used in their aircraft were made there but you can be sure the companies that made parts no longer make parts.

    They are dead programmes.

    For a new requirement like a modern light AWACS platform that can operate from an aircraft carrier, it makes sense to design the new aircraft from scratch using new materials and new engines and new systems... such a design could be sold to a lot of countries who want the benefits of an AWACS platform but can't afford an A-50 or A-100.

    A smaller lighter cheaper aircraft that can manage air patrols and look down at the ground for threats like low flying aircraft of missiles would be enormously valuable... especially if it is inflight refuelling capable.

    The Chinese Y-7/MA60/-8/-9s & their variants r also based on the now obsolete An-24/-26 & An-12.

    The Chinese are making modifications of good solid aircraft that perform roles... and they are ignoring licences so they don't care that the design is not theirs.

    The Russians on the other hand have those aircraft in service and now want something better and are working on Il-112, Il-114 and Il-276 aircraft respectively to replace those aircraft you mentioned.

    Nor did the An-24/-26, but China is now working on AWACS variant based on it:

    And good for them... but let me ask you... do you think that is because China has better options?

    Or do you think it is because the airframe they are basing it on is the closest they have available to them to fit the role?

    China has plenty of money and could simply offer to buy Hawkeyes from the US or from countries that have bought said aircraft... even without the electronics installed. They went ahead with making their own naval fighters instead of buying the fighters Russia designed for the role... so perhaps they want to create the experience of developing their own, but want to start with a capable existing design.

    BTW if they are developing a carrier based AWACS model they would be better to start with the An-32 which has rather more installed engine power for hot and high operations from shorter airstrips...


    The Il-112/-114s r not proven yet & may not be produced in large #s.

    The alternative is the An-26, so even if they are rubbish to start with, their problems will be fixed and eventually they will be good platforms.

    Russia has nothing that is proven for the role of AWACS platform for its navy BTW.

    Even if their future tankers, CODs & AWACS use CATOBAR, it'll be less often than with also CTOL fighters, resulting in less wear & tear, maintenance needed, & casualties.

    Yeah, problems with US carriers are not relevant really, because we are not talking about US carrier, we are talking about Russian carriers.

    Cables have a fixed life span and are then chucked. Arrester gear needs to be maintained and set properly, but hand grenades need their pins to be left in until they need to be used and then the pins are pulled... not a good reason to not have pins in grenades...

    I have stated that conventional take off but arrested landing can have issues... but those issues are rare... it has only happened once on the Kuznetsov during its entire operational life... in comparison VSTOL aircraft have crashed repeatedly...and quite a few times fatally... and the threat to the crew on the deck of downward pointing 20 ton thrust jet engine wash and then a 15-20 ton aircraft crashing and burning on the deck is not safer than a cable that has broken...

    They will have CATOBAR & STOVL fighters. Why would they need both? They r not known for unwise spending.

    China has money to burn... who knows why they would spend money on both... why is the Russian Navy investing in both?

    Russia will be able to afford STOVL & UDKs/LHDs, but may or may not be able to afford larger CVNs/TAKRs with CATOBAR in the time frame her admirals want.

    Small carriers are not that much cheaper than big carriers... in the case of a US super carrier the air component will cost more than the ship even though the ship is enormously expensive and the high attrition rate of the F-35s is going to sink their navy...

    So, it makes sense to invest in STOVL fighters regardless, & share the cost of developing them with China.

    STOVL 5th gen fighter will cost more than two 80K ton CVNs... why do you think this is cost effective?

    Small carriers might be cheaper but are useless too... if you are going away from Russian shores you wont be going with Corvettes for obvious reasons.... so why would you take a corvette carrier?

    The whole point of a carrier is to bring air power with you where ever you go... so why take a helipad when you need a real airfield?

    Ahhh.... because it is cheaper... right... but the fighters that operate from that helipad are enormously expensive... and no AWACS platform so you are screwed.... you might as well take a couple of extra cruisers with three helicopters each and use that capacity instead of a carrier... one anti sub helo and two Ka-52Ks per cruiser... three cruisers therefore equals 6 "fighters" which will be plenty according to some...


    Interesting that after epic failure of MiG-29k in India and Russia they decided to even change this name... to have any chances with reworked platform. I hope they get some expeort contracts.

    Funny, the Indians didn't like the AKM either and developed the INSAS... now they are looking at buying AK-103s... which is an upgraded AKM.

    Eventually they will learn how to operate and maintain their MiGs and everything will be fine...

    Why Russian MoD decided for VSTOL approach? looks that VSTOL capability is needed after all. All western navies adopted VSTOL but France. China recently joined VSTOL club working on own fighter this class.

    No great surprise... they made the VSTOL mistake twice before... Yak-38/M and Yak-41/M and in both cases they were withdrawn from service or cancelled before even entering service.

    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 907
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:37 am

    STVOL make sense for amphibious assault ships and STOBAR or CATOBAR for carriers, is there any mystery in this?

    The proposal to develop STOVL together with China could actually make some sense, in order to go from impracticable amount of units to hopefully some 100-150 of them. Plus export possibilities, since LHDs are more abundant than proper carriers in the world's navies. China would learn the technologies needed for STOVL and Russia would get financing for further development of their capabilities. Not so bad IMHO.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3891
    Points : 3929
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:34 pm

    In order to help with discussions, let me define first the subject of discussion.

    1) Real carrier definition:

    a)  a carrier built to US doctrine with US budget which is roughly 50% of worlds military spending. And at least by order of magnitude higher then other countries, besides chine recently.  

    b)  carrier uses CATOBAR, development of catapult is very expensive but with economy of scale and virtually unlimited budget  why not.

    c) US is the only so far country building AWACS for CVNs . Again expensive business but with economy of scale and US budget is doable

    d) CATOBAR carriers are used in US Navy and ... French (one with US catapult and AWACS).

    e) CATOBARS re used by Russians, Chinese, Indians.  Russians announced to move to jump jets recently, Indians will change MiG-29k taking inro account 15,5% of serviceability in some cases (check official audit records) . Chinese are developing own STOL to  complete own deck aviation.


    2) unreal carrier

    Carrier used by any other navy besides US and French ones and populated with VSTOL fighters. BTW USMC is planning to use its 340 own F-35Bs  on  LHDs.  In control ship mission each can carry ~ 20 F-35Bs.

    Taking into account official declarations Russian and Chinese navies soon join the club too.









    Japan - welcome a new member of an exclusive VSTOL club  lol!  lol!  lol!


    Talking about  Izumo, I dont think this will be the end of Japanese aircraft carriers' saga. With Japans electronic and shipyard industry it can make quick "large universal ships"  armed  with supersonic antiship missiles too...

    wiki says: Izume 27,000 tons full displacement


    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/11/27/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-eyes-introduction-multipurpose-aircraft-mother-ship/

    Japan eyes introduction of multipurpose aircraft ‘mother ship’ and purchase of extra 100 F-35 jets


    KYODO, JIJI, STAFF REPORT

    NOV 27, 2018
    Japan is considering transforming a helicopter destroyer into an aircraft carrier that can accommodate fighter jets, a government source said Tuesday, in what could be seen as a departure from the country’s strictly defense-oriented policy under its pacifist Constitution.

    The remodeling of the helicopter carrier Izumo, operated by Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force, is seen as indispensable if the country is to beef up its defense capabilities in the face of China’s maritime assertiveness in the waters around the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea.

    The government plans to state its policy of renovating a destroyer so it can carry fighter jets in the defense buildup guidelines to be updated next month, the source said.

    Currently the MSDF’s 19,500-ton Izumo is 248-meters long and can carry up to 14 helicopters.

    Under the war-renouncing Article 9 of the Constitution, Japan has maintained that it cannot possess attack aircraft carriers as it is only allowed to use force for self-defense.

    However, Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya appeared positive Tuesday about upgrading Izumo to serve as an aircraft carrier.

    “It’s desirable that it will be used for as many purposes as possible,” he said at a news conference.

    If remodeled, the Izumo would likely carry F-35B stealth jet fighters, which are capable of conducting short-range and vertical take-off and landing.

    Asked if the ministry will introduce F-35Bs or not, Iwaya said it is “now conducting studies” on that option.

    The ruling Liberal Democratic Party, which wants to revise the country’s pacifist Constitution, has called for an upgrade of the Izumo to use it as an aircraft carrier.

    The LDP referred to such an aircraft carrier as a “multipurpose mother ship” in its report compiled in May.

    Separately on Tuesday, the Nikkei business newspaper reported that the government is preparing to order another 100 F-35 fighters from the U.S. to replace some of its aging F-15s, citing unnamed sources.

    A single F-35 costs more than ¥10 billion, meaning the additional order would exceed ¥1 trillion. Those F-35s would include both F-35As and F-35Bs, the Nikkei reported.

    Currently, the Air-Self Defense Forces plans to procure 42 F-35As by fiscal 2024.

    The government is now mulling the procurement plan partly because of U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated calls for Tokyo to buy more American defense equipment, the Nikkei reported.

    At present, Japan deploys about 200 F-15s, roughly half of which cannot be upgraded, according to the newspaper.

    Meanwhile the government is set to carefully decide the details of “the mother ship,” including the purposes of its operations and its aircraft carrying capacity at ordinary times, so as to avoid it being regarded as an attack aircraft carrier, which exceeds the scope of Japan’s exclusively defense-oriented policy, sources said.

    The carrier needs to have a deck resistant to the high heat caused by the takeoffs and landings of such fighters.

    The government’s current view is that Japan is not allowed to possess attack aircraft carriers under the country’s pacifist Constitution.

    The country needs to be assured that the envisaged carrier will operate within the range of its defense-oriented policy, a senior official of Komeito, the LDP’s junior coalition partner, said.


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:43 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3891
    Points : 3929
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:41 pm

    LMFS wrote:STVOL make sense for amphibious assault ships and STOBAR or CATOBAR for carriers, is there any mystery in this?

    agreed 100% thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup


    The proposal to develop STOVL together with China could actually make some sense in order to go from impracticable amount of units to hopefully some 100-150 of them.

    IMHO very unlikely, why Russian would share its perhaps most modern fighter with china? One of potential ways of development is actually an advanced fighter of 5+ class. It sogin to be designed 17 years after Su-57 started. Depending on will it be heavy one (why not Su-57 based) or light one (to replace all MiG-35/29 with time) it still h'ae to be mass produced.

    Russian MoD says they need ~700 fighters. In 25 years most of currently used will be ripe to be retired. Somthing is to rpelce them. Su-5 si deinitely there, and the other? well et me guess VSTOL one?


    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3891
    Points : 3929
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:35 pm

    Why VSTOL is so bad? topto tops MiG-29k (if can fly) vs 30 years old Yak design 9current will be light years better)

    1) extra dead mass? VSTOL costs 6% extra weight

    Yak-141 2x vertical lift engines - 290kg each dry mass - 680 fry mass pet fighter. Empty weight:   11,650kg  
    so below 6% of extra weight


    2) internal sooooo small. Yes MiG carries  7,5% more fuel internally!!!

    MiG-29k...4,750 kg
    Yak-141...4,400 kg


    3) Combat radius - tiny. YES - MiG-29k has 14% longer radius

    I used data form previous post: 900km Yak vs 1050km MiG for AA missions.


    4] Radar capabilities/ avionics    - damn same performance !  


    after wiki:
    Yak - Radar "Zhuk"
    The Yak-141 uses the C-41M weapons control system (M - “modernized”), which is the development of early CW projects for the Yak-41 - C-41 and C-41D (D - “modified”). The system is built around a multi - mode on - board radar "Beetle" with a slit antenna array (modification M002). This radar is similar to the radar of the MiG-29M fighter , but has smaller overall dimensions. The detection range of air targets with an ESR of 3 m² is 80 km, and small surface vessels 110 km. The station is capable of accompanying up to 10 targets, and also provides shelling of 4 targets

    MiG-29 Radar Zhuk
    Accompanying 10 air targets and bombardment of the most dangerous [151]
    The minimum difference between the speeds of the fighter and the target is 150 km / h
    Attacking target speed 230–2500 km / h
    The height of the attacked target 30-23000 m
    Target detection range with ESR 3 m² in PPP at an altitude of more than 3000 m - 50–70 km
    The detection range of the helicopter (speed more than 180 km / h) in the ZPS is 23 km, PPS - 17 km [152]
    according to 2012 - radar H010 "Beetle" of various versions. 10–20 targets simultaneously at a distance of up to 80 kilometers, shelling 1–2 [153] .







    GarryB wrote:
    They will have CATOBAR & STOVL fighters. Why would they need both? They r not known for unwise spending.  
    China has money to burn... who knows why they would spend money on both... why is the Russian Navy investing in both?

    not what Russian MoD says. VSTOL programme is the only one for deck fighter




    GB wrote:
    Russia will be able to afford STOVL & UDKs/LHDs, but may or may not be able to afford larger CVNs/TAKRs with CATOBAR in the time frame her admirals want.
    Small carriers are not that much cheaper than big carriers... in the case of a US super carrier the air component will cost more than the ship even though the ship is enormously expensive and the high attrition rate of the F-35s is going to sink their navy...

    is 3-4 times means not thet much then agreed.  Nothing is gonna sink US Navy in our lifetimes.




    GB wrote:
    So, it makes sense to invest in STOVL fighters regardless, & share the cost of developing them with China.

    STOVL 5th gen fighter will cost more than two 80K ton CVNs... why do you think this is cost effective?

    simply because the real military in the real world firmly decided that  they want to build VSTOL?


    GB wrote:Small carriers might be cheaper but are useless too... if you are going away from Russian shores you wont be going with Corvettes for obvious reasons.... so why would you take a corvette carrier? The whole point of a carrier is to bring air power with you where ever you go...


    Useless ? Well depending   on for whom? for you useless , for Russian admirals and MoD they are useful. So they decided to invest in development instead of keeping MiG-35 artificially alive.

    What carrier? large or small? It' gonna depend on Russian doctrine, capabilities of building navy and fighters and financial  restrictions. So far it seems anything below 70ktons is on table.
    No worries, we need to wait just a couple of months, to really see results what was chosen.





    GB wrote:
    Ahhh.... because it is cheaper... right... but the fighters that operate from that helipad are enormously expensive... and no AWACS platform so you are screwed.... you might as well take a couple of extra cruisers with three helicopters each and use that capacity instead of a carrier... one anti sub helo and two Ka-52Ks per cruiser... three cruisers therefore equals 6 "fighters" which will be plenty according to some...

    Even when this concept doesnt appeal to you it does to all navies in the world except US (French one is using US components so it doesn't count) .AWACS can be realized with tiltrotors/helos. Russians can spend on anything they wont but so far nothing was said about expenses like billions on AWACS CATOBAR and catapult.  IMHO unlikely well see it.

    To build catapults for 2-4 AWACS planes? so to spend 30% of VSTOL fighter budget



    GB wrote:

    Interesting that after epic failure of MiG-29k in India and Russia they decided to even change this name... to have any chances with reworked platform. I hope they get some expeort contracts.

    Funny, the Indians didn't like the AKM either and developed the INSAS... now they are looking at buying AK-103s... which is an upgraded AKM.

    Well they replace MiG-29Ks by first occasion, perhaps even with   Russian VSTOL fighter why not?  thumbsup  thumbsup  thumbsup  as long as its not "MiG quality"





    GB wrote:Why Russian MoD decided for VSTOL approach? looks that VSTOL capability is needed after all. All western navies adopted VSTOL but France. China recently joined VSTOL club working on own fighter this class.

    No great surprise... they made the VSTOL mistake twice before... Yak-38/M and Yak-41/M and in both cases they were withdrawn from service or cancelled before even entering service.

    [/quote]

    Yak an d MiG both were dead.  MiG a shortly resurrected by Indian tender. And an experiment failed. Failed so miserably os not only  Yak successor will be built to replace MiG but also MiG is killing MiG-29k name!
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1317
    Points : 1317
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:18 pm

    They also have lots of MiG-21 and MiG-23 aircraft in their inventory... are you suggesting they upgrade them and use them on their carriers too?
    U r generalizing too much, transferring the issue onto other aircraft. MiG-21s could be used as drones; all their MiG-23s were scrapped FYI.
    For a new requirement like a modern light AWACS platform that can operate from an aircraft carrier, it makes sense to design the new aircraft from scratch using new materials and new engines and new systems...
    It'll take longer & be more costly than using existing airframe & engines.
    ..do you think that is because China has better options?
    Or do you think it is because the airframe they are basing it on is the closest they have available to them to fit the role?
    ..the private Chinese firm Beijing A-Star Airspace and Technology was (at least in June 2015) looking to produce the An-178 [An-158, stretched -148 derivative] under license. ..To enhance the platform’s versatility, the An-178 will gain the capability to serve as an air-to-air refuelling (AAR) aircraft. This is a very promising goal in that it transforms the An-178 into a multi-role tanker and transport (MRTT) platform, enabling a wide range of air forces to utilize a common aircraft system to achieve multiple different mission roles.
    China and Ukraine to jointly produce a new An-178 short-range tactical transport aircraft
    https://quwa.org/2015/12/25/keep-an-eye-on-the-antonov-an-178/
    Antonov to produce new AEW&C aircraft for Ukrainian AF
    China could do the same with her An-178s.
    What other suitable airframe does Russia have for STO/CATOBAR AWACS/COD/ASW/tanker plane? The YAK-44 was only built as a mock up. The RFAF/NAF has 203(!) An-26s; 50(!) An-24/-26s, 38 An-72s, 5 An-140s, comparable in size to the E-2, & 15 An-148s, plenty to modify &/ cannibalize:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_military_aircraft#Russian_Air_Force
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_military_aircraft#Russian_Naval_Aviation
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-148#Current_orders_and_deliveries
    ..the Aviakor version of the An-140 is manufactured entirely with Russian components. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-140#Variants
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-140#/media/File:Antonov_An-140-100_at_the_MAKS-2011_(03).jpg
    http://www.militaryparitet.com/html/data/ic_news/1047/
    http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww4/t/1789/33/0
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye#Specifications_(E-2C/D)

    If they produced An-148s & An-124s, why can't they produce parts for a few An-26/-71/-72/-148s?
    Shortening the An-26/-72/-148 fuselage by cutting a section & rejoining it is easier then stretching; modifying fantail to carry a radome, adding avionics, computers, crew stations, etc. & foldable wings is all that's needed:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-72#Specifications_(An-72)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-71#/media/File:Antonov_An-71_Batuzak-1.jpg
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-71#Specifications_(An-71)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-148#Specifications

    If the IL-112 is successful, it too could be modified for STO/CATOBAR.
    https://www.janes.com/article/84867/russian-il-112v-transport-aircraft-rolled-out  

    Note an An-148 in the background:
    https://vk.com/video-98624581_456239089
    http://vestivrn.ru/news/2018/11/28/pervyi-voronezhskii-voenno-transportnyi-il-112v-peredali-na-lyotnye-ispytaniya/

    So, if there was an urgent need, they could use them as such.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:46 am; edited 14 times in total (Reason for editing : add links)
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 907
    Points : 901
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:17 pm

    Gunshipdemocracy wrote:IMHO very unlikely, why Russian would share its perhaps most modern fighter with china?
    Because it does not need to be their best fighter. Air wing of LHDs is there for support in lower risk environments, otherwise you call the carrier with their AWACS and high performance jets. Anyway Russians were (are) ok with sharing lots of tech with India for the FGFA, money rules

    (why not Su-57 based)
    Please look at the Su-57 for a second and you should understand why that is a very bad idea. Can hardly believe you try to give lessons in physics to engineers and come up with crap like this

    Why VSTOL is so bad? topto tops MiG-29k (if can fly) vs 30 years old Yak design 9current will be light years better)
    290 kg for the RD-41 would mean >14:1 T/W ratio. 1/3 better than izd. 117, either I miss something important in performance of that precise type of engine (may be the case) or those data are BS

    On the other hand, apart from engines you need ancillaries, nacelles, nozzles, intakes, automated openings, fuel lines, roll posts, thermal protection etc etc. That weights "zero" and takes no space right?

    Lets assume the Yak-141 was the wonder you are so keenly trying to convince us it was, much better than MiG-29 which MoD so stupidly chose instead. Now, take the engines for vertical lift and all additional HW out. Put fuel tanks instead. Wouldn't the plane be lighter and longer ranged????? Just to check if we live in the same universe or you live in one of your own

    And now, move the main engine to the back of the plane like CTOL fighters are designed. Put fuel in the huge space created. Wouldn't the plane have much more fuel capacity, despite empty weight increased a bit?

    The example above illustrates the fundamental handicap STOVL with extra devices for vertical lift generation have. If you understand it, fine. If not, fine too.


    avatar
    Gibraltar

    Posts : 26
    Points : 28
    Join date : 2018-09-22

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Gibraltar on Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:40 am

    To me stovl and vtol makes sense in a specific design frame.
    F-35 lesson as someone before me rightly said is that vertical take off and landing can't be a added "feauture" for a version of an aircraft because affects too much in aerodynamics, engine and components layout. It ends in out of control developing times and costs with questionable performances. I think Russia will have ahave a smarter approach in vtol development making it a stand alone specific project and building keeping as fixed project inputs only weapon systems that would be shared with the air force stock.

    About Su-57: to me could be a good idea to derive a navalized version capable of operating from Kuznetsov to build in a dozen at slow pace while K is refitting. Such version, even more refined by experience on deck will be ready to put on a future nuclear carrier.
    On the other side I think is very, very and again very bad idea to derive a vtol from Su-57 and seriously, a can't see any good reason to do it. And go for a specific design.

    hoom

    Posts : 1393
    Points : 1383
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  hoom on Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:32 am

    On the question of Su-57 landing on a CV without special gear:

    Pull a cobra & just drop on the deck at the end.

    They've been having some fun with the idea over at Balancer Laughing

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 10, 2018 1:14 pm