Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian VTOL fighter development

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8016
    Points : 8104
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:25 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 2520
    Points : 2516
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:33 am

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

    Voila

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 PA-russe

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

    Posts : 8016
    Points : 8104
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:35 am

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

    Voila

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

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

    Precisely.

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

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

    Posts : 2520
    Points : 2516
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:38 am

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

    Voila

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

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

    Precisely.

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

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

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

    Posts : 20889
    Points : 21443
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:14 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So they packed it in and went home.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The MiG can operate from rough airstrips pretty much anywhere.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    X2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The size of the new carriers will revolve around what they want as a flight group... having a new modular helo that can perform SAR and ASW and other roles with the change of a pod means fewer helos needed and simplification of replacement helos to cover any lost.
    UAVs and perhaps even airship AWACS are other options... especially tethered airships operating at over 30km altitude...
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1755
    Points : 1750
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Russian STOVL/VTOL fighter development

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:28 am

    Well, F#%k.

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

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

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

    Posts : 8016
    Points : 8104
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

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

    AlfaT8 wrote:Well, F#%k.

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

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

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

    eehenie is on suicide watch lol1
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1543
    Points : 1545
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 534
    Points : 542
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

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

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

    Consolation: Not my money.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1350
    Points : 1348
    Join date : 2016-04-09

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:13 am

    Oh look....said this all along.

    I knew they would do this eventually.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20889
    Points : 21443
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:49 am

    From this article:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8016
    Points : 8104
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:17 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Consolation: Not my money.

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

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

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-16

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:47 am

    Seriously, are we talking about vtol combat aircrafts?

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

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

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

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

    How many are those flat tops? Kuznetsov is one.

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

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

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

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

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

    I suspect far less, and far less would cost the whole life cycle's costs, both for support and future upgrades.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1755
    Points : 1750
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:28 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 8016
    Points : 8104
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:42 am

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    Not 'we'. Russian​ Navy is.

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

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

    But having options is important.
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2516
    Points : 2533
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:51 am

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

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

    Your theory falls to nothing lambie, Bondarev said clearly VTOL. lol1
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1755
    Points : 1750
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:15 am

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

    Then the Ka-52 should be more then enough.

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

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

    When there very lives are at stake.

    If that's the case then the development of the VTOL should be scrapped altogether to focus on better air-defenses for Destroyers and Frigates.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8016
    Points : 8104
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:03 am

    eehnie wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:And VTOL is needed option is for smaller deck ships like LHDs.

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

    Your theory falls to nothing lambie, Bondarev said clearly VTOL. lol1

    F-35 is VTOL and it's used as STOVL by Royal Navy, it's the different setting on same airplane you dumb braindead moron.

    For once in your insignificant pointless futile life use your brain, just once.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8016
    Points : 8104
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:05 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    They are not supposed be aerodynamically superior or to dodge missiles. They would be cheap filler to supplement proper fighter jets and to handle low priority crap.

    Then the Ka-52 should be more then enough.

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

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

    When there very lives are at stake.

    If that's the case then the development of the VTOL should be scrapped altogether to focus on better air-defenses for Destroyers and Frigates.

    Ka-52 can't drop many bombs on primitive colonial possessions. And can't scout ahead too far.

    As for air defense it's more than good already. Excellent in fact.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1755
    Points : 1750
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:11 am

    PapaDragon wrote:Ka-52 can't drop many bombs on primitive colonial possessions. And can't scout ahead too far.

    As for air defense it's more than good already. Excellent in fact.

    That depends on the aircraft, assuming it's more akin to the Yak-141 then yes, true.
    Although i must ask, why would they use a fragile VTOL rather than a cruise missile for such a thing, and if it's for CAS, then the VTOL option is a no go.

    They need to be better, because they'll not only deal with firepower from hostile ships, but also numerous hostile aircrafts as well.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8016
    Points : 8104
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:47 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:Ka-52 can't drop many bombs on primitive colonial possessions. And can't scout ahead too far.

    As for air defense it's more than good already. Excellent in fact.

    That depends on the aircraft, assuming it's more akin to the Yak-141 then yes, true.
    Although i must ask, why would they use a fragile VTOL rather than a cruise missile for such a thing, and if it's for CAS, then the VTOL option is a no go.

    They need to be better, because they'll not only deal with firepower from hostile ships, but also numerous hostile aircrafts as well.


    It will be much bigger than Yak-141, that thing was a miniature with miniscule wings. New one should be roughly size of F-35 or even larger.

    VTOL/STOVLs are not any more fragile than other jets. Especially if they are designed properly. And today you have computers to handle complicated stuff. Russia already developed system that lands jets on Kuznetzov in autopilot mode. VTOL/STOVL fly-by-wire should be no problem in comparison.

    They will not be dealing with hostile ships. Their purpose will be do handle Syria style ops against low threat enemies that are not worth wasting expensive cruise missiles on.

    If enemy can afford actual warships then it's a completely different type of war, one where surface fleets are irelevant.
    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-16

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Yakovlev VTOL fighter development

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:49 am

    F-35 is VTOL and it's used as STOVL by Royal Navy, it's the different setting on same airplane you dumb braindead moron.

    No way, F-35B is not and was not meant to be a true VTOL.

    It could only perform a vertical take off when empty of any weapon, or as alternative with some armament but little fuel on board.

    Put it plainly, its vertical take off capabilities are a feat aimed only to transfers through whatever ship available to carry it into theater of operations.

    There it would perform a single vertical take off, if the ship is lacking a proper flight deck, to relocate itself onboard a flat top or an expeditionary airfield.

    End of vertical take offs stunts.

    It is simply phisics, you could not have on the same aircraft vertical take off, payload and range.

    By the way, F-35B has several limitations in range, payload and dynamics performances compared to its siblings F-35A and F-35C. The fan and transmission required for vertical landings, together with the related stuff put an hefty penalty on the aircraft, as always has been in past STOVL projects


    Last edited by Peŕrier on Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:14 am; edited 1 time in total
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-18
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Russian VTOL fighter

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:25 am

    I just wonder if VTOL will be based on Yak-141 in Tu-160M2 manner or new construction taking into account previous achievements?

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-18
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Russia is developing a new aircraft with vertical take-off

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:31 pm

    Well now it's official.  VSTOL for fleet. I dont think news about universal LHD was so unrelated Smile


    Let me guess  "heavy aviation cruiser" concept is back. Uparm Wasp class and you can have either small AC (~24 VSTOL) or LHD or helo antisub carrier. Simply cost effectiveness.



    https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20180821/1526929317.html

    Kubinka (Moscow region), August 21 - RIA Novosti. The Ministry of Defense began developing a new plane with vertical take-off and landing, Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Borisov said at the opening of the military-technical forum "Army-2018".


    According to him, the project was included in the state program of armaments on behalf of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.
    "Now we are working on a conceptual model, prototypes.Thank you, this is the future.For all types of aircraft carriers, a new fleet of aircraft will be needed.This is why different technologies are used to ensure shortened take-off and landing or simply vertical take-off. are conducted in the Ministry of Defense from last year, "he said.

    He noted that the timing of the creation of a new aircraft is determined by the technological cycle.

    "Typically, this is 7-10 years, if you go to the series," - said Borisov.

    In the USSR, vertical takeoff and landing aircraft have already been produced - more than 230 Yak-38 fighters. It was replaced by Yak-141, but in 2004 the program was canceled. The aircraft was based on the aircraft carrying cruisers of project 1143 (Kiev, Minsk, Novorossiysk, Baku), which they sold abroad.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13256
    Points : 13739
    Join date : 2011-12-23
    Location : Greece

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  George1 on Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:34 pm

    we have thread for this already

    Sponsored content

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 2 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:23 pm