Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian VTOL fighter development

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8319
    Points : 8403
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:24 am


    Guys, VTOLs will be for Navy and Navy alone

    VKS version will be standard takeoff
    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 281
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:33 am

    So they supposedly want to develop a VTOL combat aircraft, a concept that never worked until today, to build three or four dozen at best?

    If that is the case, it will be one of the most expensive underperforming aircraft ever....
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  Guest on Sun Dec 24, 2017 1:09 am

    Peŕrier wrote:So they supposedly want to develop a VTOL combat aircraft, a concept that never worked until today, to build three or four dozen at best?

    If that is the case, it will be one of the most expensive underperforming aircraft ever....

    Placing performance part aside probably on pair with lets say... An-124 which was supposed to be build in few times greater numbers than it was... then Tu-160 till recently... Avros Vulcan... Sea Harrier, B-2 Spirit... F-117... and about 100 more aircraft designs that were built in fairly small numbers due to various reasons.

    Be it their specific role, price...performance... If there is something you need, there is reason to spend money.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 24, 2017 2:01 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Because they can use shorter stretches of roads &/ concrete pads + better fit on smaller CV/Ns w/o CATs. Building & maintaining long airstrips is expensive anywhere; in the Russian North, Siberia & the RFE many times more.

    The length of a stretch of road is immaterial.... in all of Russia finding a 200m long stretch of motorway for a VTOL aircraft to operate from you will easily find 600m stretches of motorway for a CTOL aircraft to operate from too.


    Apparently in USSR they were also strange opting for Yak-43 STOL with 120m take off. Or maybe they were concerned with take off .
    BTW British carriers will be exclusively armed with 40  STVOL F35B isnt it?




    You may like or not VTOL the fact is they are budgeted. Not sure about AC but if so Bondaryev explicitly stated: first VTOL then carriers. A

    For all of you folks:  VTOL is already in budget. if you want to express your opinion about that ,  there is a  separate thread.


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 24, 2017 3:30 am; edited 1 time in total
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2476
    Points : 2487
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 24, 2017 3:26 am

    In this and the first edition of this topic there is a lot of VTOL comments that have now their own topic and should go there.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8319
    Points : 8403
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Russia to Expand its Carrier Fleet with Two Advanced New Assault Ship Classes; Vertical Takeoff Aircraft Could Follow

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:12 pm


    Oh my... Cool

    Russia to Expand its Carrier Fleet with Two Advanced New Assault Ship Classes; Vertical Takeoff Aircraft Could Follow

    http://militarywatchmagazine.com/read.php?my_data=70725

    ... It also remains a possibility, particularly for the ‘large amphibious assault ship’ referred to by the Deputy Commander in Chief, that Russia may well develop a new fixed wing aircraft to operate from its warships. With these ships potentially approaching the size of the Japanese Izumo Class or even the Untied States' own American Class carrier warships, this remains a considerable possibility. Much like the United States developed the F-35B with short takeoff vertical landing (STOVL) to operate from its own amphibious assault ships, so too did the Soviet Union before it develop Yak-38 Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) strike fighter to operate from its own Kiev Class vessels - which lacked runways entirely. These aircraft served until the year of the Soviet disintegration, when the more advanced Yakovlev 141 VTOL fighter was also cancelled with four prototypes built. The possibility of a resurrection of the Yak-141 program, or a derivative program making use of similar technologies, remains a considerable possibility for the Russian Navy to equip its new carriers - thus allowing it to field a larger force of fixed wing aircraft carrying warships without the costs of developing and operating a vessel the size of the Kuznetsov, Ulaynovsk or SHOTRM ships....
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1806
    Points : 1801
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:15 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Oh my... Cool

    Russia to Expand its Carrier Fleet with Two Advanced New Assault Ship Classes; Vertical Takeoff Aircraft Could Follow

    http://militarywatchmagazine.com/read.php?my_data=70725

    ... It also remains a possibility, particularly for the ‘large amphibious assault ship’ referred to by the Deputy Commander in Chief, that Russia may well develop a new fixed wing aircraft to operate from its warships. With these ships potentially approaching the size of the Japanese Izumo Class or even the Untied States' own American Class carrier warships, this remains a considerable possibility. Much like the United States developed the F-35B with short takeoff vertical landing (STOVL) to operate from its own amphibious assault ships, so too did the Soviet Union before it develop Yak-38 Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) strike fighter to operate from its own Kiev Class vessels - which lacked runways entirely. These aircraft served until the year of the Soviet disintegration, when the more advanced Yakovlev 141 VTOL fighter was also cancelled with four prototypes built. The possibility of a resurrection of the Yak-141 program, or a derivative program making use of similar technologies, remains a considerable possibility for the Russian Navy to equip its new carriers - thus allowing it to field a larger force of fixed wing aircraft carrying warships without the costs of developing and operating a vessel the size of the Kuznetsov, Ulaynovsk or SHOTRM ships....

    Some magazine catching up to old news, but it does mention a “universal amphibious assault ship” and “large amphibious assault ship”, the former obviously being Lavina, while the latter is genuinely unknown.
    Unless the former is Priboy, while the latter is Lavina, i doubt it.

    Either way, if the MoD wants to repeat the mistakes of Kiev and Yak-38, then who am i to stop them.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8319
    Points : 8403
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:26 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:........Either way, if the MoD wants to repeat the mistakes of Kiev and Yak-38, then who am i to stop them.

    Wasting time and money on aircraft carrier is mistake by default but with STOVL they will waste less time and money and VKS just might get a new light fighter jet out of the whole thing.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:23 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Wasting time and money on aircraft carrier is mistake by default but with STOVL they will waste less time and money and VKS just might get a new light fighter jet out of the whole thing.

    Quite difficult that they don't end up wasting more time and money than making a proper carrier. Such a light fighter for the VKS, by being made compatible with STOVL requirements, would end up being a failure like the F-35 (actually I find the F-35 as good as such a concept can get) due to design constrains that do not appear easy to solve (namely, central engine position + vertical lift propulsion competing with weapons bays and forcing an excessive plane frontal section, see picture). The development would cost billions and lead to a subpar fighter. Better employ them in a properly matched carrier / light fighter design so the plane can operate with reasonable loads from the deck and be directly usable by the air force.

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Servei10

    Besides, making a STOVL fighter specific for the naval fleet of the RF would make an economic sense close to zero. How many planes would be ordered in the end, 100 at the best? This would be a complete frivolity.

    Not that I discard that this is what happens (sadly) but unless they manage a breakthrough design and to somehow steal the customers from the F-35 they would lose big time with such plane
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3860
    Points : 3840
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  miketheterrible on Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:26 pm

    Well, if they actually make even just 100, that is already profitable for Yakovlev, Sukhoi or Mikoyan.

    Fact matter is if they really are making a jump jet, they could probably reduce overall costs by going with a jump jet design and then a non jump jet design for same design of an aircraft and allow airforce to acquire the non jump jet variant.

    Yakovlev can make some very impressive fighters. Russia needs to increase airforce numbers especially with something cheaper. May prove helpful in all rounds.

    So long as they don't go crazy on requirements and then make it impossible to buy. Just use a lot of modern already used technology and or promising technology (Zhuk-A, RD-93 modified, etc).
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2915
    Points : 2913
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:37 pm

    India & Thailand could buy some to replace their Harriers, not to mention China for her LH/PDs.
    We discussed it in depth already. I also wonder if a steeper ski jump rump can eliminate the need for STOVL?
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:50 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:Well, if they actually make even just 100, that is already profitable for Yakovlev, Sukhoi or Mikoyan.

    Fact matter is if they really are making a jump jet, they could probably reduce overall costs by going with a jump jet design and then a non jump jet design for same design of an aircraft and allow airforce to acquire the non jump jet variant.

    Yakovlev can make some very impressive fighters.  Russia needs to increase airforce numbers especially with something cheaper.  May prove helpful in all rounds.

    So long as they don't go crazy on requirements and then make it impossible to buy.  Just use a lot of modern already used technology and or promising technology (Zhuk-A, RD-93 modified, etc).

    Yeah, I was being optimistic and thinking of 4 -5 carriers at least, so that number of planes may take decades to be reached...

    I agree on the rest. But the problem is that the fighter for the air force would have, in order to have at least a minimum commonality with STOVL version, the engine in a central position. If you add this to the lifting devices (engines or fan) and the fact that as a 5G fighter some level of internal carriage of weapons is needed, then you need to make the plane grow transversally to put inside all those things.

    Result is VERY bad, essentially unacceptable for a light fighter design. Increased cross section forces heavier, draggier plane and that in time forces bigger engine with additional weight creep, but in the end you cannot avoid the plane having suboptimal dynamic characteristics. F-35 is there for anyone to check what I say. As soon as you meet fighters not so heavily compromised you are going to find out how dangerous that design path was.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8319
    Points : 8403
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:25 am

    LMFS wrote:.....

    I agree on the rest. But the problem is that the fighter for the air force would have, in order to have at least a minimum commonality with STOVL version, the engine in a central position. If you add this to the lifting devices (engines or fan) and the fact that as a 5G fighter some level of internal carriage of weapons is needed, then you need to make the plane grow transversally to put inside all those things.

    Result is VERY bad, essentially unacceptable for a light fighter design. Increased cross section forces heavier, draggier plane and that in time forces bigger engine with additional weight creep, but in the end you cannot avoid the plane having suboptimal dynamic characteristics. F-35 is there for anyone to check what I say. As soon as you meet fighters not so heavily compromised you are going to find out how dangerous that design path was.

    There is no need for engine to be in central position when you convert STOVL aircraft to standard takeoff aircraft.

    Lifting devices (fan) will not be present in standard version and that space will most likely be occupied by additional fuel tank.

    Internal weapons will be mandatory and this is perfectly normal. As for the amount, this is light fighter so weapons load will be smaller by definition.

    Fact is that airforce wants light single engine fighter. Getting it funded is a hassle as always but if they can also solve the issue of carrier aviation refusing to cease it's existence and solve two problems at the same time then it's a whole different story.

    This way both Navy and VKS get new plane, Navy focuses on helicopter carriers (ships they actually need and can get in usable numbers) that will double as aircraft carriers thus saving both insane amounts of money and appeasing their overinflated egos while whole supercarrier idiocy is finally relegated to oblivion once and for all.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Russia to Expand its Carrier Fleet with Two Advanced New Assault Ship Classes; Vertical Takeoff Aircraft Could Follow

    Post  LMFS on Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:38 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    There is no need for engine to be in central position when you convert STOVL aircraft to standard takeoff aircraft.

    Lifting devices (fan) will not be present in standard version and that space will most likely be occupied by additional fuel tank.

    Internal weapons will be mandatory and this is perfectly normal. As for the amount, this is light fighter so weapons load will be smaller by definition.

    Fact is that airforce wants light single engine fighter. Getting it funded is a hassle as always but if they can also solve the issue of carrier aviation refusing to cease it's existence and solve two problems at the same time then it's a whole different story.

    This way both Navy and VKS get new plane, Navy focuses on helicopter carriers (ships they actually need and can get in usable numbers) that will double as aircraft carriers thus saving both insane amounts of money and appeasing their overinflated egos while whole supercarrier idiocy is finally relegated to oblivion once and for all.
    Laughing Laughing Now that is a clear opinion!

    Would agree on the double role, doing otherwise really makes me wonder where the money for both ship types in useful numbers is going to come from, but due to industry development issues it seems they plan to proceed progressively with ships of increasing size until they are capable of producing CVNs. Hell, if they can maintain their 10:1 return on military investment against US also in carriers, they could get one for little over 1 billion Razz

    The fighter part... agree on most of your comments but see it very difficult to change engine position without developing two different planes. In general I think there are innovative ways to solve this issue of the naval aviation waiting to be explored, but without moving from conventional approaches, a carrier with characteristics similar to those of the Charles de Gaulle would be at the same time very powerful without being such an overkill as a 100 kT one.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Russia is developing a new aircraft with vertical take-off

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:31 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 : 13782
    Points : 14275
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  George1 on Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:34 pm

    we have thread for this already
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2272
    Points : 2270
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  Hole on Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:58 pm

    He´s just excited.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:58 pm

    @Gunship:

    Congratulations man, they are f*cking up! lol1 lol1 lol1
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:30 pm

    Hole wrote:He´s just excited.

    you know, not every day Putin confirms you were right Razz Razz Razz





    LMFS wrote:@Gunship:

    Congratulations man, they are f*cking up! lol1 lol1 lol1


    and what is VSTOL fighter will be LMFS? then perhaps you're right lol1 lol1 lol1

    BTW Soviet TAKR concepts had basis in conditions that exist today:

    1) TAKR is not to fight Midway battles
    2) Airwing is to cove grouping, do limited fighter bomber work and ASW
    3) not many large support ships make TAKR having strong ASh/ASW/AAD weaponry

    add to this drones, robotic subs, VLS and nuclear power and you got a picture what's cooking.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:08 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:and what is VSTOL fighter will be LMFS?  then perhaps you're right  lol1 lol1 lol1

    BTW Soviet TAKR concepts had basis in conditions that exist today:

    1) TAKR is not to fight Midway battles
    2) Airwing is to cove grouping, do limited fighter bomber work and ASW
    3) not many large support ships make TAKR having strong ASh/ASW/AAD weaponry

    add to this drones, robotic subs, VLS and nuclear power and you got a picture what's cooking.

    Maybe I will be surprised with the results (if this really goes forward), but I think it is difficult to make a good STOVL without compromising the CTOL version. At least the Yak-141 with engines instead of the lifting fan did not massively increase the cross sectional area of the plane, that is already something. Maybe they already have lots of designs and studies and they want to make something out of them. And/or maybe they want Yakovlev to get some part of the pie.

    It all depends on the operational requirements. If you plant to have some amphibious assault ships and give them some form of air cover it can make sense to think in STOVL. But developing a fighter is exceedingly expensive and this is a niche plane, even if they would export it. Russia would not buy probably more than 50-75 of those, in best conditions. And if you consider what a navalized Su-57 can do from a simple carrier like the K then it makes no sense to me to do an additional development of something so inferior, instead of consolidating a massively good design you already have.

    If you then consider that such amphibious assault would not have a strong air wing and AEW then you limit very much the kind of scenario where you can deploy it without sending additionally lots of supporting vessels. For the same price, make a carrier and send transport vessels for the expeditionary operations. Opponents are going to be pleased in making you pay heavy prices for deployments to areas of interest for them, as we are seeing in Syria. You need first level intelligence and defensive capabilities to contest geopolitical space.

    Have to talk to Vlad urgently to prevent this disaster... lol1 lol1
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8319
    Points : 8403
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:03 pm

    LMFS wrote:@Gunship:
    Congratulations man, they are f*cking up! lol1.........

    Even if they are they will still be wasting far less money than they would if they tried to do super-carrier.


    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Hole wrote:He´s just excited.

    you know, not every day Putin confirms you were right Razz ..........


    Feels good man.... lol1



    LMFS wrote:...........
    Maybe I will be surprised with the results (if this really goes forward), but I think it is difficult to make a good STOVL without compromising the CTOL version..........

    It doesn't have to be good, it just has to be decent. It will not be doing any dogfights.

    More importantly, it can be used as basis for excellent single-engine light fighter. Replace VTOL engine with standard one and replace all associated equipment (fans or front engines) with fuel tank. Done.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:29 pm

    LMFS wrote: Maybe I will be surprised with the results (if this really goes forward), but I think it is difficult to make a good STOVL without compromising the CTOL version.

    in absence of CTOL com;romising wont be needed?


    At least the Yak-141 with engines instead of the lifting fan did not massively increase the cross sectional area of the plane, that is already something. Maybe they already have lots of designs and studies and they want to make something out of them. And/or maybe they want Yakovlev to get some part of the pie.

    Yak -141 (actually Yam41M) wasn't latest. Yak-141M was latest then Yak43 and Yak-201 according to Yefn Gordon books. Perhaps some blueprints remained?



    It all depends on the operational requirements. If you plant to have some amphibious assault ships and give them some form of air cover it can make sense to think in STOVL. But developing a fighter is exceedingly expensive and this is a niche plane, even if they would export it. Russia would not buy probably more than 50-75 of those, in best conditions.

    That we dont know. Not necessarily only fleet needs it. They were plans to use STOL version of Yaks for land forces AFAIK. As front fighter. Kuznetsov + series of HD ships. Perhaps also Arctic fleet patrols ships can take some. OR Arctic forces can enjoy STOL capabilities in remote locations?




    And if you consider what a navalized Su-57 can do from a simple carrier like the K then it makes no sense to me to do an additional development of something so inferior, instead of consolidating a massively good design you already have.

    Su 57 wont start from Kuz. Too short lane and Su-57 takes 2x so much space on AC then F-35B. Guess why USN builds 100k monsters? and UK for 60k AC bought VSTOL stuff?
    Inferior to what in which metrics? For example: Su-57 is so much inferior then MiG-31. Thus why to buy inferior fighter not all MiG-31 or 41 right?

    Or AK-47 is inferior to Machine gun in sustained rate of fire, with Mosin in terms or range and PPSh in terms of rounds capacity. Damn why they needed AK-47?!







    if you then consider that such amphibious assault would not have a strong air wing and AEW then you limit very much the kind of scenario where you can deploy it without sending additionally lots of supporting vessels.

    wat so with Su-57 no extra ships would go with carrier?!





    For the same price, make a carrier and send transport vessels for the expeditionary operations. Opponents are going to be pleased in making you pay heavy prices for deployments to areas of interest for them, as we are seeing in Syria. You need first level intelligence and defensive capabilities to contest geopolitical space.

    TAKR (say LHD like wasp) costs 4x cost of LHD carrier in US realities. During Syria assignment there were not more than 25-30 fighters there. Defensive capabilities ? actually TAKR has much better in every aspect than CVN :-) For war like Syria small LHD is more than enough.









    Have to talk to Vlad urgently to prevent this disaster... lol1 lol1

    too late respekt respekt respekt



    Borisov: on the instructions of Putin, a prototype of a vertical takeoff aircraft

    Such a machine can appear in 7-10 years, noted the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation

    Подробнее на ТАСС:
    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5475420



    Krylovsky Center developed a pre-design for a light aircraft carrier

    The new project will cost, according to preliminary estimates, almost twice cheaper than the previous concept of the heavy aircraft carrier "Storm"
    rom the accompanying materials it follows that the new aircraft carrier will have a displacement of 44 thousand tons and can carry up to 46 aircraft. The power plant of the ship will be a gas turbine.

    Подробнее на ТАСС:
    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5476445
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:31 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:Feels good man.... lol1

    you bet thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup

    now lets wait for resumption of 40-60k TAKR concepts and I will be sure Uncle Vova reads thsi forum lol! lol! lol!
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

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

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Even if they are they will still be wasting far less money than they would if they tried to do super-carrier.
    Developing a plane is some billions. Shtorm is just a way of teasing the public opinion IMO, not a realistic project.


    It doesn't have to be good, it just has to be decent. It will not be doing any dogfights.  

    More importantly, it can be used as basis for excellent single-engine light fighter. Replace VTOL engine with standard one and replace all associated equipment (fans or front engines) with fuel tank. Done.
    Of course it has to be good. If not, then take the Yak-141 and you are done at a fraction of the cost Razz

    The engine position in a STOVL is not the same as in a CTOL. You need it placed forward and it then steals useful space in the middle section of the plane, which is specially serious in case of weapon bays. In essence, to optimize a CTOL version your are going to need redesign the plane entirely, unless they come with a f*cking clever arrangement I have not yet seen...
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  LMFS on Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:09 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:in absence of CTOL  com;romising  wont be needed?
    You have a wonderful way of misunderstanding everything I say don't you?  thumbsup

    Yak -141 (actually Yam41M) wasn't latest. Yak-141M was latest then Yak43 and Yak-201 according to Yefn Gordon books. Perhaps some blueprints remained?
    Sure. There are some pretty interesting designs of Yak-141 evolutions. And if they don't go for big weapons bays they may get something decent... maybe

    That we dont know. Not necessarily only fleet needs it. They were plans to use STOL version of Yaks for land forces AFAIK. As front fighter. Kuznetsov + series of HD ships. Perhaps also Arctic fleet patrols ships can take some.  OR Arctic forces can enjoy STOL capabilities in remote locations?
    Well, that would be actually cool. You can put a VTOL fighter instead the rescue helo in the frigates too  lol1

    Su 57 wont start from Kuz. Too short lane and Su-57 takes 2x so much space on AC then F-35B. Guess why USN builds 100k monsters? and UK for 60k AC bought VSTOL stuff?
    Inferior to what in which metrics? For example: Su-57 is so much inferior then MiG-31. Thus why to buy inferior fighter not all MiG-31 or 41 right?
    Or AK-47 is inferior to Machine gun in sustained rate of fire, with Mosin in terms or range and PPSh in terms of rounds capacity. Damn why they needed AK-47?!
    Su-57 would take off from K full load on the short runs... with 3500 km range and 4 x R37M for instance. Or loaded as a bomb truck if needed.
    The reason for the big carriers are not the fighters as discussed, it is the rest of the planes! And why UK bought that thing is beyond me to start with  Razz
    Inferior as multirole fighter, almost in every metric, but maybe in size. But especially inferior in AD which is its most critical role.

    wat so with Su-57 no extra ships would go with carrier?!
    You need far less AD cover in form of expensive frigates and missile destroyers if you have proper AEW and long range fighters on board.

    TAKR  (say LHD like wasp) costs 4x cost of LHD carrier in US realities. During Syria assignment there were not more than 25-30 fighters there.  Defensive capabilities ? actually TAKR has much better in every aspect than CVN :-) For war like Syria small LHD is more than enough.
    A TAKR (Kuznetsov or new light carrier if I am not wrong) does not need STOVL, those would deploy on LHDs... or am I missing something?


    Have to talk to Vlad urgently to prevent this disaster... lol1 lol1

    too late   respekt  respekt  respekt

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Servei10

    Sponsored content

    Russian VTOL fighter development - Page 3 Empty Re: Russian VTOL fighter development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:11 am